Page 3633 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 8 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I therefore say to those in the community who will feel disappointed if this Bill is not passed tonight that the result of this delay, I am sure, will be a stronger Bill at the end of the day. I am certain that, if I were to put this Bill in front of a large number of people in the community who have been affected in some way in their lives by adoption, there would be many who would say, "I disagree with something in this piece of legislation". While that remains the case we still have a job to do. That job, Madam Speaker, I think, will be done best by the Social Policy Committee. I believe that the committee will be able to sort out at least some of those problems and ensure that what we deal with, hopefully next February, will be an improved and, as far as possible, as far as we can determine, a sound and solid piece of legislation for the purposes of adoption in this Territory.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (8.52), in reply: Madam Speaker, normally at the conclusion of the in-principle debate I am in the fairly happy position of getting up and saying, "I thank members for their contributions; I think you have made a positive contribution to debate and we will get on with the matter". Unfortunately, tonight is not such an occasion. What we have heard for just about an hour has been the biggest collection of mealy-mouthed platitudes that I have heard since I have been in this chamber. You all get up and say that there is a need for change in adoption law; that we have to have more open adoption; that there is a pressing need for reform; that the community desperately wants change; but then you say that you will not do it. You will not do it because you want to make a political statement about the Government.
Mr Humphries's speech best expressed this. Mr Humphries distinguished himself in his remarks by not making a single comment on the detail of the Bill. Mr Humphries's remarks were all about the Assembly having to show that it will not be a rubber stamp for the Executive. That is what he was talking about. There was no comment about adoption law; there was no canvassing of the issues of adoption law; the Assembly has to show that it is in charge.
I can accept, Madam Speaker, and this Government can accept, that there is a legitimate role for committees to scrutinise Bills. It is a good concept. I have said to members opposite that some of the new legislation that we are going to bring in next year - the de facto legislation is the best example of new, innovative, reformist legislation - could be referred to a committee for a consultation process. But, Madam Speaker, this Bill has been in the public forum. I quote the Canberra Times of 20 May 1992, which said that six years ago a Federal Minister in control of ACT affairs announced a wide-ranging review of the ACT's adoption laws. This process has been going on for six years. A lot of people in this community have poured an enormous amount of intellectual and emotional energy into getting this law before this Assembly, and you people are going to flick it off.
Madam Speaker, we hear about the Bill that we introduced last week and that we want people to vote on. Madam Speaker, the Bill contains 121 clauses and there have been changes to nine clauses. Mr Moore at least made an effort to provide some criticism of the Bill. I also give Mr Moore credit for being a member of this Assembly who has taken an interest in the Bill. On 7 May 1992 Mr Moore was sufficiently informed on the detail of the Bill. He takes his responsibilities quite seriously and he got a copy of the exposure draft, which was featured on the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .