HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-06-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS (PARENTAGE) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. T.A. JENNINGS (17:20): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Family Relationships Act 1975. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. T.A. JENNINGS (17:20): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am moving this amendment today because same-sex families currently face a legal inconsistency denying them and their children human rights in South Australia. Our legal system provides people with rights and defines their obligations. However, at present, same-sex couples have a number of obligations and responsibilities but are denied their rights in relation to parenting their own non-biological children.

Intentional child-bearing outside of heterosexual unions is perhaps the fastest-growing and most controversial genre of family formation to have emerged in the western world in recent decades. Large sectors of our community suffer legal discrimination and hardship arising out of the inadequate legal status of same-sex families.

Same-sex attracted individuals are not the only ones who suffer but their children, their parents, their siblings and society all suffer from such discrimination. Same-sex attracted families can travel interstate and have their relationships and parental bonds recognised by interstate and federal legislation but here in South Australia we lag far behind. South Australia recognises far fewer same-sex rights than any other Australian state or territory.

Changing family structures cannot be ignored. A supervising psychologist at the Children's Hospital in Boston in the United States, Lauren Benkov, recognised in 1995 that there is a need 'to view lesbian families not as families on the margin to be compared to a central norm, but rather as people on the cutting edge of a key social shift from whom there is much to be learned about the meaning of family and about the nature of social change'.

This legislation is being moved because it is necessary, not to allow same-sex couples to have children—they are already having children—but to allow those parental relationships which are already existent in this state to be protected by law.

From the ABS in 2006-07 there were approximately 27,000 same-sex couple families in Australia. About 10 per cent of lesbian couples and 5 per cent of male homosexual couples already have children—for lesbian couples that is one in five. Approximately 40 per cent of childless lesbian couples intended to have children in the future. This is not something that we can start or stop; it is happening now and people are living it now, and we need to ensure that their rights and the rights of their children are protected.

In a major study of nearly 300 lesbian families in Australia conducted in 2001-02 by the renowned Dr Ruth McNair, a major source of concern for these families was a lack of real recognition which led to disappointment, grief and anger. It is particularly difficult for non-birth mothers—those mothers who do not carry and deliver the child. They have reported considerable difficulties such as being out of place with mainstream organisations and government institutions such as schools. They reported being ignored or rendered invisible by health providers and certainly not being accorded the legal responsibility to accurately reflect their parenting role in their child's life. One mother shared her experience:

I was the non-biological mother in my previous relationship. When this broke down I initially had our daughter half the week. My ex-partner slowly decreased this and then she refused me any contact. I went through family court and mediation but there was no law to protect my rights and the primary bond I had with my daughter.

The devastating and destructive effects of not being recorded as the legal parent of the child have recently been examined by this chamber in the debates around the Statutes Amendment (Surrogacy) Bill, which was introduced by the Hon. John Dawkins.

Almost all the arguments that were made in relation to that bill pertain to the rights and interests of the child and the family unit, and they are all applicable here. Same-sex couple families face all the same problems in one partner not being recognised legally as the parent as the surrogate couples do. This includes difficulty in flying interstate or overseas, difficulties engaging with schools, health service providers and government agencies, difficulties in the break-up of a relationship in securing parental rights to the child, or difficulties in inheritance should the non-biological parent die.

In fact, when this matter was referred to the Social Development Committee, its report included the concluding remarks that it had heard no evidence to suggest that either marital status or sexual preference can predict whether an individual will be a good parent. Hear, hear to that. This is certainly the case. One aspect that can predict whether or not an individual will become a good parent is desire and planning. An inordinate amount of desire and planning go into same-sex couple families who intentionally go to the effort of bringing a child into their family.

A criticism often launched at the idea of extending same-sex parental rights to children is the idea that it is detrimental to the child. That is absolute nonsense. A number of studies have been done over many decades, and some health professionals have aggregated these studies, based on solid evidence-based research, into meta-analyses to derive some consistency.

One of these was conducted by Dr Ellen Perrin, Professor of Paediatrics at the Tufts-New England Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts. She covered more than 15 studies that involved over 500 same-sex attracted couples and families. This evaluated across the studies possible stigma, teasing, social isolation, adjustment and sexual orientation and strengths. The vast consensus with these very consistent findings was that the children of same-sex parents do as well as children of heterosexual parents in every single way. There was no difference in intelligence, there was no difference in type or prevalence of psychiatric disorder, there was no difference in self-esteem, wellbeing, peer relationships or parental stress.

In fact, across numerous age groups and longitudinal studies no significant differences were found. The only difference, Dr Perrin concluded, was that the children of lesbian couples actually appeared to be less aggressive, more nurturing to peers, more tolerant of diversity, and more likely to play with toys that were designed for either boys or girls.

Adolescents with same-sex parents in a longitudinal study were the same in their intrapersonal adjustments—that included self-esteem, anxiety and depression—and they were also similar in their school success. Family relationships and social integration in adolescents in heterosexual parented families were the same as those of adolescents in same-sex parented families.

The take-home message from this study by Dr Perrin was the very consistent findings from evidence-based peer-reviewed studies: there was no significant difference to be found. In fact, studies have consistently shown that children's psychosocial adjustment is influenced more by family processes, such as parental conflict, than it is by family structure. Other studies show that social support and access to services are more important to positive child-raising outcomes than anything else.

This bill makes it even more imperative, as the current situation denies legitimate parents their rights and access to services in this state. The Australian Institute of Family Studies acknowledges that community support for families, including access to family supports and health and welfare services, is predictive of family functioning and child wellbeing, and that the pressures associated with discrimination may have an adverse effect on the couple relationship and also compromise their parenting. So by not having this legislation to provide for the rights of these people and their children, it is creating harm and causing discrimination, stress and anger, and it is discriminating against families.

A recent South Australian government policy document entitled 'South Australia's mental health and wellbeing policy' acknowledged clearly in its outlining principles that participation and social inclusion are keys to positive mental health. Also I note the Labor Party platform for the 2002 election was for Labor to support 'a comprehensive review of all state legislation to remove discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people'. I look forward to their cooperation on this matter.

In fact, the current situation as it stands is in breach of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to which Australia is a party. One of the core principles of this convention is respect for the best interests of the child as a primary consideration. How is it in the best interests of a child to have their access to a parent either restricted, ignored or belittled? Specifically, I point to article 2.2 which states that parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians or family members.

It goes on in article 3.1 stating that all parties shall take appropriate legislative and administrative measures to ensure that the child's protection and care for his or her wellbeing. I consider that a legally protected relationship with his or her parents is imperative if not vital for the wellbeing of any child. The Chief Judge of the Family Court of Australia, Chief Justice Alastair Nicholson, said in 1997 (more than 10 years ago):

One of the fundamental misconceptions which plagues me is the failure to understand that heterosexual family life in no way gains stature, security or respect by the denigration or refusal to acknowledge same-sex families. The sum social good is in fact reduced, because when a community refuses to recognise and protect genuine commitment made by its members, the state acts against everybody's interests.

This bill does not grant rights to homosexual people that heterosexual people do not currently have. This bill does not allow something to happen that is not already happening. This bill is actually not progressive, extreme or radical. It simply brings South Australian legislation into line with other states and with federal legislation.

Couple relationships provide people with love, companionship and support. They provide opportunities for having children and raising families. As such, couples are a fundamental building block of our society. Changing social attitudes during the late 20th century, and of course into this century, have led to an increase in de facto and same-sex relationships and an increase in the number of those couples who are choosing to become parents and start their own families. These are members of our society: they are our children, siblings, parents, brothers, sisters and friends. We must accord them with the same rights that heterosexual couples already enjoy. I seek leave to conclude my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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