HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-06-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ADOPTION (CONSENT TO PUBLICATION) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Second reading.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (18:00): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

It is my pleasure today to rise and make a contribution to the second reading of the Adoption (Consent to Publication) Amendment Bill in the Legislative Council. This is a bill for an act to amend the Adoption Act 1988. I place on the record my heartfelt congratulations to the member for Morialta, Mr John Gardner, in the other place for his persistence and compassion in introducing the bill. He and the many advocacy groups were delighted that the bill was passed in the House of Assembly last sitting week.

I was at the briefing with advocacy groups organised by the member for Morialta regarding this bill. I commend Mr John Gardner, the member for Morialta, for taking a strong stand for freedom of speech by removing the gag rule against adoptive parents talking publicly. For the interest of honourable members in the chamber, currently parents in South Australia who have an adopted child are prohibited from being identified in the media unless they first obtain permission from a court or from the chief executive of Families SA. Failure to do so can result in fines of up to $20,000.

We all agree that protecting the privacy and confidentiality of a child and their adopted parents is fundamental. However, the South Australian Liberals believe that caring parents are best to make decisions when it comes to the welfare of their children and families and not government. South Australia is currently the only state in the nation where this gag remains in place. The South Australian Liberals are committed to ensuring that all parents, including those of adopted children, have a voice and that they are free to contribute to public debate and policy development without fear of retribution. That is why we are seeking to amend section 31 of the Adoption Act.

As it currently stands, section 31 of the Adoption Act states that any person who publishes or causes to be published in the news media the name of a child or the name of a parent or guardian or the name of any party or material tending to identify any of those people relating to proceedings under the Adoption Act is guilty of an offence with a maximum penalty of $20,000. Any reasonable people will agree that caring parents and loving families are in the best place to make decisions relating to their lives and wellbeing, not the chief executive of a department.

The core issue we are arguing or dealing with here is that exemption currently rests on the decision of the chief executive of the department or of a court. This bill will seek to amend exemption to be provided by the parent or the child themselves when they are over 18.

I congratulate the member for Morialta on his tireless work in bringing this matter to parliament and for supporting the campaign by the South Australian Chinese Adoption Support Inc. I first became aware of this important issue when Mr John Gardner, the member for Morialta, was successful in getting the government to change the measure to enable Chinese adoptees to be granted birth certificates. Until last year South Australian regulations did not allow South Australian birth certificates to be supplied because adoption had taken place overseas. I was very excited for the Chinese adoptees who are finally able to have birth certificates.

A Chinese media company contacted me wanting to interview the families about their experience. I spoke to the member for Morialta about arranging a possible interview and photo session of adopted families celebrating the change of legislation. It was then that I found out about the gag rule. I was shocked to find out that the parent community was unable to talk about their positive story in the media. Even though the parent community had won the battle of getting birth certificates for their adopted children from China, they could not talk about the impact that had in their life. This type of so-called protection from the media by the government just does not make sense. These families should, rightly, be able to make decisions about whether or not their child appears in the media—for example, in a photograph for a newspaper or magazine—just as other parents do.

I would like to acknowledge the South Australian Chinese Adoption Support group for presenting the community case against section 31. One of their campaign ads on their website, with the title 'Free speech for adoptees and adoptive families', says:

Not everyone in Australia enjoys equal rights to voice their opinion in the media. Adopted individuals and their families living in South Australia face $20,000 fines if they identify themselves in the media without the express permission of the department. If you believe this law is wrong then please help us to change what we believe is a highly discriminatory and damaging situation. Use your voice to help those who have been silenced.

Well, Mr President and honourable members, we are the people who have a voice to speak up and make the necessary amendment to section 31 of the Adoption Act.

The member for Morialta has already outlined the many compelling arguments against section 31, and I think it is important for honourable members in the Legislative Council to be aware of them. The list includes the following:

it restricts freedom of expression;

it impacts on parental rights;

it is inherently discriminatory;

it is unnecessarily paternalistic;

it limits transparency and accountability;

it compromises the integrity of government;

it instils fear in the community;

it damages relationships;

it does not protect enough from the media; and

it has allegedly been misused in the past.

As the member for Morialta pointed out in his speech, this alleged misuse in the past stems from 2005. Although this provision has been in place for more than 20 years, it really only came to light in the public arena in 2005, when the government took over the operation of all overseas adoption processes from a non-government private agency and brought them within the then department for families and communities. Outraged adoptive parents were told that if they spoke out against this and were identified, they faced a $20,000 fine.

The member for Morialta has provided me with a copy of The Advertiser article, dated 18 February 2005, which states:

Masked protestors gathered on the steps of parliament yesterday to voice their concerns regarding proposed changes to adoption laws. The threat of a $20,000 fine for identifying parents or adopted children meant protestors had to cover their faces in front of the media. The crowd called on the state government to overturn its proposals to incorporate adoption services into a government department.

The member for Morialta, in his comprehensive and passionate speech, outlined many cases of injustice and discriminatory actions faced by adoptees and adopted families. I encourage all honourable members to reflect on his comprehensive findings, case studies and contribution by referring to the Hansard.

This bill, the Adoption (Consent to Publication) Amendment Bill 2013, is very simple. It has one effective clause. As it presently stands, South Australian parents who have adopted a child must 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 adoption. The state Liberals believe that an application to the chief executive is bureaucratic and only serves to make those loving adopted families feel like second-class citizens, unable to make timely and spontaneous decisions about the welfare of their children as other families do. The fact that failure to seek this approval can result in a fine of $20,000 is particularly unreasonable.

We are pleased that the government has considered a number of matters relating to these aspects of the Adoption Act the member for Morialta has brought to the House of Assembly. The member for Morialta has accepted those government amendments to section 31, which include:

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, approval to be identified in the news media as a party to adoption proceedings must be granted by the chief executive or the court.

The amendment by the government preserves the safeguards during the process of changing guardianship whilst ensuring that once adoption is complete, families are no longer required to go through the process of asking for permission from the department or the court for their child to be identified in the media as an adopted child.

As the member for Morialta has pointed out, this bill is long overdue. The House of Assembly has passed the bill and now it is our turn in the Legislative Council. This bill is necessary because it will bring us into line with the rest of the country and it will give loving families in our community of free speech the right to make timely decisions about the welfare of their adopted children, just like any other families. I commend the Adoption (Consent to Publication) Amendment Bill to the chamber and ask for members' support for a speedy passage of this bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. K.J. Maher.

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