Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

As I was saying, there is an assumption that adoption automatically leads to a better outcome for the child that is being adopted, and obviously on many occasions that is true, but there are many that it is not true for.

We obviously understand the deep desire for people to become parents. For those of us who do have children, it really is impossible for us to imagine what it must be like to want to have children and to be unable to. However, having said that, we in this country know the consequences of some of the adoptive processes for all involved, including the relinquishing parents. I use the term very carefully when I talk about 'relinquishing', because we know from past experiences that parents in some cases were not relinquishing parents. Those children or those babies were taken from those parents.

We know, however, from past experiences that adoption processes can have bad outcomes for the child, obviously for the relinquishing parents but also for the adoptive parents. There is no guarantee that the practices we saw in this country not several decades ago are not in fact being carried out through overseas adoptions. We cannot pretend that we are not aware of the lifelong consequences of adoption for the child who becomes an adult, for the relinquishing parents and for the adoptive family.

We now have high-profile people promoting adoption. While I am sure they are coming from a desire to help children, we cannot allow this to override the need for proper consideration, protections and oversights. We need to ensure we are listening to the evidence based policy and appropriate expert stakeholders, not just on the goodwill of those high-profile people that are pursuing this cause. Sometimes I am deeply concerned adoption could take place at the expense of the child's interests. I will come to the overwhelming need to make sure that we are doing this in the child's interests.

Australia must be vigilant to ensure the necessary safeguards are in place to protect parents from being coerced into 'relinquishing' their children, to ensure that intercountry adoption is a last resort and there is appropriate post-adoption care, support and services for children and families. The Australian Greens are deeply concerned that the so-called one stop shop, where children may be seen as commodities and the goal is a swift acquisition of them, is not the way to go in adoption. This country has been there. We know the consequences of that swift approach to adoption.

The presumption that adoption is good, that Australian parents are all loving and that children will have a better life here is not a fair assumption to make. What evidence is this based on? I would argue that there is overwhelming evidence to show that, if we are not extremely careful with adoption, it can lead to very poor life outcomes for everybody involved. All legal rights to extended families, heritage, homeland are extinguished. We are deeply concerned that this may occur and that the children have no say in this matter.

We need to be asking the government on what evidence the decision to facilitate easier and faster overseas adoptions is based. What evidence is relied on to show that this in fact will be in the best interests of the child and that they can guarantee, when they start allowing adoptions from non-Hague countries, that all the concerns that have been raised—and I will go into those in a minute—can be addressed?

I am deeply concerned that the government may be so quickly forgetting the history of child removals and the reports that we have seen in this country: the Bringing them Homereport, the forced adoption reports and the three reports on forgotten Australians and former child migrants. These are lessons that we can never, ever forget in this country. This country has watched the intergenerational harm caused by the displacement of children and by dispossession. We have the legacy of the stolen generations, the forgotten Australians and the travesty of forced adoptions. Those directly affected continue to pay a very heavy price, and I have spoken at length in this place about those costs. Unless we get this right, Australians will unfortunately continue to pay a heavy price socially and a heavy price in terms of the cost to health, because we know it has poor health and life outcomes. Justice will also, we believe, be threatened for these people.

That takes me to this bill and why we are debating it in this place now. The Greens are concerned about a number of aspects of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Inter-country Adoption) Bill 2014. Allowing intercountry adoption through bilateral agreements outside of the safeguards, transparency and procedures of the Hague convention on intercountry adoption is of concern to us. The bill does not focus on the best interests of the child, and we know where that leads. The bill could facilitate an environment where forced or coerced adoption practices could take place—again, this country knows very well what occurs then. There is the lack of a requirement for adequate post-adoption support services. These concerns were clearly shared and articulated by many submissions and witnesses during the committee inquiry into this bill. There are many risks associated with adoption through bilateral agreements with non-Hague-convention countries. The Hague convention of 1993 set out guidelines which considered the child's interests to be of paramount importance. Bilateral agreement to not necessarily meet the same standards.

The stated reason for this bill is to cut waiting periods and allow for easier and more convenient adoptions. International Social Service Australia said in evidence to the committee that the benefits to adoptive parents 'are grossly outweighed by the risks associated with adopting children in non-Hague countries'. We know that countries that have a very limited child protection process do not have the capacity to monitor individual cases. In these countries, individuals or criminal organisations can exploit the loopholes in intercountry adoption. As International Social Service Australia's representative said to the committee:

Whilst Australia has signed the convention, it is difficult for Australia to monitor the systems in countries that are adopting children that have not signed the convention. For this reason, I think promoting bilateral agreements with non-Hague countries and finalising adoptions in overseas countries have lots of risks associated. So I do not support this bill.

The Australian Greens are deeply concerned that this bill puts convenience to adoptive parents above the best interests of not only the child but also the birth parents. The Australian Greens argue that the risks outweigh the convenience of speeding up adoption with countries that have not signed the Hague convention. The interests of the child are better protected by the safeguards and standards of the Hague convention, and we would prefer that Australia encourage non-Hague countries to become signatories to the convention rather than simply caving in and doing bilateral agreements with them.

I come to the best interests of the child. The Australian Greens believe that all legislation that affects children must be in the best interests of the child. Evidence to the committee from Dr Gillespie of UNICEF emphasised the need to keep the interests of the child at the centre of the intercountry adoption process. He said:

… we emphasise the best interests of the child test. We note that the CRC, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, talks about 'primary' interests of children whereas the Hague convention talks about consideration of children being 'paramount' in intercountry adoption. UNICEF would not support any dilution of those standards …

In order to properly protect children and families, the first thing we need to do is work with countries to enhance and improve their child protection systems and supports for the parents of those children through that process. The best interests of the child must stay at the centre of our decision-making process. As UNICEF said:

In the very first instance, the Convention on the Rights of the Child says that a child should be with its own family.

That is what we should be focusing on: making sure that every possibility is explored for the child to be able to stay with its family. I am not Pollyanna; I know that in many circumstances that is not possible—but that does really need to be at the centre of our thinking. Dr Gillespie went on:

In all circumstances, that is what we should be striving for. If that is not possible—and that is also about why we do development, to try to bolster systems to ensure that children and families can be supported—then that child should stay in its own culture and with family members or extended family members in that country. Again, our job is to help build systems with those foreign governments to make sure those child protection systems are strengthened before we get into this.

…   …   …

If all of that is exhausted—in a way, the convention says that intercountry adoption should be a last resort after those have been exhausted—then we look at how best we can minimise and protect.

Therefore, the Greens think we need to be ensuring that the best interests of the child should be at the centre of this legislation; unfortunately, we do not think this legislation goes far enough to ensure that.

Now I want to look at forced and coerced adoption, something this country knows a lot about. I remind this chamber that in little over a month we will be acknowledging the second anniversary of the apology to those affected by forced adoption in our own country.

The past forced adoption processes in Australia have caused ongoing trauma. I do not think anybody in this place is unaware of that trauma, to all those involved. As Professor Nahum Mushin, the Chair of the Forced Adoptions Implementation Working Group, noted, the consultation for the submissions on this bill had a 're-traumatising effect' on affected people. In other words, this is an ongoing trauma for all involved.

We have a responsibility to ensure that we do not create situations for such practices to recur. The Australian Greens are very concerned that this bill could assist in making coerced and forced adoption practices more likely. As UNICEF said, it is important to remember that intercountry adoptions can take an extended time because of the complex nature of the process:

… it takes time and due diligence and also that children are genuinely available to be adopted. We do not want to see any more cases where parents adopt into the Australian context only to discover that the child should never have been considered genuinely available for adoption. That is a really complex thing for parents to have to live with. What does that mean then for your parenting, what is meant for your family, what does it mean for the child, what does it mean for the biological family?

Unfortunately, illegal and unethical adoptions are more likely in non-Hague countries. Without due process and systems around child protection, children and families are at risk of exploitation. International Social Service Australia said:

The more bilateral agreements we have with non-Hague countries, the more unethical and unlawful adoptions we are going to have.

As UNICEF said:

… it has been noted in other country contexts that sometimes there is not due process around free, prior and informed consent from parents and situations where parents are actually being pressured to surrender their children to adoption programs.

A deep concern is that by agreeing to non-Hague convention adoptions these practices will occur more.

I would like to talk briefly about post-adoption support, an issue that came up significantly during the inquiry as well. We are concerned that faster adoption processes provided by the bill may mean that important supports and services do not occur. One issue that is not included in the bill is post-adoption support, or adequate post-adoption support. As several of the witnesses stated, appropriate post-adoption support is very important. There is no provision in the bill to ensure that bilateral agreements will be required to have the same standards in post-adoption support and follow-up as the Hague convention. The Hague convention currently requires post-adoption assessments, which usually occur in the first 12 months after the adoption process. There is also follow-up with the relinquishing family from the country of origin.

It was pointed out to the inquiry that it is essential that there is contact and support for the relinquishing family, the child and the adoptive family. There are several issues with post-adoption support, including the need for long-term post-adoption support for both families and adoptees, and also the important support and assessment back in the country of origin in that first year. International Social Service Australia said that post-adoption support is very, very crucial. 'It is not just the formal reports that we are talking about; it is the informal support that the family needs and may require throughout that child's upbringing.' They continued:

Also, we are funded by the New South Wales government support service for adult adoptees to search for their birth parents overseas. It is important to understand how much of a profound impact that can have on adoptees in later life when they become an adult to find out that their adoption was unethical and unlawful.

I know from the work that I have done with forgotten Australians, former child migrants, those affected by forced adoptions and the stolen generation how important it is that services are available—in fact, lifelong services. We are currently putting in place support services, after all these years, for those who were affected by forced adoptions. That is critical and important evidence that shows the lifelong impacts that flawed adoption processes can have on people. Just adopting a child, unfortunately, does not necessarily have a 'happy ever after' conclusion. We are already having significant problems with this process in Australia, after all those decades of forced adoption processes. By loosening up the overseas adoption processes so much, we are in danger of repeating that, of putting another generation of people through that.

As I said, I deeply understand people's heartfelt desire to look after children who they think they can help by bringing from overseas. I am not saying for one minute that these processes are always flawed, but we know from the evidence that many have poor outcomes. We know the lifelong impact on so-called relinquishing parents or biological parents. Some people call them birth parents. We must guarantee that the adoption is not unethical, that every move has been made to ensure that there are other supports or other potential avenues to support that child in their culture and in their country of origin. We cannot speed it up at the cost of the child, of the parents and of the adoptive parents. (Time expired)