Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I want to thank the previous speaker, Mr Harry Quick, for his contribution and to reflect and endorse his comments, because it was an interesting inquiry that we went into not knowing a lot about the topic. Having come through it, we know that it was a thoroughly worthwhile inquiry—not only because we had so much of the report adopted by the government but because in fact we were able to draw out other issues that I believe will be subject to further inquiries.

The issue of fostering alone is worthy of examination in Australia. State departments, we discovered, found it so much easier to look after 105,000 children—I think that was the number in New South Wales—in a fostering process and never find a solution for those children’s lives that was permanent. They were always happy to shift them on and shift them on again and find another family to look after them, so eventually they were too old to be considered for adoption or any other permanent caring relationship. That was one area that came up that I did not expect. The other one that emerged was the anti-adoption attitude in many state departments. The honourable member has mentioned the state of Tasmania, which was quite different. It was just a pleasure to see the relationship between parents and the department, the cooperative arrangements in that state and some beautiful outcomes, I have to say.

I guess part of this whole process has come about because, until Australia took the decision to become a signatory to the Hague convention, this was an area that was basically conducted by the states of Australia because they had the main carriage of the adoption law. The only role the Commonwealth had was to ensure that the immigration processes were properly carried out and were appropriate. Things changed and we became a signatory to the Hague convention, so it became necessary to modify the way in which the relationships between the Commonwealth and the states were carried out. In 1998, an agreement was entered into, but it is time to change that. Nearly 10 years have expired and it is not working satisfactorily. The House of Representatives carried out this inquiry and it produced wonderful results. Only three of the 27 recommendations were not accepted by the government, mainly because there were factors extraneous in some way to the thrust of the report and because some of them dealt with state government issues over which the Commonwealth has no control. But it was a beneficial report.

I have to say that, having looked at the Hague convention and the way in which it operates in Australia, I am delighted that the Commonwealth has decided it is going to take a leading role and that the Attorney-General will approach the states and territories to amend the agreement to commit the states and territories to provide training and resources and bring in the private sector—the not-for-profit agencies which can better relate to the community and, under proper supervision, provide a much more empathetic environment for the adoption of children from overseas. The time is long gone when the derelict and completely unsatisfactory arrangements in each state can be allowed to continue. That must be stopped. We need to change those processes, and evidence that the committee received made it obvious that the permanence and stability of children at risk were criticised by parent groups and academics.

In New South Wales, the Committee on Adoption and Permanent Care advised the Standing Committee on Family and Human Services how foster care drift can affect children. Groups said that the processes that parents are required to go through are extraordinary. In fact, the only effective adoption statistics were provided by parent groups themselves, because none of the departments had any information—or, if they did, they did not provide it to the committee. A table appearing in our report indicates that the total adoptions in Australia were as low as 66 in New South Wales, which was equivalent to one adoption per 101,991 people, which is an extraordinarily low figure. The only figures which closely equate to the international average are those of the ACT and Tasmania. The international standard is within the range of one adoption per 10,000 to 20,000 head of population. And there we have New South Wales, with extremely high fees and total adoptions finalised in one year of 66 only. Of all the parents claiming that they want adoption, only 66 were accommodated in New South Wales.

In Queensland, they closed the books and decided not to process any more because the comment by the public servants involved was that they would process them as they received them. They closed the books for a couple of years, then opened the books and got 800 applications for adoption. They decided they would process 100 a year for the next eight years and that was the way they were going to get rid of that backlog. That is a disgusting arrangement, and I am so pleased that it is going to change. I am delighted that the government has decided to accept the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted, debate adjourned.

See this speech in context