Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs report Breaking barriers: a national adoption framework for Australian children. In doing so, I seek to associate myself with the remarks made yesterday by my friend and colleague the member for Newcastle, and I will speak to Labor's dissenting report. First of all, I would like to acknowledge the work of the committee secretariat throughout this process and thank the staff for their very valued contributions, hard work and organisational ability. I commend all the members of the committee, including the government members, because I know that the views that they formed were heartfelt and genuine and this is an area in which there are very complex social, legal and family issues involved.

The report is the culmination of a number of public hearings, private meetings, many submissions and many visits with different organisations. The inquiry was intended to enable the committee to report on approaches to a nationally consistent framework for local adoption across Australia. I wish to make it clear that I, along with my Labor colleagues in the committee, cannot support the government's report. Labor is of the view that the report and its recommendations pose the risk of children, particularly First Nations children, being permanently removed from their families. We are very concerned about this possible outcome.

The government's report, I think, fails to really understand the nature of child protection in this country. I had a long involvement with child protection in my career as a paediatrician and it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the great teaching and knowledge I had from two doctors at the children's hospital many years ago, Dr Ferry Grunseit and Dr Suzette Booth, who taught me the basic issues and the main issues about child protection, at the children's hospital, then at Camperdown and now at Westmead. They impressed on me the importance of developing policies that are right for families in this area, and the dangers of views that have not been well thought out and are not based on the evidence.

In my career as a paediatrician I have seen a number of child protection failures, some of which involve patients of mine, and I take some responsibility for that. I have seen children die from injuries and I have seen children starved to death by their parents. I have also seen families destroyed by children being removed and from a lack of support. It is important to understand that child protection is essentially an issue of risk management. There is no right or wrong answer. Multigenerational poverty often culminates in child protection issues. Many of the families I've seen involved with child protection services have very entrenched family histories of involvement with so-called welfare agencies. I've seen children removed from their families who I think shouldn't have been removed. I've seen some children kept with their families who I thought would have been better removed. I've seen some children who have had ongoing trauma because of multiple child foster-care placements. I've seen a lack of transparency in many of the child protection issues that I've been involved with and I've seen an abrogation of governmental responsibility developing in this area with the hiving-off of child protection issues and management to non-government organisations, often those with very poor governance. So, this is a major issue.

I know that there are some very entrenched views about this. In my office I have a transcript of the Apology to Australia's Indigenous Peoples. I'm very concerned about the possibility of having another stolen generation that we'll have to deal with. I looked over the apology before writing this speech and one line in particular stands out to me today:

The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia's history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.

Whilst I acknowledge that, in the child protection sphere, there may be some children who are adopted and ultimately have good results, I'm very concerned about any move to expedite adoption and to remove some of the protections for families involved in this field. Child protection is a long-term issue. When children are referred to welfare agencies, it should be seen as a referral of the whole family. We know that any intervention is unlikely to improve the situation in the short term. So, it's an issue in which there must be long-term intervention, particularly intervention early in the process. Because we know it is a multigenerational issue, any intervention that's done needs to look at the whole family and needs to progress with support over a long period of time.

As stated in our dissenting report, we on the committee who are members of the opposition had serious concerns from the outset that it was becoming a tool to legitimise the agenda and the ideologies that had been suggested by the government originally. Community representatives and experts alike were quick to condemn the ad hoc proposal. A government that doesn't concern itself with the concerns of all its people is very likely to introduce policies that fail and that will have long-term consequences.

Our fear that this inquiry would be used as a political tool to legitimise early adoption was proven correct the moment the terms of reference were locked in. The very first term of reference states the committee should specifically consider:

1. stability and permanency for children in out-of-home care with local adoption as a viable option;

The government, through its report, would subsequently make recommendations that would open up adoption to children in out-of-home care, with very short periods of waiting time. I cannot stress enough the significance of this. We are dealing with families that have complex medical, social and other problems, including mental illness, drug and alcohol difficulties and also multigenerational poverty—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Proceedings suspended from 11:35 to 11:54

The report as tabled disregards the evidence of other inquiries which have demonstrated that connection to culture, kin and country is critical to the safety and wellbeing of First Nations children. We know this to be an undeniable fact and of the utmost importance. It is a crying shame that those opposite can come to this place and make determinations which place such vital connections at risk. Through its inquiry the committee uncovered evidence which demonstrated faults in the practice of open adoption. The government members of this committee are recommending that children in out-of-home care be diverted into open adoption arrangements, which in theory would aim to allow open lines of communication and information exchange between the child and their birth parents and families. In practice this is very unlikely to happen, as many of those involved in the adoptions that have already occurred are opposed.

My fear is that what will happen is that families will themselves not want to contact welfare organisations and family and community services, because of the fear of their children being removed. I believe this government report will put more families at risk and that it has the potential to actually harm the care of children in out-of-home care because of their family's unwillingness to seek support from family and community services and like organisations. The report fails to understand the multigenerational aspects of child protection. It fails to understand the complex nature of child protection issues, which are not binary. They're complex and often need to be reviewed.

In summary, the government's report creates huge risks not just for Indigenous children but for all children who are involved in out-of-home-care situations and child protection. I think there needs to be far more investment in early intervention services and in family services that will provide support and protection for children, while, at the same time, trying to break the multigenerational nature of child protection.

See this speech in context