Page 4302 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 13 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Act. Changes in the bill, as I said, bring the Adoption Act into line with the Children and Young People Act. The work on and consultation about the Children and Young People Act was thorough and well considered, and both the act, and these amendments, recognise article 30 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and that is that children have a right to learn and use the language and customs of their families, whether or not these are shared by the majority of people where they live, as long as this does not harm others.
This bill also brings the Adoption Act into line with the Hague convention, which rightly establishes a system of reciprocal cooperation between countries. The ACT Greens believe it is important to adjust the act to provide a set of principles to guide intercountry adoption, as this is an area that can be open to misuse or abuse by some people.
There are a range of changes involved in this amendment bill and the ACT Greens are confident that the legislation will be strengthened to ensure that all parties privy to these proceedings will have access to the process and legislation that clearly sets out the rights of all parties and requirements for both local and intercountry adoption.
While the amendments in this bill improve many aspects of the rights of children and young people, some concerns have been raised with the ACT Greens by stakeholders. One such concern that I would like to note is the issue of post-adoption support, which can be of particular importance in relation to intercountry adoption. Traditionally, couples and families going through the adoption process are required to undergo a training course prior to the adoption.
This is to gain a greater understanding of the issues they will face as a family and the types of strategies and supports that are available and may be useful to deal with the issues that may arise, particularly community perceptions of intercountry adoption. From the other side, we also understand that often families may choose to distance themselves from the government department that oversees the adoption process, and in essence get on with their life together.
However, we also know that families often need post-adoption support. In addition to the post-adoption checks by the department at regular intervals, it has been suggested that community service organisations are better placed to provide this support in an ongoing way. Within other jurisdictions Post Adoption Support Schemes funded by government exist to extend the supports available to these families. Ongoing assistance would ensure that families are managing their changed situation, and that the best interests of the child continue to be met.
Another issue of note that has been raised by Mrs Dunne is the naming of a child and the concerns surrounding this. This legislation provides that the given name of a child can only be changed in exceptional circumstances and upon application to the court. This change triggers both strong support and opposition from adoptive parents. While some are concerned about pronunciation, assimilation at school and parents’ rights to name their children, others believe a given name is an important link to the child’s culture and an important part of their identity.
This is a very difficult and contentious area within the intercountry adoption community. We understand both arguments, and agree that an application to the court
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .