Page 3624 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 8 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MRS CARNELL: I am certainly prepared to give my time, rather than be in the pharmacy, to consider this issue in depth before the Assembly resumes. Admittedly, it would mean a short delay; but I believe that it is a reasonable one in the interest of developing an informed consensus and ensuring that the legislation is properly scrutinised by all parties, in very stark contrast with other Bills that we have seen lately.
I was interested that a number of individuals and groups involved in the adoption area, even as late as yesterday, have not had a chance to read the proposed legislation, let alone give an informed view on it. For his part, Mr Connolly has whipped up a certain amount of hysteria about the referral that we are now proposing. His own department has already said that the passing of the Bill will not mean immediate access to information because they need time, maybe up to six months - remember that we get a week - to make the necessary arrangements. I can see no reason why the department cannot start putting those arrangements into place now in readiness for the legislation that will be passed next year. In the meantime, aspects of the Bill must be considered, and I urge the Assembly to vote that the Bill be referred to the Social Policy Committee when I move that motion later, after the in-principle debate. Again I say that we support this legislation in principle.
MR MOORE (8.18): Madam Speaker, all members are often very well supported by our staff and it is very rare for members to formally recognise that. With reference to this particular Bill, I think it appropriate for me to recognise the tremendous effort that has been put in by Tina van Raay of my staff in helping me to stay abreast of developments in this legislation and to understand the range of issues associated with it. I would like to formally thank her for her wonderful contribution.
Adoption Acts were intended to protect from exploitation and inadequate care children who could not be cared for by their birth parents and who needed to be raised by other families. In its early years adoption was quite open, with all parties knowing each other's identity. The notions of secrecy and complete severance of familial ties which have been associated with adoption were later developments. Until approximately 20 years ago there were more children needing adoptive families than families wishing to adopt. Provided they were assessed as suitable, people who wanted to adopt a child could usually choose from a number of children, with a minimal waiting time.
Unsupported birth mothers were encouraged to place their children for adoption as it was believed that this would enhance their child's life chances. The children's best interests were thought to equate with long-term financial and material security. There was no support for single mothers and it was thought that it would be in their best interests to get on with their lives and forget the child they had lost through adoption, as if that were possible. I wonder how many among us here tonight, especially women who have given birth, would ever forget that they had once had a child. The situation led to a belief in the community that adoption was a ready way of creating families for childless couples, a logical choice for people unable to have their own children. The fact that the primary purpose of adoption is to find families for children who need them was often obscured.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .