Bills

Adoption (Review) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 2 November 2016.)

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (15:37): The Adoption (Review) Amendment Bill, which I rise to support, is one of a series of bills the government has put on the table to test the conscience of the members of this parliament and to force us to look deep within ourselves at some of the most serious and fundamental questions parliamentarians can deal with. I, for one, have chosen to dive as deep as I can into these issues, realising that, whilst maybe they were not the first and foremost issues that I thought we could and should be dealing with, now that they are here it is incumbent on each of us to make an informed decision.

The bill comes as a result of a review done by Professor Lorna Hallahan PhD and, whilst the review looks to the operations of the act, the real problem I have with the review is that it was quite narrow. It looked at technical aspects of how adoption works, but it did not look at adoption in a more broad sense, except where the professor puts her views fairly and squarely on the record. At 1.3.2, she states:

The latest statistics show a steady decline in adoption in Australia over the last 30 years. Based on what I have learned throughout the review via consultations and the current literature, I state clearly here that I think this is a good trend.

So, she has put very clearly in the opening outline the fact that she does not support adoption as a viable method, or at least she supports it in much more limiting circumstances, and I think that is a real shame. It is a real shame because I think it then makes presuppositions further down the course, except, of course, where the professor then goes on to say that, even though she does not agree with adoption, adoption should do anything other than be decreased in its use; she would like it opened to more forms of people.

I cannot stress strenuously enough that there have been significant wrongs done in the past when it comes to adoption practices—huge wrongs. This is an extremely sensitive topic, perhaps one of the most sensitive topics, and the bonds that parents should and do have with their children, regardless of their ability to look after them or other issues and complex needs that they have, do exist. Where governments have been insensitive, even though they may have had good intentions and acted in ways that have not been sensitive to that bond, mistakes have been made.

I know that this parliament in 2012 stood up and tried to do what it could to right those wrongs and to give an apology and ask for forgiveness from those who have some awful stories as a result of practices that governments did, and we need in this place to learn from those mistakes. We must ensure that we do not repeat history, and that is why we as parliamentarians need to look into the history of these things to ensure that we are fully across these issues when looking forward.

However, the issue that I have is that we can learn from the mistakes of these issues in times gone by. We are a more evolved society, and I think that we are mature enough to be able to tackle this issue with courage and to take a new look at the use of adoption within our society. I firmly believe that adoption is a legitimate process, a legitimate tool in the toolbox not only of the government but also of individuals and families in finding loving and stable homes for children who are in otherwise in more adverse circumstances.

I think sincerely that, especially where the government has sought a guardianship order to be under the care of the minister, and in those situations where children are going to be in the care of the government until they turn 18, the use of Other Person Guardianship or the use of adoption are legitimate forms to be able to provide better outcomes for children. If indeed, as I talked about earlier this morning, the government is serious about looking after the best interests of the child, I would contend that being able to place a child with two loving parents in a more permanent and stable environment and a more legally secure environment has to be something that we can look at and do so in a way that does not in any way denigrate or take away from the past wrongs that have been committed.

I want very briefly to talk about a friend of mine I spoke to recently who was adopted at a very young age. I know her to be a wonderful, loving parent and somebody who is a great friend and lovely person to be around, and one would not know looking at her that she came from an adopted family. She shared with me her experiences, the fact that she has had a great adoptive experience and that if adoption had not been an option for her that she would have spent her time going through the foster care system and that that almost certainly would have had more adverse outcomes than she did.

I know that this is not always the case, but it can be the case, and for reasons that I will detail later I think that the stringency with which getting on to the adoption register is used I think is extremely valid. Adoption in Australia has been reducing at a very quick and significant rate. In fact, my office got together some statistics on adoption in South Australia versus Australia and it shows that in South Australia in 1989-90 we had 174 adoptions and then in 2013-14 we had only 15 adoptions. That is basically saying that we have less than one-tenth of adoptions in South Australia than what we had 25 years ago.

At a national level, we have gone from just under 1,300 adoptions in 1989-90 to only 300 now, so a reduction of 75 per cent. Interestingly, in New South Wales, the reduction has only been 50 per cent, so it does say to me that some states are making different decisions when it comes to how they use adoption as a form of providing a family unit for children who otherwise cannot stay with their biological parents.

The two contentious parts of this bill are around gay adoption and single parent adoption. It is interesting that in this review the professor says, 'I think that the reduction in adoption is preferable and a good trend but I still want adoption to be opened up to different forms of parental relationships.' Before I make further comment on those two issues, I would like to go to the Adoption Regulations 2004 which say that if a couple want to be put onto the adoption register, the chief executive must order for an assessment report to be undertaken as soon as possible and have regard to the following factors:

(a) the parenting skills or potential parenting skills of the applicant;

(b) the capacity of the applicant to provide, throughout the child's childhood, the standard of care necessary to safeguard and promote the physical, intellectual and emotional welfare of a child of the kind in relation to which registration is sought;

(c) if the applicant has the care of any other child—the effect that may have on the welfare of an adopted child or on the applicant's ability to care for an adopted child;

(d) the emotional warmth, maturity and stability of the applicant;

(e) the physical and mental health of the applicant;

(f) the capacity of the applicant to deal with difficult or stressful situations;

(g) in the case of a joint application—the length and quality of the relationship between the applicants;

(h) the economic position and financial management skills of the applicant;

(i) the criminal record (if any) of the applicant;

(j) the nature of the childhood experiences of the applicant;…

(l) the attitude of the applicant to children and in particular to the discipline of children;

(m) the attitude of the applicant to the status of an adopted child, to the birth parents of an adopted child and to an adopted child's access to information about the child's origin;…

(o) the motivation of the applicant to adopt a child;

That is most, but not all, of the things that an assessment report needs to have regard to. Can I say that that is an extremely exhaustive list of questions that people need to answer in order to get on the adoption register. I am not in any way suggesting that is inappropriate but I am suggesting that this is extremely rigorous. This gives me confidence that, if you can get onto the Adoption Register, you are much more likely than the average potential parent to be a good parent.

I look at some of these things and struggle to see how I would answer them and whether or not my answers may or may not be viewed as appropriate by those who have to consider that assessment report. As I said yesterday, there are those who are conservative and therefore understand what they think. I am not one of those. I understand who I am, and it just happens that most of the time I end up being a conservative. Conservatives would say that a loving mother and father combination provides the best form of upbringing for a child.

To a large extent, I would agree with that, when we are dealing in the abstract and averages and numbers. But this bill before us does not ask us to look at things in the abstract. It actually asks us to look at things in a real and personal way, and I would say this. It is not about the averages. It is not about looking at society as a whole. We are talking about a very specific cohort and subset of society, and that cohort has had to jump through a huge number of hoops in order to get onto the adoption register.

If you are a gay couple or a single parent who can pass these tests, I think you are much more likely to be a better parent than parents in the situations that these adopted children would have potentially come from, whether that be from poor financial circumstances overseas, parents who are incapable of looking after their child or, indeed, a foster care system (which, as we have seen over many years, has not provided the best outcomes in all situations to children); and, surely, this has to be a better answer. If we are genuinely here to think about the best interests of the child, if a highly vetted, loving gay couple wants to adopt a child, surely that has to be better for the child than sitting, potentially, under the guardianship of the minister or the other circumstances in which they find themselves.

I will not be seeking to have a vote on the two more controversial elements of the bill. If there is a division called, I will be voting in favour of those provisions because we must be consistent in looking at the best interests of the child and we must look at the practical aspect by asking: is what we are seeking to let children come into better than where they come from? If the answer is yes, everybody needs to look in their heart and realise that this is a worthwhile measure to support.

The other aspects of the bill—that is, vetoes and the application of the act—I am not an expert in, and I certainly cede to the experience of those who have put forward submissions on this bill because they are the ones who have lived those experiences. But I would plead with the government to allow us, as a parliament, to find ways to find better outcomes for children and let us not use our previous wrongs and fear of looking again at issues that need to be ventilated, based on previous prejudice, to not allow adoption to be used in circumstances where it is appropriate and necessary and in the circumstances where it can provide for better outcomes for children.

Please let us have the courage to ventilate the issues that exist around it and, in conjunction with GOM18, Other Person Guardianship and permanent foster care arrangements, let it be another tool in the toolbox to ensure that we get the best outcomes for children that we can and have the consequence of having better, more well-adjusted, contributing members of society. Providing that better outcome for those children will in turn provide better outcomes and ease of government in potentially not having to interact with these children later on in life. Hopefully, they will have better, more independent, fulfilling lives and government will not need to continue to try to support these people if they turn out with more complex social, economic and health issues as a result of having gone through a more inferior childhood upbringing.

With those words, I am happy to support this bill in the parts that seek to have an honest conversation about adoption in South Australia, but I implore everybody to have the courage to think about what is in the best interests of the child, even if that means that we must have some difficult conversations in order to get there.

Mr DULUK (Davenport) (15:52): I also rise to speak on the Adoption (Review) Amendment Bill 2016. I will make a very small contribution. The path to the legislation before the house has been a long, emotional and, in many cases, painful journey for the many people who underwent adoption in the pre-1988 era of closed adoption practice. I have no doubt that when the original legislation was debated, and subsequently enacted by parliament, it was done with the very best of intentions for the children who would undergo adoption, for the parents who would surrender their children and for the families who would welcome those children into their homes.

However, sometimes best intentions do not reflect best outcomes. Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of members of parliament, the interpretation, application and effect of legislation can have unintended consequences. It does not matter how many changes you propose to make to a bill, or the extent of efforts to strengthen its intention, perhaps even reintroducing it in another form, sometimes the very people legislation intends to assist and protect are actually the ones hurt most by the decisions made in this house and those of the other place.

The extent of the hurt and suffering of those who were adopted in the closed adoption era was first brought to my attention by a constituent of mine. Her courage to share her experiences as an adoptee with me is to be commended, as is her passion for change in this area. What really struck me from the first meeting was her excitement at being issued with her first ever identification in her birth name—something most of us would take for granted. Having undergone a closed adoption, her original birth certificate was cancelled and a second birth certificate issued with a new identity.

It is an identity that continues to be recognised legally, meaning that she has no choice but for her passport, Medicare card and driver's licence, amongst others, to carry her legal name as listed on her second birth certificate. But, for her, this is not her identity: it is not her name, it is not her parentage and it is not a recognition of her ancestry. To finally receive a means of identification that carried her birth name was an enormously significant moment for her and one she is very proud of.

Whilst I would never propose to fully understand the personal cost of adoption, I am grateful to have been provided with such a personal insight. To this end, I was very pleased to see the inclusion of discharge of adoption orders in this legislation. It is a positive step for my constituent, and the many others who feel as strongly as she does, that the right to discharge the adoption order be available to adoptees. The ability to return to their birth identity is a momentous step in their personal journey.

I acknowledge the concerns that exist in regard to the court-ordered investigation into the circumstances relating to an application for a discharge, and I am sympathetic to fears of the potentially intrusive nature of such an investigation and a fear of being pathologised, but I am mindful that access to extensive case management may provide crucial support for some adoptees in carrying out this decision. The lack of detail surrounding the structure and requirements of a court-ordered investigation has certainly heightened the fears of those opposing this provision.

Efforts to ensure a fair and transparent process would help to ease their concerns, and this is something that could potentially be explored going forward, I hope. The ability to discharge an adoption order is certainly an important step towards righting the many wrongs that transpired as a result of the original legislation. Let's hope that the unintended consequences that resulted from the Adoption Act 1988 serve as an important reminder for us all in our consideration of other legislation before this house.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Minister for Education and Child Development, Minister for Higher Education and Skills) (15:57): While I will speak extremely briefly and will continue when we have more time, I do want to grasp this opportunity to thank everybody who has made a contribution. Every speech I have heard has been thoughtful and considered, as befits not only this chamber but the issue itself. As the member for Schubert said, this is one of the most emotive and sensitive issues that this state, the government, can deal with—that is, the parenting of a child and the parentage of a child. I am grateful for the quality of the contributions that have been made. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.