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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 10 February 2004) . . Page.. 111 ..

as a disease until quite recently; things like shyness are being defined as a treatable with drugs disorder. This is a diverse society and it is well past the time that our laws reflected that.

The scrutiny of bills committee report raised issues that are not really to do with this bill but are more general questions. They are interesting questions, but they are about potential problems not caused by the change at hand today. One of the issues is access to information about genetic heritage, when birth certificates are issued showing adoptive or parentage agreement parents as the parents. This is a broader question and one that is worth looking into, but it does not affect the decision before us today. The Family Court is the usual place for deciding in particular families what is in the best interest of the child when there is a dispute. There is one clause I will comment on in a moment that potentially complicates the access to information, that is, the restriction on recognition of parents to two. Ms Dundas talked about that in some detail. Perhaps it could be addressed by making provision for additional supporting documents to birth certificates. There are many issues relating to the anonymity of donors and so on.

The report gives an example of a Florida court ruling allowing discrimination in that state. The main argument in that judgment seemed to be that it is all right for the state to make laws on the basis of morality. That may be, but in this case my belief is that the morality is on the side of recognition of parents of sexualities other than heterosexual. Another court in the USA, the US Supreme Court in Massachusetts, has just this month decided that that state must allow same-sex marriages, because not to allow any registered relationships for same-sex couples is discriminatory. We need to look instead to our own values and what sort of society we want. For the Greens in this case, it means looking for a society that values and recognises committed and nurturing parenting above questions of sexuality.

I have a couple of concerns also. As I said, this bill puts into the law for the first time an explicit statement that there can be no more that two parents. It is difficult to see the reasons for that and a bit easier to see where it might cause problems. This is the practice in adoption, in that if there are two surviving parents, one must give up their legal parentage in order for another to adopt. But these are problems ultimately for the children concerned.

In situations of homosexual parents, the Family Court has had the flexibility to consider this matter in the past. I am not aware of any rulings that recognise more than two parents, but this new law would rule it out entirely. I question the need for this ruling out and question the potential for negative effects.

If the presumptions cannot result in more than two people being conclusively presumed to be parents, then there is no need for it. If it is possible for more than two people to be conclusively presumed to be parents, section 14 just creates uncertainty by stating that only two can be without indicating which two they should be.

We have all heard of both birth parents and adoptive parents being involved in parenting. Whether or not it would be helpful in that situation to recognise all as legal parents is another question. But the point is that there may be situations where that may be the best way legally to reflect the reality and so protect the interests of the child concerned. It is

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