Page 3622 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 8 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MRS CARNELL: If you would listen to the whole speech you would understand. However, there are still a number of aspects of the Bill which are contentious. In particular, and this was canvassed often before the legislation was tabled and after, we have a number of concerns in the area of international adoption. That is not by any stretch of the imagination our only concern. There are also concerns raised by some parties about the process of consent surrounding adoptions and that the birth mother may not be given enough support when considering this vital decision.
Another important series of concerns relates to the mechanisms of review in this legislation. I am not happy that there is no mechanism for reviewing adoption decisions, apart from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or an internal procedure over which the director of the adoption service has full control. In fact, the legislation relies entirely on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for any independent review.
Mr Connolly: And the Ombudsman and the Supreme Court and the Federal Court.
Mr Kaine: Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. We heard the Minister in silence when he presented his defective Bill. He has an obligation to sit and listen in silence to what the Opposition thinks about it and not to conduct a debate on the subject.
MADAM SPEAKER: I remind members of the standing orders that require silence. Please continue, Mrs Carnell.
MRS CARNELL: I believe that the legislation should incorporate its own independent review procedure which would be fair, just, economical, informal and quick - something which, unfortunately, the AAT often is not. As I said, these questions remain. We need to arrive at a rational, well-informed conclusion to these issues. We are not here merely to rubber stamp the Minister's views on the issue.
Certain aspects of this Bill, in particular those provisions relating to international adoptions, appear to be formed by a one-sided view of the issue. Again I say that we were not given an opportunity to be part of the consultation period or even to be briefed on where it was heading at any time during the 10-month period. The current provisions for international adoption are motivated by legitimate concerns, and I do not deny that these concerns have a very definite place. All the same, I believe that in catering for these concerns the legislation may not have been totally fair. I say "may not" again because we were not party to anything on this legislation until a week ago.
The problems faced by those trying to adopt from overseas must also be taken into account, and I believe that in most cases that has been done; but there are still a number of people who have concerns. Because we have had this legislation for only a week, we have not been able to canvass those concerns. In clause 56 - an area of the legislation that Mr Connolly seems very concerned about, as that is all of the information I seem to have been getting in the last day or so - the Bill makes a blanket imposition on people trying to adopt from overseas regardless of their particular circumstances or the requirement of the country of origin.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .