Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

As there are a lot of amendments in this grouping, I will speak to them broadly. It is really significant and important during the lifetime of this Government that we have done what many Governments have failed to do in the past, that is, to take out the sexist language, which is what the proposal is here. We take out the sexist language while still recognising the importance of family care. It is important here to state what is my background. I have heard many people make a lot of assumptions about the kind of conversations that have or have not happened. Before I became a politician, I was a witness at an Oireachtas joint committee examining this issue. At that time, very few politicians wanted to do anything more than remove the wording that was in the section. What Family Carers Ireland, many others including the National Women's Council of Ireland and I, being involved with Stay-At-Home Parents Association Ireland, wanted was to remove the sexist language and to still ensure we inserted something that would continue to support carers in a more meaningful way. That was in 2018 and, as I say, most politicians would have been simply happy with just removing it. We are now talking about care and the working around it which is good and really positive but let us not forget that this is significantly more than almost every political party wanted to do.

We then had a citizens' assembly in the middle of a pandemic and they could have come up with any suggestions during that process. I remember going to the presentation by Dr. Catherine Day on the findings of that citizens' assembly and how excited I was that they had put weight on care. Nobody expected it, and they could have done anything, but they said how important family caring was. Following that, I was the Vice Chair of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Gender Equality looking at the recommendations and it was made quite clear to us by Dr. Catherine Day that the citizens did not want to present us with legal definitions or drafts for a Constitution. They said that was not their role, so they did not do that. They stated in general terms what they wanted to achieve.As members of the Oireachtas joint committee, we had many private and public sessions around the citizens' assembly. In total, it took 11 months. At one point, we were discussing whether we would just leave it to the Department because it is so challenging to come up with wording, as everyone can see. When you change a Constitution instead of starting again, as someone said earlier, you are changing what is there. People will say we have left out some bits but we have gone further than the joint committee suggested in other parts. The point can be argued both ways and it is important to put it in context. I am reading contributions from experts who claim to understand the issue but I did not see them getting involved in the debate before the past couple of weeks, which is disappointing.

We are doing something for which women have been calling for a long time. Family Carers Ireland has stated this is its referendum and this is what it wants. It is important to look back at history and be critical of the influences at the time. It is also important to recognise that times were different and times have changed. We must look back at history and ask what are the things we still value. Something we still value and that was also important in 1937 is care. I was a stay-at-home parent for nearly ten years. I have also been a family law solicitor. I know there are many people whose voices are not heard in the corridors of power because everybody here is working outside of the home right now, even though we have different histories. That means debates often take on a particular colour based on the very fact that we are working for a salary when so many people are doing something else. We were careful at the time to talk about the fact that it is not just those who are caring but those who cared for who must be considered. That must be part of the narrative.

This is one piece of the Constitution. It is not about taking away somebody's rights. There is no part of this that is taking away somebody's rights. It is about giving people rights. One could argue that other parts of the Constitution and other things should bring in more people's rights, and I do not disagree, but this referendum has nothing negative in it. This is positive. Many organisations and people who have played these roles are behind it. Listening to those stories is powerful.

I did not get the opportunity to speak at the earlier debate. Senator McGreehan made the point well that to deny other people's experiences because you do not have the same experience is deeply unfair. Some 42% of children are born outside marriage and the Constitution is every bit as much theirs as it is anybody's in this Chamber. People are coming from a couple of different perspectives. Some simply do not believe in the premise of removing the reference to the woman in the home. They do not even believe in the premise of ensuring that family carers are supported or that families other than those based on marriage should be in the Constitution. They should be honest about that. It is not the minutiae of the wording with which they have an issue. Perhaps they can find other ways to argue the point. There are also those who agree with what the Government is trying to do and who know the Government is trying to do the best it can with the Constitution. The Minister has a copy of the Constitution to hand. It is a small book. I love the Constitution, which is an amazing document. However, if we look at the amount of legislation we pass, day in and day out, that is the minutiae of law. The Constitution is not that. It is about setting out values. This legislation sets out our values and states that we are not sexist, that we appreciate that women and men can do roles if they so choose. It states that we appreciate that even where someone does not earn a salary, he or she is doing something for the common good by caring for others, including older people, vulnerable adults, those living with disabilities and children. That is valuable. The reason it must be recognised is because it is unpaid. There is State support to a certain extent. It does not support stay-at-home parents but it does give allowances in some circumstances. Should it do more? My God, yes. It absolutely should. However, that is not what this is about;t is about laying down our values.

It is highly cynical of some people to look at the wording, pull it apart and tell us what they would have done. I did not see people helping to come up with this wording over the past decade and over the past number of years when I have been discussing the issue. That is the group of people who are talking about the law as if the wording is their real issue when the premise is actually their issue. Such people are coming here to say they totally agree that this is what we have to do but who are recommending different wording. That is an essential part of the democratic process and I am in agreement with it. It is for the Minister to come back and explain why certain wording was chosen. I have gone through the process in many situations, including at two Oireachtas committees. I was called as a witness to the citizens' assembly but recused myself because I was running as a Senator. I can tell the Seanad that nobody, including constitutional lawyers, has found this to be an easy process, although if you find two lawyers, you will always get two different opinions. This is not an easy task but I believe this is the correct wording. I believe it will be tested in the courts, as everything in the Constitution is, and we should not shy away from that. It is not a reason to vote "No". We must vote "Yes" to something that will make people's lives better and that will be more representative of all of us. It would be shameful to vote "No" in those circumstances and leave what we have in the Constitution, which is sexist and does not go as far to support stay-at-home parents or as far as the new amendment does to support family carers.

I thank all Senators for thinking about alternative wording because it is important to have those conversations.