Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [8.11 p.m.]: I speak today on this important and complex issue, very aware of the understandable emotion such a debate generates. The strength of views held by those on both sides of this question reflects the gravity with which we all regard decisions relating to children and families. If the strength of a society is to be assessed on the way it deals with its most vulnerable people—as I believe it should—then the question of where and in what form we ought to allow children to be adopted must be regarded with the utmost seriousness. Children are a gift to us. They are a privilege and not a right. As a parent, I am aware of both the incredibly fortunate position I enjoy, and the enormous responsibility my role as a father brings.

I have attempted to come to this debate with an open mind, listening to and assessing the strength of the arguments on both sides. Indeed, I have been touched by tears as I heard of the pain endured in years of needless discrimination. But first, let us clarify exactly what this debate is about. When the member for Sydney introduced this bill, she did so by stating that "Parliament has moved on from the depressing level of homophobia shown 10 years ago". Indeed it has and we can all be glad about that. But this debate is not about homophobia or sexuality. To imply as much is an obvious attempt to short-circuit discussion to try to curtail any meaningful dialogue. In recent decades, legislatures around the world have worked towards eliminating all forms of discrimination against people of same-sex orientation. I have been a part of that, and fully supported the relationship register when the question came before this Parliament recently.

But the issue at hand is decidedly more complex. The question of same-sex adoption puts us in a position of having to adjudicate between competing rights and interests. I believe that in any situation like this, the rights of the child must take precedence over the rights and interests of an adult. I take as my starting point the interests of children and their needs rather than adults and their rights. It is worth pointing out that Australian law, and the conventions to which Australia is a signatory, embody a clear commitment to promoting and preserving the best interests of children in all situations that affect their care and wellbeing. As it stands, and despite the stated intention of those introducing it, the current bill places the rights of adults at the centre, it places the interests of adults above those of children. This should give us reason to pause.

In our legitimate concern to avoid possible discrimination between adults we cannot neglect the welfare principle that governs issues affecting children. We cannot ignore what might be a conflict between what existing human beings want and what another future person will be entitled to. It should be a given that a child has a right to a loving family. Unquestionably, as many argued before the parliamentary committee, a same-sex family can be a loving, safe place for a child. The Centre for Social Justice in the United Kingdom suggests that it would be wrong to take this as a question of purely practical possibilities. Two women can raise children and often do so very well; it is possible for two men to do so although this is less common. No, the question is not only whether children need a loving family, but also whether they need adoptive parents of both sexes. We are talking about the rights of a child to a mother and a father. Is it in a child's best interests to be effectively barred from either of these key figures in a child's life? For this is what the current form of legislation would enact.

Actress and talk-show host Rosie O'Donnell, who has adopted three children in to a same-sex family situation, acknowledged in an interview that her six-year-old son Connor had once said to her that he wished he had a Daddy. O'Donnell says, "so in our family I think there is a loss and to [say] that there isn't would be ... foolish and you'd be in denial." I am not questioning Rosie O'Donnell's parenting skills, and I commend her honest portrayal of the complex issues she is dealing with on a daily basis. But if it is accepted that a child has a human right to a mother and a father, this is a negative right in the sense that there is no claim that society or the State are obliged to provide this, but simply that they are obliged not to help deprive someone of them. This is what we are talking about here. Can two males in a partnership be regarded as, or fulfil the functions of a mother? Can two females in a partnership be regarded as, or fulfil the functions of a father?

The claim that the gender and sexuality of parents has no bearing on the development of children is contrary to the experience of most people and not supported by any substantial or reliable data. Professor Tom Frame argues that not only are two parents obviously preferable to one, but that centuries of experience have shown that mothers and fathers provide something complementary, unique and distinctive in terms of care and nurture. The critical issue is not, therefore, whether same-sex couples have the capacity to be loving and caring parents. It is the belief that same-sex couples cannot provide for a child's need to experience both male and female parental love. Attempts to put an end to discrimination for same-sex couples in terms of employment conditions and property ownership, is straightforward. It is much more complex in the case of same-sex parenting because there is a deliberate decision to negate one biological parent and this negation and denial is justified on the grounds that a child does not need both a mother and a father.

We come to the vexed question of research to consider this very point. It may be that this debate is so contentious that even the data directly related to this issue is compromised and unreliable on both sides of the debate. It is a claim that is evident in the literature from both camps. Such is the depth of feeling surrounding this issue. One thing that is agreed is that definitive studies of the impacts on children do not yet exist. Yes, there is research but the sample size is just too small and long-term impacts not yet apparent. In an illuminating admission by a body arguing for same-sex adoption, the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute in a final report into same-sex adoption in 2003 conceded that the social science research into same-sex parenting is controversial and flawed. Admittedly they place the blame for this on those arguing against same-sex adoption, but nonetheless it has touched upon an important aspect of this debate. After reading the research from both sides, it is my belief that we simply do not have enough reliable data to go ahead with such a radical change.

The member for Sydney talked about up-to-date social science research that suggests that same-sex parenting is as likely to result in positive developmental outcomes for children as opposite-sex parenting. I am not questioning that same-sex couples can parent, and parent well. I maintain, and this is the crux of my argument, that there is insufficient depth of research to show that living in a same-sex family does not disadvantage children by giving them parents of only one gender. The long-term impact on these children is just not clear. All parties agree that little substantial research has been done on children cared for by same-sex males. I do not believe we can ignore the substantial body of empirical evidence that overwhelmingly attests to the benefit of individual children having an involved father. That there is less evidence on the impact of an involved mother is only because this has been largely accepted as self-evident. If we wish to make such a dramatic move in deciding to deprive a child of a mother or a father, we must be convinced that it is in the best interests of the child. From what I have read we are not at this point. Going forward this should lead the debate, not the need to eradicate discrimination or address legal anomalies.

I have already spoken of the fact that I do not doubt that parents of the same sex have the capacity and already do offer a child great love and care. I have been moved by the stories same-sex parents told to the parliamentary committee of the way they cared for and loved the children in their care. I also have spoken of the rights of the child. In New South Wales there is currently a situation where children have been fostered into the care of same-sex couples and have lived with them for many years. In other situations children have had a long-term relationship with a co-parent or a step-parent who is in a same-sex relationship. These children can be adopted by only one of their carers. Therefore, these children do not have the same rights before the law as the adopted children of married or de facto heterosexual couples. Same-sex couples in these situations require an exception that gives their children greater social, legal and economic stability by allowing both people in a same-sex relationship to adopt. I believe that these matters should be looked at and clarified and that these children should have full rights before the law.

I also note that my colleague the Hon. John Ajaka put forward a proposal to the parliamentary committee on "known" relationships. This is something that I would be open to supporting. In instances such as existing long-term foster relationships or biological connections, the case for child stability and certainty starts to become compelling. This deserves further consideration. However, given my prior argument, I do not believe that the appropriate way to proceed is simply to amend the Adoption Act 2000 with a complete change to the whole terminology of parenting. It was also of great concern to me that, despite the fact that the parliamentary committee concluded that as a matter of policy an exemption from the application of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 should be created for faith-based adoption agencies, the original bill made no mention of these issues of exemption.

In a recent New South Wales decision a male homosexual couple succeeded in their action against Wesley Dalmar Child and Family Care when the couple failed to be accepted as foster carers with the organisation. We do not want to copy the example of Britain where Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close because they have been unwilling to place children with a same-sex couple. The closure of faith-based agencies in this area would mean the loss of years of expertise in assisting adoptions in New South Wales. I am very pleased that the revised bill now includes this exemption. I commend the member for Sydney for the inclusion of this provision in this bill.

I am saddened by the hurt my actions tonight may cause those who have felt the pain of discrimination and persecution for much of their life. I have friends in same-sex relationships who in an email to me suggested that I am making a personal stand against them and their long-term dreams. I am not. I want them, and all those hurt by my decision, to know that I am not abandoning them. I want to join them on their journey. I feel the weight of my decision. It is a decision that reflects what I think for now is in the best interests of the child—nothing more, nothing less. In many ways as I have laboured over this legislation I have been enlightened about the pain they are feeling and have felt. It has made me determined to assist, not condemn.

My last thoughts are to reflect on the story of a young girl who has grown up with two mums. I have chosen a snippet from her story because she is often heralded as a strong success story for same-sex adoption. The story is of Ry Russo-Young, a 22-year-old filmmaker whose story was told by Susan Dominus in the New York Times on 24 October 2004. I shall read a couple of paragraphs:

When Ry spent her semester in Dublin, she felt homesick for the United States, or at least for New York. She didn't care much for Dublin, but one night in particular stands out for her as the worst. She and her boyfriend at the time went to a gay bar that struck her as the only place she wanted to be that night, a place that promised to feel familiar in a certain way. It was a rainy night, and she and her boyfriend stood in line watching the gay men around them get in, while they did not. When Ry made a move toward the door, the doorman blocked her from entering. Ry got it—that they didn't get it, didn't get her. She wasn't getting in. She got angry. Then she finally walked away, feeling cast out, estranged, a stranger. She stopped in the middle of the street and wept.

"You know, I feel like I'm somewhere in between queer and straight culture, wedged in this strange place, this lonely place," Ry told me, "I can relate to both cultures but sometimes I feel like I'm not belonging to either. But I'm OK with that. In fact, I wouldn't trade it for anything: it's given me such a unique perspective. It's like I have a sense of double vision, the ability to see things from many perspectives at the same time, in a way that's strange and beautiful. It lets you open little doors and look into a little world. It's a vantage point."

Write Comment

Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article. Personal verbal attacks will be deleted. Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed.
Name:
E-mail
Subject:
Comment:
Code:*

Comments (4)