Page 2720 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 26 September 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The parents have described their emotional distress, the disruption to their longer-term plans, the financial burden, the strain on their relationship and even the effect a second child has had on the general nature of one’s capacity to love.
I would defy anybody who has had a child to read that list and say, “Well, I didn’t feel some, if not all, of that at some stage when raising my kids.” I can assure you that there are moments when the emotional stress of raising kids is very real. With respect to the disruption to your long-term plans, that is somewhat clear. They are a financial burden; they cost. My girls are 21 and living in Sydney; they still cost. They will continue to cost, I understand, until they are about 35. With respect to the strain on the relationship, kids do pull at your relationship. It is part of life. If we are going to start suing for life, we are treading a very, very dangerous path because—
Mr Corbell: No, suing for negligence, medical negligence.
MR SMYTH: No, they are suing for the cost of raising a child; it is not for medical negligence. If they are suing for medical negligence, which has been left in Mrs Dunne’s bill, you will vote for this, Mr Corbell. But then again, you cannot read, you have not understood and you just choose to spin.
Life is like that, Mr Speaker. You know it; you have got kids. All of us in this place who have kids know about it at some stage or other. With respect to everyone who has rung a radio station, written a letter, had a conversation with their newsagent or who has rung their mother, their sister or their brother and said, “You have got to be joking,” it is because they actually understand that children do place a call on your physical, emotional and financial strength.
When we had our twins, the job I had was not well paid. I got another job. I used to get up at 4 o’clock in the morning and do a paper run. It was great. I would do the 9 o’clock feed and go to bed and the girls’ mother would stay up and do the midnight feed. I would get up at 3 o’clock; before I did the paper run, I had to do the 3 o’clock feed. If the girls’ mother was lucky, I would get home at 7 o’clock to do the next feed so that she would get a decent night’s sleep. For a period of about 12 hours, we just did not see each other, but that is the routine that we adopted because we were dedicated to giving our kids the best that we could. It is a burden; it should be a burden. It is not easy. They are not Barbie dolls. They are not something you can dress up, trot out and play with any time you want. They are an expression, hopefully, of your physical love for each other. They are an expression of your respect for life. They are an expression—
Mr Corbell: That is patronising.
MR SMYTH: You can shake your head and interject across the chamber, Mr Corbell. We know where you are coming from. Go back and read the bill.
Mr Corbell: Extraordinarily patronising.
MR SMYTH: There we have it: extraordinarily patronising. That is the defence from someone who does not have an answer: “You are being patronising.” No, I am
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .