Page 3623 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 8 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Subclause 56(3) in particular appears at a glance - remember that we have had the Bill for only a week - to be unjust because it allows the director to levy compulsory fees on those making adoptions from overseas. This may be a breach of UN conventions - for instance, article 21 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and article 24 of the draft Hague Convention on Private International Law.
These conventions prohibit governments from discriminating against a child based on its origin of birth - something, I am sure, that we would all totally support. I believe that these arrangements that this Government has chosen to put in place may - and again I say may - be at risk of doing just that. They are imposing a 12-month supervision period on all overseas adoptions, but they are making no such requirement in the case of local adoptions. In any case, these arrangements have a very real potential to put bureaucracy in the way of human happiness. Many people have found that the arrangements are not to their liking. I am sure that we can come up with a solution that will overcome everyone's concerns in this area if we are given an opportunity.
As I said, in catering for legitimate concerns surrounding the international adoption process, those drafting the legislation seem to have gone to an extreme and down one path only. There appears to be a view that we can cater for only one side of the story, and those who are trying to adopt from overseas who do not quite agree with the mainstream view appear to be told that they can really go to hell. I must admit that I differ from that view, having had a week to look at the legislation. I believe that we can pass excellent adoption legislation which addresses all sides of this story and which presents itself as a win-win solution for all the different parties involved, be they the adoptive child, the birth parents, the adoptive parents or any of the various agencies involved.
On the provision of information, dealt with in Part V of this Bill, such a solution seems already to have been generated. The removal of information vetoes has the potential to be a great step forward on the draft legislation, and we think this allows for a more understanding approach to this whole area. I also think it leaves us with rules on contact and on the provision of information which have worked very well in other States, particularly in New South Wales. Why can we not get similar commonsense consensus when it comes to other aspects of this legislation?
In retrospect, perhaps the legislation should have been considered formally by a committee before the Assembly saw it at all and before it got to this stage. As I see it, a week is just not long enough to adopt an informed position on this important Bill, and that is why we believe that it needs further consideration. I believe that the legislation should be referred to the Social Policy Committee over the Christmas break. The legislation can be dealt with promptly before the Assembly sits next year.
Mr Connolly: The committee cannot meet until February.
MRS CARNELL: Why?
Mr Connolly: Ms Szuty is on holidays in January.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .