HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-11-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS (PARENTAGE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 30 June 2010.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (23:30): I rise to speak on this bill. As a member of the Liberal Party, every vote is a conscience vote for me. We are free to vote against the advice of our party on each vote, but this bill particularly is a conscience vote for Liberal Party members. In that regard, there is no party recommendation, so I make it clear that I speak for no member but myself.

This bill, which was introduced by the Hon. Tammy Franks on 23 June 2010, extends legal recognition of parentage to female same sex domestic partners. I note that South Australia is the only jurisdiction in Australia that does not recognise the same-sex partner of a birth mother who has used artificial reproductive technology to conceive as a parent of a child born.

Consistent with my approach to other similar bills, I will give primacy in my consideration to the best interests of the child. Without legal recognition, a child in the care of a parent in a same-sex relationship suffers a range of detriments. I pose these questions:

Is it in the best interests of a child that a parent lacks the legal authority to make decisions about medical treatment for a child whom they parent?

Is it in the best interests of a child to have their guardian present if the child is being questioned by the police?

Is it in the best interests of a child that a guardian is not able to make decisions or meet legal obligations concerning schooling or employment for children under 17 years of age?

Is it in the best interests of a child that their parent or guardian may be unable to travel with them beyond Australia?

Is it in the best interests of a child that they may not be able to lay claim to a co-parent's estate if a will has not been created?

These and other issues highlight for me that it is important in the interests of children that recognition be given to same-sex domestic partners. I see no reason why children who are in the care of same-sex couples should suffer because of that fact.

A repeated complaint that has been raised with me against this bill is that it compels falsehoods in birth certificates. The reality is that birth certificates are not statutory declarations of truth: they are a public record. We already allow the name of a parent who has become a parent through assisted reproductive technology to appear on a birth certificate, even when that birth may have been as a result of donated genetic material. So, I do not see this as a compelling objection, and certainly not one to overwhelm the best interests of a child. I support the bill.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (23:33): I will be brief as well, given the hour. This bill makes significant changes to the longstanding definitions of parenthood and family, and I indicate that Family First will not support it. The bill introduces a new concept of co-parents throughout the South Australian legislation, so that families will now be made up of children and parents and also the new term 'co-parents'. This is certainly a far-reaching proposal, and I will list my primary concerns; there are only five.

In clause 4, the bill seeks to change the definition of mother, father or parent throughout all acts of parliament so as to indicate a reference to the new term 'co-parent'. The ramifications of such a dramatic change to so many acts are unknown but, of course, they will be vast, and this is obviously a significant change.

Secondly, as the bill does not seem to clearly demonstrate or appreciate, many domestic partnerships are, in fact, nonsexual. However, this bill would extend parenting rights, even in those nonsexual scenarios that have no anticipation of parenthood—for instance, two friends living together, who may be heterosexual or homosexual.

Thirdly, this bill does not anticipate scenarios in which a person can be both married and in a domestic partnership at the same time. That is quite possible under current laws; for example, where a woman leaves her husband without divorcing him and becomes involved in a lesbian relationship. Those scenarios seem inconsistent with this bill and might even result in three people being on the child's birth certificate.

Fourthly, this bill will compel even homosexual couples to take on the obligations of parenthood, even when they do not want those obligations. Parenthood obviously implies lifelong financial obligations with respect to issues such as child support and the like and, in short, this bill will compel some people—even people it purports to help—to be so-called co-parents, even if they do not want to be. I have actually spoken to one homosexual person who is concerned about that impact on their particular situation.

Finally, and this is very much my view, I believe that children do best when they have a mother and a father. Obviously, this is something that is not always possible and I certainly acknowledge that. There are no guarantees in life: children are never guaranteed to have a mum and dad to bring them up. However, in redefining families, this bill will ensure from the beginning that some children will never have a mum or dad, and for that reason I oppose the bill.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (23:36): I rise to indicate that I will be supporting this bill for many of the reasons that the Hon. Stephen Wade gave in his contribution. Also, I cannot comprehend the attitude that children are better off with a mum and a dad than they are with two same-sex parents. We heterosexuals, and I have said this before, do not have a great track record as far as getting married, staying together and raising children in a functional way.

We have a high rate of divorce. Our children get in the same sorts of predicaments that same-sex couples' children get into because they are just children, they are kids, and that is what happens. I think that the point the Hon. Stephen Wade made about this bill needing to be in the best interests of the child is paramount. In saying that, I lend my support to the bill.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (23:37): Normally, by my voting patterns, I would seem to be a very conservative member of parliament, but I am attracted to the bill. I have had briefings and I have had people come and see me who are going to be certainly affected by this bill, and they, of course, were quite persuasive. It is my understanding we are the last people in Australia not to provide this particular right. Given that the world has not fallen in on the rest of Australia, as eloquently described by my colleague, the Hon. Stephen Wade, I intend to support the bill.

The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA (23:38): I believe that the issue is presently before the Social Development Committee. Children, no matter what their family status, deserve consistent and universal protection of their rights in line with other state and federal legislation. I also thank all those who have contacted my office to express their views and, as I said, I support the bill.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (23:38): I think this bill is long overdue. I have had a number of representations myself and, I must say, they have given me a very good—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Any on euthanasia?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Pardon?

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Anyway, I support the bill. As I said, it is long overdue and I think the people who have come to see me have put a very good case. I agree with the Hon. Ms Bressington that I cannot fathom how a couple can be seen not to be loving parents and provide a very steady and good home for the child. I fully support the bill and look forward to its passage through.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (23:39): I will not be long. As this is a conscience vote for Labor Party members, I indicate that I will not be supporting the view. I think I will just say that the Hon. Dennis Hood gave the same sentiments I would have expressed. I simply want to place on record that I will not be supporting the bill.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (23:39): It should not come as much of a surprise that I will be supporting this bill. It has been already expressed that we are the last jurisdiction to implement such an amendment and I do not see any purpose in making life difficult for same-sex couples by continuing to deny them this right which would be provided for by this measure.

Really, in a practical sense, it is all those issues to do with plane travel, picking their child up from school, health matters and all those things. I actually think it is quite mean-spirited for people to take the attitude that, by somehow making life more inconvenient for same-sex couples, it is actually going to diminish the prevalence of same-sex relationships in the community. I think it is quite childish and quite un-Christian, and I encourage members to support this bill.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (23:40): I think it is important for people, particularly people in the community, to understand what this bill does not do. I have received a lot of correspondence and emails in recent days in particular regarding this bill which seems to suggest that it would very much open the door to a lot more same-sex couples to have children. I think it is important to understand that, as I read it, this bill does not create rights for any same-sex couples who are currently unable to have children to have them.

The bill does create different legal rights for same-sex couples who have children, but it is not a bill that would provide for same-sex couples to adopt or avail themselves of surrogacy procedures or the like. As I understand it, any same-sex couple that is today able to have a child would be just as able to have the child tomorrow regardless of what happens with this bill. While this bill is about same-sex couples parenting rights, I don't think it is a bill that provides for a particularly vast expansion of same-sex couples to have children if that is what people are concerned about.

However, I think there are two questions that have to be asked here. The first question is how great or how significant is the deficiency or the mischief that this bill seeks to remedy. The second question is, if it is significant enough to warrant legislative change, is this the right way to go about it. On the first question I would have to say that I do not think any strong evidence at all has been presented that this is a major problem that people are facing.

The Hon. Ms Lensink has just talked about the mean-spiritedness of opposing this measure. I am yet to see any concrete, substantive evidence that this is a major or widespread problem that same-sex parents are having this difficulty in accessing government services or catching planes or whatever.

I do not have children but I am one of 12 children and my parents did not carry around a folder of a dozen birth certificates to verify that they were my parents. I have 40-odd nieces, nephews, grand-nieces and grand-nephews and I am not aware of a single example amongst them or of any other parents that I have spoken to where they have ever been asked for a birth certificate when catching a plane or taking their kid to hospital or any other occasion.

I really do have to ask, is the problem that this bill seeks to remedy so vast, so great? I do not think any examples have been given, apart from a survey, and I do not believe there is much evidence that this is an enormous problem out there. I really have to question how warranted it is that this problem needs a legislative solution.

Secondly, the question is: is this bill the right way to go about it? I do think it is a fairly flawed bill. I think already in the debate this evening we have seen that members seem to have quite different understandings of what the bill does. I think if this bill were to go onto the statute books there would have to be considerable further debate and amendments to clarify the provisions of the bill.

It seems to me that the proponents propose that this bill would apply to male same-sex couples. That is not my reading of it, because it seeks to amend the Family Relationships Act 1975 and, looking at that bill, it refers very much to mothers and to women having children. I do not believe that this bill as amended would encompass same-sex male couples, which is clearly what the move is intended to do.

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Finnigan.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: There is an anomaly in the way it talks about domestic partner and it picks up the definition of domestic partner as a person who lives together with another in a couple relationship and has done so for at least three years. A female same-sex couple might be having a child before the three years is up, in which case it would appear to me that no rights accrue to a female partner who has lived with a mother for less than three years. Again, I assume they are people who would wish to—

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Sorry?

The Hon. S.G. Wade: I am talking to Michelle.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Well, take it outside then. I am not sure that same-sex female couples who have not been together for three years would be encompassed by this bill, even though they may well be having a child before the three years is up.

The other issue raised by the bill is that it seems that the only pregnancies that fall within the definition are those from medical procedures. If a woman undergoes self-insemination at home or outside a medical context, I do not believe she would be covered by the bill or attract the rights of a co-parent for which this bill provides. Again there are significant flaws in the drafting of the bill, which I believe the proponents ought to examine carefully if we want this proposal to go ahead.

The bill is retrospective, applying to a child whenever they are born, but it is not clear whether it would apply to people who are currently adults or people who are under 18 when the law commences. That is another anomaly where there needs to be some clarity. The other problem I see (and I think the Hon. Mr Hood alluded to this) is that there could be a problem where a child has been born in a relationship that meets the criteria of the bill, but subsequently the child is adopted by a male partner of the mother. That would require quite a change in circumstances for that person, but these things happen, as we know, and there could then be some discrepancy or lack of clarity about the parents of the child in terms of who has rights.

For those reasons I oppose the bill. I am not at all satisfied and I do not believe any evidence has been advanced that this is a widespread problem that requires legislation to fix it. Secondly, I cannot see how this is a good bill in terms of being well drafted legislation that achieves what it sets out to achieve.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (23:49): I rise very briefly to indicate my support for the legislation. It has been pointed out that this issue—not the bill itself—is before the Social Development Committee, which I chair. We have not concluded our investigation of this issue. Notwithstanding that, it will not surprise anyone here to know that, generally, when I am talking about extending rights to people who do not have those rights, I naturally come down in favour of broadening access to rights.

People who have spoken in opposition to this bill tonight it seems are clutching at straws in trying to find faults with the bill or hypothetical problems in certain scenarios. The Hon. Mr Hood said that the decision makes wide-ranging changes to a draft of our legislative programs: it does not.

The ramifications, he said, are unknown. No, they are not. This bill has been put in place in one form or another in every state of Australia. The world has not come to the end in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria or Tasmania, as far as I am aware. I have not heard that Western Australia has fallen apart recently. They have all had this legislation in place for a long time; there are no problems with it.

The Hon. Mr Hood also said that the bill forces people to be co-parents if they do not want to be in some situations. No, it does not do that either. These are all straw man arguments put up to try to confuse people with what the bill might or might not be about. It has nothing to do with those things whatsoever. What the bill does—and let's be very clear about it—is allow a woman who is not the birth mother but in a relationship at the time of the birth of a child to be put on the birth certificate as a co-parent. Other states use language such as 'mother/father/other'. Others have a facility for donors to be recorded on the birth certificate as well.

What this bill will do is put more information on the birth certificate than is currently done in South Australia and it will help the child know more details about its genetic heritage as it grows older. It is an entirely valuable addition to the system. What I say to people who have a problem with it is: why then did every government around Australia introduce these changes over the past 10 or 15 years—and there have been no complaints about it? Why then did every government in Australia find it useful for the citizens of that state who were affected by these provisions to introduce this legislation without complaint?

The Hon. J.M. Gazzola interjecting:

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: It hasn't. There have not been any complaints because it addresses an anomaly in the system and gives a right to people who currently do not have this right. In South Australia, for some odd reason, some people oppose extending the right to people as every other jurisdiction in Australia has done. It is unfathomable to me how we can stand here today and deny people in relationships—families—access to a birth certificate that records the factual basis of their relationship. How can we do that? It is mean-spirited and, at base, it is all about residual homophobia. I will be supporting this legislation.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (23:51): I will be brief. I acknowledge the sincerity with which the Hon. Tammy Franks has brought this legislation to the council. As I said in an earlier debate, I well understand the work involved in preparing a bill without the help of a government department. I did attend a briefing earlier in the year which I think was convened by Let's Get Equal—I am not sure about that, but some months ago—but, other than that, I have had little other contact on the matter. I have received a couple of pieces of correspondence in the last few days, but mostly against it. I am not convinced, at this stage, that this legislation is necessary in this state and I will not be supporting it.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (23:53): I wish to briefly speak in support of the Hon. Ms Franks' bill. I will note first that I am not necessarily expressing the views of Dignity for Disability as a party in delivering this speech, as DFD currently has no specific policy in relation to this issue, so I am speaking purely from my own mind and heart. I have long been a believer in the ideals of peace and equality and, as such, I am a supporter of the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, transgender individuals (hereafter referred to as 'non-heterosexual' for convenience sake) and their families.

I will note also that I identify myself as bisexual, and so, on top of my fundamental beliefs in peace and equality and human rights, I also speak in support of this bill due to fact that, if one day I am blessed enough to have a child of my own, I hope that I will have the right to raise and love that child as any other good parent would, regardless of the gender of the person with whom I co-parent that child. However, I would put it to honourable members that this bill is not centred on the rights of non-heterosexual individuals, rather this bill is centred on the rights of the child in South Australia.

As members would be aware, Australia ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child some 20 years ago. This convention is a document that seeks to protect children (anyone under the age of 18 years) and helps state parties to act in the best interests of children. The convention applies to every child residing in a country that has ratified it, regardless of their race, religion, abilities, whatever they think or say and, most relevantly, whatever type of family they come from. But I will return to discussing the convention and that particular article which I consider relevant to this debate after I have put this bill into a little more context.

As we all know, this bill seeks to enable the non-biological parent, whether male or female, of children who are born to same-sex couples to be registered on the child's birth certificate, thereby being recognised as an equal parent to the child as the biological one in a much fuller sense than is currently allowed for under current legislation. This will help to address the emotional pain that is no doubt associated with not being seen as the so-called real parent of one's own child. Article 7 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child clearly states in part 1:

The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

To that end, I basically believe that it is the right of every person, if and when they choose, to be able to look at their own birth certificate, read the names of their parents and, at the very least, think, 'These are the people who contributed to my making and my upbringing. These are the people who chose to bring me into the world. This is my history, and I matter to these people.'

In my role as a member of the Social Development Committee, I recently had the pleasure of hearing evidence from a spokesperson for Let's Get Equal, who spoke with much eloquence and conviction about the struggle that she and her female partner face in having only her, and not her partner, registered as the parent of their beautiful young daughter on her birth certificate. This means that she, as the non-biological mother, cannot, among other things (as the Hon. Lensink has already touched on), consent to medical treatment for her daughter or travel with her on aeroplanes, for example.

This would mean that, if the biological mother were to absent herself from the family and the daughter were in need of emergency surgery, for instance, the non-biological mother would not be able to consent to this and, in the absence of the biological parent, doctors would be unable to go ahead with the surgery that may save the child's life—not through any fault of her own, nor because her mother is not willing to consent, but simply because state legislation does not currently recognise the non-biological parent as real.

However, the question still remains: what is, in fact, a real parent? Certainly, a parent is a person who contributes biologically to creating a child in both the traditional sense (that being through sexual intercourse) as well as other methods such as IVF. But is this really the only criteria that one must fulfil in order to be a real parent? I repeat that Article 7 of the UN convention states that every child has the right, to the furthest possible extent, to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

Although I note that this article has also been used as an argument against this bill in correspondence that I have received, allow me to indicate how I think it can actually be used as an argument to support the bill. Under this article it could be interpreted that a parent is not only a person who is biologically linked to a child but also physically, emotionally and spiritually—someone who is known to the child through an ongoing, preferably unwavering, presence in the child's life in which they make a positive contribution to the child's life circumstances and growth through the provision of physical, emotional, financial and social support and guidance.

A parent is someone who kisses a child goodnight and puts bandaids on their wounds, who helps them deal with the school bully and who treats the child with unconditional love; and, most importantly, I believe that a real parent is a person who has worked to build a relationship with the child such that they are the person that the child expects to come running whenever they call out 'Mummy' or 'Daddy'.

As I am sure many, if not all, of the members in this chamber who have children will agree and, as I hope to come to know myself one day when my time comes (perhaps in 7½ years' time when I have a bit more time on my hands), parenthood is something far beyond the donation of biological material. So it is plain to see that non-heterosexual couples are, by and large, more than capable of being real parents.

It is the same with real families. Nowadays we have children whose biological parents may have separated and remarried to other people, giving the children a second set of parents, that is, step-parents. We have children who are adopted into their families without ever having known their biological parents. We have mixed-race families and families made up of half-brothers and half-sisters. But are the relationships between these people any less real due to the circumstances under which they come into them? I do not believe so, no. So, why should this be the case for children born to non-heterosexual couples? Again, the convention applies to every child in all but two countries in the world (which have not ratified it), whichever type of family they come from.

I will now point out, as I am sure we are all aware, that South Australia is the only Australian state left not to grant non-biological parents recognition on birth certificates. All I can say to this is: better late than never. If this bill should pass it would admittedly be a drop in the ocean of GLBTI issues, but it is certainly a step in this long journey. It is becoming clear that the days of the average family, so to speak, are numbered and, regardless of personal views, I believe that we must not punish our children for this. However, it is vital to note also that, despite my focus so far on children born to same-sex couples, under this bill a qualifying relationship in which a non-biological parent may be recognised on a child's birth certificate is defined as 'a marriage-like relationship between two people who are domestic partners (whether they are of the same or opposite sex)'.

Therefore, this bill does not seek to promote the rights of non-biological parents in same-sex relationships to be named on the child's birth certificate, and there is nothing to say in this bill that a child cannot also have a relationship with their biological parents if they wish for it and if their family deems it appropriate. So, I reiterate: this bill is not about taking a stand against homophobia, and it does not seek, as some members of the public seem to believe, to legalise access to IVF for non-heterosexual couples.

This bill is not about promoting queer culture. This bill is not about pushing the envelope with regard to family structure. This bill simply seeks to meet the rights of our children to a loving and supportive family and thereby a secure and sustainable life, contributing to the secure and sustainable future of this state. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (00:02): I indicate that I will support the second reading of the bill. I look forward to any forensic cross-examination of the mover by the Hon. Mr Finnigan, the Hon. Mr Hood and others who seek to persuade some of us to oppose the legislation in the committee stage, and I reserve my right at the third reading.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (00:02): I indicate also that I will be supporting the bill at the second reading. I have always been a great supporter of children and, certainly, I think that every indication is that this is a step in the right direction in certain circumstances.

I have a couple of experiences where children are being parented by same-sex couples, and the welfare of the children, in my view, is the important issue. Certainly, at this stage, I will be supporting the second reading of the bill and, like my colleague the Hon. Rob Lucas, I look forward to the committee stage of the bill.

The PRESIDENT (00:03): As it is a conscience vote, I would like to indicate so that those people who have written to me (both for and against) know, and to be fair to my colleagues, how I would vote in the case of a tie. I would certainly be supporting the bill if that was the case.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (00:04): I commence by thanking all the members who have made a contribution: the Hon. Stephen Wade, the Hon. Rob Lucas, the Hon. David Ridgway, the Hon. John Dawkins, the Hon. Ian Hunter, the Hon. Bernard Finnigan, the Hon. Dennis Hood, the Hon. Ann Bressington, the Hon. Terry Stephens, the Hon. Michelle Lensink, the Hon. Kelly Vincent, the Hon. John Gazzola, the Hon. Russell Wortley and the Hon. Carmel Zollo; and, of course, I thank you, Mr President, for making your views known on this issue.

I would like to start off by saying that this is not a very radical bill, and it is a very small number of people we are talking about. As has been said during the debate, we are actually behind, in terms of reform in this area, every other state and territory in this country. Perhaps the reason that the number of families in South Australia this affects is even smaller is that many of these families choose to move interstate or, as we heard in the briefing during the winter recess, families choose to fly to Canberra, for example, to give birth and then return to South Australia.

Of course, this is an enormous upheaval at a time when people should be with their loved ones—their families and their extended families and friends—creating a haven for their child in their home state, and not have to travel interstate simply to give birth so that they can have the protection and security for that child that having two parents will bring.

In some cases in South Australia, women have found themselves physically unable to travel to give birth interstate, so they have been left in a situation where they have been forced to have the co-parent not recognised on the birth certificate, and that is one of the cases we are looking at specifically. Many members would be aware of one particular family that has probably knocked on most of your doors.

I do thank those of you have taken briefings personally and lobbying meetings or attended the briefings or read the briefing paper that was circulated. For those who know, there is a delightful three-year-old, who had her birthday when we started this debate and who is now three years and one day old. I am sure she would dearly love to grow up with the name of both parents on her birth certificate. She is a delightful little girl, and I am keeping her in mind as we debate this bill tonight.

These families exist, and we should support them. I am not in the business of creating orphans. Should children in this situation have a birth mother who dies, although it is unlikely and unthinkable, potentially we could be creating orphans if we do not legally recognise their co-parent who has been there since their birth, who was part of wanting them to come into the world, who has been caring, loving and nurturing for their whole life but who could be wiped out of that child's life in the horrific case of the death of the birth mother.

I also point out that, if anyone has tried to travel with a young child, they would know that it is quite difficult. You have to have a Medicare card or some sort of documentation that shows that you are the parent, and if you are not—

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Court orders—many people would be familiar with having to produce court orders in order to travel. It is not a rare occurrence in this day and age for airlines to demand that of parents. We have heard the debates, of course, about schooling, education and health decisions, all of which are day-to-day things. Parenting is difficult enough as it is without putting more blocks in the way of people who are very good parents and just want to do the right thing by their children.

I would like to address some of the points that have been raised. The Hon. Ian Hunter did a very good job of addressing most of them in clarifying some of the misconceptions. This bill does not create any new avenues to procreate, but it does allow the children who already exist to be better cared for by two parents. Those who attended the briefing and read the papers know that this bill does not cater for same-sex male couples. This bill is deliberately narrow. It does not—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Yes, indeed, it is quite conservative. For those who think that this is not an issue that is in the here and now in South Australia, perhaps they do not move in the circles I do. I know at least four lesbian couples who are raising happy and healthy kids, and they do not need these barriers in their way. They are not going away, and they are not going to stop procreating. What we are doing is making their life a little more difficult, and it is the children who will suffer in the end.

This bill does not provide for a situation where one member of a lesbian couple marries a male and that person becomes the father, and that is not what is encouraged by this bill. In fact, this bill will give the child who has had a co-parent from birth who is the lesbian partner of her or his birth mother the security that that ongoing parental relationship will continue even if the birth mother perhaps then chooses to then marry a male or female in the future. That link that has been there from birth, and before, from conception in fact, will not be severed, and that is what we are doing: we are giving ongoing security and continuity to that child.

There has also been a bit of confusion raised about what happens if the child is an adult and whether we then retrospectively recognise the co-parent on the birth certificate. I am not sure in what situation that would occur in this day and age, but if that path were to be pursued by the adult child I imagine that it is because the adult child is demanding that such options exist for them. I am not sure there are that many cases of adult children over 18 wanting the recognition of their lesbian co-parents retrospectively once they are an adult but, if they do want that, then good on them, and wouldn't it be great for them to have that option.

In South Australia the majority of children have two parents; they are legally recognised. I would like to point out that the reason that this bill refers to the presumption of parentage is that, if a woman gives birth to a child and she is married to a male, regardless of whether that male is the biological father of that child, there is a presumption that he is the parent. That is what happens at the moment. We are not talking about, as Stephen Wade said, a document that reflects biological imperatives; in fact, it is simply documentation, and at the moment we need to recognise that there is presumption of parentage that does not actually reflect that biological link.

With that, I look forward to the committee stage. I look forward to clarifying some of the misconceptions that may be out there. I certainly welcome the support of those members who have indicated an open mind or support of this bill. For those who are opposed to it, I do respect your views, but what we are talking about here is, indeed, as I have said, a very small number of people. To you perhaps this is a really small issue, but to them this is the world.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I would just like to respond to a couple of the remarks made. People who are opposing this bill have been described as 'mean-spirited, unchristian and homophobic', and I think they are outrageous comments from honourable members. I am sure that if I got up and said that people who are supporting euthanasia were murderers, I would be rightly condemned. I cannot understand why the proponents of the bill seek to denigrate those who hold an alternative point of view.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I will make just a brief contribution. With respect to air travel, I think it is a very serious issue. I think that if you cannot take your children on a plane it is a problem. For that reason I contacted both Virgin and Qantas last week and put that situation to them, as has been suggested by the Hon. Ms Franks and some others. I asked them the direct question that if that was the situation what would be their response, and both airlines replied to me that there would be no problem whatsoever. That is my experience. It seems that others may have had different experiences. All I can do is recount what happened when I made those telephone calls, and that is what they said to me.

I think it is worth putting that on the record: both airlines have said that to me quite categorically. I painted a whole lot of different scenarios. For example, what if it was a friend's child? I painted a number of other scenarios and all of them seemed to be no problem whatsoever.

The Hon. A. Bressington: It's not true.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Well, that is my experience.

The Hon. A. Bressington: It's not true.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Well, that is what happened when I rang them. The Hon. Ms Bressington obviously had a different experience. I can tell you that is what happened when I rang those airlines.

The PRESIDENT: Perhaps you got a different person on the end of the phone.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I would like to confirm that it is illegal to leave the country with a child if you are not the parent. You have to get permission. This is about our other child protection laws and parents absconding with a child. It is in place to prevent that from happening. With my son, who is nine years old, I have a passport, my partner has a passport, and we need court orders to show that we are his legal guardians to be able to leave the country with him.

I do not imagine it would be that much different for same-sex couples if they cannot prove that they are not the parents of the child. They would need court orders. I do not know that many of them have actually gone through the family court system. God hope they have not. Some may and, if they have those court orders, then they need to produce those with the passports to leave the country.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I want to add to the comments made by the Hon. Dennis Hood. I have never been requested as a parent to provide a birth certificate for any travel. The other point I wanted to make to pick up on the mean-spirited and unchristian comments is that, as a parent, I am not convinced that this bill is for the betterment of the child. I am totally unconvinced. I do not see how it would help a child to say, 'I do not have a mum and dad. I have a mum and I have a co-parent.' I think we really set children up to be ridiculed, in particular during their education years. I am not convinced that this is for the betterment of the child. It may well be for the betterment of the co-parent, but I do not believe it is in the best interests of the child.

I am trying to think of other examples that might occur but I just do not see why we would say that. I think that it would be in the best interests of the child for the co-parent to be a guardian, and then there would be no questions asked. I just think for the child itself that is going to be more difficult than the other way round.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I will briefly respond to the comments of the Hon. Carmel Zollo in that, as the Hon. Bernard Finnigan indicated, this bill is not about family formation. No woman will be able to form a family tomorrow who was not able to form one today.

The Hon. Carmel Zollo: I didn't say that.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: No, but the point is that this is about recognition of families that already exist. I believe it is in the interests of children that their parental guardian relationships are recognised so that for all the factors that have been raised these families can exist without detriment to the interests of the child.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not sure whether the mover of this motion or the government can answer this question, but I can only direct it to the mover: what is the mover's intention, I assume in collaboration with those within government who might be supporting the legislation, as to when the mover believes the legislation will come into operation should it pass the parliament, in both houses obviously?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Should it pass the parliament in the lower house I am sure they will set a date for proclamation.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The answer may well be that the member has no answer and that is fine because I do not want to make a great point of it. The lower house cannot set the date for proclamation. Ultimately it will be an issue if it passes the parliament for Executive Council or cabinet to do it. My question was really whether there had been any discussions with the government and its representatives, should it pass the parliament, in terms of when it might be proclaimed. The answer might be that there have been no discussions, and so be it.

The CHAIR: The bill has a commencement clause in there.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It has two clauses, Mr Chairman: one which has 12 months and one that states that the date is to be fixed by proclamation.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: There has been no discussion with the government.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (3 to 12), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (00:21): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The council divided on the third reading:

AYES (14)
Bressington, A. Darley, J.A. Franks, T.A. (teller)
Gazzola, J.M. Hunter, I.K. Lee, J.S.
Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I. Parnell, M.
Ridgway, D.W. Stephens, T.J. Vincent, K.L.
Wade, S.G. Wortley, R.P.
NOES (5)
Brokenshire, R.L. Dawkins, J.S.L. Finnigan, B.V.
Hood, D.G.E. (teller) Zollo, C.
PAIRS (2)
Gago, G.E. Holloway, P.


Majority of 9 for the ayes.

Third reading thus carried.

Bill passed.

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