Page 692 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 23 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Connolly: After 12 months of public consultation. That is hardly rushing it through.
MR CORNWELL: Maybe not. Mr Connolly, the Minister, interjects, "After 12 months of public consultation". The fact is that there is a Social Policy Committee of this Assembly representing all parties. That is a committee of five members elected by the community. We have every right to investigate legislation coming before this house from your Government, Mr Connolly, irrespective of how many months of public consultation may have taken place. I repeat that, in spite of 12 months of public consultation, still before the Assembly for consideration are six recommendations from the Social Policy Committee in relation to the Adoption Bill 1992.
The second point I would like to mention causes me some regret because, like other members of the Assembly, I was particularly angry at the response to this Adoption Bill by the media. They concentrated solely - and I have here a summary of TV and radio news items - on the question of gay or homosexual couples being allowed to adopt children. I would like to place on record, Madam Speaker, that in the main report there is no reference whatsoever to this issue. Therefore, I question comments such as the following:
Committee report on adoption laws in ACT has drawn attention to controversial debate on allowing gay couples to adopt.
Mr Moore: Because the report is a dissenting report - additional comments, not a dissenting report.
MR CORNWELL: Or:
Canberrans have been urged to consider whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt children, with ACT Legislative Assembly reviewing Canberra's adoption laws.
This is simply a distortion of the committee's recommendations - indeed, a distortion of the committee's report. Mr Moore, by interjection, almost made the same mistake by referring to Ms Szuty's comments as a dissenting report. They are not. They are additional comments. One person on the five-member committee made those additional comments - which she is entitled to do; there is no question about that. But I think it is most unfortunate that this matter has been blown up out of all proportion when this very worthwhile report covers a great many aspects besides this question to which Ms Szuty referred. I repeat that it was one person out of the five members on the committee.
As Ms Ellis has said, we checked out the information we were given in relation to adoption by gay people. Our inquiries indicated that there is no such adoption around the country; there has been some fostering of children. Of course, as members would be aware - and the Attorney-General is nodding his head - that is a completely different thing from adoption itself. I make my position quite clear. I do not believe that this matter should have been canvassed. Fortunately, it was not in the report. This afternoon we had a debate in which Mr Wood referred to Mr Dunstan and how far ahead of community support a government should be. I think Mr Wood's words were "one step".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .