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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 10 February 2004) . . Page.. 112 ..

one that the Family Court has not rejected completely, and I think it is unwise to remove this flexibility.

There is also a group of people who are not recognised by changes to the law. It is possible for a heterosexual woman to conceive with a man who is not her domestic partner. Under our child support and other laws, that man is considered to be the father and may be held responsible for some of the financial obligations of a parent. It is also possible for a homosexual woman to conceive with the sperm of a consenting man, in the presence of her partner, using some form of technology to introduce the sperm. In this latter situation, because of the use of technology, the male donor is presumed not to be a parent even when he is a willing participant and when he may be part of the resulting child’s life.

Again, it is not that in every such situation it would be appropriate to recognise the male biological parent as a legal parent. It is anomalous that in the former scenario, where conception may well have been a surprise to the male biological parent and to the female parent, we have systems to recognise his responsibilities and roles. Resolving this issue in the law would require some consideration of intent, some consideration of consent and some planning for the future. But these are not insoluble, and I think these matters should be further considered.

Having raised these points, I would like to affirm again the Greens’ support for this bill. I congratulate and thank all the members of the community who have been part of the process, the government, other members who have worked on it and the departmental officers involved. We still have some way to go, but this is a very important step which will make a real difference.

MS MacDONALD (8.40): Like my party colleagues, I will be supporting this bill. I rise to put forward some of the reasons I will be doing that and also to make comment on and refute some of the things that have been said in the last 40 minutes. I have had a few discussions with a number of people on gay adoption. I understand that many people in the community do not feel comfortable with the notion of gay adoption, but I do not think that is a reason not to proceed and not to change the law.

There are many people in our society who do not like going out of their comfort zones. They do not like change, and they do not like to confront the fact that there are people out there who have a different approach to life. There are people out there who have a different approach to life, Mr Speaker, as you and I well know. I do not condemn people for having a different approach to the homosexual community, but I do condemn intolerance and I condemn the fact that people are too scared to debate the issues with thought or to take into consideration that these changes to legislation will ultimately have a positive impact on the way we treat the gay, lesbian, transgender and intersex people in our community.

A few things have been said in the last 40 minutes that I really feel the need to refute. Mrs Burke quoted from a number of emails and letters she has received, including one where young people had been interviewed and asked what they thought of gay adoption. Their point was that when the adopted kid gets to the age of 14 or 15, they probably would not be very happy about it and they would probably want to change their parents.

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