Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 10 February 2004) . . Page.. 110 ..

time when she is continuing to spread those kinds of generalisations about, as I think Mrs Burke called them—a class of people, a different class of people.

For some people, parentage is one of the more challenging areas for the removal of discrimination. It helps to remember that parentage in law is more about responsibilities than stability for children—that it is a benefit of such for the parents. Removing the barrier to adoption is the only change here that will directly affect the ability to become a parent, and that is only in very few cases. In the main, the benefits of parenting do not come from the law. It is surely not in a child’s interest not to allow recognition of both of their parents—the two women who look after them every day, who share responsibility for their care, nurturing, education, upbringing. Children are already born to lesbian women and gay men are parents already, but the laws make it difficult for them to fulfil all their responsibilities.

For example, without legal recognition as a parent, there is no legal basis for making decisions in an emergency, decisions about health and medical care and arrangements with schools and childcare centres. These are all things that affect the wellbeing of a child, in that it means one of their parents, one of the adults who cares for them every day, does not have the legal basis to make the sorts of important decisions that parents must make. This lack of legal recognition also means that if a parent dies without a will, the child is not able to claim from that parent’s estate. If a parent who is not legally recognised dies, their child is not able to receive that parent’s superannuation death benefit. If the parent who is legally recognised dies, the surviving parent is likely to have to take legal action for the child to remain in their care. This is certainly and obviously not in the interest of the child or the parent. Adoption is not only about a childless couple adopting an unwanted baby. That does not happen very often at all in the ACT or in the rest of Australia.

Mr Pratt: And when it does we should get it right.

MS TUCKER: Mr Speaker, would you mind asking Mr Pratt to be civil? I do not interject on him. He could just sit there for once, couldn’t he?

MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Pratt!

MS TUCKER: As I said, adoption is not just about a childless couple adopting an unwanted baby. That does not happen very often at all in the ACT or in the rest of Australia. More often, adoption is about the more recent partner of the biological parent adopting the children they both care for, and hence legally cementing the new family unit. The process of being allowed to adopt in this way involves quite rigorous screening processes. This change to the law will mean that same-sex couples will be able to be screened in the same way as other people.

The claim to be concerned for the rights of the child has some disturbing parallels with the arguments used to support so-called protective actions, which led to the stolen generation of Aboriginal people in Australia. We have a problem in our society in trying to define a norm and then defining difference from that norm is harmful in and of itself. Even psychological testing manuals still reflect that. Not only was homosexuality listed

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .