HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-06-09 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS (PARENTAGE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Second reading.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (11:09): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

In moving the second reading, I am very pleased to move the bill into the lower house after its success in the upper house. I know that we are short of time, and there may be a number of members who may wish to speak, so I want to make some important points about the bill. It was actually the first recommendation from the year-long report of the Social Development Committee into the inquiry into same-sex parenting here in South Australia.

One of the obvious areas where South Australia was lagging behind the rest of the states was, in actual fact, the rights of children in same-sex relationships, and this bill tends to address that. This bill aims to deal with the inconsistency where same-sex couples have obligations and responsibilities in relation to parenting their non-biological children, but not the corresponding rights. South Australia currently lags well behind in Australia in recognising same-sex relationships and parental bonds.

The bill is proposed to allow the protection, in law, of same-sex couples and parental relationships that already exist. It is interesting to note that when this matter was referred to the Social Development Committee it concluded that there had been no evidence suggesting that marital status or sexual preference were any indication of an individual's ability to be a good parent.

From the 1970s, all states and territories in South Australia have introduced legislation to ensure legal certainty for children and their parents in situations where children may be stigmatised because their mothers were not married, or other forms of old-fashioned illegitimacy. Social changes over the past 40 years since these acts have seen families recognised as coming in many shapes and sizes, and those include same-sex families—families of parents in same-sex relationships. Legal recognition of parenting in these different kinds of families has been slow, however, in most jurisdictions, and it is now recognised in every jurisdiction, other than South Australia.

Due to the fact that I know that a number of other members wish to speak, I seek leave to insert the rest of my second reading explanation into Hansard without reading it.

Leave granted.

Thus far South Australia has remained the only jurisdiction to not recognise same sex parenting other than foster care.

Of note in SA even where a married woman undergoes an artificial fertilization with the consent of the husband that husband is recognised as the father of the child even though he has no biological link to that child.

This presumption is important. In this case the law recognises legal parentage in a situation where the child is in no way biologically related to the person parenting them—but of course extends only to male birth partners.

In 1996 the Supreme Court of South Australia found that the restriction of access to Assisted Reproductive treatment on the basis of marital status was inconsistent with the Sex Discrimination Act 1984and was thus void. The result was that single women and couples who did not meet the criterion as to marital status were able to access treatment.

Recent changes to legislation governing Artificial Reproductive Treatment in SA reflect this position however.

This bill is in effect simply granting certain rights to homosexual people that heterosexual people already enjoy. In this regard it need not be regarded as particularly radical or even particularly progressive—it is more in the way of a catch up measure to national standards.

Federal recognition of legal parentage.

In 2008 the federal government changed 85 laws to give same-sex couples in a de facto or registered relationship the same rights as opposite sex couples, specifically changes to the Family Law Act 1975.

While not perfect they do at least enhance access to justice for children born into non-traditional families.

However the lack of consistency in this regard between federal and South Australian legislation leaves the potential for unsatisfactory resolutions in the Family Court for children and 'parents' in certain situations.

Australian state and territory regulation of same-sex parenting.

Following law reform across Australia all other jurisdictions recognise same-sex parents or recognise some pathways to parenthood for them—all other jurisdictions presume the same-sex partner of a birth mother who has used ART to conceive is a legal parent of a child born.

With regard to adoption the ACT and Western Australia allow for same-sex couples, step parent and single people to adopt children provided they are able to meet certain suitability criteria.

As with SA there is no exclusion in any jurisdiction of GLBT or same-sex couples becoming foster parents.

Conclusion

SA is the only state that has not significantly amended their laws to recognise and in certain circumstances facilitate same-sex parenting.

SA is the only state that does not recognise the female co-parent of a child conceived through assisted reproduction.

Simple legislative changes to SA laws will bring the state into step with the rest of the nation and remove discrimination against GLBT individuals, same sex couples and their children.

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (11:12): I am very pleased to follow the member for Unley on this bill. For quite some time, a number of us in this place have been campaigning for people to have the same rights and responsibilities as others, and that their sexual preference should have nothing to do with those rights. We have made some progress over the years. In the time that I have been here, I have been very pleased to be involved in campaigns to amend the Equal Opportunity Act and also to introduce some changes and some rights for same-sex couples.

Certainly, the area where South Australia is lagging behind the rest of Australia is in recognising the rights of the children who are under the influence and responsibility of same-sex couples. It seems to me that it is really important that we actually get with the rest of the program in regard to that parenting agenda and support this legislation. Unfortunately, this legislation will not cure all the ills and the inequities we have with regard to same-sex couples as parents. There are quite a few steps still to go but, on the basis of this being one step in the right direction, I urge members in this house to support this bill.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:13): I am adamantly opposed to this bill. It goes against everything that I have ever been brought up with. I am firmly of the view that former prime minister John Howard was right when he talked about a family unit being a father and mother and children who came out of it. I will not be supporting the bill.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (11:14): I understand in speaking I close the debate and I hope that means that we can move to vote on the second reading. I recommend that members support this legislation as a first step in bringing South Australia back into the fold with other states in Australia on important social issues

The house divided on the second reading:

AYES (24)
Bedford, F.E. Bignell, L.W. Caica, P.
Conlon, P.F. Fox, C.C. Gardner, J.A.W.
Geraghty, R.K. Key, S.W. Marshall, S.S.
McFetridge, D. O'Brien, M.F. Odenwalder, L.K.
Piccolo, T. Pisoni, D.G. (teller) Portolesi, G.
Rankine, J.M. Redmond, I.M. Sanderson, R.
Sibbons, A.L. Such, R.B. Thompson, M.G.
Vlahos, L.A. Weatherill, J.W. Wright, M.J.
NOES (15)
Atkinson, M.J. Brock, G.G. Goldsworthy, M.R.
Griffiths, S.P. Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J. Kenyon, T.R.
Koutsantonis, A. Pegler, D.W. Pengilly, M. (teller)
Rau, J.R. Treloar, P.A. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C.
Venning, I.H. Whetstone, T.J. Williams, M.R.

Majority of 9 for the ayes.

Second reading thus passed.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr PISONI (Unley) (11:21): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The house divided on the third reading:

AYES (24)
Bedford, F.E. Bignell, L.W. Caica, P.
Conlon, P.F. Fox, C.C. Gardner, J.A.W.
Geraghty, R.K. Key, S.W. Marshall, S.S.
McFetridge, D. O'Brien, M.F. Odenwalder, L.K.
Piccolo, T. Pisoni, D.G. (teller) Portolesi, G.
Rankine, J.M. Redmond, I.M. Sanderson, R.
Sibbons, A.L. Such, R.B. Thompson, M.G.
Vlahos, L.A. Weatherill, J.W. Wright, M.J.
NOES (15)
Atkinson, M.J. Brock, G.G. Goldsworthy, M.R.
Griffiths, S.P. Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J. Kenyon, T.R.
Koutsantonis, A. Pegler, D.W. Pengilly, M. (teller)
Rau, J.R. Treloar, P.A. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C.
Venning, I.H. Whetstone, T.J. Williams, M.R.

Majority of 9 for the ayes.

Third reading thus passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT