ADOPTION (RESTRICTIONS ON PUBLICATION) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (17:34): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Adoption Act 1988. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (17:34): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Some time ago, I began by acknowledging that this week is National Adoption Awareness Week and I was privileged to meet with Liz Peter and other adoption advocates such as Janine Weir in the lead-up to this week.

This bill comes as a result of those meetings and many other discussions concerning the frustration felt by families who have been involved in the adoption process and the current very restrictive laws that revolve around the process. In fact, the current sections 31 and 32 of the South Australian Adoption Act prevent birth parents or adoptive parents and, indeed, adoptive children from being able to identify themselves in the media in South Australia as having been adopted.

Members are probably aware that I have a personal interest in this matter in that my wife was adopted and my father was also adopted many years ago. So, this is a matter of particular personal interest to me as well.

This bill specifically implements several interstate initiatives to reverse that rule in cases where the parties to an adoption all consent—and that is the crucial point here; they all have to consent to their details being published—making it easier for parties to an adoption to tell their important stories and breaking what I feel is the unreasonably enforced silence demanded under the current legislation. Section 31 of the Adoption Act provides:

A person who publishes or causes to be published in the news media.

(a) the name of a child, or material tending to identify a child in relation to whom proceedings have been taken under this act or any other Australian law that substantially corresponds to this act;

(b) the name of a parent or guardian or material tending to identify a parent or guardian of a child in relation to whom proceedings have been taken under this act or any other Australian law that substantially corresponds to this act;

(c) the name of a party or material tending to identify a party to a proceedings under this act or any other Australian law that substantially corresponds to this act,

is guilty of an offence.

This section carries with it a $20,000 maximum penalty. Section 32 is also onerous in many situations. It states:

A person who publishes or causes to be published in the news media material to the following effect:

(a) that a person desires to enter into negotiations with the parents or guardians of a child with a view to adoption of the child;

(b) that a person has a child that he or she desires to place with adoptive parents is guilty of an offence;

Maximum penalty: $20,000.

The simple purpose of this bill is to change that I think quite ridiculous situation. If the parties are in agreement that they can be identified or feature in a news article explaining what they see as the advantages of adoption, assuming no-one is in disagreement involved in the situation, why should they not be able to do so? Why should they face a penalty of potentially $20,000 for doing wrong at all, in my view?

Whilst some forms of restriction may be necessary to protect the identity of parties while adoption proceedings are in process, the current wording of the provision is working to prevent parties to adoptions from speaking publicly about their adoption experience or even publishing their memoirs. In many circumstances people applying to participate in the adoption process are also barred from telling their story to the media, as I have suggested.

I assure the council that I have heard many such stories in my dealings with people during the drafting of this bill. They are indeed powerful and uplifting and sometimes heartbreaking stories, and they deserve to be told. There are cases where things have not gone as well as would have been hoped during the adoption process, and these stories should be told also so that other people considering adoption can benefit from the wisdom of the process. There are many positive and up-lifting stories that have never come to light as a result of this very silly law. Indeed, it is the view of Family First that these are important stories to be told and the freedom to speak is the first step in shedding light on ways to improve the adoption experience or highlight the benefits of the experience as it already exists.

In recently meeting with a group of adoption rights advocates it was made clear that this law in particular upsets and angers them and prevents them from telling their stories, which is their heartfelt desire in many cases. One representative who spoke to me said that she was told by a senior officer at Families and Communities that, despite the law in sections 31 and 32, no-one has ever actually been prosecuted, and parties to an adoption would be unlikely to be prosecuted for speaking to the media, despite the fact that clearly it is illegal to do so under the act. Nevertheless, the constituent remarked to me that the fact the law remains on our books does nothing to alleviate the fear of penalty or feelings of being offended, upset and angry that remain within the South Australian adoption community.

Members may be aware that New South Wales recently made sweeping changes to its adoption laws in 2008, which included the redrafting of section 180, which allowed discussion with the media in cases where there is consent by all parties. This bill is modelled almost word for word on the recent New South Wales amendment. Section 121 of the Victorian Adoption Act has also had the ban revoked. This legislation is similar to what we have seen enacted in Victoria and New South Wales, so why should the South Australian adoptive community face the disadvantages that apply under the current act? This bill will fix it once and for all. It is very late in the session and it is unlikely the bill will pass both houses in the current session, and for that reason I will give members forewarning that I will reintroduce it early in the next session.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I. K. Hunter.