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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 10 February 2004) . . Page.. 136 ..

effect, especially when we, as a society, are trying to deal with the stigma that is being placed by the Liberals on gay people in our community. Clearly, that is where the Liberals are coming from. I oppose any additions to that list at this point.

MS DUNDAS (10.20): I do not support Mr Stefaniak’s amendment, which will result in shifting the government’s general policy of discrimination to a policy of discrimination by individuals. I would like to counter some of the points that were raised by Mrs Dunne. She talked about the ongoing welfare of children and parents who have passionate views about what happens to a child who is given up for adoption. She then said that, if she were a Hindu, she would want to ensure that her child was raised in that culture.

Sexuality is not a culture. If we dismiss sexuality by putting it on a list and saying, “Somebody can discriminate if they do not believe that adoptive parents who are in a same-sex relationship will be good parents or be able to look after a child,” we will be continuing discrimination. We have already debated this issue. We need to move on. I understand the point that was made earlier by Mr Stefaniak. We need to examine the relationship between genetic parents and their children and the rights of both those parties. However, we have already established that those issues are broader than the scope of this legislation. That is an area that needs a lot more work.

This amendment implies that same-sex parenting should be thought of as less desirable than parenting by heterosexual partners. That is contrary to the intention of the bill that has already been passed. Mr Stefaniak should have adopted the principles contained in the Western Australian legislation, which state that a court may take into account the wishes of the surrendering parent. That legislation does not include a list that specifies particular grounds but it enables a parent’s wishes to be heard. Mr Stefaniak’s attempt to include a specific reference to a person’s sexuality as grounds for preventing adoption is discriminatory and unnecessary. We have other important issues that must be debated in the future. I cannot support this discriminatory amendment after all the work we have done this evening to eliminate discrimination.

MR SMYTH (Leader of the Opposition) (10.23): Earlier government members talked about being tolerant. Why can we not be tolerant and include provisions in this legislation that would enable a parent or the parents surrendering a child for adoption to have a say in their future? The law already states that we have to take into regard things such as racial or ethnic background, religious upbringing or whether a single person might adopt a child. At present this law does not list those things as examples. If we refer to other pieces of legislation we see that those examples are given.

Members opposite talk about tolerance, but when somebody suggests something that they do not agree with we suddenly find that they are not at all tolerant of those views. It is reasonably logical that any parent surrendering a child, for whatever reason, should have as much say as possible in that process. It cannot be easy for parents to surrender a child. They would want to have some certainty about the future of that child and they would want to know where he or she was going. It is perfectly reasonable for Lebanese Muslims to want their child to be adopted by a Lebanese Muslim family so that that child is given the cultural and religious education that he or she deserves. If people were really tolerant in this place that tolerance would flow both ways.

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