Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senators for their contributions on International Women’s Day. The flavour of our discussions are very much influenced by the fact we have two constitutional referendums taking place on Friday.

Senator Keogan spoke about misquoting the existing text of the Constitution. Let us set it out at the start of this discussion. Article 41.2.1° states, "In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved." Article 41.2.2° states, "The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home." That is the existing text that it is proposed to be deleted if there is a "Yes" vote in the care referendum on Friday.

People have their own views on that text. Some people say it is outdated and others will say it is sexist. I think it is outdated and sexist. Some people will say it is misogynistic. When I read it, I fixate on the term “neglect”. The term is laden with judgment of women who are engaged in labour outside the home. We have to remember that even if we give Article 41.2 the most positive reading possible, it still only applies to married mothers. It is not all mothers; it is married mothers. The family protected in Article 41 is only the married family. Even if it was given its most positive reading, it already makes distinctions between mothers who have a ring on their finger and those who do not.

We have debated the text of the care amendment. Much of this discussion is personal for many Senators in this room and they have said why it is personal to them. In response to what Senator Clonan said, all I can do is look to the text of the new article we are proposing to insert into the Constitution. It states: "The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision." I strongly disagree with his view that this in any way shifts a burden from the State to the family. It recognises there is a burden on families now. “Burden” is not a word I want to use. It recognises there is a huge amount of work done by families, for example, families caring for a family member with a disability, families caring for children and families caring for their elderly parents. It states the State should do more there. It does not state that it is the primary role of families. It is important that the constitutional proposal, Article 42B, does not state that rather it recognises that where families are caring for a loved one, the State should do more. That is not a bad thing to have in our Constitution; it is a good and affirmative thing.

I can absolutely understand the frustration that the Senator and many DPOs have expressed regarding where we have been in respect of our treatment of persons with disabilities and where we are now. I absolutely recognise that. However, a “No” vote on this provision will in no way improve the situation for those with a disability or anyone involved in care. It will also in no way change the work myself and the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, are doing. We recognise the problems with the current system and we are working to create a new department and put in a disability action plan to make things better. It is a very slow process. I can absolutely understand and I know the frustration. I meet families in my constituency every day out canvassing who speak to that. It is essential to say that my intention and the intention of the Government is not to place anything extra on families rather it is to recognise that families do so much and we as a State and Government need to do more to help them. In the three and a half years I have been Minister, we have had the opportunity to discuss the report of the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes on many occasions in this Chamber. We have had many lengthy discussions on the issue. We discussed how it happened and how it was that for decades women, mothers and their children were treated in the way they were. Different Senators had different views. People said it was the State or the politicians, the Catholic church, other churches or society at large – everyone had different views. I like the phrase Senator McGreehan used when she said Article 42 set a cultural norm at the time. I will not place all the blame on Article 41.2. However, central to how women were treated in those institutions was the legal position at the time, namely, that a woman and her child were not a family. That remains the legal position today. A single mother and her child are not a family within our Constitution. They have rights set out in other legislation but they are not a family within our Constitution. It was reiterated in the O’Meara judgment only four or five weeks ago that the family in our Constitution is only the family based on marriage.

Senator Keogan referred to single mothers as primary caregivers in many circumstances. I agree with her on that point. She said we recognise them. However, we have to also recognise that a “No” vote in the referendum on the family is an explicit vote not to recognise one-parent families. It is an explicit statement that such families remain excluded from the definition of the family in our Constitution. That is the reality of what a “No” vote in the 39th amendment on families would mean. On International Women’s Day, I do not believe that is the message we want to send to families outside of marriage, in particular the many thousands of families headed by a woman – one-parent families. We want to bring them in and that is why I will be voting “Yes” in respect of the 39th and 40th amendments.