Second Reading

(Continued from 29 October 2015.)

Mr PEDERICK ( Hammond ) ( 16:44 ): I rise to make a few comments in relation to the Family Relationships (Parentage Presumptions) Amendment Bill 2015. I must say at the start of my contribution, a lot of bills and legislation go through this place and barely get a whimper out of your electorate, but certainly in relation to this bill, I got far more than a whimper.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, I got far more than a whimper, and certainly not just from my electorate, but people who contacted me from right around the state to share their thoughts and deep beliefs. It is no secret that I come from a conservative background and I represent a conservative electorate, and that is exactly the way I will be voting with regard to this bill.

I must say that is how 100 per cent of the people who lobbied me in respect to this legislation wished me to vote, so I am more than happy to abide by their wishes—and I reply to every individual, whether they are in my electorate or not—with regard to this legislation.

This legislation gives a couple—two women—the right to have their names on the birth certificate. Some people have a child, and some people may say, 'Well, that makes things more equal.' But, I think it also brings about some problems with regard to a child having the ability to track their genealogy later in life. I think that is one of the main reasons that birth certificates are something we really need to be very careful about. I have just had a brief look at the amendments that the member for Newland has tabled, and I am still not convinced that that is the way to go.

Certainly, it did arouse debate in the seat of Hammond, and it was all one way. It did surprise me a bit that not one person, either in the seat or in the state contacted me in support of this legislation. I certainly think that the right thing to do is to support those who lobbied me, and, accordingly, I indicate that I will be voting against the legislation.