Page 401 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 16 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
particular concern. The first is a point of clarification on where names appear on certificates, and the last is about presumptions of who is the parent in quite complex cases. I agree with Mr Rattenbury that this does get complex. These are difficult areas of law and let me say at the outset that we recognise diversity in our community.
We do not support the amendment as it relates to the terms “mother” and “father” and the expanded usage. The original bill allows for recognition of gender diverse parents whilst also acknowledging the terms “mother” and “father”. They are terms that are important to many people who wish to have them on documentation. The amendment does take a significant step further, however: it allows either parent to use the term “mother” or “father” in any circumstance.
We recognise and acknowledge that surrogacy, same-sex relationships and other diversity are an aspect of our society. The main bill has already addressed this issue by registering births from surrogacy and same-sex relationships and other relationships by allowing the term “birth parent” and “other parent”. It makes that allowance.
As far as I am concerned, this amendment is taking the definitions of “mother” and “father” a step too far. The amendment would allow a male to be called “mother” and a female to be called “father”. The ramifications of this approach are widespread. It is difficult to list the range of problems, let alone anticipate unintended consequences of this amendment.
There are specific examples. I am supportive of and I have regularly supported—people in the gallery are smiling and nodding—recognition of people from diverse sections of our community. But from the opposition’s point of view, the maintenance of “father” and “mother” as they stand is the way we should continue.
This is not a matter that we should be considering at short notice. The amendment was received by me yesterday. I think it is unlikely that we would consider it if we had a longer time to discuss it, but the inability to consult, discuss and understand the full ramifications of this are also important. We do that when we make significant changes. Changing and allowing essentially a choice on whether you want to be a father or whether you want to be a mother on a birth certificate, regardless of your gender, is a significant step and one that the opposition is not supporting today.
We do support the intent of the bill as it stands. It does allow for recognition of diversity. It does acknowledge the complexities in a whole range of relationships in our community. But if we are to essentially say that you can choose whether to be a mother or a father—that anyone can choose, on a birth certificate, regardless of their gender, whether they want to be a mother or they want to be a father—risks making those terms meaningless. Although I am acknowledging diversity in our community and respecting that, I also respect and acknowledge the important meaning of “mother” and “father” and what that means to many people in our community. These are difficult issues—certainly they are—but we will not be supporting Mr Rattenbury’s amendments as presented today.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video