Family Relationships (Parentage) – Amendment Bill
24/11/2010
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.
