Page 686 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 23 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
was followed in 1987 by a specialist review committee's analysis. The reviews of the existing legislation that took place put the emphasis on the needs and rights of the children rather than on the adults who wish to adopt them. This is the basis of the 1992 legislation. I quote clause 6 of the Bill:
For the purposes of this Act, the welfare and interests of the child concerned shall be regarded as the paramount consideration.
Coupled with this emphasis is the recognition of the needs and rights of birth parents, changes in the secrecy currently surrounding adoptions and an increase in adoption options such as the use of guardianship and custody orders. As a result of this detailed review process, a draft Adoption Bill was released for public consultation in January 1992. On 8 December last year, after the consultation period, the legislation was debated in this Assembly, and the Assembly chose to refer the Bill to the Social Policy Standing Committee for further discussion, with a reporting date of 23 February, that date having been changed to 16 March due to circumstances outside the inquiry.
During December the Social Policy Committee called for submissions to the inquiry, and 23 were received. Public hearings were held on 3 March, and a total of 14 people appeared and gave evidence. I must emphasise at this point, Madam Speaker, the community's contribution to the process which has led to the presentation of this Bill. From my observation as chair of the Social Policy Committee, I believe that the community's input was exceptional. Without the relevant organisations' cooperation and expert opinion, this legislation would not be as far-reaching and progressive as I believe it to be.
Madam Speaker, it was alluded to on several occasions throughout the inquiry process that this Bill may not be perfect. However, the committee's experience with almost all the organisations involved was that this legislation is so far-reaching and progressive and so needed that its minor imperfections were of little consequence. Madam Speaker, the committee was advised by those organisations that none of them believe that they have a Bill that does in fact suit them 100 per cent. But they are not asking for that. They know that that is not possible. They have, Madam Speaker, amongst themselves, and with the assistance of the adoption unit, developed an agreed position. I applaud these groups, Madam Speaker, for their intelligence and hard work in reaching that agreement.
In this sense, Madam Speaker, the referral of the legislation to the Social Policy Committee and the subsequent inquiry are open to question. The recommendations that are in the report certainly improve the legislation, but they could have been debated in this Assembly on 8 December last year without neglecting the community's opinions or wishes. In other words, Madam Speaker, the inquiry took valuable time and created considerable heartache for the people who have been waiting for years to have this Bill passed into law. However, given that the legislation was referred to our committee, Madam Speaker, a major concern to me as chair of the committee was to allow the inquiry process to proceed sufficiently without opening it up so much as to compromise or even go so far as to ignore the good work already done over so many years. I believe that with the assistance of my colleagues on the committee this has been achieved and that the process in the end was satisfactory to all parties involved. The integrity of the Bill has remained intact.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .