Mr President, today before the Parliament we have bills that do not have the support of the Tasmanian public. Very clearly, the majority of people out there see these bills as unacceptable and they do not give support to them in their entirety. Parts of the bill are welcome, and I welcome parts of the bill and I will refer to those parts in a moment. I need to say at the commencement that I do oppose these bills in their current form, particularly those aspects of the bill that relate to adoption. The position that I take is the position of the electorate that I represent, and I have been given a very clear and strong message from those people that they do not want any interference relative to the current adoption laws and rules that apply, nor do they want changes to the references to husband, wife, widow, widower that are referred to in the consequential amendments bill. I understand there is some dilemma with those amendments in that consequential bill and it may well be if we reach that stage that I might have to live with some of those amendments. But I would find it very difficult. My personal position really does not have any great significance or bearing, as I said, because I am truly representative of the majority view of those people in my electorate.

The Relationships Bill and the Relationships (Consequential Amendments) Bill in my view are not about discrimination. They are not about caring for children or even what is in the best interests of the child. In my opinion these bills are seeking to create changes that are very clearly only in the best interests of the same?sex couples. It is in their best interests to be able to adopt children and in their best interests to change the references to husband, wife, widow, widower, to the term 'partner' in most instances. It is clearly not in the best interests of those entitled to use those titles and definitely not in the best interests of the child. It seeks to have same?sex relationships recognised in exactly the same way as marriage. They are not the same and can never have that same equality, in my view.

Let me say from the outset that I am not homophobic in any way whatsoever. I have a number of friends who are in gay relationships. I was also the gay and lesbian liaison officer for Tasmania Police on the north?west coast for a number of years. I met with people fairly frequently at meetings and conferences and functions and I am able to relate to them. I do understand the positions that they have and I do understand the problems that they are from time to time confronted with. I also accept the fact that there are still people out there who have an intolerance to same?sex relationships and partnerships. I think that is fairly clear.

As part of my position as a gay and lesbian liaison officer I attended conferences and meetings on the mainland and I therefore have a good understanding of what is occurring with people involved in these relationships and of problems they encounter. I also understand the support that these people need. I also accept the fact that there is discrimination out there, and discrimination has been mentioned here a lot today. As I have said on a number of occasions, there will always be discrimination and there is no way known that we are ever going to completely remove discrimination from this world or indeed would we ever want to. When looking at discrimination, one can look at a number of areas where discrimination does occur and I can make an example here of discrimination in the sporting area. Not only does discrimination occur there but it occurs everywhere throughout life. As a young boy, I always had a burning desire to play hockey and as most of you here today would know - and I put this up as an example - they do not make left?handed hockey sticks and unless you are a right?handed player you cannot take on the sport of hockey. That is a form of discrimination. The gay and lesbian groups have been referring to discrimination but it really does not matter what we look at in life, it is there. What we must ensure is that we are fair, that we are transparent and we treat people with as much equality as we can in all circumstances and that we look after those who are unable to do so themselves - and they are the kids, they are the children.

This bill will amend a wide range of Tasmanian laws which currently disadvantage same?sex couples in areas such as hospital access, wills, superannuation, property division, employment conditions, State taxes, statutory compensation and other partner entitlements normally attributed to heterosexual partners but not to same?sex partners. I have no problems in accepting those changes that will correct and rectify those difficulties and those problems. As I previously said, I have no difficulty with supporting the changes to legislation that will provide proper and free access to all of those entitlements by people living in same?sex relationships. I support that. That has been my view on this bill the whole time and it has not wavered in any way whatsoever. These changes will prevent situations arising like the following two situations. There are a couple of examples I want give here. There was a lesbian lady who had been living in a same?sex relationship for a long period of time, her partner died and unfortunately because of the law as it currently is, she was unable to access any of the property of her partner. She was unable to have any say in relation to burial or cremation of her partner and indeed the family of the deceased person virtually discarded this lady and threw her out. There was no will.

The second one was a female constituent of mine who in this instance cannot receive a Centrelink payment, a living-away-from-home Youth Allowance which would pay her about $250 per week, as opposed to the $80 per week she is currently on, solely because she is in a de facto relationship with a woman and not a man. This is a payment to help people living away from home and under 25 years of age. In all other circumstances she would qualify for this rate. She has been living with her partner for three years, as opposed to the one year required for heterosexual couples to be seen as de facto. She believes this is unfair and occurs because her relationship cannot be legitimised. Very clearly, it is not fair. Those are tragic situations, as far as I am concerned, and anything we can do to rectify those situations should be done and I would grasp that and go with it.

I have spoken to many people in regard to these proposed bills, including a number of gay people. I have spoken to gay people who are involved in partnerships, as well as people who are heterosexual and therefore have not simply taken one side of this argument. I have tried to get a fairly balanced view in relation to these matters.

This legislation has been put up by gays and lesbians to serve their best interests. They unfortunately, in my opinion, are not able to see both sides of the equation and have taken a very focused and controlled view of this legislation, ensuring above all else that what they want is met.

I would now like to focus on the aspect of the bill dealing with the adoption of children. It is a concern of many people that the child is the real issue here and not those people wishing to adopt a child. Many people are saying that it would be discriminatory for us to say that a child will not have a mother and a father but that they will have two mothers and/or two fathers. That would be absolutely unfair to the child and would create many obstacles for them and dilemmas that would be likely to impact on them for their entire lives. I see that as a great difficulty.

I refer at this time to the newspaper clipping from the Examiner of 25 August and a comment made by Mr Ferguson - and we heard from Mr Ferguson last night - who is a member of Launceston's Tasmanian Family Institute. He said:

'Evidence showed that children fared best when raised by a mother and father and public opinion was against the Government's agenda for reform.'

There is an abundance of material available in relation to children and the adoption of children and a big part of the reading that I have done on this supports exactly that position, which is that the best position for a child is to be brought up in a heterosexual relationship with a mother and a father. Evidence points very clearly to the fact that a child does need both a male role model and a female role model. That is the best capacity in which a child can be brought up. I do not think we have any right to interfere with that. We have no right, in my opinion, to break that down. We ought to be giving children out there an opportunity at least to be brought up in that type of relationship. I accept the fact that not all those relationships are successful, some break down, but we ought to give them the opportunity to commence with that type of relationship if it is at all possible.

I would accept the position that children are being brought up in same-sex relationships and I have no reason to doubt that those children may have fared well but, again, I do not see the reason even in that situation for the child to be adopted. Guardianships are available, there are opportunities there in the child's best interests. We were provided an example yesterday in the briefings of where this has occurred.

I will refer to a number of the comments made to me - and I am identifying not the people by name but parts of the letters where statements were made by them. The first I refer to is that of a 15-year-old girl who was vehemently opposed to this proposed legislation. She is saying very clearly that for a child to be told that they will have only two mothers and/or two fathers is just not acceptable in any circumstances and will create an incredibly harsh position for them and for them to have no say in that whatsoever is wrong. This is from a 15-year-old girl and I might say, of the many hundreds of e-mails and letters I received, that there was only one that I have received from a young person - a 15-year-old girl. This young lady was also incensed at the fact that the younger people had not been approached in relation to the proposed amendments. She saw that as an attack upon them; she felt that that was unreasonable. She felt that the Government should have gone out to the younger people and sought some of their views in relation to it. As she says, they will be the next generation, they will be the people in the near future who will be either marrying or choosing to live in a same-sex relationship. They are the ones at the end of the day who will be involved in bringing children into the world and therefore they ought to be entitled to have a say in it and they should have been approached and their views sought in relation to it. This young lady was adamant that in her view the most commonly accepted form of family will always be a male and a female - to use her words, 'a mum and a dad'.

Another person I wish to refer to in some detail is a gay person - a male in this instance. The situation here is that this person realised he could not have a relationship with a female and accepted at an early age that he was gay. He has now commenced a relationship with another male person and that relationship has been a very strong, loving and caring relationship. It has been in progress now, I think, for about three years. His partner had previously been married and involved in a heterosexual relationship and there had been two children to that marriage. He says that the two children now stay with them on a regular basis and move between their father and mother. He accepts the position and says that he is adamant that he has absolutely no right whatsoever to adopt those children or to interfere in the relationship that was there between the mother and father previously. He was clear in saying that the children already have a father, they already have a mother.

When he entered into the relationship and made the decision to live with this person - a male person - he would have to give up certain rights and entitlements. He accepted the fact that he and his partner would never be able to bring children into this world. He accepted the fact that he will from time to time discipline those children, and in fact his partner agrees with that, as does the mother of the children. He says that he is playing that role very well. He says he has no wish to interfere with that part of his partner's life. He also was of a view that should anything happen to his partner then the law is such that he would be able to care and do whatever is necessary for those children through a guardianship order. This chap was a very mature person, a logical thinker and quite articulate. In fact I am convinced he is right; I think he has got it right. As he said, how confusing for the children in this instance if he were to adopt them. Those children would finish up with two fathers and a mother and he believes he has no right to create that sort of dilemma for them. He reiterated his love for his partner and his support for the children and the fact that there need not be any changes as the law adequately caters for that situation as it is now.

He also said that when he entered into the homosexual relationship it was a knowledgeable choice and he knew that there would be things that he would have to give up if he entered into a same-sex relationship. He would have to give up things that other people would not have to give up and would be entitled to. He accepted the fact that he would necessarily have to give those things away.

The amendments sought to the Adoption Act concern me and I do not support the current amendments. It really does not matter too much what happens; a child does have a mother and a father. Currently it takes a male and female to have a child - that may change in the future - but I think to allow a female undergoing the IVF program to be able to adopt that child to the exclusion of the male donor has inherent dangers and does not sit comfortably with me at all. I will not support the presumptive adoption position.

I want to refer to a couple of the comments made by Mr Brett Whiteley MHA in his speech on the Relationships Bill as I find some of his comments intriguing and very much to the point and in fact they coincide very much with my views. Mr Whiteley made a comment in relation to the Honourable Jack Straw who argued in the House of Commons that children are not trophies and should not be used as pawns to substantiate a homosexual lifestyle. That is why it is right for government to positively discriminate on the grounds that every child deserves to start life with a mum and a dad. This is good policy making.

Of course same?sex couples would argue that this is not good policy making. But it is a child that is the most important person here. I feel for same?sex people. Of course I do. But at the end of the day it is their choice to take up those relationships and they should know in life if you elect to take a course of action which is very clearly not the common position you may have to give up certain entitlements or rights that you would like to have and that other people do have. The gay chap I spoke to previously brought all of that out.

Mr Brett Whiteley MHA, under the heading of morality changing standards, makes the comment:

'Should we accept other family arrangements in the future which today all of us in this Parliament would clearly regard as unacceptable?'

In other words, just because a minority in society begins to practise that particular lifestyle, does this lead us to accepting that lifestyle? Is this where Tasmanians want to go? I do not believe so and in the case of same?sex adoptions I really do not believe that to be the position at all. Yes, minority groups have changed the laws and certainly they will continue to do so, and there are many examples of this.

So I suppose we have a situation there of where small minorities are changing our laws. But does that make it right? Certainly we have become a more tolerant society and we can see and understand the reasons why we should change. But whatever we do we need to be very careful and we need to make sure that everything is right. We must ensure that everything has been done so that there is an acceptance of those changes, and with the least concern possible to the people. I certainly do not believe that to be the case in this instance and I am even more convinced after the briefing sessions that we went through yesterday. I do not believe that we have done enough work in relation to same?sex adoptions. I am not saying that in the future this legislation or similar legislation might not get up. In fact it could even get up now. But what I am saying is at this present time we are not ready for it. The public are not ready for it. I repeat that there has been a great lot of concern about this and on the facts and figures that I have received and have read - hopefully my voice will hold out, Mr President.

Mr Aird - Did you take that medication I suggested last night?

Mr DEAN - I went to get that medication and the chemist said it was no good for me and I needed to take something else.

Mr Aird - I would sack your chemist.

Mr DEAN - I repeat that there has been a great lot of concern about this and on the facts and figures I have received and have read, as I said, 70 per cent or more of Tasmanians do not support the Government on this issue. We referred to some of these figures thrown around today - 1 239 submissions out of 1 300 to the Law Reform Institute's issue paper disagreed with the Government in relation to this bill. We have heard what happened to some of those figures and how there was a tendency to throw them out and away and so on. They are very significant numbers and those numbers equate to the position that I have in my own electorate. As I said, I have received hundreds of e?mails and written documents and I have had a number of interviews with many people. Out of all of those contacts I have had, I had 25 people supporting the bill. So there is a very small number of people out there wanting this bill to get up. Very clearly the preponderance of people are opposed to it. I am not advocating for one minute that the laws will not change in time but I am saying that we are not ready for those changes here, and here today.

I note with interest that Mr Croome has made statements regarding the number of members of the lower House who have supported the legislation in that House and it has been referred to by other members here today in relation to those numbers. I do not know if Mr Croome is attempting to mislead or what but it was not a conscience vote in the lower House, and that has been referred to. The Labor government members had to vote a certain way, so had there been a conscience vote then I doubt very, very much if the voting would have been the way it was at the end of the day, so I do not think that it is right to say that and I think that if we are going to do that we need to be clear and we need to be transparent about it. I think that it is misleading to some degree. That is not the case in this Chamber, albeit we have a number of Labor-aligned members here and we know very well which way they will vote at the end of the day.

Mr President, for all the reasons I have now outlined I must say that I have great concerns with some aspects of the Relationships Bill and will say no more on that issue but instead I just want to briefly mention the Relationships (Consequential Amendments) Bill. As I have said, I have concern there in relation to the removal of a number of words - 'husband', 'wife', 'widow', 'widower' and so on. I believe that what that is doing is letting those people down who have those strong beliefs and to change those names to 'partner' does not sit comfortably with me at all.

In that regard I want to refer to one letter that I received, and I will quote from it. I think that this perfectly sums it up fairly well:

'Illustrative of the manner of subtle deceit is the changing of the word 'spouse' to 'partner' at present taking place in Government documents. This is outrageous. There has been no mandate for this. I have a wife, a spouse and not a partner. I've had plenty of partners in my life, mostly at dances and at sporting events!'

I think that sums it up pretty well. I had many, many letters similar to that.

The situation is that married couples are saying that a homosexual relationship will never be the equal of a heterosexual relationship where people are married. It will never ever equal that relationship. Every child has a right to be in life with both a father and a mother. I want to refer to one or two of the comments made by my constituents and I will refer to them in dot points.

· The bill goes too far in that it opens the door for recognition of parenting rights for children conceived by IVF to a lesbian couple.

· The consequential legislation bill will demean the institution of marriage by establishing homosexual relationships as equal. This will open a can of worms to other alternative relationships through the precedents set.

· Not enough research has gone into the ramifications of these bills on the welfare of our children.

And indeed that has been mentioned by previous members here today and, as I said after the briefings of last night, I am even more convinced that that is the case.

· This Relationships Bill discriminates against the notion of marriage.
· This legislation appeases only 1 or 2 per cent of the population.
· This Relationships Bill directly runs counter to the Commonwealth protection of marriage.
· Can we cope with future generations looking back, seeing us as the vulgar herd?

I certainly do not want to be part of the vulgar herd.

· They will plunge the moral base of this community to new depths.

· Concern that these bills remove reference to 'husband' and 'wife' from all State laws and replace them with 'partner'.

· The term 'spouse' is redefined and reference to marriage will be linked to the additional words 'registration', 'deed of relationship'.

· The discrimination is that my marriage will be devalued, as will all other good marriages.

These are comments of a constituent, and I am simply quoting:

'Our appeal to you is that the partnership of a man and woman be maintained as the only relationship legitimately conferring the associated legal and family rights including the ability to adopt children.

We believe the consequences of change would be a calamity and that the minority whose cry is one of discrimination should not be permitted to play Russian roulette with the tried and proven backbone of society.
I would like you to know that the legislation before parliament directly runs counter to the Commonwealth protection of marriage. Don't underestimate the repercussions of this.'

Another one:

'I firmly believe that the sanctity of marriage should have far greater significance than other relationships.'

Further:

'What nonsense to even suggest that all personal relationships are equal. Why should relationships between people of same or different sexes regardless of their nature, exclusivity, level of commitment, purpose, stability or level of purpose or intended duration be seen as equal to marriage.'

And last but not least:

'I believe the Adoption Act 1988 adequately provided for the best interests of the child - reflects the concerns of majority opinion in Tasmania at this time and therefore should not be amended to allow same sex adoptions.'

In closing, Mr President, as I have outlined here today, as these bills currently are I will not be accepting them. However, with the required amendments being made, I would certainly give my support to the great majority of them. The areas I have concerns with I have clearly articulated already through my speech. I am convinced that the status quo on adoptions should remain. The family should not be broken down for the benefit of a few. Family is vital to us all and we must preserve it at all cost.

These bills in their entirety do nothing to preserve the family, as the majority of Tasmanians require. There is so much inequity with these proposed bills and the traditional family position. The revoking of a significant relationship after 90 days following registration - and when we compare that with marriage, a divorce I think requires 12 months. Let us get it right. These bills do not get it right, except for the property entitlements, and I will support that.

I want to end by saying that the emotional position as put by Mr Croome last night I thought was well done, but what it did was, at the end of the day, it reinforced more with me, particularly with the young chap coming along - and we heard his position - that our current system is working well and there is no reason to change it. That is what the briefing did for me last night; it very clearly reinforced the status quo.