Mr Muldoon wants earlier airing of adoption bill

Press, 21 October 1983, Page 3

Mr Muldoon wants earlier airing of adoption bill

Parliamentary reporter

The Government has decided to let proceed a longdeferred bill giving adopted persons and birth parents the right to find each other. The private member’s bill has been introduced four times in Parliament by its sponsor, the Chief Opposition Whip, Mr J. L. Hunt. The bill came back to Parliament after long deliberation by the Parliamentary Statutes Revision Committee about 15 months ago. But the Government, which is responsible for setting the order of Parliamentary business, kept it near the bottom of the Order Paper. However, the Prime Minister, Mr Muldoon, said yesterday that the “events of the last few days” had “sparked off’ discussion in the caucus on the Adult Adoption Information Bill.

The Government had decided that the bill should have a second reading as soon as possible, he said. That way the detail of the bill would be in front of the public as a “live issue” for about six weeks. “Those who could be in-

volved will have at least some opportunity of knowing what is proposed,” said Mr Muldoon.

If the bill passed its second reading, its third and final reading would be towards the end of the year. If it did not, that would be the end of the matter. “Some in the caucus, of which I am one, feel that many of the women who would be most at risk in this thing do not know that the bill is in the House,” Mr Muldoon said. “The idea that it could be passed last thing in the session in the dead of night is clearly wrong.” (It has been widely believed by members of Parliament that the bill would, if it came in at all, come after all Government business for the year had been completed. The legislation bottleneck common at the end of the year would force the bill quickly through second and third readings, with little discussion by a tired House, or feedback from affected people.) Mr Muldoon said he did not know if the bill would pass. Its prompter, Mr Hunt, believes that it has the numbers. Members will exercise a conscience vote on the bill.

Roughly two-thirds of Labour members are thought to support the bill, and about one third of National members.

The bill bogged down last year when Mr Muldoon said it was unfair to mothers

who had adopted children out.

Yesterday he restated that opinion. “Women of all ages who have adopted children out in the belief that the matter was in total secrecy, and the fact that what they had done would never be divulged, are most at risk,” he said.

“I have had some pitiful letters from such women who are aware of what is proposed. But many of them do not know that such a bill is in the House.”

The bill gives access to original birth certificates so that adopted children who have reached the age of 20 can make contact with their birth parents. Any birth parent not wanting contact to be made, may, under the bill, endorse the certificate to stop contact. In such a case particulars will not be passed on to the adult adoptee.

At present all original birth certificates of adopted children are sealed, as are all adoption files.

Mr Muldoon said caucus generally felt that the bill would pass if an amendment were made reversing the negative endorsement procedure. Such an amendment will be circulated to members of Parliament in the next 24 hours by the National member for Tarawera, Mr lan McLean.

Mr McLean said yesterday that his amendment would require a positive endorsement on the original

birth certificate. A “biological” parent would have to endorse the certificate showing his or her willingness to meet biological children before any meeting could take place, he said. However, Mr Hunt said yesterday that he considered that a major amendment to his bill.

“It would negate 90 per cent of its effect,” he said. “It would mean that birth parents and adoptive parents would have to agree at adoption that in 20 years time the adoptee can meet his birth parents.” However, Mr McLean said that Mr Hunt’s interpretation was ridiculous, although he agreed that it would “significantly lessen the number of cases.” Under Mr Hunt’s negative endorsement procedure, many women who did not know of the legislation but did not want to make contact with children would be unable to prevent it because they would not have endorsed the original birth certificate, Mr McLean said. Many women would know about the required endorsement but would be afraid to inquire, or would not want to rehearse painful details in front of an official, he said.

Mr Hunt said, however, that he was delighted the bill had been given a chance to proceed this year.

He urged people most interested and affected by the bill to discuss it with their local member of Parliament.