Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - I will make a reasonably brief contribution to this bill. I was not here in 2003 and if I had been when this matter was debated in this Chamber I may well have had a different position to the one I espouse today. I support the bill and I think it would be very difficult not to support it. I think to not support the bill is to condone discrimination, and I cannot do that at all. In making that statement I have very strong views on what are the ideal conditions for a child to be brought up in. I cannot accept the current discrimination that the law provides. Where a male is involved in a similar situation and has no biological connection, the child becomes a part of that relationship and the father can be included on the birth certificate, but a female in the same situation cannot and to me that is absolutely unacceptable.

The situation is being considered around the country and it is accepted throughout the country that this is the way we need to and should go. I am told there are couples here who feel so strongly about this legislation that they have gone to the mainland to have both their names included on the child's birth certificates, thus providing the same-sex partner the same legal rights as any other partner. I understand that it has happened and I can see, if this State did not pass this legislation, very clearly it would happen in the future. These parents feel so strongly about this situation - and why should they not - so very clearly there is a way that they can do it, by simply moving across to the mainland for a relatively short time for that to occur. Victoria is just a short flight across the Strait. I think it would be unrealistic and unreasonable of us to take any other position here today.

I do not think we have any right to deprive a child of that second parent in these situations. It has been said, and a number of people have referred to it today, that a child does not make a decision to come into this world. They have no say in it whatsoever and they are entitled, in my view, to similar requirements and expectations of any other relationship and that is to have the second parent legally identifiable and with legal responsibilities for that child.

I want to refer to some of the e-mails that I received and also to identify what is happening around the world. I have a clipping here taken from the Herald Sun on Friday 11 September 2009. The item identified by 'Same Sex Adoption Passed' indicates how things are changing in the world. It says:

'Uruguay, long regarded as one of the most progressive countries in Latin America will allow same sex couples to adopt children after a bill passed the senate yesterday. The bill was approved 17:6.'

So, changes are occurring as we go through life. In a moment I will refer to another comment made by the honourable Peter Gutwein in the other Chamber in relation to changes and how we need to embrace them and how we need to move forward.

I want to quote from a couple of e-mails I have received from both sides. I, like many others, have received many e-mails on this - for and against. It is fairly even. I think it was the member for Murchison who identified that in her electorate it was fairly even also. In mine it is as well. Before I commence that, I want to comment on a Probus meeting I went to in George Town several weeks ago. There was quite a large attendance there - about 70 or 80 people present. It was a female Probus meeting and most of the ladies present were mature people. I talked about this; they wanted me to discuss this bill with them and the position that I had in relation to it. I asked for a show of hands as to what the position was and it was interesting that it was almost evenly divided - 50:50 I would say, counting the hands that went up. Fifty per cent were in support and 50 per cent were against. That was in a group of people, where I would have expected the greater majority to probably not support this bill moving forward, but it was not the case at all. As I said, the voting was very evenly distributed in that situation.

Mrs Rattray-Wagner - Through you, Madam President, to the honourable member: were they of the vintage where the traditional family structure would have been very entrenched?

Mr DEAN - Absolutely; and being fair to those people, they would have been from the age of about 60 through to about 80 years of age and there were some older than that, so it was of that group of people who have long traditions in relation to family upbringing, et cetera. So, very clearly, as I said, I would have expected the vote to have gone the other way, but it did not at all.

To quote from a couple of the e-mails that I have, the first one is from Elizabeth Anne Carr, who is against:

'I feel strongly that the proposed amendments smack of selfish self-interest and that no matter how well-meaning, they are not in the best interests of the child. A helpless child should not be allowed to be the victim of social experiments. Again, no matter how well-meaning, playing politics with these sorts of issues is dangerous. White anting of the foundations of society. Tasmanians are becoming fed up with politicians' lack of honesty for political gain. Misrepresenting to a child the truth about his or her biological identity is completely wrong as anyone with a still healthy conscience would have to admit. We are relying on you to stand up for the role of fathers in our society.'

Another one from a group speaking against the bill is from the Catholic Women's League Tasmania. I quote:

'To pass a law in the Tasmanian Parliament that stipulates that an individual has two mothers and no father is a nonsense. It contradicts the reality of natural design which cannot be altered by the stroke of a pen. We urge you to give the opportunity for finding other avenues to achieve security for the future of children adopted by same sex couples.'

There are a number of other quotes against. Madam President, I want to thank the Government for the briefings that we had this morning, for and against. All presentations were extremely well done. They were extremely professional and I can understand where both sides of this argument are coming from. It would be easy for me, I think, to support the group that does not want this legislation brought in, however I have to get myself above that and think of the future and the century that we are currently living in and where we are going, and I have to think of the child. I thought that the session this morning identified by Jan Menzies and Erin Buckmaster was a strong and very compelling contribution to accepting this legislation.

They painted a very good position of why we need to move forward. It really is a bit of a nonsense when you think about it, when in that situation the second person is not legally accepted and is not included on the birth certificate and has to fight for all of the support and legal requirements she needs to provide for that child. They can do it through adoption by proceeding that way but we were told this morning very clearly, and we all know, that is an expensive and drawn-out process, and it is quite complex as well. So why should that be forced on these couples? I do not see any reason why that should happen.

I really felt for Erin and Jan and they made it perfectly plain as to why we should support this bill. I think that we all would have received their correspondence including a photo of the two of them a sitting on a couch with their young child. There is really no difference in that photograph between that young child and a heterosexual couple sitting there with a child on their lap.

Really, what is the difference? Very little. To me that is a compelling position for moving forward.

There is one other letter identifying support for this from which I want to quote - and the member for Apsley might have referred to a couple of points from this one. It finishes up with a number of points and it is these points only that I will refer to. They are numbered one to seven and the letter is from Tracey Wing. I am not sure if she is related to the member for Launceston.

Mr Wing - I don't believe so.

Mr Wilkinson - There was a Wing Hotel in Vietnam.

Mr Wing - I do not know that either.

Mr DEAN - The seven points made are:

'1. This is not about children having a mother and a father, it is about having two legal parents rather that one.

2. This reform is in the best interests of those children already in the care of same-sex couples.

3. The failure to recognise co-mothers has led to situations in Tasmania where these mothers have been excluded from hospital wards and school activities causing great distress to both mother and child.

4. This reform has occurred in most other states and at a federal level.

5. Tasmanian law already allows IVF access for women in same-sex relationships, as well as known child adoption and fostering by same-sex partners.

6. This reform is about parenting responsibilities like child support, as well as parenting rights.

7. Family Court parenting rights are not a substitute for full parenting rights and responsibilities.'

These are fairly compelling points made in that e-mail. We would all have received the petitions as well. A number of petitions were provided to us. This is a petition signed by quite a number of people from the south of the State, where they are urging us not to support the bill.

I did not receive correspondence with it other than the petition but other members may have. In conclusion, I want to quote a couple of comments made by Peter Gutwein when he spoke on the third reading stage of this bill in the other House. I quote from the Hansard:

'The race debate during the last two centuries in America specifically is another area where prejudice and fear and self-righteousness created enormous problems.'

He referred to these comments because he was trying to demonstrate how the world is changing and how we need to embrace that and how we need to make changes and move forward. We cannot continue to live as we used to - the world is not like that anymore. Quote:

'I want to quote a Democratic presidential candidate from 1948, Strom Thurmond is his name and he said back in 1948, "I want to tell you ladies and gentlemen that there are not enough troops in the army to force the southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigger race into our theatres, into our swimming pools, into our homes and into our churches."'

He continues:

'That was a Democrat presidential candidate from not much more than 50 years ago. Then we have witnessed recently in the States what would have been completely unthinkable, not just 50 years ago but perhaps only a decade ago, the election of President Obama.'

The point I want to make is that people move on and times change and very clearly that is the situation. We have to move forward with those times as well and very clearly the time has well and truly passed for this legislation to be supported and to be brought into being.

I do have some issues with retrospectivity in this case. We will have the legislation applying from the time it is given royal assent but couples that have a child in this type of relationship even one week before royal assent occurs will not be eligible and, therefore, I suspect that they will have to go through the adoption process. I really have some concerns about that and will mention that in the Committee stage. I suspect that the Government looked at that very closely when they were drafting this legislation and perhaps the Leader might be able to provide some information as to why we did not proceed down that path. I think it is very important.

The other concern I have, and I will probably refer to that in the Committee stages too, is that I would have thought that registration in this situation would have been a further requirement of this legislation because, as Mr Croome said in his briefing, registration identifies with a more genuine relationship and where children are being brought into this situation, I would have thought that we should have had that sort of support. I cannot see it as being a big deal because I would have thought that a couple making that decision to bring a child into this world would have no qualms about wanting to register their significant relationship. Now, all that is required is to be in a significant relationship; it does not require registration and it does not require any other record. I would have thought that that would have been a way to go. I have considered whether or not an amendment should be drawn up in relation to it and I think I will test the mood of the Chamber during the Committee stage. I support the bill moving forward.