David Norris (Independent)

I support the Labour Party amendment. Amendments Nos. 15 and 30 are in my name. They are similarly worded. I am interested in hearing the Minister's response to them. It is a function of this House to tease out the implications of legislation not just in areas where we have direct concern ourselves but also on behalf of people who request that these matters be examined. I understand Senator Fitzgerald's diffidence in addressing my amendments because they appear to curtail the rights of the biological father. This is an important issue and one on which the public commentator, Mr. John Waters, has been extremely vocal in defending the rights of natural fathers. He and a substantial lobby group of fathers have been vociferous in expressing their views.

I had some reservations about putting down the amendment because I believe there is a natural interest on the part of the biological father in the fate, welfare and destiny of any offspring. However, for these amendments to come into operation the responsible authority - one assumes such an authority would be responsible - would have the right to decide to place the child for adoption without extensive consultation with the natural father in a situation where it had been clearly demonstrated that this would be detrimental to the best interests of the child. Curiously, on one occasion in the past I was involved in a situation where the guardians and mother of a child, in particular circumstances which it would not be appropriate to outline in the House, clearly believed that the best interests of the child would most emphatically not be served by any awakening of interest in the father, whose connection with the mother was casual in the extreme. He was a person of quite suspect character whose interest in the child might be awakened and might turn out to be malign. These are very unusual circumstances. It is because of my knowledge of this situation that I put forward the amendment. I respect the rights of biological fathers.

The second clause in the amendment deals with the issue of delay. Again, I am anxious to hear the Minister's response. It is perhaps not wholly appropriate to say so but my support for this part of the amendment is a little lukewarm. Although I acknowledge the passionate feelings of prospective parents in wishing to accelerate the proceedings, one must be very careful to ensure that whatever delay is involved is indeed undue. Taking the language at face value, the amendment provides that it must be demonstrated that the situation would be detrimental to the child, as provided in (a), or that the delay would be undue, as provided in (b). With those two provisos I am prepared to put the amendment before the House. I await with interest the Minister's response.