Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak about the government response to the report on the inquiry of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services into overseas adoption. The Standing Committee on Family and Human Services began its inquiry into overseas adoption in 2004. It received a large number of submissions—274—and took evidence from 100 witnesses in 12 hearings. It reported in November 2005. Amongst its key findings were a number of recommendations. There were 27 recommendations, with bipartisan agreement, including that the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations should remove the five-year age limit for adoption leave, that the minister should standardise maternity leave so that adoptive parents in the Commonwealth public sector receive the same conditions as birth parents, that the Minister for Family and Community Services should remove the age limit for adopted children’s eligibility for maternity payment and that the Minister for Family and Community Services should amend eligibility criteria for maternity immunisation allowance so that adoptive children can receive it for two years after the child’s entry to Australia.

I know from the public response at the time from adoptive parent groups that they were thrilled with the report. They thought that the committee did an excellent job and that the bipartisan recommendations made by the committee took up a number of issues that they were concerned with. Many adoptive parents and the groups that lobby on their behalf—where the parents are able to support each other through what is a difficult, long and expensive process—had taken a lot of time that many of them do not have. They are busy with their young families. They had taken their precious time to make detailed submissions for the report and they were very pleased with the response the committee gave them.

It was a shame in that context to see the comments of the member for Lindsay, who said in the Age on 14 February in 2006 words to the effect that intercountry adoption encouraged a trade in babies. We know that parents who adopt from overseas consider very carefully the ethical aspect of adopting from overseas. They think very long and hard about not only their own desire for a child but also whether they are doing something that is in the best interests of a child. Because of the international conventions to which Australia is signatory, I think it is arguable that we can be confident that, where children are from countries that are signatories to international conventions, those countries have tried to place those children with families in their own country. In fact, in a number of countries I think the process of trying to place children domestically is so slow that we add to the difficulties of those families and those children, because in many cases they have lived in underresourced institutions for many years before they are able to come to be part of an Australian family.

So those comments about Australian parents contributing to a trade in babies, I think, were incredibly hurtful and offensive to many Australian families, including a mother that I was contacted by, Gail Chamberlain. She contacted me from International Adoptive Families of Queensland, very upset about these comments. She also, in her contact with me, wanted me to push wherever I could for the government to respond positively to the bipartisan recommendations made by this committee in its very good report.

She also wanted an apology from the member for Lindsay, which I am sure she did not get—her emails kept bouncing back unopened. She was joined by a number of other adoptive parents, including Steve Nielsen from the Australian Korean Friendship Group, which obviously, as the title would tell you, provides support for Queensland and Victorian families who are seeking to adopt or have adopted from South Korea. He also wanted an apology from the member for Lindsay, and he said in his contact with me: ‘comments such as those from Ms Kelly do nothing to help us’. Ms Kelly’s ignorance will not address the inconsistencies within the process of intercountry adoption. He too was very concerned that the recommendations of the standing committee’s inquiry on intercountry adoption would never see the light of day and was very supportive of the committee’s bipartisan recommendations.

I spoke at some length to a number of parents who were concerned, as I say, by the member for Lindsay’s comments. Really, the overwhelming message was that people who go through the expense, the heartache and the long and difficult process of adoption do it because they believe they can give a good and loving home to the children that they are adopting because they have got a lot of love to give. They do consider those issues. Would this child be better off in his or her birth country? Would they be better off? After a lot of soul searching, I think these parents come to the conclusion that a loving family home has to be better than an institution.

I was pleased to see that a number of the recommendations were adopted by the government. I have been disappointed that some of the most significant ones so far have been rejected by the government. I hope that we will still see some movement on these. One of the most significant was the age restriction on the maternity payment. Currently the maternity payment is not paid to parents who adopt a child who is aged two or over. This means that many parents are not eligible for the $4,000 maternity payment because their child is older than two when adopted. You often hear of stories of children who miss out by just a few months: they come to a family aged two years and one month, and they are not eligible for the $4,000 maternity payment. This is not the fault of the families; it is not the fault of the children. In most cases, the delays are, as I say, because of the very careful checking processes both here in Australia to ensure that families are suitable families and overseas to ensure that there are no birth family members who can look after these children. This is a completely arbitrary cut-off date and it discriminates against parents who take on an older child.

Older children are much harder to place than babies. They often come to Australia with significant difficulties, psychological problems and intellectual and developmental delays because of the fact that they have been raised in institutions frequently with not enough adult contact. The fact that parents are prepared to take on older children with the whole range of difficulties—and incidentally a whole range of additional expenses because they are older children—should never be a cause for those families to be discriminated against.

One couple whom I spoke to, Lorren and Robert, have two children of their own, aged 13 and nearly 11. After having thought for many years about adopting a child, they started the long and expensive process last year. They recently became parents to a new daughter aged four years and five months. They say:

Eligibility for the maternity payment would make a huge difference to us, and ease considerably what we would be able to afford to do once returning home. Most adopted children arrive with nothing to their name. Given the age of our other children, we know we will need to purchase clothes, toys, bedding etc that we no longer have. To assist with language and integration, we will also need to invest in toddler appropriate reading books and activities. As the primary income earner, our income will also reduce in the new year, as I intend to take some time off work and then return to reduced hours. An injection of $4,000 upon returning home would enable us to concentrate on nurturing our new child, and ease the financial strain that we have acutely felt at many stages through the adoption process.

Another woman who contacted me, Sandi Peterson, is an adoptive mother of an 11-year-old, an eight-year-old and a three-year-old. She says:

I assure that you the cost of a bed, clothing, toys and activities for an older child are generally more expensive than those for an under 2 year old. All children are equally precious regardless of whether they come to our families through birth, through adoption at an age under 2 years of age or through adoption as an older child.

On 30 October this year, Labor announced that we would abolish the age restriction on the maternity payment for adoptive parents. We believe that the adoption of a child, whether born in Australia or overseas, requires courage and determination. It often also requires a great deal of money, as this report details. Adoptive parents can spend up to $30,000 in adopting a child from China, for instance.

The maternity payment, currently $4,000, should be available to adoptive parents as they have even higher costs than birth parents when welcoming a new child into their family. Adoption agencies and many parents who gave evidence to this parliamentary committee on the adoption of children called for this reform. They have called for it repeatedly, as I know the member for Mackellar opposite has in the past. We believe that families are right in calling for this change and that indeed it should be made.

We have been distressed by some of the controversial comments made by the member for Lindsay and others about overseas adoption. We believe that adoptive parents do take this very difficult decision with a great deal of forethought and with the very best intentions for their family and for the adoptive child that they are to welcome into their family. We hope that the government will respond to this report positively and pick up the remaining recommendations that they have not agreed to to date and implement those bipartisan recommendations as well.

See this speech in context