Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on what I believe is a very important issue not only for me personally but also for the state of Queensland. Firstly I will give a little bit of history. In my maiden speech on 19 February this year I spoke about my background, my past and the fact that I am an adoptee. Interestingly enough, in 1960, when I was born, my mother was only 17 years of age and there were no support systems in place and no way for her to be able to care for a child in that situation. She came from a large family and, while they made all possible arrangements, it was decided in the end that I would be adopted.

I have had a great upbringing and a great life and I certainly have no regrets. In 1989 I was fortunate enough to be reunited with my birth family. I can say that the journey up to that point was quite an elaborate one, being at a time when legislation, certainly that of Queensland, did not provide support or access for people who were in that situation. In 1990 the then Goss Queensland government, through Minister Anne Warner, introduced what were then revolutionary amendments to the Adoption of Children Act. In fact, the Adoption of Children Act then and to this day is still the most restrictive in Australia. It is still wedged in a period of time when there were so many social differences as to understanding. For me, to be part of the changes to that legislation in 1990 was very important. Unfortunately, the amendments at that time did not go far enough. They certainly went far enough to match a balanced community expectation, but the difficulty is that they created even more of a minority of people who wanted access to their adoption information. Put simply, they essentially disallowed people from getting information about their birth.

As I have said, my upbringing was a very good one. While my adoptive parents were very supportive and always wanted me to know as much as I could, that restricted information situation applied to everyone. I was very lucky that they had my original adoption order. Up until 1964 your mother would be named on that particular document. My mother’s name was Denise Mary Smith, and of course with a name like ‘Smith’ it was going to be quite difficult. Given that there were no government processes to allow me to find further information, that was where I sat. At the age of 15 and not knowing of the restrictions of the law—and, as I said, my adoptive parents were very supportive—I attempted to make some contact to find out a little bit more about who I was. The straight answer from government at that stage was no. When I did turn 18 I would be an adult in law and I would get access to a birth certificate—and I did, although it was not my birth certificate but a thing they called a ‘schedule’. Interestingly enough, the comparisons are quite subtle. When you look at them collectively, you do note that one is a birth certificate and one—mine—is a schedule.

That aside, on 14 July this year the Premier of Queensland, Anna Bligh, and Minister for Child Safety, Margaret Keech, announced that the Queensland government would be developing new laws to open up access to birth information. These laws are being developed and will go through a long consultation process. I believe that submissions on these changes will be accepted up until September.

As I said, that process will take its own path. But I will just give you an example of the very simple changes that we need. Currently, there are vetos on information. Information is released, if there is an agreement. If there is a veto, that information is perpetually locked up. It is locked up even beyond someone becoming deceased. So once parents, siblings or others, who may at some time have decided to put in place a veto on that information, are deceased, it is locked up forever. In Queensland there are about 3,000 people who are affected by these particular laws. That is one concern and one of the major amendments.

I am very pleased, though, that the Minister for Child Safety, who has a very difficult portfolio—any child safety minister around this country has a very difficult portfolio—has made this move. I think this shows a glimmer of hope, certainly for the people of Queensland. As I said before, these laws are the most restrictive laws in the country and, while I was involved in 1990 with those first amendments, I am pleased that, in talking here today 18 years later, there are further moves and I hope good moves.

To give one last very important example, at age 28, in 1988 I had my first son. I had to talk to a specialist, with my wife, about my medical background. She had all the information; I simply said, ‘I’m adopted.’ Even the specialist did not believe that I had no access to my birth information. I did not know who I was, where I came from or whether I had any problems that may have come through my genetic stream. On a medical front, that is certainly another issue that people have. But my experiences have been very positive. My extended family are all together now, including my adoptive mother. My adoptive father died some years ago. Again, I would like to commend the new legislation.

See this speech in context