Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I still do not see that the argument from the coalition is convincing in any way. Yes, we are talking about terminology, but to suggest that the word ‘parent’ is not important in the relationship between a child and their mother and their father is preposterous. It is absolutely essential to strengthening that relationship, to giving a foundation for the roles and responsibilities for the people involved in that relationship. Yes, it is about terminology, but it is absolutely important.

I am astounded that this amendment by the opposition seems to just be put in here without any kind of understanding of the ramifications for heterosexual couples around the country. We are not just talking about the relationship between parents and children of same-sex couples; we are talking about affecting the fundamental understanding of the roles and responsibilities that underpin the word ‘parent’ with regard to even heterosexual couples. If I were in a relationship and my partner was shooting blanks, so to speak, and I needed to go and get assistance to enable us to create a child, under these amendments the opposition is saying that my husband is not the parent of my child. There are families around the country who would be absolutely appalled to hear that this is the position being put forward by the opposition. The word ‘parent’ is absolutely essential to understanding the roles and responsibilities that we as mothers and fathers, regardless of our sexuality, have with our children. It sets a foundation, and in this place where we make the laws of the country it is absolutely important for us to understand how significant those terminologies are, how significant this symbol of what they carry is. For the opposition to suggest that somehow because I am unable to create a child with the partner of my choice I am therefore not the mother or the father is absolutely offensive and preposterous.