Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will move the motion relating to intercountry adoption in the terms in which it appears on the Notice Paper, but I intend to read it because I think it outlines the urgency of what needs to be done. I move:

That this House:

(1)

recognises that Australia’s rates of inter-country adoption are significantly lower than leading western nations;

(2)

notes that the Commonwealth should take the primary role in managing Australia’s external relations in inter-country adoptions;

(3)

recognises the role that non-government organisations should have in managing inter-country adoptions in Australia; and

(4)

notes that parents of children adopted from overseas have less access to benefits and entitlements than the rest of the community.

In speaking to the motion, I want to record how pleased the Standing Committee on Family and Human Services is with the way that the report has been accepted in the community at large. The committee is particularly pleased with the way that the government is beginning to respond to the report.

The Attorney-General’s Department, it has been agreed by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, is to be the lead agency to coordinate the government response. In its background notes, the Attorney-General’s Department says that the recommendations of the committee, taken as a whole, create a blueprint for systematic change in the way that adoptions of children from overseas are handled. It recognises that there can be a lead time, because some of these policies will be new policy, requiring new money.

There has been, I think, speed in the way the Attorney-General has acted. On 9 February this year he convened a meeting of all relevant departments involving relevant agencies to consider the report with a view to developing advice on the substantive recommendations. On 10 February, the Attorney-General’s Department convened an out-of-session meeting of the state and territory adoption central authorities to consider the report. Considering that we only formally tabled this report in the House on 5 December last year, for the government to respond that quickly is really commendable.

The unanimous views of all committee members, both government and opposition, showed a forceful resolve to see that something is done about the small number of adoptions—only 400—from overseas that occur here. There is a need for a non-government agency to be involved in the adoption process and be properly funded—by the Commonwealth. That peak body should then look after bodies in the states for individual funding. We believe that the culture of antiadoption that exists presently in the bureaucracy is one that has to be broken, and that, by accepting the recommendations that we put in our report, this can occur. We were quite stunned to find that the culture of bureaucracies, at both state and federal level, was an antiadoption culture.

Our recommendations—there are 27 of them in all—cover nine separate ministries. Attorney-General’s is the main one, because it is there that the starting point will rest—and that is to renegotiate the agreement between the Commonwealth and the states as to who manages the agreements with overseas countries to enable overseas adoptions to take place. We want a harmonisation of what goes on between the different states: they have different standards, different fee structures and different prejudices against would-be adopting parents. As I said, the nine departments involved are: Attorney-General’s; Education, Science and Training; Employment and Workplace Relations; Family, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs; Human Services; Foreign Affairs and Trade; Health and Ageing; Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; and the Treasury—but the lead agency is the Attorney-General’s.

We believe, fundamentally, that adoption is a legitimate way of creating or adding to a family. Overseas adoption gives children from another land an opportunity in this land, where they should be treated equally, as biological children are treated, under the law, and that means federal law as well. So it is quite within the purview of the government and the states to change certain laws straightaway. New policy, we understand, may take longer in that it needs new funding. (Time expired)

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Julia Irwin (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Standing Committee on Family and Human Services reported to the House last November on its inquiry into adoption of children from overseas. The committee made 27 recommendations and a number of those recommendations are included in this motion. As I have now had two opportunities to speak on the report—once in the House and also in the Main Committee—I will use the time in the debate on this motion to look at the potentially greater role for the Commonwealth to play in intercountry adoption.

While the committee heard many complaints against various state agencies, pointing at difficulties faced by parents seeking overseas adoption, the states’ responses could be summed up in the remarks of the New South Wales Department of Community Services, which said:

In New South Wales, we wish to return to a situation where the primary focus of our social work resources is on assessing and supporting the 105,000 children who are the subject of 216,000 risk of harm reports every year in New South Wales. That is what we need to focus on ... New South Wales does not consider it to be appropriate to deploy scarce casework resources to negotiate and administer a plethora of intercountry adoption agreements ...

New South Wales also concluded:

... it would be more appropriate and efficient for the commonwealth to assume responsibility for management of the intercountry adoption program.

This view was supported by adoptive parents. Mr Cec Pedersen, a former Vice-President of the International Adoptive Families of Queensland, outlined the need for the Commonwealth to take the primary role in managing Australia’s external relations in intercountry adoptions. Mr Pederson told the committee:

The area of adoption generally, but in particular intercountry adoption, is a very complex one. It is not a simple matter of procuring children from relinquishing countries. There is a very complex set of relationships. Most of the countries are very embarrassed about the fact that they cannot care for their own children. We see over the last couple of decades that a change of government in a country will also result in a change in policy. For example, Romania, with a change of government, made a decision that, instead of relinquishing children, they would care for them internally.

The sensitivities that are involved, I believe, are much better handled—the relationships are much better handled—by the foreign minister as part of the portfolio of discussions that they have. In some instances it may be that foreign aid is the most appropriate way of supporting children. Although I am an adoptive father, I have a very strong belief that the ideal situation is to care for the kids in their own country and culture; reality is something quite different. In some instances, foreign aid may be the preferred way to go. In other instances it may be sponsorship programs—whether or not that is for education or health reasons. In others, it is the facilitating of the adoption. I believe that, out of all the departments, the foreign minister has probably the best capacity to have those sensitive discussions at senior government to senior government ministerial level. The states do not have the resources and I do not believe they have the capacity to be able to have those discussions.

The frustration being felt by so many adoptive parents is understandable when you consider the following statement given to the committee by one state adoption official. As deputy chair of the committee I was absolutely appalled by this statement:

Parents have an agenda. They are desperate people and they believe it is their right to be able to do this, and it is not.  No one has the right to adopt a child. You can have an altruistic view that we are a global society and we should be looking after all our children, and that is great. And we do it successfully, but we also make sure we do it damned right.

I say to that state adoption official: you do not have to carry a child from within; you do carry that child from the heart. When this is the mind-set faced by adoptive parents, clearly there is a need for the Commonwealth to take a greater role in overseas adoption. With a sensitive understanding of the culture and political climate of relinquishing countries, the Commonwealth is far better placed to facilitate and regulate overseas adoption.

Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise also to speak to this motion this afternoon because I have been a supporter of reform in the area of overseas adoptions since I was first elected. I strongly believe that suitable Australian couples willing and able to welcome a child who does not have parents into their home deserve the support of the community, deserve less red tape and deserve less obstruction in the way of government fees. The report by the House Standing Committee on Family and Human Services on the inquiry into adoption of children from overseas makes some crucial recommendations. Today I would like to address some of these and give my support.

Recommendation 3 calls for a greater harmonisation of laws, fees and assessment practices by the Commonwealth when it renegotiates—as I hope it will—the Commonwealth-state agreements. There are substantial fees imposed on couples who wish to adopt a child. I believe it should be financially much less burdensome. Among the fees are expenses for application, travel and assessment, including medical and police checks. If applications are approved, there are further fees. In my home state these amount to something like $2,100, which, I have to say, as high an amount as it is, is the lowest in Australia. Elsewhere it can be as high as almost $10,000. Other fees that are levied for overseas adoption include a charge by the Commonwealth of around $1,300. Overseas programs that are responsible for the processes in the child’s country of origin also charge fees which can amount to tens of thousands of dollars.

Recommendation 9 of the inquiry report asks for the removal of the age limit for adopted children’s eligibility for the maternity payment, as long as a claim is made within 26 weeks. Similarly, recommendation 10 calls on an amendment to the eligibility criteria for the maternity immunisation allowance for children adopted overseas, so that the period is two years after the child’s entry to Australia.

These recommendations make sense. Why? Because both the accepted tradition of adoption and state law say that an adopted child is regarded as though he or she had been actually born to the parents. So if the law sees no difference on rights or status then so should regulations concerning payments and financial support. Couples who do wish to adopt a child from overseas have to go through what I have to say is a sometimes difficult and always emotional process. It is these people whom I would like to speak on behalf of today.

The latest edition of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s report Adoptions Australia, published in December, shows that 434 overseas adoptions occurred in 2004-05. Eighteen of these adoptions were in my home state of Tasmania. This is quite encouraging, because it has processed some five per cent of all intercountry adoptions and has just 2½ per cent of the population. It is so good to see Tassie kicking above its weight. The children adopted to Tasmania last year came from the Philippines, China, Ethiopia, India, South Korea and Thailand; and I know of a couple working right now on an adoption application for a child from Eritrea. I have been in touch with several adoptive parents in Northern Tasmania who have shared with me their stories. Often these have been stories speaking of many hardships and obstacles which have been in some cases overcome. In other cases, they have been too much.

If we as Australians want to encourage members of our community to provide new and loving homes for orphaned children then we need to look at how this is being frustrated. I would today like to praise the committee for its willpower, thoughtful consideration and, of course, the work that was necessary to produce this fine report. I am inwardly proud to have raised this issue in parliament in March last year, when I moved a private member’s motion on overseas adoption in terms similar to those we are discussing right now. As part of that motion I called on the Australian government to examine how it can better support families who have adopted children either within Australia or without. I also called on state governments to immediately review their excessive fees. I hope and expect that both the Commonwealth and state governments will now act on these recommendations and work together for the benefit of Australians who want to pursue the selfless act of adoption. I commend this motion to the House in the interests of Australian families—our promotion of one of the most touching forms of overseas welfare, and future young Aussie children who may not share the same skin colour or eye colour as their new parents but will share a love and affection that only a family can offer. (Time expired)

Harry Quick (Franklin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

About 12 weeks ago this excellent report, Overseas adoption in Australia, was tabled in this parliament. It contained 27 excellent recommendations and was a labour of love by members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services. Members of the committee and, more importantly, families who adopted children from overseas and those currently awaiting approval to adopt children are waiting with bated breath for the government’s response to this long awaited report. I was delighted to hear a few moments ago the honourable member for Mackellar’s statement that the various federal ministers are working to ensure that our recommendations are addressed as quickly as possible. One hopes they also will look at our other excellent report on substance abuse, which has been shelved.

Australia prides itself on being egalitarian, warm hearted and responsive to crises that affect the lives of young children in so many basket case African countries and neighbouring countries in our region. The tsunami crisis saw Australians donate money, materials and expertise on an unprecedented scale. The plight of the countless orphans in Indonesia alone tugged at the heartstrings of so many families here in Australia. I think this was especially so for those Australian families who have made that special sacrifice and adopted children from overseas.

As I said, last December those of us who proudly serve on the House committee spoke on this excellent report. The report highlighted the antiadoption ethos and stance long espoused by state departments responsible for the health and welfare of children. This antiadoption ethos surprised all members of the House committee as we travelled throughout the length and breadth of our country taking evidence. It goes a long way to explaining why Australia’s rate of intercountry adoption is significantly lower than that of leading Western nations. I think it is something that we should be ashamed of and embarrassed about. It is interesting, as we debate this private member’s motion—and I thank the honourable member for Mackellar for raising the issue and giving us another opportunity to debate it—that everyone in this House is considering their conscience and how they are going to vote on an issue relating to the lives of young children. One would hope that this excellent report does receive the interest, the introspection and the follow-up it deserves not only from the various ministers who are in a position of authority at the moment but from all members of the House.

I honestly believe our low rates do not reflect a lack of interest and enthusiasm for intercountry adoptions. Rather, the opposite is the case. I would like to express publicly my deep appreciation to and admiration for those families who have gone through the tortuous process that is intercountry adoption. In my December speech I highlighted many of those, and if you read the report you will with some amazement read of the hoops that people are forced to jump through. At our hearings committee members saw first hand the children adopted from many countries. We heard not only from their parents but more especially and occasionally from the children themselves. On the back of the report is the delightful statement from Amee, who appeared:

I am thankful to be here because when I went back a couple of years ago to Ethiopia I saw all the poverty over there. It opened my eyes. I am grateful to have an education, and that I am healthy and I can grow up, because over there the life expectancy for women is only about 38 ... I know that here I can live a health and prosperous life, so I am grateful for that.

I am grateful to Amee for telling us that story. I have seen first hand both sides of this issue. I have heard evidence from loving Australian families and I have visited the China Centre for Adoption Affairs in Beijing and met the wonderful people who work over there processing the 10,000 applications a year. I have also had the pleasure of walking in Tiananmen Square and meeting adults from various countries who are proudly showing their Chinese children the heritage and culture of that wonderful country. I had the temerity to go up and ask, ‘Have you adopted a child?’ They stood out as Anglo-Saxons either from Australia or European countries, with their Chinese children in their strollers. I told them who I was and what I had been involved in, and they proudly told me of their love of China and their ability to adopt these young children. All I can say is: for goodness sake, in the spirit of cooperation, let us have a Commonwealth-state response to this issue. (Time expired)

Ken Ticehurst (Dobell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too wish to speak on the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services titled Overseas adoption in Australia. Firstly, I congratulate the member for Mackellar for her unwavering commitment to unravelling the complex laws on overseas adoption. I would also like to thank the people who summoned the courage to contribute to the inquiry and share with the committee their difficult, and often painful, experiences. The resulting recommendations, if implemented, will strengthen our country’s overseas adoption programs. They will also provide a legitimate and more efficient way to give a loving family environment to children being adopted from overseas.

It is natural for families, and childless couples in particular, to want children. There are increasing numbers of couples in Australia and other advanced countries who want children but cannot have them by natural means. At the same time, the number of young children available for adoption in Australia is rapidly falling. Overseas adoption is a legitimate way of forming Australian families. Why is it then that a successful multicultural country like Australia has a rate of overseas adoption that is a small percentage of the average for Western countries? With around 370 intercountry adoptions last year, Australia ranked second last out of a number of advanced Western countries. Yet there are 5,000 Australian couples who want to rescue children in China, Kenya and Ethiopia from terrible plights. They want to save them from a life of begging, stealing, starvation, drug addiction and even child prostitution.

The committee found that these couples are being stopped by a system that believes adoption is unfashionable. A general lack of support for adoption—both local and intercountry—was evident in most of the state and territory welfare departments responsible for processing all adoption applications, the report found. The lack of support ranged from indifference to hostility. Parents wanting to adopt said they got the feeling that they were trying to do something that was wrong. People wanting to adopt are subject to long waiting lists, and the length of time required for approval is a direct result of the low priority given to overseas adoptions. State and territory intercountry adoption units are also underresourced. This contributes to the long queues for those seeking intercountry adoptions.

The lack of resources and support is part of the wider story of adoption in Australia generally. Following the unsympathetic adoption practices between the 1950s and 1970s, policy has focused on biological links above all else. Basically, because of the flawed forced adoption policies of Australia’s past, state government bureaucrats are opposing many adoptions. This has led to tens too many children being placed in foster care when adoption could well have been more beneficial for them.

The committee found that the Commonwealth has been very hands off in its approach to overseas adoption despite its central authority status. The report’s recommendations require renegotiating the 1998 Commonwealth-state agreement to improve state and territory practices, and a more active role for the Commonwealth. The committee seeks better harmonised, more efficient and more accountable processing of applications for intercountry adoptions at the state level and gives the Commonwealth greater responsibility for developing overseas adoption programs. The committee is also keen to see properly trained and resourced accredited bodies help process adoption applications to fast-track the system.

The committee found that the plummeting number of adoptions could be reversed by increasing the number of countries from which people could adopt and having a more consistent approach. To assist adoptive parents, inconsistencies between the entitlements provided to families for biological and adopted children need to be removed. A standout feature of the inquiry for members was the overwhelming love of adoptive parents for their children and their pride in them. I would like to again thank the parents of adopted children and the adopted children that took the time to address the inquiry.

The committee sincerely believes that the implementation of these recommendations will strengthen our intercountry adoption programs. These reforms will without doubt be in the best interests of the most vulnerable people in society—the children—who will face a promising future in a loving Australian family.

Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the few minutes that are remaining in this debate on the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services titled Overseas adoption in Australia, I begin by thanking the chair of the committee, the member for Mackellar, for her oversight of the hard work of this committee, together with the hardworking secretariat attached to the committee. One thing that is interesting about our work in parliament and that is often not seen by people outside this building is the fact that on many issues there can be bipartisan conclusions reached on issues that transcend party political positions. I was a member of the committee that looked into this issue of overseas adoption, and I must say that I learned a lot from it. I think we all look forward to learning as we go along—on a range of issues on which previously we may have had no particular expertise.

As with other inquiries that I have been on that have led to bipartisan recommendations—like the committee that produced the very memorable report Every picture tells a story, which is finally coming to be debated in this parliament in a bill that will be introduced this week—I want to commend all the members of the committee for really delving into an issue that hitherto had remained largely hidden from to public scrutiny. I myself was incredibly surprised at the massive decline in adoptions that has occurred in our country, particularly adoptions within Australia. Local adoptions dropped from a peak of over 9,000 back in the 1970s to only 73 in 2003-04. Yet, as we all know, there are tens of thousands of children in foster care and other forms of out-of-home care. When I read stories about the plight of some of these children, I sometimes wonder whether they would be better off having a secure adoptive family relationship in which to live.

In the course of our inquiry we uncovered a culture that has been very antiadoption. There are a number of reasons for this, but it seems that today adoption is not seen as a positive means of adding to a family and family formation. That cultural attitude, which is expressed at the level of a number of bureaucracies, is the wrong attitude. There are many people in Australia who would willingly open their homes to many children suffering very poor circumstances, with no hope of adoption in their own home countries.

There are currently about 300-400 overseas adoptions each year in Australia. But when we look at how we fare compared to other countries, the statistics say it all. Our per capita rate of adoption is less than one-third of the rate of most First World economies. I will give just one example. In 2003-04, there were 370 overseas adoptions in Australia, compared with 1,109 in Sweden, a country that has less than half of Australia’s population. We can see that there is something really amiss in the processes that lead to an outcome where Australia is faring so poorly compared to Sweden and where it has, as I say, only one-third of the adoption rate of most First World economies.

The recommendations that come from this committee address the reasons for this poor performance on the part of Australia and recommend ways in which the federal government can take a more proactive role as a signatory to the Hague convention and can renegotiate the Commonwealth-state agreement to provide better outcomes in this very important area. As the member for Mackellar rightly says in her resolution before the parliament, there are no reasons why children in adopted situations ought to be treated any differently from biological children in terms of access to benefits and entitlements. We did find a number of areas of discriminatory practices against children in adoptive relationships that we believe ought to be addressed by the federal government.

In the time that is left could I say that the four things that were drawn out in the motion moved by the member for Mackellar point to the issues, based on the evidence presented to the committee, and point the way forward for many more Australian couples to be able to adopt children from overseas and have that choice accepted as a positive choice in adding to family and family formation. (Time expired)

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.