Adoption (Review) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 November 2016.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (11:08): I rise on behalf of the Liberal Party to indicate our support for this bill, save that I should highlight to the house that one issue in the bill is a conscience matter for our party: that is, the issue of qualifying relationships. The Adoption Act 1988 was a landmark piece of legislation that significantly reformed adoption in terms of introducing what we generally know as 'open adoption'. Since that act was enacted, and in fact even before, we have seen a significant decline in the use of adoption in Australia. The Hon. Justice Nyland in her report noted the following:

Since the 1960s, adoption Australia wide has decreased steadily. In 2014/15 there were 292 adoptions registered across Australia, the lowest number on record, and a 74 per cent fall from 1142 in 1990/92.

Her report goes on to state:

The neglect of adoption as an option for children in care undoubtedly relates, at least in part, to issues arising out of the Stolen Generations as well as past practices of forced adoption.

This bill before us is what I would describe as a once in a generation reform of adoption law, and it has been informed by three significant reports. The first is the commonwealth inquiry, which in February 2012 focused on the adoption practices of the past that forcibly separated thousands of Australian children from their mothers. In 2012, the South Australian parliament apologised for that period. The other two significant reports are the 2014 adoption review by Associate Professor Lorna Hallahan and, to a certain extent, the 2016 report of the Child Protection Systems Royal Commission, the Nyland report.

These reports have informed this act, and let me relate them back to the Adoption Act 1988. The Adoption Act 1988 was a landmark piece of legislation in that it introduced open adoption, as I said, which means that parties to adoptions that were completed after the act came into force could have access to identifying information about each other once the adopted child turned 18 years of age. This bill repeals section 27B, which provides for the issuing of vetoes. The bill provides that a person whose veto expired at the end of the transition period may make a statement of wishes about contact with other parties to the adoption. This particular element of the bill was one of the most controversial.

The honourable member for Adelaide, the shadow minister for child protection in another place, in her community consultation found very strong views from people involved in adoptions in terms of the operation of the veto. In the House of Assembly, through the work of the honourable Rachel Sanderson, working with minister Close, an amendment was moved by the government. Through the work of Rachel Sanderson, the honourable member for Adelaide, and on behalf of the opposition, the government amendment was accepted.

Another element of the Adoption Act 1988 was that it changed the definition of marriage in the act to include de facto relationships, extending the right to apply to adopt a child to established couples not legally married. Likewise, in a parallel sense, the bill before us today also addresses that issue, but goes beyond the issue of heterosexual de facto relationships to also pick up same-sex relationships.

The bill was amended in the other place to remove a government provision which sought to extend the right to adopt to single persons. As I said, the Liberal Party has a party position to support those elements of the bill, save qualifying relationships, which is a matter for the conscience of each member. I indicate that I am considering the issue of the threshold in terms of the bill providing that for an adoption to be executed it needs to be in the best interests of the child and, basically, be the measure of last resort. Personally, I raised with minister Hunter why we need the second part.

There is universal support for the concept of paramountcy of the best interests of the child, and my view is that the second part of that provision is not helpful. So, I would flag that and, in further consultation with the government and with my own party, I will consider whether or not to file an amendment. With those few words, I indicate that the Liberal Party is looking forward to further consideration of this bill.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (11:14): I rise to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague, the Hon. Mr Wade, who, as he has indicated, is the Liberal Party's lead speaker on this bill. I will not seek to add to his quite comprehensive remarks on the substantial provisions of the bill, but I will indicate my own position on clause 5 of the bill, which is a conscience vote for members of the Liberal Party and, I understand, equally a conscious vote for members of the ALP.

I have thought long and hard about opening up adoption to those in qualifying relationships, essentially same-sex adoption. In considering this proposition, I have gone into the consideration for the rights of prospective parents and the development of an adopted child. I have had discussions with the Hon. Susan Close, the Minister for Education and Child Development, and I thank her for those conversations.

I put on the record that had the amendments moved in the lower house not been passed, namely, to involve the eligibility of single individuals to adopt a child without court intervention, I would have been less keen to support this bill. However, in the form that it has come, not that I agree with the member for Newland on a great number of things, I do think that in this case it has made the bill a better one. I indicate my support for clause 5 of the bill.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (11:17): I rise to make a few brief remarks on this bill. It seems to me rather odd that, while same-sex adoption has been endorsed by the other place, the clause relating to single-parent adoption was voted down. If we are here to address perceived forms of discrimination, why then does this bill address the discrimination in a half-hearted way? My opinion is that you either support extended adoption in full to single parents and all couples or you leave it as it is, to heterosexual married couples.

As members would know, with lifestyles these days, everyone is really busy, it is pretty hectic. There are people in our community who, for various reasons, because of their employment or their family situation, may not have the opportunity to form a relationship with someone. It may come to a point where, eventually, these people may want to experience motherhood or fatherhood, but because of this bill they are discriminated against on adoption.

What the bill is saying is, 'No, because you are single you are not entitled to experience motherhood or fatherhood.' This bill really forces this person to go out and form a relationship with a person who they may not like. It is rather odd that we try to fix a form of discrimination, but then, on the other hand, we discriminate against this type of single person.

I remember a few years ago I watched a documentary on television from the US. There was a female executive earning big bucks and she had a very busy life and never had an opportunity to have a relationship. When she got to her mid-40s, and getting closer to her 50s, she found it really hard to have a relationship with anybody because of her lifestyle and her work commitments. However, she would have loved to experience motherhood and have a child.

To cut the story short, she ended up having an adoption somewhere—I cannot remember whether it was overseas or within the States—and she said that was the best thing that had ever happened to her. So, I find it a bit odd that the other place has voted down a clause that allowed single parents to be able to adopt.

Obviously, some conservatives argue the idea that a family is between a mother and a father and other people feel that parenthood has to involve two people. As I outlined earlier, there are good single people out there, but because of their lifestyles and family situations—they might have been looking after their elderly parents, or sick parents—they have never had the opportunity or time to have a relationship with anybody, and they have come to a point where they want to have a child, but they cannot. I will watch with interest in the committee stage to see what the amendments are before I can decide how to vote on this bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of the Hon. J.M.A. Lensink.