Page 3625 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 8 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
However, times have changed and the view of adoption as the placement of newborn babies with childless couples as an ideal solution to the problems faced by all parties is no longer sustainable. Over the past two decades the number of babies needing adoptive parents has dropped dramatically. Changes in family structure, societal and legislative change, improved sex education, improved accessibility to contraception and financial support have all contributed to the changing composition of adoption. There is no distinction in the law between children born within marriage and those outside of marriage. The stigma previously associated with illegitimacy has almost disappeared. In addition, and very importantly, the sole parent pension has given single mothers a real option since 1972, even when family support was not available. This support from the Government has resulted in a massive drop in the number of children being offered for adoption, thereby reinforcing the fact that lack of financial support was one of the important factors contributing to women relinquishing.
In the wake of these changes has come questioning of whether the traditional view of adoption is appropriate to society today. Reported experience has shown that secrecy and severance was never in the best interests of the adoptees or birth parents in the past. Modern adoption requires a new approach if it is to remain as a viable option for children needing permanent care in the twenty-first century. It needs to be flexible enough to meet the needs of the three parties - the child, the birth parents and the adopting parents. The needs of each will change over time as the child develops, circumstances alter and life experiences accumulate. I applaud the Government for taking heed of the review of New South Wales legislation which clearly validated that secrecy, which was previously referred to as privacy, was the cause of long-term illness and dysfunction, and that an honest approach based on the best interests of the child is paramount in the ACT Adoption Bill.
Adoption legislation has had a major impact on many people's lives in this country. In 1992 there were 250,000 people in Australia, birth parents and adoptees, actively searching for their severed child, birth mother or father. It is well and truly time to change a situation that was fraught with secrecy, and a denial of basic rights which gave very unhealthy mixed messages about ownership rather than parenting. The bulk of this legislation, I am very pleased to say, has improved remarkably from the draft Bill circulated in 1991, and the Minister deserves congratulations on that. This new Bill reflects the experience gained from reviews conducted in New South Wales and facilitates information and contact exchange previously denied to those adoptees and birth parents.
However, there are some serious concerns about some elements of this legislation that I believe must be rectified before we proceed, and I will refer specifically to the clauses as I go through them. Clause 26 states that consent cannot be made under 28 days, as it should. When you read that in conjunction with subclause 34(3), it leaves the way open for an adoption order to be made legal in under 28 days but not less than seven days. I believe that subclause 34(3) should read "28 days". Subclause 34(3) currently reads:
An adoption order shall not be made pursuant to an instrument of consent signed by the mother of the child before the expiration of 7 days after the day on which the child was born ...
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .