Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 17 September 2012:

With reference to the closure of the Ethiopia-Australia Intercountry Adoption Program, and the fact that, according to freedom of information documents, the decision not to renew the program was made prior to 20 January 2012:

(1) On what basis did the department arrange a trip to Ethiopia and communication about that trip in April 2012, despite the decision to close the program having already been made.

(2) Why did the department not complete the files that were in country and provide a 12 month wind-down of the program.

(3) Why was the program not suspended given that, for example, one file was called to leave Australia for Ethiopia in November 2011 despite the program's imminent termination.

(4) Given the department's confirmation that refunds will be provided to affected families for the overseas component of the adoption application, whilst uncertainty remains as to whether state departments will reimburse costs and fees associated with assessments, has the department conducted any follow-up with state departments in order to ensure that families are reimbursed for total fees paid; if not, what steps will the department take to ensure that state departments reimburse families.

(5) In regard to the administration of the program in Tigray:

(a) why did the department arrange for a female representative to hold discussions concerning community programs and suitable orphanages in Tigray, despite known gender-equality issues in the region;

(b) was this situation sensitively handled and did the Australian representative speak Tigrian; and

(c) why did the department not employ advisors with the necessary cultural needs experience in Ethiopia.

(6) Why is Australia's performance in intercountry adoption processes comparatively poor, despite fees being significantly higher than in other countries.

(7) Why does Australia spend more money, yet apparently accomplishes less, than other countries in relation to intercountry adoptions, and has the department considered that an independent not-for-profit organisation, with accountability to the department, may be better positioned to run the program.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(1) There was no decision to close the Program before 20 January 2012. I made an in-principle decision to close the Program on 24 April 2012 and the final decision on 12 June 2012. The Department's pre-scheduled delegation visit to Ethiopia from 27 April to 11 May 2012 reassessed the ongoing viability of the Program, and confirmed that ongoing challenges remained which meant that the Program could not continue to operate.

(2) I considered the possibility of 'completing' the files that were in Ethiopia at the time of closure; that is, matching Ethiopian children to Australian prospective adoptive parents before closing the Program. However, this was not appropriate for a number of reasons. First, as no children had been referred to the Program for intercountry adoption at that time, this approach would have created pressure for children to be located who were of ages and characteristics matching those of children for which files in Ethiopia were approved.

In addition, there were a number of resource intensive steps, each with its own challenges, which would have needed to be completed before the Program could operate, even to process a limited number of files. These steps included:

Given lengthening waiting times and the continued uncertainty in the Ethiopian adoption process, I could not justify taking those steps.

(3) My in-principle decision to close the Program was made on 24 April 2012. Prior to that decision, my Department continued to manage the Program as usual.

In late 2011, it was agreed by the Australian Government and all State and Territory Central Authorities that a temporary halt on sending new files to Ethiopia was necessary because of the number of families travelling to Ethiopia to complete the adoption process at the same time.

In mid-January 2012, the Department (in consultation with the Australian Representative) came to the view that it would not be possible to continue the 12-month orphanage agreement with Tesfa Elderly and Children Support Organisation (Tesfa), which meant that the halt would remain in place while arrangements were explored with potential new orphanages.

(4) Prospective adoptive parents paid fees to their relevant State or Territory Central Authority for work undertaken in relation to their applications. When I wrote to the State and Territory ministers on 25 June 2012 advising them of my decision to close the Program, I urged them to consider whether those fees were capable of being refunded. Ultimately, however, the decision to refund fees rests with those State and Territory ministers. I understand that, in some cases, refunds have been approved or other fees have been waived.

(5) My Department is confident that the Program's Australian Representative, an Ethiopian born in the Tigray region, fluent speaker of Tigrain, Amharic and English, holder of an Associate Degree of Law and former judge of ten years in Addis Ababa, competently performed her role.

The Australian Representative was also assisted by the Program's Africa Advisor, Dr Tsegaye Berhe. For 30 years, Dr Tsegaye was the Director of Child and Family Affairs for the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and is well-versed in issues of child welfare. Dr Tsegaye's role as Africa Advisor involved providing specialist advice and consultation on Ethiopian intercountry adoption and related matters and administrative support services to the Australian Representative.

To the best of my Department's knowledge, the existence of any gender equality issues in the Tigray region did not adversely affect the Australian Representative's performance of her role.

(6) The decrease in intercountry adoption in Australia reflects a worldwide downturn of 36% since 2004, with a reduction in the worldwide number of intercountry adoptions from 43,142 in 2004 to 27,552 in 2010 (International Social Service). The United States, the largest 'receiving country' of children through intercountry adoption, experienced a decline of 52% in intercountry adoptions between 2004 and 2010 (United States Department of State). During the same period, Australian intercountry adoptions fell by 40%, an overall reduction in number from 370 in 2003-04 to 222 in 2009-10 (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare).

Australian families typically pay two kinds of adoption fees – State or Territory processing fees paid directly to the Australian State or Territory Central Authority that is assessing the family and preparing their application, and country program fees set by, and paid to, the overseas body which is facilitating the adoption. The latter vary between country programs and range from less than US$1000 up to US$15,000 depending on the country program.

The cost of undertaking an intercountry adoption varies widely throughout the world, with some costing up to AU$60,000. There is no indication that the fees charged by Australia's States and Territories are markedly higher than other countries' fees.

(7) This option was considered in 2009. This included consideration of alternative models for the operation of intercountry adoption in Australia, including a review of the advantages and disadvantages of a State or national-based system of accreditation for non-government bodies. The Community and Disability Services Ministers' Advisory Council agreed to retain the existing model of intercountry adoption service delivery at that time.