Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (31 August) . . Page.. 2774 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

One of the tragedies throughout Australia and other parts of the world is that many children are born who are not really wanted and not really loved. The family services bureau of my department, Barnados and similar organisations see the human debris all too often. Mr Rugendyke, who used to be chair of the Foster Carers Association, would have seen it all too often. Indeed, as someone who has fostered some 25 kids-

Mr Rugendyke: Over 70.

MR STEFANIAK: Is that so? Clearly, Mr Rugendyke has seen situations where the natural parents of children did not care for them, did not love them or were too selfish for whatever reason, be it through their drug addiction or other personal problems, to do what parents should do for their children, that is, love them, want them, care for them, nurture them and assist them to grow up to be decent adults.

All too often in this community we see incompetent parents who probably never should have had children and we are left to pick up the flotsam and jetsam, with the children being the ones who suffer. But this situation is not like that. It is one in which, quite clearly, the intention is that the children will be loved and wanted.

Mr Stanhope's amendment is eminently sensible. If a birth parent, a surrogate parent, a genetic parent or whatever wants only one of, say, two children, I do not think that that person should have either. That is not what this is all about. If couples go into such an arrangement and twins or triplets are born, or there is an even rarer situation, the obvious intent would be for the result of the birth to go to the genetic parents. It would be their child to want, to nurture, to love and to care for; so I think that Mr Stanhope's amendment is eminently sensible and I will be supporting it.

I have to refresh my memory in terms of the substantive bill, for which I thank Mr Moore for giving me his copy, so that I can check out Mr Rugendyke's amendments, but on face value-I do not intend to speak again if this is the case-they seem to be eminently sensible, too. Being in the best interests of the child is completely consistent with the Children and Young People Act and there are very sensible proposals in terms of the age of the substitute parents, together with the general proviso enabling the court to take into consideration any other relevant matter. Subject to what is provided for in the act, that seems quite sensible to me at first glance.

If Mr Rugendyke's amendments improve Mrs Carnell's legislation or are not particularly inconsistent with it, I would be mindful of voting for them as well.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .