Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak as a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry into the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Bill 2008. In so doing, I want to endorse and support not only the comments made by my colleagues—in particular, Senators Brandis, Barnett and Trood—but their hard work and that of others that has gone into this process. I will be brief, whilst not wishing to in any way take away from the very important aims of this bill and the three bills to which this bill is essentially related.

I want to express twofold concern, unfortunately, about the government’s approach to the four bills. The concerns relate, firstly, to the government’s again disappointing nonperformance of a core election promise, which is to provide evidence based policy. It has been exhibited in respect of this bill and the three related bills by the presentation of inconsistent definitions of a range of terms used in everyday language—in particular, inconsistency in the proposed definition of ‘de facto relationship’. We have had not one but three different definitions of ‘de facto relationship’ proposed by the government with this series of bills.

How can this be? How can this be in 2008? How can a government seriously propose that a parliament—the same parliament—consider and pass bills which contain differing definitions of mainstream terminology like ‘de facto relationship’? How can a government seriously propose such provisions when, at the same time, maintaining or attempting to maintain that a key tenet of some if not all of the bills is to deliver simplicity and certainty and—in particular, in respect of the amendments to the Evidence Act—to present uniformity across the nation? How can that be if you are proposing three different definitions of the term ‘de facto relationship’? Disappointing is an understatement.

The second failing of the government exhibited in terms of this legislation is the non-fulfilment of the government’s promise to provide to the Senate copies of amendments which the government has said it proposes to move in respect of two of the four bills that attempt to deliver equality for same-sex couples. It is very disappointing that we have not had the opportunity to consider those amendments as we start to progress further our debate about and consideration of this bill and the three to which it is related—because they are, let us confess, inextricably related.

The opposition supports the goals of the four bills, which can be put as seeking to remove discrimination against same-sex couples and, in respect of this particular bill, seeking to provide for separated de facto couples, both heterosexual and homosexual, and particularly where there are children. The coalition keenly supports the intent to protect and provide rights for children. The coalition supports doing so, provided that the institution of marriage is protected and upheld.

The proposed amendments to section 60H of the Family Law Act, as presented in this bill, risk traversing some of those principles. I am referring to the so-called ‘presumptive parenting’ provisions arising out of assisted reproduction and, in particular, assisted reproduction in the case of same-sex couples. The opposition, in our additional comments, have suggested an alternative approach, and Senator Brandis has tabled some suggested amendments in this respect. I ask the Senate to give favourable consideration to those amendments. In so doing I am sure that the Senate will appreciate the sensitivities underlying the debate from both sides, indeed all parameters, of this chamber.

This chamber and the witnesses who provided evidence to the inquiry in relation to this bill reflect the broad spectrum of views that are essentially touched upon by this bill and the three related to it. The broad spectrum can be said to range from, on the one hand, more conservative views. These are the views of people who are concerned about maintaining what they consider to be an expectation that a child will enter into the world usually as a product of a marriage or, if not a marriage, usually as a product of a heterosexual relationship. However, people with those conservative views, through the process of the Senate inquiry, have demonstrated their preparedness to accept that other circumstances do occur and that providing, through legislation, for the consequences of a situation that some might consider to be less than ideal does not mean that you are condoning or encouraging the creation of that set of circumstances. So the more morally conservative, if I may describe those amongst us in that way, are prepared to accept and accommodate the legislation, if it takes into account that sensitivity.

I therefore urge the Senate to be mindful that, on the other hand, in accommodating that sensitivity, for those who may wish to promote more vociferously the rights of same-sex couples, it is possible to remove discrimination—and, I would suggest, desirable to remove discrimination—in respect of same-sex couples whilst not violating the sensibilities of those with a more conservative approach. So I urge the Senate to consider the opposition’s amendments. Thank you.