Guy Barnett: Briefing to Members of the Tasmanian Legislative Council

BRIEFING TO MEMBERS OF THE TASMANIAN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ON THE STATE GOVERNMENT’S ADOPTION AMENDMENT BILL

INTRODUCTION Key Concerns with the Bill

It is adult rather than child focussed. The best interests of the child should always come first. The intentional creation by government of motherless or fatherless children is at best a retrograde step. The state is responsible for optimising the interests of children.

Denying an “unknown” child the right to either a mum or a dad is contrary to their best interests and if it became law would unfairly discriminate against this new group of motherless or fatherless children. Gender matters. Mothers are different to fathers and both are important. Same sex adoption will sever the link to at least one of these unique, complementary, and important roles. This Bill concludes that two dads or two mums can deliver the same optimal outcomes for an ‘unknown’ child as a mum and a dad. We submit this is not the case, and in any event has not been proved by the Bill’s proponents.

Various community surveys support the above propositions.

A heavy burden of responsibility rests with any legislator who seeks to change the law without categorical evidence that it will optimise the outcome of the children concerned especially when it is acknowledged there are so few adoptions each year (6 overseas with only 2 domestic in Tasmania in most recent year) with an estimated 20 to 30 married couples who have been rigorously assessed as being suitable adoptee parents.

Most Australian states and territories have not legalised same sex adoption, including Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory.

Overseas adoptions from Tasmania could become unavailable within a matter of years. Based on research all counties that have inter-country adoption programs with Australia do not allow same sex adoption. Only recently has Russia specifically legislated to ban any inter country adoptions with countries that allow same sex marriage and this legislative initiative could no doubt continue around the globe or simply the inter-country adoption program could be changed.

As a former Senator and Chairman of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee I note the high likelihood that the Bill, if passed would be in breach of a range of international conventions to which Australia is a Party. Despite the Minister’s claims it is consistent with these international conventions it certainly is not. Firstly the Convention on the Rights of a Child pursuant to article 7 provides a child the right as far as possible to know and be cared for by his or her parents. The ordinary meaning of the word ‘parents’ is mother and father and this view was confirmed again when Australia ratified the Convention on the Elimination of all discrimination against women (CEDAW). This has been well researched and discussed by Rita Joseph in her submission to the Legislative Council. She also appeared many times before my senate committee

and is well regarded in the field of human rights. She said “the formal human rights language of article 16 of CEDAW links the term ‘parents’ to ‘men and women’ and to ‘husband and wife’. Rita Joseph advises that if the state government wishes to proceed with this Bill it must first seek the support of the Australian government to call a special meeting of the other Parties to the convention to change the ordinary definition of ‘parents’. Likewise the Bill if passed would likely be contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and specifically Article 25 which refers to the importance of motherhood and childhood.

It is strongly recommended that further legal advice be obtained on the Bill, before proceeding. Same sex adoption is different to fostering children and also surrogacy.

Apart from being highly questionable legally this Bill is a radical social initiative which certainly undermines the marriage institution. The legislative support for same sex adoption is a precursor to the legalising of same sex marriage. Both legislative initiatives can be viewed in a similar light and that is one reason the Save Marriage Coalition opposes both. Despite persistent pressure and lobbying to redefine marriage this has been overwhelmingly rejected at a federal level (by a two to one vote) and last year defeated in the Legislative Council. The fact that the same sex marriage advocates refuse to support a referendum on the issue suggests they are concerned that the views of the silent majority will be against such a radical social reform. Still less than 15 of the world’s 200 plus countries have legalised same sex marriage. One of the main reasons for this in our view is that the public still believe that a child should have the right, wherever possible to both a mum and a dad. It should be noted that hundreds of thousands of people protested across France against the same sex marriage laws because of the community’s strongly held view that a child deserves the right to both a mum and a dad.

A move supporting same sex adoption and same sex parenting places the burden of proof on the reformers to justify the change. The evidence regarding ‘unknown’ children as adoptees and what is in their best interests is sparse at best. In short not only has the case has not been made for such a radical reform, but the weight of evidence currently available says such an initiative is contrary to the best interests of the child.

This Bill focuses on the desires of adults rather than the needs of children. Children at any stage are not toys or trophies, they are to be cherished loved and nurtured and at all times their best interests should remain paramount.

The above points and others will now be expanded upon by our delegation including:

• Dr David van Gend, President Australian Marriage Forum and Toowoomba GP;

• Diana Hutchinson B.Bus, LLB (Hons) former Social Security Appeals Tribunal legal member and former Department of Human Services, family assistance matters; and

• Mark Brown Director Australian Christian Lobby (Tasmania).
Guy Barnett, Spokesperson, Save Marriage Coalition