Page 698 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 23 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Government's response was, "Yes, indeed there is that clear, legally sanctioned discrimination. It was intended to be so. We made a conscious policy decision not to go down the path of homosexual adoption". So the issue was canvassed, and my recollection is that that issue was contained in a circulated document summarising the consultation process. That was not circulated at the time of the introduction of the Bill but when the draft Bill was circulated. It was probably given to committee members as well. That issue was canvassed quite early in the piece.
I should congratulate the committee on the speed with which it completed its work, regardless of the debate about whether the Bill should have been referred to the committee. The committee did complete its work swiftly. No doubt that was in response to the overwhelming community feeling that this important legislation should be delayed no longer.
The report contains six principal recommendations, and the Government's response gives its agreement to those recommendations. The Minister will now be directly responsible for convening the committee of three to review the director's decisions mentioned in clause 17 of the Adoption Bill. As my Government has an ongoing commitment to ensure that the well-being of all children is safeguarded, it welcomes the opportunity to amend subclause 56(1) to extend the "up to 12 months" supervisory period to cover all adoptions, including local adoptions.
The Government accepts the recommendation that clause 56 should be reworded so that emphasis is placed on the supportive role that my department has in the lives of adopted children and their families. It is important, however, that a definition be included as to what the term "support" refers to, so that it is not taken, for example, to mean financial support. The amendments which will be circulated should pick that up. Support, in the Government's mind, refers to the regular visiting of a child and its family in the home environment. I am sure that that would have been the intention of the committee.
The safeguard to the Government's concern over the committee's recommendation that "mutually acceptable" replace "reasonable" in subclause 56(1) is provided by the amendment that the Minister may, at any time, in writing, authorise such a visit. We can have generally agreed visits. If there is a problem, the Minister will authorise a visit, in writing. Of course, the Minister is accountable for that decision. I am answerable to the Assembly for that decision. The Government agrees to the deletion of subclause 56(3) from the Bill and agrees that all fees, where appropriate, be imposed at the beginning of the adoption process.
The Government's recognition of the importance of retaining a child's forename as well as surname is reflected in its agreement that subclause 45(3) be amended. This would allow the court to order, if it were in the child's best interests, that the child's pre-adoptive forename and the surname remain the same. Additionally, the Government has no difficulty in agreeing with the drafting improvements suggested by Ms Szuty to clauses 78, 46, 109, 55 and 57 in order to achieve consistency in language throughout the Bill. Again the amendments that I have circulated to Ms Szuty, and to Mrs Carnell as the opposition spokesperson, pick those points up.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .