HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-11-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Adoption (Review) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 21 September 2016.)

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (17:48): I notify the Deputy Speaker that I will be lead speaker on this bill. I rise to speak on the Adoption (Review) Amendment Bill 2016. This bill was the result of a long process. Associate Professor Lorna Hallahan provided the adoption review in November 2015, and this information was then also included in the Nyland royal commission to be considered for future use of adoption through the child protection report.

The Hallahan review was to consider the specific areas, the six main areas, that are also considered by this bill that, in the main, reflects both Professor Lorna Hallahan's recommendation and Commissioner Nyland's recommendation. These areas include, firstly, the removal of adoption vetos. I will go further into discussion on each of these topics. The veto has been removed since 1988 so we have open adoptions, but people who were adopted or gave up a child prior to that time have, every five years, had the ability to complete some forms and request that that veto continue. This bill seeks to remove that right of veto after a further five-year time period.

The second main part covered by this bill is the adoption of a person over 18. The third part is the retention of a child's birth name. The fourth part is same-sex couple adoption, which will be a conscience vote for the opposition. The fifth part is a single person adoption, which will also be a conscience vote for the opposition. The sixth part discussed and considered in this bill is the discharge of adoption orders in certain circumstances.

This was really rushed through. The opposition was notified that this bill was being presented on a Thursday or Friday the week before a sitting week. It did not leave us any time for consultation, or to really consider the paper fully and give it the justice and the consideration that it deserved. However, luckily we have the member for Bragg who, being a lawyer, was able to pull together a party room paper very quickly and help me out on this difficult legal topic, so we were able to discuss this in our party room.

Luckily, it has been deferred for a number of weeks, so I have had time. I had a SurveyMonkey online survey and 150 people completed that survey, which gave me a bit of an understanding of how my community was feeling about these topics. It also meant there was time for me to hear from and follow up with people who had been notified that this bill had now been brought to parliament. Luckily it was deferred, because I had calls from at least six adoptees, or seven I think it was in the end, who were very, very distraught about the thought of the removal of the veto.

After considering the bill and all the feedback that I received, particularly the impassioned pleas of the people who felt very disturbed that this ability and this right could be removed, I had parliamentary counsel draft some amendments, which I discussed with both Lorna Hallahan and the minister, Susan Close, to explain why I felt that we needed these amendments. I do hope that the minister will consider them, because they really are reflective of the views of the people who will be affected. Their lives will be affected.

Actually, there were eight adoptees who contacted me, and to whom I spoke at great length personally, who wanted their right of veto to remain in place. One of the reasons that Lorna Hallahan gave me for including the removal of the veto was that based on the Tasmanian model, which was regarding the discharge of an adoption, so a slightly different area but the same outcome, she felt that, when people were counselled about their wish to extinguish an adoption order, once they had spoken to someone about it most of them did not go ahead with it.

Her thoughts were that, with the counselling of people who are worried about having the veto removed, many of them might change their mind. That is why there are counsellors available. However, for the people I spoke to, that clearly was not enough, and it was really causing them great concern and a lot of upset. I did still pursue the amendments, and I hope that we are able to discuss those and really work through them. I will give you some further background, as we have a few more minutes. The first one relates to the removal of all adoption information vetoes within five years. The survey states:

Currently vetoes only exist for adoptions prior to 1988 and they are renewed every 5 years. This enables all parties, the adoptee, the biological parents and the adoptive parents to choose either to release part or all information, or no information.

Over 150 people responded to the survey, and 65 per cent actually agreed with the removal of the vetoes. However, it is my opinion that the only views that really count in this instance are the views of those people whose lives will be affected by it, namely, the adoptees or the people who have given up a child.

So, although 65 per cent responded, only 30 people out of 150 marked that they were personally affected and, as I mentioned earlier, eight people contacted me directly, and I had long conversations with them. I could really feel the emotion and the stress that they were feeling. I will read some of the responses that were on the SurveyMonkey form:

I believe that my daughter should be able to maintain her right to anonymity. I relinquished her. Whether she wants to know me is entirely up to her.

Another quote is as follows:

I strongly disagree with the removal of vetoes. As an adopted person who has a veto, this proposed amendment has caused me significant distress and anxiety.

Another quote:

The only people whose opinion is valid is the adopter or the adoptee.

Another response is:

I strongly disapprove with retrospective legislation.

Another quote:

This has caused significant distress and anxiety.

Another quote:

I have chosen to veto for 50 years. This is now being taken away. The veto must stay.

Another quote:

I have no desire to be contacted by my biological parents. This law is bloody unfair and does not respect my right to privacy.

You can see that there is a lot of emotion involved in that right. I would be happy to discuss with the minister whether there should be, at least for the first renewal of veto, the compelling or encouragement of someone to actually speak to a counsellor because, as Professor Lorna Hallahan suggested, the fear of the removal of the veto is often bigger than when it is actually done. Like ripping off a bandaid, it is not as bad once it is done. She actually believes that it might be better for them in the long run. However, given the concerns, I think I still will pursue the amendment to retain the right of veto just for the adoptee.

When I was speaking to some of the adoptees, I said to them, 'Don't you want your birth mother or father, because some of them are getting older, to have at least died in peace knowing where you are and that you are safe and that you are well? If you don't want to have contact with them, do you think it would be nice or just kind of you to let them know how your life was, whether you had children, etc.?' That is already available and many of the adoptees I spoke to, who did not want to have contact with their birth parents, have at least put on file that they had a happy childhood, that they are now married with however many children and that they have had a good life, but that they have no interest in getting contacted by their birth parents.

The second part of the bill is regarding the adoption of a person over 18 years and this is anticipated for young people who have been in stable long-term care of a foster family. The survey showed that 65 per cent, or 78 people, agreed with this and it was pretty unanimous. Obviously, if you are over 18, you are an adult and you can make that decision, so I cannot see anything controversial about that.

The third point is the retention of the child's birth name. This refers to the first name being maintained, unless considered offensive or the same as another child in the family, in which case the middle name may be used. 72.6 per cent of people agreed with that idea, so, again, it does not seem that controversial. However, I would like to read into Hansard a few of the comments that came back regarding this section. I quote:

It is never okay to change a child's name, unless the child requests it. Children will acquiesce to adults when they think they have to for their own security, but that does not mean it is in their best interests. When step families form, nobody changes the names of the children if there are two names the same. Families learn to live with it in their own way and sometimes with pet names or use of a middle name.

Another quote:

This should be situation dependent.

Another comment:

This really is dependent on the age of the child. If the child is under six months, you should be able to change the name. A name is an important part of a person's identity.

Another quote:

Why does the adoptee have to change their name if another child in the family has the same name? Consider the child in the existing family changing their name, if necessary.

Another comment:

Again, it makes the child feel they are not really part of the family. My five year old wants our surname and has not seen his birth mum for four years.

That is a person really saying yes to keeping the surname.

Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:29.

Ms SANDERSON: I continue my remarks. Regarding point 4 of the changes to the Adoption Act, same-sex adoption, as I indicated earlier this will be a conscience vote for Liberal Party members. However, 55 per cent of respondents to the survey agreed with same-sex adoption.

A lot of people did, however, question the minimum of five years that the relationship needed to be established for. They also questioned the five-year requirement for single-sex adoption. I believe the reason for the five years is that a married couple is also required to wait five years. There could be consideration at a future time but, whether it be a married couple, a same-sex couple, or a single person, five years is quite a long time.

Also worthy of note, given the number of letters I have received, and I am sure many other members of parliament have also received, are the impassioned pleas to consider same-sex couples and the endorsement of other people of their relationship and that they would be wonderful parents. Unfortunately, this bill does not allow a single extra child to be adopted. Currently, in South Australia there are only a couple of adoptions a year. You cannot adopt any of the 3,300 children who are under the guardianship of the minister who have been removed from their parents; even those under the guardianship of the minister to age 18 orders cannot be adopted at this point.

So, whilst I appreciate all the letters from people recommending same-sex couples whom they know who are keen to adopt, the changes that are being made to the legislation open up the possibility for more people to be able to adopt. However, it does not open up more children to be adopted. That is certainly something I think we should consider in the future because there are certainly over 3,000 children who will never return home and who many would say deserve the right to a long-term stable relationship. Other Person Guardianship certainly could be considered a good substitute at this point, and that is certainly where the government seems to be headed.

The fifth point is the single person adoption, which I have also briefly mentioned. In the survey, only 40 per cent agreed with this, with 22 per cent being unsure. However, many were unsure because of the time period of five years and whether that should be required because that is a very long time for somebody to purposely be single in order to adopt a child. Again, that is also a conscience vote for the Liberal Party. The sixth point is the discharge of adoption orders. This allows an adopted person to restore their birth certificate to only reflect their biological parents. There is some contention about whether there should be a requirement to prove a psychological reason or whether it should be a tick-box form.

In the survey I prepared for online, I gave the choice of, 'Agree with the discharge of an adoption order only with proof of a psychological reason,' and 13.6 per cent of people agreed with that; 'Agree with the discharge of an adoption order with a tick-box form,' and 57.6 per cent of people agreed with that; 'Disagree' was 12.7 per cent; and 'Unsure' was 16.1 per cent. Overwhelmingly, people agree that you should be able to discharge an adoption order and therefore restore your birth certificate to what some would say was your true biological birth and your heritage.

I did speak to Professor Lorna Hallahan on this issue. Her reason for needing to meet with someone and discuss it I did briefly mention earlier in my speech—that is, when people did speak to a psychologist or a counsellor, many of the fears or reasons for wanting to discharge the adoption order were not relevant anymore. Once they had spoken to somebody, many of them did not end up going ahead, so following the Tasmanian model.

Many have reason to believe that they would be happier in their life without any recognition of their adoptive parents on their birth certificate. Many changed their mind when they had the ability to talk that through with someone—their fears were bigger than the reality. It is only done once, so it does not seem that it could really hurt to continue that. Even though, from the survey, more people were happy with a tick-box form, there is not a lot to be gained by removing it, so I have not adjusted it.

Another issue that was brought up a few times was the right of veto, for which I have already submitted amendments, to allow the adoptee to continue their right of veto. For the adoptive parent from whom the veto will be removed—and I am not challenging that it all—instead of the five years, as is the case at the moment, from now that will last five years. There is the ability to have counselling and talk that through, but in five years' time the adoptive parents will not have the right to veto.

Some people are asking, 'What if the parent dies in that time period?' and saying that perhaps a veto should end on the death of a parent, rather than in five years' time—for example, if there are property settlements or, if before they die, somebody says that they want to split their wealth between all their birth children, yet one child has not been notified of the parent's death because there is a veto that lasts another five years. Perhaps that issue could be considered. I did have that drafted; however, I have not sent it through, but I suggest that the minister perhaps considers it.

The Hon. S.E. Close interjecting:

Ms SANDERSON: Yes, maybe we can discuss that because it does seem quite sensible. It is a bit late to find out five years later that there is a property settlement or that there was a funeral to attend. I certainly have welcomed the minister's ability to take my call to chat about my amendments. I look forward to working on what I think is an important piece of legislation in the future.

Ms COOK (Fisher) (19:37): I thank the minister for bringing this really important piece of work to the house. I rise today supporting the adoption review bill. It is an issue that is very near to my heart, as I am a person who was adopted as a newborn. This bill, as I see it, will allow more flexibility for the rights of adopted persons, so I wholeheartedly support the measures, particularly around the information that will become available to people who are adopted and the importance and focus that we place these days on knowing one's life journey and story and the ability to pull that together.

I will not repeat discussions about all the areas in the bill that are changing. Rather, I will focus on three, which have been pointed out by the member for Adelaide also, that are particularly difficult to understand or deal with and may create some issues for people moving forward, and I will just speak to those. The first part I will talk about is the veto section, the repeal of section 27B, which provides for the issuing of vetoes.

Under current arrangements, vetoes are available to each party to the adoption—the adoptee, the birth parents and the adoptive parents—who may place the veto that can be renewed. The bill provides transitional arrangements, including that all existing vetoes will continue for five years from the commencement of the amendments. I do understand this timing. After that five-year transition period, all vetoes will expire and cannot be renewed. I support the member for Adelaide's discussion around this question of five years and wonder whether we should have some more debate on that moving forward, which we could do during the committee stage.

I want to talk about my experience in relation to the issuing of vetoes and provide a little bit of a different perspective as a way of raising awareness of the impact that the veto provision has had, historically and moving forward. Throughout my whole childhood, I had a sense of difference. I always felt during any time at family functions that I was searching for someone who might be there or was not there. To clarify that, I am going to tell you that I was never told that I was adopted. As a child, I had this feeling of not fitting in and of being very different.

It is difficult to hide the fact that you are built a bit more like a Viking or an Amazon when you are in a family of English roses who are very small. As I grew older, and continued to become more and more athletic—and I can say these things now because my parents, my adoptive parents, are not around to hear them, although, depending on what you believe, I might have a terrible night's sleep tonight—I used to have to manipulate some bits and pieces of the truth as a teenager in order to perhaps attend the netball trials rather than the library, or compete in the swimming carnival rather than catch up on some homework, if that makes sense.

That is about all I will share on that little venture, but you understand that I was a very different person from the family I was living with, even though I was incredibly loved and provided with absolutely the best childhood I could have had. I knew there was something different. Moving ahead, when I was 29 and already had had my own child, by chance—and this could be a comedy routine or a very serious book—I ended up at my mother and father's house to drop off some items because they were going to pick up my son for school. They were to be wrapped and given to my husband for a birthday, that whole babysitting situation.

Even then, my parents were a little bit older. I was out at the car, ready to head off to work after dropping off said presents, and the phone rang inside the house. I said to my mum and dad, 'Just wait, I'll run.' I ran into the house and picked up the phone, and the story could take an hour, but basically the consequence was that it was my birth family trying to track me down. It was, 'Do you know your sister?' 'Yes, my sister, Julie.' 'No, your sister, Melissa.' I said, 'Well, I don't have a sister Melissa,' so you can see that this story could take some time.

If anyone wants to sit over a late sitting dinner, perhaps I could share more, but the crux of it is that I did not know that I was adopted. I was 29. I always felt like I was not quite fitting in, the square peg in the round hole, even though life was perfect. I paid my husband out for having half-sisters and brothers all over the place and my family was supposedly normal. I found out that I had been adopted. My parents had not told me.

When the act was put into place around vetoes, my mother became the 'sitting on the esky protester' outside the member of parliament's house because how was her daughter to put a veto in place when her daughter did not know that she was adopted? Her daughter did not know that she could put a veto in place—and that daughter was me. With confidence but without any empirical data, I would say to you that I am not the only person in South Australia who has no veto on their name and who is an unknown love child, very loved by a family, although not their birth family.

I would say that there are many other people in the same situation. I have had friends who did not find out that they were adopted until they were well into their 50s or older. That type of person exists. This removal of the veto will not affect that type of person either. My point is that you cannot please everybody, or comfort everybody, within a bill, within a piece of legislation. I am just saying that there is another group of people who perhaps did not see your survey and possibly have not given input to that.

From my point of view, while the veto seems like a nice shield for something that is too difficult to talk about, particularly for older people who have given up their children, out of love and nothing else, who want to protect their children who are now much older, I actually think that there is a time in our community when we need to face that the right thing to do is to know your life journey. A piece of work needs to happen in the department (I love to use those words 'the department') that will support and contact those people who may be in the same boat. There is another piece of work that needs to happen, and I am just saying that I do not know what amendments might benefit. At this point, I would say that I support how it is written, but again I would be interested in hearing further debate.

The second part I would like to refer to is the provision for single people to adopt on a par with couples, providing for a prescribed period for the amount of time a couple has been in a qualifying relationship or the amount of time a single person has not been in a qualifying relationship, that tangled piece of discussion. I want to say up-front that I support that absolutely, 100 per cent. I will absolutely be supporting it because it is very difficult for me to stand here in judgement of a single person who, again out of love—and adoption is a huge commitment—will care for and give so much time to a child they want to bring into their care and make that different just because they are a single person versus a couple.

Single people do not make this decision lightly. We currently have provisions for single people to adopt children who have a disability, so this is already allowed in South Australia. We already have that. Disabled young people are extremely vulnerable, some of the most vulnerable people in our community, and this is already allowed, so why would there be any question that we would not put in a provision to allow a single person to adopt and find a loving place in their home for a child without a disability who just needs a family?

What is a family? A family can be made up of a whole range of different combinations. I have some beautiful friends who are single out of choice because they may have tried relationships and have not found the right person. I know that there are people in this house who are single because they just have not had luck or do not want to have a partner. Why should they be excluded from being a loving parent to a child who needs a place in their home? I would absolutely fight for that and hope that people can understand that.

The third part I would like to talk about relates ostensibly to the capacity for same-sex couples to adopt. Again, I find it difficult to stand in judgement of a couple who are committed, dedicated and loving and able to provide a stable home to a young person who needs a family. I hang in those circles where people are in same-sex relationships and would like to offer a home to a child and they have jumped hoops in order to be able to parent a child.

I think that we are now more open-minded towards diversity in sexuality, gender and family forms than we ever have been, but there is still a portion of society that philosophically has difficulty grappling with the notion of same-sex couples, let alone allowing and encouraging same-sex parenting. I am not one of those.

I encourage people to take the time to meet with, talk to and watch parents who are parenting in same-sex relationships. I particularly refer to people such as Penny Wong and her amazing partner, Sophie, whose children's names are Alexandra and Hannah. There is also the beautiful story of Elise and Sally, whose son, Tadhg, has visited this very chamber many times. I also have dear friends, Leah and Sam, who are the most amazing parents to Will, who has Down syndrome, and Noah. I sit and watch their parenting practices and I am absolutely gobsmacked by their patience and their ability to communicate without talking about the needs of their children in that situation.

I cannot for one minute wonder why we would not want people who need a loving home to be able to be formally adopted into the home of a same-sex couple. I want to quote something I read online. Dr Simon Crouch, from the University of Melbourne, did some research and found that families with same-sex parents, both men and women, were tighter-knit than traditional family units. 'Family cohesion is actually better in these families,' he said. One-third of Australian women in same-sex relationships have children and 11 per cent of gay men are dads.

'Children can be raised successfully by gay parents but still we face social stigma,' a Brisbane mum of two, Suzanne Michaels, said. Miss Michaels married her partner, Shannon, in Canada and they have two daughters. She said:

In our home there is no gender division of chores.

Hallelujah for that. She continues:

We parent equally, we share the care of our girls. The nurturing role is doubled up and the kids are very much loved but there is no doubt that we have to constantly talk to our children and prepare for the social reaction to them having two mums. We try to instil in our girls that families come in all shapes and sizes and that's okay. Anyone who thinks that lesbians and gay men are raising their children to be gay have no understanding that you cannot influence a person's sexuality or identity. Neither Shannon nor myself are particularly feminine in the traditional sense—

ditto that—

but our daughter is a real princess who loves all things girly. It's just how she is.

A civilised society should not stand in the way of same-sex couples adopting or being recognised as adoptive parents. Again, I say those lines about all these progressive choice issues: it may not be your choice and you might be a bit uncomfortable about it as well, but please do not obstruct the capacity of our parliament to make a sensible and sound choice based on fact, based on evidence, by pushing views that have no empirical foundation at all.

I understand, and I feel very sad for people who have that philosophical belief. It must be frustrating for them to have that view and to have progressive things happen around them. But, please, that is okay for them, but do not stop children from being loved by the appropriate parents. With that soapbox, I conclude my remarks.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (19:53): I rise to speak to the Adoption (Review) Amendment Bill 2016. I want to make a few comments about adoption generally before I go to the heart of the bill. I note that between 1990 and 1991, 103 adoptions took place in South Australia. This figure includes all known international figures and local figures. In 2014-15, there were only 17 adoptions; however, the statistics indicate that 14 of these were intercountry adoptions.

Australia's total adoption numbers for 1990-91 were 1,142 and in 2014-15 this figure was 292. I know there is a big population difference, but if you compare us with adoptions in all states of America the number of adoptions for 2015 was 5,647.

In South Australia, as of 31 July the number of children under 18 years of age in out-of-home care was 3,249; children in foster care was 1,276; children in kinship care 1,451; residential care was 276; independent living was 34; commercial care was 212. The total number of children placed on orders for 2015-16 was 1,480, the total number of children placed on 12-month guardianship of the minister orders was 469, and 2,529 children were placed on an 18-year order.

Adopting a child in South Australia is a four-step process and may take up to two years from the initial expressions of interest. The steps are as follows:

step 1—you have to go through an initial screening and expression of interest;

step 2—you have to make the formal application and assessment;

step 3—allocation and placement; and

step 4—the time after the adoption order is made.

There is also quite a range of fees associated with adoption. If you want to lodge an expression of interest it is $551; an application for registration as a prospective adoptive parent is $725; a family assessment report is $705; and placement of a child is $352. This totals $2,333. Many people who make applications do not become successful due to the lack of children.

The point I want to make here today is that there are obviously issues with child protection, but there are also issues of people in this state already—before we change the adoption legislation, as we are looking at doing here today—who are seeking to adopt children, but you can see that the numbers have greatly decreased over the years from what was happening over 25 years ago.

There have to be some reasons for that, but I happened to have a conversation in the hairdressers, of all places, when an ex-customer came in and was quite open about what they had done. They were talking to the hairdresser and included me in the conversation (I identified who I was). They said they were so keen to go through an adoption process in this state but there was just no child available for them to adopt. They managed to find a lovely child from Thailand, but they were willing to do something here in this state.

When we look at the numbers and issues we have with children in state care, children in foster care, children in kinship care, children with other person guardians, I think there is a lot of work that we need to do as a state to get adoption right. Some of it gets back to what happens around child protection issues. I know there is a policy to keep children with their families and their parents. It is a noble policy, but so many times it falls over. I know there have been apologies made in regard to the forced removal of children from their parents, and I do not think that is the right way either. However, I think there has to be some middle ground where we see children growing up in an environment that is very damaging to their upbringing. I think they get left too long, quite frankly, with the natural parents and they are damaged for life.

I state that I am not a child expert, but picking the time when perhaps it may be better for that child to be placed into a loving home, when I am sure there are thousands of people willing to give that child a loving home, must be a very delicate matter—a very, very delicate matter—if the department and minister were to go down that path. I know for a fact, from people who work in the education department as school services officers, that their job is to just supervise one of these poor damaged children. It is their full-time job to look after them.

When something goes pear shaped—for example, when the child assaults other children or assaults the school services officer—there is a real problem and a squad of department people go out and see what is going on. I am not saying that it is not difficult, but we need to find a way to get some equity in the system so that these children have the opportunity to grow up around some love and care. Yes, it will be difficult perhaps to find that, and it might take some courage, but I think we need to find a way. I am a bit stunned at the lack of children who have been available for adoption because there are obviously a lot of people who would like to adopt children in this state.

In regard to the Hallahan review into adoption, some of the key recommendations talk about children's rights. The recommendation was that the act should incorporate a wider statement of principles and objectives about adoption being about the best interests of children, to emphasise children's rights. Absolutely, every day of the week, I agree with that.

Then we have same-sex couples. The recommendation is that the Adoption Act should change so that same-sex couples can apply to adopt a child. I think this is clause 12, which is a conscience vote on our side of the house, and I will not be supporting this. I do not support same-sex marriage and I do not support same-sex adoption. I know some good people who have children who are in same-sex arrangements but, in the broader principle, I think we have a lot more work to do in the field of a man and woman adopting a child before perhaps we head down this path.

Obviously, when we are very much in single digits in a year (I think it was three), we have a lot of work to do in getting more children into adoption. In regard to the recommendation around single people applying to adopt a child, I note that the recommendation states:

Single people can already apply to adopt a child, but the report recommends that the rules about single people being placed with a child only in special circumstances should be removed.

I do not support this either, as a conscience matter. I represent a conservative electorate and I think that we have a long way to go as far as a man and woman as partners and that we should be making a better regime around them having the ability to adopt, rather than venturing further. The recommendation on adoption information vetoes states:

Adoption information vetoes prevent the release of identifying information to another party to the adoption. The report recommends that adoption information vetoes be abolished and phased out over 5 years and that contact vetoes are not introduced.

I must say that I have had correspondence either way with regard to this, and I am interested in more of the debate around vetoes. It is obviously a very personal issue and I certainly respect the comments from the member for Fisher on vetoes, having been personally involved. I think unless you are personally involved, you probably do not really know the full extent, especially if you do not even know that you have been adopted.

In regard to the recommendation to the adoption of adults, the Adoption Act does not currently provide for adult adoptions. The review report recommends that adoption of adults should be allowed. This would mean that adults may be adopted by people who brought them up for most of their childhood, such as foster parents and step-parents. In regard to a recommendation around keeping a child's original first name, the report recommends that when a child is adopted, the court that makes the adoption order should ensure that the child's original first name is kept except in exceptional circumstances.

In regard to birth certificates, the report recommends that an adopted child's birth certificate should provide the truest possible account of the biological parentage of the child. If this recommendation is acted upon, it would mean that in most cases, an adopted child's birth registration details will include both their parents and their adoptive parents. Any certificates issued would ensure that it is clear that the adoptive parents are the legal parents of the child. In regard to the recommendation around the discharge of adoption orders, the report recommends that a law is introduced to enable a court to discharge or undo an adoption order in certain circumstances, such as where the adopted person has been abused in their adoptive family.

In regard to the legislation, this comes about after Associate Professor Lorna Hallahan provided the review a report in November 2015. The Nyland royal commission also considered the future use of adoption by means of child protection, and the Nyland report came down in August 2016. The government have indicated that they have incorporated all recommendations from the Hallahan review except one. Recommendation 7, which was not included, deals with parental consent in respect of children in care and thus is likely to be considered in response to the Nyland royal commission and rewrite of the Children's Protection Act 1993.

I think we have a long way to go in regard to adoption and there is a whole range of issues that need to be debated. In regard to the replacement of the definition of 'marriage relationship' with 'qualifying relationship' throughout the bill, according to the minister's speech when this was introduced:

Qualifying relationship means 'the relationship between 2 persons who are living together in a marriage or marriage-like relationship (irrespective of their sex or gender identity)'. This supports the adoption of children by same-sex couples, which will be subject to a conscience vote by Government members.

I will certainly not be supporting that. I spoke earlier today about the Relationships Register Bill. I think everyone needs to have a serious look at this legislation. As I indicated earlier, we need to do a lot of work in relation to adoption. We need to cut red tape and we need to make it far more accessible. We need to assist foster parents.

I take my hat off to foster parents. You have to be courageous in a range of ways to be a foster parent. I have spoken in this place before about constituents who have come to me who have had infringements of the law placed against them by foster children years later. It is a very distressing situation for foster parents, when they have done their best for so many years, bringing up many children for decades, to be picked up from their property like common criminals and placed under arrest, having to wait for two years for a court case. Whether you are innocent or guilty, it is far too long to have that hanging over your head when you have been doing your best for the state and the community.

It is a scary scenario that I have seen several times too many. It is a scary situation for people to be in, especially if they feel that they should not be in that position. We have certainly had some wins in here in the past. With Finn's Law, I worked for 19 months to try to get better arrangements around the rights of foster parents, to get their name on the death certificate of a child in their care and also to get some rights around the burial of a child. I reflect on the time it took to do that piece of legislation and put it through this place, and I appreciate everyone who negotiated with me, especially several ministers and the senior ministerial staff I work with. I really appreciate it.

However, I see other bills that we have been debating recently in which, if they go through—and it seems they will go through much more quickly—there will be changes to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act. It makes me wonder. Early on in the debate and negotiations in relation to Finn's Law, a lot of barriers were put up: 'No, we can't do this and we can't do that,' but obviously things can be done. I salute everyone who assisted me, and certainly the current Minister for Education and the Attorney-General were a great help in that regard.

I think there is a lot that we can do when it comes to foster children, whether it is other person guardians taking that next step or the like, but I think we certainly need to take a much bigger step when it comes to adoption so that we can help many more children. There is obviously a need for that in society. We need to make some courageous decisions at times. We need to do the best we can for our children because they are the future of this state, our community and our country and I believe we owe it to them.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (20:13): I would like to make a small contribution to this debate. In doing so, I would like to acknowledge that I have relied on some work undertaken by my eldest son, Raffaele, who has actually had some experience in this area as a law student. One area of the bill that I am particularly interested in commenting on deals with the discharge of adoption orders. One of the things we have been grappling with as a nation over the last few years at a state level, in Victoria and in other states, and also nationally, is the issue of sexual abuse of children, and a number of inquiries have been established to look into those matters. My son points out in his publications on this topic:

…the shared objectives of these inquiries is to ensure that those who have been victims of sexual abuse are provided the recognition and support necessary to rebuild their lives; physically, mentally, and emotionally. The critical question [he poses] faced by these inquiries is: can the law help or provide for healing.

The role of the law in remedying these situations can provide criminal sanctions, but for many this does not produce the sense of healing they seek. Sometimes the law can only go so far.

The issue is whether it is within the capacity of a child to have an adoption order discharged when the relationship with the adoptive parents has broken down, in particular in those situations that involve sexual or other abuse, and whether the law can be used to enable that person to heal further. He expresses the view that in some circumstances:

…there may be scope for the law to have an active role in providing for that healing that people seek. This may particularly be the case for those who have been the victims of sexual abuse perpetrated by adoptive parents.

He states that under the current law:

At present the law provides that a court may discharge an adoption order if the order was obtained by fraud, duress or other improper means. Unless an adopted child can demonstrate to a court that the adoptive parents acted in such a manner so as to obtain an adoption order, then it cannot be discharged at a later date.

This is regardless of how important the discharge of that order may be to that adopted child. Also, the forced continuing relationship between the adopted child and adoptive parents can be damaging to that person's healing and ongoing growth. He goes on to say:

The adoption law of South Australia as it stands curtails the healing process of those affected by the sexual abuse of their adoptive parents. While the law is not often analysed in terms of its scope of healing, a unique opportunity exists for it to take on this role. Where possible, the law should be amended to lessen the pain, and promote the healing of people.

I believe that in relation to this part of this bill that can be achieved. The bill does provide for an adoption order to be discharged, and a couple of questions arise when an adoption order is discharged by a court, which is provided for in this bill, and I would seek some clarification from the minister in the committee stage. I am aware that under the provisions for the discharge, from memory the bill says that when a court orders a discharge it can basically put the situation as if the order had not been put in place.

One of the things the New Zealand Law Commission recommends when an adoption order is discharged is that the court shall be required to state the effect of the discharge, choosing between and adopted person becoming parentless according to law, or otherwise a member of their birth family. It will be interesting to see how this will be acted upon in this jurisdiction, given that, as I understand the provision, it is left open to the court to decide how far it goes with any further orders. It is very important that in discharging an order we do not make a person parentless because that certainly would not be helpful to them.

The recommendation of the review that has given rise to this bill will go some way to better enabling the healing of those who were sexually abused by their adoptive parents. It would also offer them an opportunity to break the remaining legal links that would otherwise bind them to a traumatic past. Why would we enable a discharge between adoptive parents and adopted children when you cannot if you are the birth child and the birth parents? Associate Professor Hallahan makes it very clear.

My son made a submission to this inquiry before Associate Professor Hallahan. Where the state has blundered in effecting an adoption, that places a child at grave risk and the state should have the power to undo such arrangements. In other words, the reason that the state intervenes in enabling an order to be discharged is essentially that the state intervened to have the order created in the first place. The new provision for adoption orders to be discharged by the court on the ground that it is in the best interests of the adopted person takes into account their rights and welfare, and I think this is worthy of support.

While there is a whole range of other areas which I am sure will be ventilated in this place, I do not intend to repeat all the provisions. As I indicated, my interest in this bill has been motivated by my son's involvement and his submission to the inquiry and also his ongoing interest in this matter. It arose from a case he dealt with when he was a law student, when he assisted a young woman who had been sexually abused by her adoptive parents. Under the current law, she was bound to them. With those few comments, I look forward to the committee stage of this bill.

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (20:21): I rise this evening to offer my wholehearted support for this bill. In doing so, I thank the minister for bringing it to this house, and I also acknowledge all the speakers on this bill. It has been wonderful to hear them all talk about their desire to make sure that this bill is absolutely focused on the provision of loving care for all our children. I really hope that that is what unites us, that sense of purpose of wanting to ensure loving care for all our children, particularly our most vulnerable. I hope that unites us through this debate and helps to bring us to a very positive resolution in relation to this bill.

The Adoption (Review) Amendment Bill builds on the important work that was implemented by the Adoption Act 1988. At the time of its introduction, this legislation was crucial to reinvigorating and commencing a new discussion and, from that discussion, developing a more nuanced and deeper understanding of what adoption means within our society. Making the shift from closed adoptions to open adoptions was a watershed in terms of identifying and responding to the rights of the child and to refocusing how adoption should be undertaken to improve the wellbeing of our children. This of course marked the beginning of that journey, but it is a road that we still have a distance to travel upon.

The original act, as we have heard, allowed for individuals whose adoptions had been completed after the act had come into force to access identifying information when they reached the age of 18. For adoptions that occurred prior to this act, there was a provision to access information under specific circumstances, although vetoes remained in place. These changes represented the beginning of how we as a society started to lift the veil of secrecy that had surrounded adoption policies in South Australia. The Adoption Act also allowed for the expansion of who could adopt. It included and allowed for those in heterosexual de facto relationships to adopt, as previously only married heterosexual couples could adopt. So, I repeat that this piece of legislation represented an important beginning of a journey that is not yet complete.

Whilst there are provisions for the review of sections of the act via public consultation processes, this last occurred in 1997. I also reiterate the minister's comments on the importance of the report on the national inquiry into the Commonwealth Contribution to Former Forced Adoption Policies and Practices that was tabled in the Senate in 2012. The contents of this report spoke to an important exercise in reflection both federally and in South Australia. I was incredibly moved when our Premier delivered an apology in this house on the 18 July 2012. I was equally moved when our then prime minister, the irrepressible Julia Gillard, apologised on behalf of all of us for these past forced adoption practices.

In short, the times, they are a-changing. This is a shared journey of developing an opening-up and an honesty around the adoption practices within our community. It is for this reason that our state government commissioned an independent inquiry in 2014. Associate Professor Lorna Hallahan undertook this inquiry. She is a prominent academic from our very own Flinders University who consults on ethical practice related to vulnerable people reliant on complex human services.

Her research encompasses child protection and adoption practices, and only last week she presented a paper reflecting her findings to our community sector at the Australian Centre for Community Services Research's annual Research to Practice Forum, which this year had a focus on the Nyland report and child protection. Through Associate Professor Hallahan's review, which incorporated far-reaching community consultations, a number of recommendations were developed that have informed this bill.

I am proud to support the proposed amendments to the act. Whilst the minister has detailed the key amendments to the act, there are a number of amendments I would like to speak to specifically. As part of realigning how we consider adoption as being part of a whole-of-community response to child wellbeing, I am immensely proud to see amendments that speak to qualifying relationships and single person adoption and amendments that seek to protect the identity formation of adoptees.

On the first point, the replacement of the definition of 'marriage relationship' with 'qualifying relationship' means that we are making the important step of supporting same-sex couples who wish to adopt. Through 'two persons who are living together in a marriage or marriage-like relationship (irrespective of their…gender identity)', we are fulfilling not only an important recommendation of the review but we are also presented with the opportunity to progress further down the road of inclusivity and openness that we tentatively began in 1988.

By embracing this path, we are rightly embracing and including many loving same-sex couples whose rainbow families should absolutely be included in every aspect of community life. This journey, which started with the expansion to de facto relationships in 1988, is about how we can best represent the interests of children in our state, particularly vulnerable children. We need to do all that we can to promote inclusivity and a sense of belonging in our society. These are concepts, along with openness and an acceptance of diversity, that work hand in hand with developing and improving child wellbeing within our communities.

By making this change, our state government is yet again reaffirming its commitment to removing all discrimination from South Australian legislation on the basis of sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and intersex status. This will also bring our state in line with other jurisdictions across Australia. On the second point, allowing single people to adopt equally, extends adoption practices to reflect the diversity of family and family formation in modern-day South Australia. Families in our community are a rich tapestry that represent a diverse constellation of different formations. Our adoption laws need to be equally representative of this richness that already exists within and across our community.

Having been brought up largely in a single-parent family that, despite some of the most difficult circumstances, was strong, loving and resilient, and working with and for so many similarly comprised families in my own community, it is crucial that we include these families, that we give them equal respect and dignity and that we recognise their deep capacity for love and loving environments. It is worth repeating the minister's comments that, with the passage of this bill, same-sex couples and single people who wish to be considered for adoption will need to pass the same extensive suitability requirements as different-sex couples.

On my third point, on the importance of identity formation for adoptees, it is heartening that there will be provisions for the retention of a child's original first name. There will be exceptions for name changes in specific cases, but the overall intention is to retain an anchored sense of identity. This is something many of us take for granted. Part of our sense of being and belonging is informed by where we come from and who we are born to, and it is only right that we put in place amendments that will limit secrecy around an adoptee's earliest formations of identity and belonging.

Repealing section 27B, which will result in the expiration of information vetoes after a five-year transition period, is an important part of this. Whilst undoubtedly this may be a difficult process for some members of our community, it is terribly important that we move towards a more open adoption process with the needs and wellbeing of the child at the centre. Associate Professor Hallahan made it quite clear in her review that closed adoption practices exacerbate 'lifelong identity informing impacts'. Indeed, as part of her presentation at the Australian Centre for Community Services Research last week, she drew on article 21 of the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states:

…the paramountcy of all children's best interests in all adoption arrangements and details minimum requirements for adoption procedures.

Paramountcy means that the child's best interests outrank and trump all other considerations; it is a non-negotiable consideration. To quote Associate Professor Hallahan:

Adopted children have the right to know that they are adopted and to know the identity of their biological parents.

Herewith lies the foundation for open adoption. It is evident that we have travelled a long road to get to where we are today. We, in this house, can now move to vote for this bill and to bring this journey, if not to an end, at least to a most significant of milestones.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: A quorum not being present, ring the bells.

A quorum having been formed:

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (20:33): I have some concerns about this bill. A number of issues with the bill concern me, but let me first of all apprise the house of the attitude towards adoption in South Australia in the last period, and when I say the 'last period' I am talking probably about the last 20 years.

A constituent some years ago was endeavouring to adopt a baby out of China, and they came to me because of the frustration they had encountered over a number of years. The frustration was with the relevant agency in South Australia that seemed hell-bent on preventing this couple from adopting a child. Eventually, after some intervention by me as their local member I would like to think (whether or not that was the case, I do not know), they were able to adopt a little girl from China. A couple of years later, they endeavoured to adopt another child from China and things were back to square one.

The reality is that it appears that very few children come up for adoption in South Australia. I suspect that there is a significant number of families who want to adopt children, people who are incapable of having children themselves, which was the case for my constituents. The reality is that in this day and age, with the medical technology that is available, families do not necessarily come to the point where they see adoption as the only opportunity for them to have a family until quite late in their life.

One of the excuses used by the agency in South Australia to this particular couple was that in this case the husband was considered to be too old; from memory, he was 47 and his wife was a little younger. Again, in the way that our society operates these days, a lot of couples do not choose to have children of their own until they are well into their mid-30s or early 40s. Things have changed. When I was a young man, I left school and went to university, and in growing up and making my way in life, most of my peers and I married in our early 20s to mid-20s and then had a family and probably completed having a family at least by our early 30s. There has been almost a 10-year shift at least in the time frame that young people and not so young people choose to have their family.

The plight of this particular couple brought to my attention, in the first instance, the fact that very few children in South Australia are available for adoption and that there seem to be many more families who wish to adopt children. On thinking about this matter, and on thinking about the bill, I might be howled down on this attitude, but I look at the evolution of our species in a very fundamental way. As a species, we have been incredibly successful. A significant part of that success is the way that we have been able to organise ourselves in social units, particularly in family units.

The one thing that separates the human species out from every other species on the planet is that the human baby needs to be nurtured for a considerable period of time. I am not talking days or weeks; I am talking years. I am not talking just one or two years; I am talking about many years. There is a correlation between our success as a species and the amount of time it takes to nurture a human to become viable on their own.

The reality is that the reason we are so successful is that we have a huge brain compared with the rest of our body. The reason it takes so long to nurture and the reason it takes many years to grow and develop and mature is so that a child can actually support its head. No child will start to crawl until they are at least 12 months old. They cannot actually hold themselves up. They cannot learn to walk until they are over 12 months old because they physically cannot hold up their head.

So, a child needs the total support of the parent for at least 12 months before a child can even sit up or crawl, or even attempt to walk, but you need many more years of nurturing before a child can become viable on their own. It is the social structures that came hand in hand with the growth in the brain size of the human species that enabled us to evolve into the species we are now, so in my opinion the social structures that enabled that to happen are very important. Without those social structures, I do not believe we would remain viable as a species.

Some would contend that there are more important things, that being able to have a good time is much more important, but the experience of my life has taught me that every species on the planet has designed its life cycle to promote itself as a species. It seems that our super intelligence has almost gone too far, where as a species we think we can manipulate the way we operate as a society to the point where we can increase our personal pleasure, or instantaneous pleasure, without threatening the ongoing existence of our species. I do not accept that premise.

Let me just pause for a moment in my argument to say that we do not have everything right, in spite of our incredible intelligence, and we need to do some serious things. The most serious of these is to curtail the growth in our population as a species on this planet to sustain ourselves into the future. Notwithstanding that, to maintain ourselves as a viable species we need to be cognisant of the reality that the social set-up we have developed over hundreds of thousands or millions of years has been incredibly important; in fact, we would not have developed into the species we have without that social structure.

We come in here today and suggest to ourselves that the fundamentals are not that important, that we can play with the fundamentals that underpin the development and sustainability of our species, that we can play with them because of the wants and desires of some and not threaten our society or our species. Again, I cannot accept that premise.

People will argue, and hold up as an example, that there are many families who have produced offspring where one of the parents, through accident or disease, becomes deceased and the remaining parent has to raise that offspring. That happens. As the old saying goes, it takes a village to raise a child, and until quite recently the village did raise the child; not just the parents but also the grandparents were intimately involved in supporting the babies that were brought into the world.

In today's age, we have people, through the vagaries of life, having to raise a child as single-parents, etc.; there are all sorts of families now. I think for us to suggest that that is ideal is a nonsense. To my mind, the ideal situation is that a child has the opportunity to be raised and taught by both a mother and a father, whether the child is a male or a female. I think that is important. I believe we have created problems in our society because, even in our primary schools, we have a preponderance of female teachers and not an even balance.

A number of our children go all the way through primary school never having had the experience of having a male teacher. I think that is an indictment on our society. I think every child—every child—should have the opportunity to interact in every facet of their learning with both men and women. Obviously, there are problems, and that is a different argument, that have mitigated against particularly young men putting themselves forward to be primary school teachers. In my opinion, that is very sad because it detracts from the opportunities the children of our society have.

This legislation promotes a situation where we would have children, for a myriad of reasons, grow up without the opportunity of being raised by their natural parents, without the opportunity of being raised by their biological mother and father, but they may have the opportunity to be raised by a loving mother and father, a loving couple, who want to take them on as their own. For us to suggest that those children could just as easily be raised by a single-sex or a same-sex couple I think denies the reality of where we have come from as a species and denies the reality of the importance of children being influenced by a mother and a father. I think that gives the best opportunity to children in our society.

For us to put children who are already disadvantaged because of the circumstances of their biological parents at a further disadvantage by being taken up for adoption by a same-sex couple and denying them the opportunity to be raised by a loving mother and father is a travesty. I started by saying that my experience suggests that there is a paucity of children available for adoption in this state when compared with the number of families, loving couples, males and females, who would want to adopt a child for us to turn around and open the door for same-sex couples to adopt these children who, as I suggested, are already suffering a disadvantage.

I can only imagine the psychological disadvantage that those children suffer as they go forward in their life and come to the realisation that for some reason their biological parents gave them up for adoption. In many cases, I suspect that those particular children are disadvantaged because their parents find themselves in a situation of total dysfunction and are not capable of raising them. It is my belief that as a state we should indeed give those children the very best opportunity that we can.

I do not believe that there is a shortage of loving male-female couples who would be desirous of taking on those children as adoptive parents and raising them in a loving household. I am not suggesting that same-sex couples might not provide a loving household; do not get me wrong. What I am saying is that, by adopting this legislation, we would deny those children the opportunity of having a mother figure and a father figure in their life, and that does concern me. It concerns me that we would accept this principle for no other reason than to try to be seen as progressive. As I said, I do not believe there is any shortage of potential adoptive parents for the children who would find themselves in need of such a family. I cannot support this particular piece of legislation.

Let me now turn to the part of the legislation that would remove the veto powers that have been in existence in this state for I think close on 30 years. I have never been a fan of retrospective legislation. If this was brought on as a prospective measure I might have some sympathy for it, but as a retrospective measure, I have no sympathy for it. We find that there are a number of people, both parents and children, who for one reason or another find that they have either as the parents given up a child or as the child been given up by their parents. They have had a different path in their life than might otherwise have happened.

The circumstance in many cases—I would suggest in most cases—were tragic. I cannot imagine a couple having a child that they willingly gave up, but I can imagine many situations where a young mother has found herself absolutely incapable of taking on the responsibility of raising that child. In my experience, I think the power for people in that situation, whether it be the adopted child or the parents who gave up the child, to have a veto is very important. Because of the retrospective nature of this particular measure, I certainly cannot support it either.

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