The Hon. S.G. WADE (23:30): I rise to speak on this bill. As a member of the Liberal Party, every vote is a conscience vote for me. We are free to vote against the advice of our party on each vote, but this bill particularly is a conscience vote for Liberal Party members. In that regard, there is no party recommendation, so I make it clear that I speak for no member but myself.

This bill, which was introduced by the Hon. Tammy Franks on 23 June 2010, extends legal recognition of parentage to female same sex domestic partners. I note that South Australia is the only jurisdiction in Australia that does not recognise the same-sex partner of a birth mother who has used artificial reproductive technology to conceive as a parent of a child born.

Consistent with my approach to other similar bills, I will give primacy in my consideration to the best interests of the child. Without legal recognition, a child in the care of a parent in a same-sex relationship suffers a range of detriments. I pose these questions:

·Is it in the best interests of a child that a parent lacks the legal authority to make decisions about medical treatment for a child whom they parent?

·Is it in the best interests of a child to have their guardian present if the child is being questioned by the police?

·Is it in the best interests of a child that a guardian is not able to make decisions or meet legal obligations concerning schooling or employment for children under 17 years of age?

·Is it in the best interests of a child that their parent or guardian may be unable to travel with them beyond Australia?

·Is it in the best interests of a child that they may not be able to lay claim to a co-parent's estate if a will has not been created?

These and other issues highlight for me that it is important in the interests of children that recognition be given to same-sex domestic partners. I see no reason why children who are in the care of same-sex couples should suffer because of that fact.

A repeated complaint that has been raised with me against this bill is that it compels falsehoods in birth certificates. The reality is that birth certificates are not statutory declarations of truth: they are a public record. We already allow the name of a parent who has become a parent through assisted reproductive technology to appear on a birth certificate, even when that birth may have been as a result of donated genetic material. So, I do not see this as a compelling objection, and certainly not one to overwhelm the best interests of a child. I support the bill.