HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-07-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ADOPTION (CONSENT TO PUBLICATION) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 19 June 2013.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (17:29): I rise to speak in favour of this bill and, in doing so, I am pleased to see that members in the other place right across party lines are resolved to pass this bill. As it now stands, South Australian parents who have adopted a child must first obtain permission from the chief executive of Families SA or a court to have themselves or their child identified in the media as parties to an adoption.

While the legislation has the benign intention of protecting the privacy of adoptive families, it intrudes on the right of adoptive parents to make decisions about the welfare of their children. Although a fine has never been served in relation to this act, failing to seek approval from the chief executive could warrant one.

The government considered these matters relating to the Adoption Act and regulations that the member for Morialta brought to the House of Assembly. Additionally, an intercountry adoption parents support group, the South Australian Chinese Adoption Support Association, has lobbied for change. The amendment that was passed in the other place aims to enable families to make decisions about being published in the media without being required to seek consent from the chief executive.

In 2009, through the national Intercountry Adoption Harmonisation Working Group, under the auspices of the then community and disability services minister's advisory council, South Australia agreed in principle, along with all other jurisdictions, that all Australian adoption legislation should allow parties to a legally completed adoption to give their consent to be identified. This amendment settles that agreement. In relation to the media provisions in the Adoption Act, the government supported an amendment to section 31 so that:

any adult party to a legally completed adoption may consent to being identified in the news media as a party to an adoption;

where the adoption is legally completed, an adopted child can be identified in the news media as such, provided consent is given by the parents or legal guardians of the adopted child; and

where any child who is placed with prospective adoptive parents but who is still under the guardianship of the chief executive (for example, where the adoption has not been legally completed), approval to be identified in the news media as a party to adoption proceedings must be granted by the chief executive or the court.

This amendment reflects the chief executive's role as guardian during the processing of an adoption application and the changing nature of the word 'guardian'. It also preserves the safeguards during the process of changing guardianship while ensuring that, once an adoption is complete, families are no longer required to seek permission from the chief executive or the court. The decision will be in the hands of those best placed to make it: the child's parents. I commend the amendment to the council.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (17:31): The Adoption (Consent to Publication) Amendment Bill aims to correct an unfortunate anomaly in the law. Children are, of course, the future of our nation. Whilst adoption is becoming increasingly rare, it remains an important process that deserves support. I have a personal understanding of the issues surrounding adoptions as both my wife and my father were adopted I make that statement with some hesitation as it is not completely clear that the present law allows me to publicly state this, although I understand that I have protection. This hesitation makes it clear in my mind that this law is in need of abandonment and substantial change.

It is a matter of concern to Family First that the number of adoptions is in long-term decline. In the year 1987-88, there were 416 adoptions in South Australia. In 2011-12 there were just 24, which is a decline of some 94 per cent. Of those 24 adoptions, 23 were from overseas countries and the other one was adoption by a relative. In other words, no children were offered for local adoptions in South Australia in the 2011-12 year. The state government website mentions various reasons for this, including the option of abortion that so frequently occurs where the pregnancy is unwanted or unplanned.

The government website also gives some information regarding changes in attitudes as to the identities of children being made public. It says that from the first adoption legislation in 1926 until 1966, there were no provisions preventing the fact of adoption from being made public, and information was often shared. However, from the 1960s adopted children were often brought up without being told that they were adopted. The fact of adoption was likely kept secret, as it was in the case of my father until he was in his teens. In line with that prevailing view, the restrictions were enacted in 1966.

The website goes on to state that in the 1980s people's attitudes changed and many believed that the child should be told of the adoption. It also says that people came to understand that a birth mother did not simply forget about the child after giving birth but often thought about the child after adoption and at times suffered ongoing grief about the loss of the child. Today, medical science is coming to a much greater understanding of the extent of the grieving process that occurs after the loss of a child. Indeed, there are even physiological effects.

The provisions requiring the fact of adoption to be kept secret were well intentioned at the time they were enacted but, as the proponent of this bill has explained, situations do arise where public disclosure is appropriate. The example he gave in his contribution was of adoptive families at a public rally about the adoption process. The rally concerned adoption procedures, so it was clear that the children present were likely to have been adopted. However, if the parents had allowed any adopted child at the rally to be identified in the media, they risked a $20,000 fine. This is just silly. The present law allows a court or the chief executive of Families SA to grant an exemption. This bill allows the family to make that decision.

If the child is over 18 years, that child can decide, as they should, otherwise the parents can make the choice, and this is appropriate. Family First supports this bill, which gives powers to parents to decide what measures are appropriate for their children, rather than having to seek a decision from a government official. We commend the member for Morialta in the other place for introducing this bill and look forward to its passage.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:35): I rise briefly to again welcome this bill and indicate that the Greens will support it and to commend the work of the member for Morialta in bringing this before us. I was certainly pleased that he held a forum, open to all members of parliament, and certainly at that forum you could not help but be persuaded that not only was this an issue that needed addressing but that it needed addressing urgently and in fact was far overdue.

Simple celebrations of children's achievements could not necessarily be put in school newsletters. Parents were afraid to post pictures on Facebook, and certainly where a child was able to be a performer in a well-publicised event—a festival or a musical where they were performers—there was great uncertainty for those families about not simply complying with the law but an inability to celebrate the great achievements of those families. With those few words, I commend the bill to the council.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (17:36): It is a great day indeed that all parties come together to actually agree on a sensible measure. I place on the record my sincere thanks to all honourable members for their interest and support for the Adoption (Consent to Publication) Amendment Bill in the Legislative Council. In particular, I especially thank the Hon. Kyam Maher, the Hon. Dennis Hood and the Hon. Tammy Franks for their contributions. By giving your support to pass this bill to amend the Adoption Act 1998, we join with Mr John Gardner, the member for Morialta, in taking a strong stand for freedom of speech by removing the gag rule against adoptive parents talking publicly.

I extend my heartfelt congratulations to the member for Morialta, Mr John Gardner of the other place (he is in the chamber at the moment), and also to the many advocacy groups, including SA Chinese Adoption Support Incorporated for its persistency in a long, hard campaign to rally for this important issue. They now can look forward to a positive outcome.

The intent of the bill is clear: to amend section 31 of the Adoption Act so that we have the ability to provide reassurance to all loving parents, including those who adopted children, that they have a voice and are free to contribute to public policy and debate without fear of retribution. It is indeed wonderful to know that honourable members have agreed that parents are best placed to make decisions, when it comes to the welfare of their children and families, and not the government. It is great to see that, finally, South Australia will now remove this gag rule, which will place us into line with the rest of the nation. I support the second reading of the bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.S. LEE (17:40): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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