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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 10 February 2004) . . Page.. 133 ..

(b) any wishes expressed in an instrument of consent, including wishes as regards—

(i) the racial or ethnic background of the proposed adoptive parents;

(ii) the religious upbringing of the child after adoption; or

(iii) whether a single person might adopt the child.

The court has to take into account all those things. If a child is given up for adoption the natural parents can express their wishes—and those wishes have to be taken into account—in regard to the racial or ethnic background of the proposed adoptive parents, the religious upbringing of the child after adoption and whether a single person might adopt the child.

My amendment would add a fourth category: the sexuality of the proposed adoptive parents. This amendment is necessary now that the Assembly has agreed to the in-principle stage of the legislation. The effect of the Chief Minister’s legislation would be to permit a new class or classes of people to adopt children. If this amendment were not agreed to it would be a breach of rights and result in bias in favour of one group. Parents have the right to express an opinion and a desire about how their children should be brought up. For example, parents might be strict Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists or whatever and want their children to be brought up in that faith. The court has to take into account those wishes. Chinese parents might like their child to be adopted by another Chinese couple.

Some parents might not want their children to be adopted by a single person, for example, Uncle Fred. They might want their children to go to a married couple. The same thing could apply in relation to the sexuality of proposed adoptive parents. Some parents might have no view in relation to that issue, but others might want the court to take that into account. As the in-principle stage of the bill has been agreed to, it is essential that members support my proposed amendment. I commend that amendment to all members.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (10.09): The government does not support this proposed amendment. Mr Stefaniak referred earlier to section 19 (2) (b) of the Adoption Act 1993. The act requires the Supreme Court, when deciding whether or not to make an adoption order, to take notice of any wishes expressed by the relinquishing parents in the instrument of consent to adoption. At present, as Mr Stefaniak said earlier, the section mentions three specific examples about which relinquishing parents could express their wishes.

As the law stands, relinquishing parents might be invited to express a view about the racial or ethnic background of potential adoptive parents. Relinquishing parents might be asked whether they wish to express a view about the religious upbringing of a child and about whether a single person might adopt the child. Those are the three examples that are given. It must be remembered that this provision is inclusive in nature. These are only examples of the sorts of things about which a relinquishing parent might express a view. Mr Stefaniak said that a provision in a reasonably old piece of legislation refers to

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