Adoption law dilemma

Press, 14 March 1985, Page 12

Adoption law dilemma

Reform of the law of adoption in New Zealand still hangs in the balance. Parliament functions best when handling bread and butter issues. When it comes to personal morality and the private details of people’s lives, Parliament is not well equipped to facilitate the emergence of a consensus or to reconcile passionately-held opposing points of view. This incapacity of Parliament is shown in moves to reform the law of adoption.

The Adult Adoption Information Bill was reintroduced into Parliament last September. Reform of the Adoption Act, 1955, has been discussed for some years. Both Ms Fran Wilde (Labour, Wellington Central) and Mr lan McLean (National, Tarawera) have proposed changes to the law. Respectively, they represent the views of the more radical and of the more conservative reformers. That proponents of both sides of the argument should introduce amending legislation shows how widespread is the belief that the 1955 act needs reforming. Both draft bills were sent to Parliament’s Statutes Revision Committee, which has now finished hearing public submissions and comment. The committee learned that neither the Wilde nor the McLean proposals meet all objections. It is plain that legislation protecting only one of the three sides of the adoption triangle — the adopted person, birth parents or adoptive parents — would be unfair. The Wilde bill provides a veto, required every 10 years, to avoid approach and contact; the McLean bill assumes a veto, which would prevent approach and contact for ever, unless both adopted child and birth parent wish otherwise. It seems clear from the evidence and from the submissions given in person that most people believe a discretionary veto written into legislation cannot be fair to all three sides of the triangle. As the law stands under the 1955 act, and whatever generations of solicitors may have promised their clients during adoption

proceedings, people who want to make contact can and will do so if they are persistent enough. Both the Wilde and McLean bills seek to make information available to adults; but obtaining information is a big step towards making contact. Legislation that seeks only to provide information does not answer any problem. It does not go far enough for those seeking to make contact; it goes too far for those trying to frustrate contact who do not want to be found. Legislation setting up machinery for information needs to set up machinery for contact as well, in a way that is safe and caring, and that will also respect a final refusal for contact to be made. The machinery for information and the machinery for contact must work in tandem.

It was important that the debate on such deeply-felt issues bp held in public yet in a way that allowed the sensitive to escape publicity. It was held in public, but more sensitivity might have been shown. The Statutes Revision Committee received about 150 submissions, of which 120 were from individuals. The committee realised that it was easier for those seeking freer information to appear before it than for those seeking to keep their privacy. By the way it called for and heard evidence, the committee indulged the former at the expense of the latter to a degree. The committee’s problem is now twb-fold. It must draft legislation that will free adult information and that will allow those who want privacy to retain it. In fact, the committee must address the dilemma both the Wilde and McLean bills failed to address; it must strike a balance between the desire to find and the desire not to be found. The committee will have failed if it comes down in favour of one at the expense of the other. The daunting challenge is to present legislation for a conscience vote in Parliament that does not penalise one or more parties to the adoption triangle to the advantage of the others.