Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis earlier critiqued my remarks in relation to legitimate and illegitimate children. In debating the opposition’s amendments in relation to this matter, I am using that distinction because what the opposition’s amendments do is create a distinction in status between parents who use donor gametes in order to conceive their child. You have two different statuses for two different sets of parents: married parents and unmarried parents. You are prepared to call the married parents parents for the purposes of this act but you are only deeming unmarried people to be parents. That is the reason for my bringing up that example of illegitimate versus legitimate.

We have removed the distinctions between married and unmarried parents for the purposes of family law. These amendments quite clearly bring us back to the days where we have a different set of characteristics for married and unmarried parents—hence my argument with regard to legitimate and illegitimate children. I think this is an unfortunate precedent to be reintroducing into the law. People who need to use donor gametes have struggled through the angst of infertility; through the decision to use reproductive technology, which is not an easy one; through the trauma and the heartache that the use of such technology often involves; through the pregnancy, the birth and the problems with breast-feeding; through the sleepless nights—through all the processes of adjustment, mental and social, that come with the transition to parenthood. These are much-wanted children. You could not have more willing parents than people who resort to using reproductive technology, and they should be referred to as parents within the law.

Senator Brandis raised the fact that the section currently does not use the word ‘parent’. The new provisions do, and you are introducing a distinction between someone who is referred to as a parent versus someone who is deemed to be a parent. The distinction is important. Senator Brandis also raised the issue of adoption. These provisions are very much designed to make adoption unnecessary. Adoption is for when you need to sever the relationship with the previous parent, so I think that that was an unfortunate analogy on the part of Senator Brandis.