Page 4299 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 13 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The bill also notes that there is an increasing trend towards open adoption practices, whereby adopted persons seek their personal identity with their birth family as an extension of their relationship with their adopted family.
Mr Speaker, the opposition has three matters of concern in relation to this bill. The first relates to the naming provisions, which I note did have some opposition in the consultation process, and as recently as today I have been contacted by the Adoptive Parents Association, who still have concerns about these matters.
The new naming provisions seek to preserve the adopted person’s identity, and this is outlined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It requires that the person’s given name, or names, be retained unless a court is satisfied that the should be changed. The provisions of the particular section of the bill provide some guidance to the court and include a requirement for a report from the chief executive, and there is an option for additional birth names. This is the matter that is of particular concern to the Adoptive Families Association of the ACT. It is concerned that the naming provisions cannot apply to all adoption situations and is therefore discriminatory.
For example, families with children from China complete their adoption in China and are able to name their child as they wish. In addition, given that the central theme of the bill is to ensure that the best interest of the child or young person is paramount and that the purposes of the naming provision is to promote a secure sense of identity, it is hard to imagine why we in Australia would insist upon children maintaining their name if their name in their cultural language, their birth language, might mean something like, for instance, “abandoned child” or “orphan girl”. The Adoptive Parents Association have raised with me, and I understand that they have raised with other members of the Assembly, that these sorts of names do not promote a sense of security and that the first thing that the adopted child’s ethnic community that we would like them to bond with would know about this child would be that this child may have been abandoned, and that would be because of the naming regime which has been suggested in this legislation.
The Adoptive Families Association states that, further, there are many other ways in which a child can develop a secure sense of identity. Indeed, a greater sense of identity is achieved by mixing frequently with members of their cultural community, learning their birth language or travelling to their birth country—none of which are things that can be legislated for in adoption legislation.
The Adoptive Families Association has put it to me that what they need is more and appropriate education for people who are contemplating the adoption process, especially intercountry adoption, rather than legislation which may, whilst well intended, be quite insensitive to the security needs of young children who are adopted.
The second issue of concern relates to the removal of contact vetos. Again, a central theme of the act is to hold the best interests of the child or young person as paramount, and there are many cases in which a child or young person would not wish to have any contact with their birth parents.
Many psychological issues can arise when an adoptive child or young person is confronted with meeting their birth parents and many questions and uncertainties can
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .