HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-03-21 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ADOPTION (CONSENT TO PUBLICATION) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 7 March 2013.)

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:33): I support this measure and I commend the member for Morialta for bringing it before the house. I confess I did not realise that there was a penalty of $20,000 that could be imposed on someone revealing the birthplace or other details of a child who had been adopted. My understanding is that this provision—what is a very harsh penalty—does not apply in other states. When you have a situation where the parties involved are agreeable to have it mentioned publicly and reported publicly that a child has been adopted from another country, or locally, I do not see any reason why there should be any penalty whatsoever.

With any issue that involves adoption, or any matter similar to that, clearly one should have regard to the feelings of the particular individuals. I guess the original intention of the penalty was to protect a child and family where someone had been adopted, but I think it is ill-conceived in terms of its harshness. I commend the member for Morialta for this bill because I think it is an enlightened approach, and I will be supporting it.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (10:35): I rise to support the bill that has been put forward by the member for Morialta, and I congratulate him on doing so because there are many examples of circumstances where couples have adopted children, and have gone overseas to undertake those adoptions, and when they come back here there is this rather bizarre situation where they are not able to publicise in any way, shape or form the fact that they have adopted this child who is going to be an Australian citizen, part of their family and part of the community, and will be for a long time.

Not to be able to have a photograph taken with your adopted son or daughter because of a fear that it may in some way identify that adopted son or daughter as having come from overseas, not to be able to use their name for publicity photographs for very worthwhile causes—as we have seen, and the member for Morialta has given examples—just seems to be absolute nonsense.

I do not understand sometimes the bureaucrats who work in this place, seemingly sitting behind a shield of anonymity, and who keep in place a situation that is clearly outdated. With modern technology, we are not looking for a picture in a paper all the time; it is on social media, it can be instant, and it can go around the world. So, for people who are involved here to go interstate or overseas and then be quite within the law to state their circumstances, and for that to appear in South Australia on those social networking websites, just shows how ridiculous the situation is.

I am sure there are many other examples of where this outdated piece of legislation can be shown to be exactly that—outdated, outmoded and out of time. I support the member's bill, and I hope the rest of the members in this place do so as well.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (10:38): I also rise to support the member for Morialta in this bill. I am lucky enough to have families in the electorate I serve who have lived through this experience of adopting young people from overseas. But, instead of any level of apprehension existing, there is a welcoming aspect that is always portrayed in the community. That is why it is rather frustrating to me, when I see the commitment that is made by the family and the young people and the community around them to be totally inclusive, that there appears to be a level of legislation that makes it difficult to promote, to be proud or to make others aware of it.

We live in a very politically correct world now, but this is an example of where a level of decision-making has gone a bit mad and over the top in some ways. The member for Morialta has been directly contacted by families who are impacted by this, as I understand it, and I have read his research paper on it prior to the bill coming in. There is a very strong level of support for a change to the regulations and the bill that actually control this issue, and I think it is important that the parliament recognises that. If we do not debate this sort of thing in here—and we do not have a willingness to allow our society, which is a very multicultural one, to be all-inclusive and to be proud of itself and to promote itself—this is an example of a need for an act to change.

It might not get the vote today, and I am frustrated by that. I hope that all the major parties would be in a position to form a position on it and for a vote to be held. I am particularly pleased that there is a level of support from the crossbenchers on this issue because it is an appropriate change that can only be a good thing. We often debate in this chamber things that are very much based around political and philosophical points of view. This is one that is driven by a community need for change, for an improvement to happen. So with those words, I just want to confirm, as do other members who have spoken on this, that it really is time for a change and that, by doing so, we are going to demonstrate our practical support for the families that have lived and grown through this experience. The community that they are part of has also grown through it. I commend the member for the bill.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (10:40): I also have a few brief words to say. I congratulate the member for Morialta on bringing this up. It is certainly something that needed to be brought to the fore and dealt with. I sincerely hope the government will support this bill; it is only appropriate. It probably appeared to be the right idea at the time it was put into place, but it seems somewhat archaic now. I think it is a step in the right direction if we can get support across both sides of the house. It is a sensible way forward for South Australia.

I have constituents in my electorate who are in this situation, and I would be pleased to be able to go back to them if this bill succeeds and say, 'Yes, it's gone through the house. It's been successful,' and hopefully it will be successful in another place as well so that South Australia can move forward and so that we can hold our heads up with pride.

We have actually done some good work in this place to make life easier for a lot of other people. I just find the current situation blatantly ridiculous, it is absurd. How it came into place, I do not know. As I said, many years ago it may have seemed the right thing. It is the same as when Aboriginal children were put into homes: it seemed the right thing at the time, but now it seems to be something entirely different. So I again congratulate the member and indicate that I will be supporting the bill.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (10:41): At the risk of repeating what has been said, I want to congratulate the member for Morialta for bringing a matter I did not know about to the parliament. I was not aware of it. It behoves all of us who have children—and it is the joy of life to have children, and we feel very sorry for those who cannot have any—to make the process much easier and encourage people to adopt children, for their own sakes as couples but also for the children. I think this is a matter which ought to be put to the vote now. I cannot see how anybody in this house could oppose this bill. I think that it is quite draconian that the law has remained like this as long as it has. Without any further ado, I congratulate the member for Morialta for bringing this matter to the house and I encourage the house to pass it forthwith.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT