Family Relationships (Parentage Presumptions) Amendment Bill
03/06/2015
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I have not done a count but I can say with certainty that I have received more than two emails on this issue, maybe that has to do with targeting your audience, I am not sure, but I certainly have received more than two emails on this very important issue. I like to think that will not come as a surprise, as the Hon. Ms Lensink said, as a rainbow-friendly MP, and finding myself somewhere on that rainbow I do not think it will come as a surprise that I will lend my personal support to the bill. I would particularly like to thank Ms Sally Amazon and Ms Elise Duffield and all the other families who have contacted my office and have been campaigning very strongly on this issue.
Just to recap the situation for the benefit of anyone reading the Hansard. In current situations where lesbian co-parents, lesbian couples, have not yet resided together for a period of at least three years at the time of the birth of a child, only one parent can be legally recognised as the parent of that child. I understand that the arbitrary three-year requirement currently exists only in South Australia. I understand that this means that only one person in the couple can carry out everyday parenting tasks, such as giving consent for school activities.
On a more serious note, I understand that it also means that only one parent can give consent for things like medical treatment. This creates what I would think is an obvious, undesirable situation, to say the least, where, for example, the non-legally recognised parent may not be able to consent to medical treatment if the legally recognised parent were injured at the same time as the child and needed treatment themselves and therefore was unable to consent.
I can only imagine the anguish this would cause a family in the event of the death, for example, of the solely legally recognised parent. I imagine that this would add unthinkable stress to an already tragic situation for the remaining parent and child, who would then have to go through a custody battle as well as dealing with the situation of losing a partner and parent.
For a few reasons, I do not accept that removing the three-year requirement will result in less commitment in these relationships before having a child. The Hon. Mr Lucas talked about the situation he could foresee, where people might attempt to have a child together after living together for two days, I think he said. Given that this bill pertains to birth certificates that are given only after the birth of a child, as a person with a female reproductive system (although I have not yet put it to use for that reason), I feel qualified to say that it is incredibly difficult to give birth to a child after two days.
I have also been contacted by couples in relationships of upwards of 14 years’ duration. As another example, I have also been contacted by a same-sex female couple who recently got married in New Zealand and waited until after marriage to move in together because that aligned with their perception of their Christian faith. They waited to get married to move in together and start talking about having a family, so I do not think that we can suggest that this is having an effect on the commitment of those relationships.
Of course, I cannot speak for all same-sex couples because I have not met them all yet, but as well as the fact that no-one can conceive and give birth in the duration of two days, I also add that these situations do, I would hope, require a certain level of commitment, given that in a lesbian relationship I think it would be quite difficult to have a baby by accident, so it does require some commitment at that level. However, I hasten to make the point that this is about existing children and their birth certificates, which can only be given after birth. This is about the family this child will grow up with and consider their family.
Certainly, I think there is a need for people to know their genetic heritage where appropriate, for reasons that have been mentioned. I do not think that anything in this bill would stop that from occurring: people are still able to have tests done and so on, so I do not quite accept that argument. The point I am trying to make is that this is about the family that will raise, love and care for that child, and that is what I consider to be the true definition of a family, so I will strongly be supporting this bill.
