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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 10 February 2004) . . Page.. 89 ..

The ACL document goes on to state the various requirements for intercountry adoption and deals with a number of provisions specifically to address the illegal transboundary trade in children.

The issues are what is best for a particular child and the fact that, according to those stats from DOCS and also for Western Australia, there has not been a successful intercountry adoption in relation to same-sex couples. That indicates that the Chief Minister is leading same-sex people up the garden path, raising hopes that they will be successful in terms of this legislation. That is a very important issue indeed.

The Australian Christian Lobby states:

In summary, the safe guards implicit within the Hague Convention are not evidenced in the ALP’s eagerness to change the domestic adoption law. While the argument is sustained that some signatories allow same-sex couples to adopt under their own domestic law, it is conclusive that no same sex inter-country adoption has ever taken place between convention signatories and it doesn’t appear that any inter-country adoption to a same-sex couple has taken place anywhere in the world. This raises the question as to whether the States and Territories proposals are in breach of the intent of the Hague Convention?

That certainly applies in this matter as well.

I now turn to certain obvious facts about what is best for the children. We say that, ideally, the best that can be done for children is for them to have a mother and a father. It has been said by a number of people in this debate that it is very difficult for two men to provide the role of a mother or for two women to provide the role of a father. That is simply difficult for human beings to do, no matter how well intentioned they are.

People will say, “Why shouldn’t people who are same sex not have the right to adopt?” I have mentioned the best interests of the child. Bishop Brown, when the issue was first raised and the government first said they were going ahead, commented that 60-year-old couples who might be absolutely wonderful people are also precluded from adopting because they are too old. That is not in the best interests of the child. These things have to be taken into consideration.

It is not the rights of adults; it is the rights of the child and what is going to be best for that child. There are some other issues. Some of the persons supporting this bill indicate that it is necessary for legal reasons. For example, in a lesbian partnership where one partner is the natural mother of the child—the husband is never seen or whatever—the other partner, who might have to make decisions about medical or schooling matters if her partner is seriously ill, is not able to do it and therefore should be allowed to adopt.

A lot of people who oppose this legislation have indicated that those things can be got around by guardianship arrangements. What is wrong with that? There are lots of guardianship arrangements in the territory and throughout Australia that work very well. The argument that these people are not able to make the decisions they need to on behalf of their child does not bear much fruit when one looks at the fact that a guardianship

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