Louise Markus (Greenway, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services on overseas adoption in Australia. The inquiry began in February 2005. We received over 274 submissions, had about 12 public hearings and had 100 people give formal evidence. I wish to acknowledge and thank the members for Mackellar, Fowler, Throsby, Adelaide, Wakefield, Forde, Franklin, Dobell and, of course, Mitchell for their hard work and the time that they spent trying to understand the challenges that face families, individuals and couples seeking to establish a family through adoption and also some of the challenges that face children seeking to be adopted. The terms of reference of the committee focused on inconsistencies between the states and territories and also inconsistencies between benefits and entitlements provided to families with own-birth children and those provided to families who have adopted children from overseas.

I want to acknowledge the government’s response. Overall the response of the government in accepting a number of the recommendations is very positive. Of the 27 recommendations only a few were not accepted and a couple were accepted only in part. The rest, overall, have been taken on board. I welcome the Attorney-General’s announcement—the Australian government’s response—on 14 September 2006, in which he said:

The Australian Government supports the Committee’s call for reform and has accepted the vast majority of the Committee’s recommendations.

I was also pleased to see that action has already begun, particularly in sending a delegation to Ethiopia in September to discuss, for example, that country’s program. The Commonwealth government’s response, indicating the work of the committee, noted the large number of submissions received and the enormous public interest, which helped to give voice to the concerns of many Australians about the inefficient, costly and often inaccessible process. The government’s response described the recommendations as:

... a blueprint for major reform of Australia’s overseas adoption system.

I am pleased also to see the Attorney-General’s Department having primary carriage of the implementation of the recommendations. I need to note, however, as has already been noted by the member for Fowler, that this range of reforms does require the cooperation of, and indeed collaboration with, the states. It is the states’ and territories’ primary responsibility to administer the adoption process, so they are vitally important. Many of the changes can only happen if this collaboration takes place.

The first and second recommendations really deal with the renegotiation of the Commonwealth-state agreement and the implementation of the Hague convention with respect to intercountry adoption with states and territories. I am pleased to see the Attorney-General’s Department taking greater responsibility on this. The third recommendation asked that the Attorney-General’s Department ensure that, in negotiating the Commonwealth-state agreement, there be greater harmonisation of laws, fees and assessment practices.

During the course of the inquiry we had a number of families that, because of the difficulty in one state—for example, in Queensland—moved to another state where it was more accessible and easier, such as the ACT. Harmonisation of these laws across different states will certainly make it a lot easier for families and for couples and individuals seeking adoption from overseas and will also reduce the need for them to make significant changes.

In recommendation No. 4, the committee requested that the Attorney-General ask the New South Wales Minister for Community Services to insert the eligibility criteria for adoptive parents in legislation and regulation. I note that the New South Wales government has already canvassed this for the current review of the Adoption Act 2000. I also wish to acknowledge, as the member for Fowler has, and to congratulate the state Minister for Community Services on proposing the amendment to begin to address the numbers of children that may be in permanent care and have families that do want to adopt them. I commend her for that.

Contrary to the member for Fowler, I do believe that the committee played a part in contributing towards that movement by the New South Wales Labor government. The response to recommendation No. 10 states:

The Commonwealth accepts this recommendation. The Commonwealth will pursue amendments to legislation to extend the eligibility criteria for the Maternity Immunisation Allowance to cover children adopted from overseas who arrive in Australia before the age of 16 years and who are immunised to an appropriate level within two years of their arrival.

However, I wish to note that I would have liked to see acceptance by the government of the recommendation regarding a change to the maternity payment for children beyond two years of age. In recommendation No. 14, the committee requested:

The Australian Passport Office implement a regular training program for their counter staff and counter staff at post offices so that they can effectively deal with queries and applications from intercountry adoptive parents.

This recommendation was accepted by the government. The government also accepted recommendation No. 15, which requested that the Minister for Human Services encourage Medicare to introduce a policy for children who have been adopted from overseas that would ensure that staff are discrete with adoptive parents; staff receive regular training; and the issue of Medicare cards be expedited and children be included on their parents’ card, as the parents wish. I would acknowledge the Minister for Human Services, the Hon. Joe Hockey, for implementing these practices already. I am pleased to see that already adoptive parents can access greater services through Medicare.

The Attorney-General also endorsed recommendation No. 17, which focused on the importance of moving as quickly as possible to expedite applications whilst complying with The Hague standards. Often there was a delay of several years from the moment families applied for adoption to the day the adoptive child arrived in the country; sometimes it was as long as five years. It is critical that that time of delay is reduced. I will also focus on recommendation No. 19, which was also accepted by the government, which is that the Commonwealth will aim to develop cooperative models, in partnership with state and territory governments, to manage adoption programs. Again, this will require a staged approach and additional resources. Recommendation No. 22 was accepted, but again it is noted that it is in relation to the Victorian legislation.

Recommendation No. 23 was accepted, but it is acknowledged that there are resource implications. The committee asked that the Attorney-General’s Department negotiate with central authorities to coordinate the establishment of a file ID tracking system so that adoptive parents may easily track their files throughout their application. In recommendation No. 24 the committee requested:

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade ... develop protocols with the Australian central authorities to govern the follow up of files in countries of origin by embassy officials when the files become significantly overdue.

Finally, recommendation No. 27 was accepted in part by the government as it relates to facilitating the establishment of a national peak overseas adoption group, particularly for the adoptive community. It was apparent during the inquiry that many members of the adoptive community felt quite unsupported and often were very isolated. In addition, it varied from state to state what support services were available or were funded for.

It is important to note here that, at all times during the inquiry, the committee’s focus was on what was best for the children. So I will finish with a statement by Amy. On the back page is a photo of her and her best friend, and this is what Amy says:

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 healthy and prosperous life, so I am grateful for that.

See this speech in context