Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Hansard source

The allegations reported on the front page of the Australian newspaper on Saturday, 23 August—that at least 30 children brought into Australia for adoption may have been stolen from their parents as part of a child-trafficking network in India—are of the most serious nature. The report refers to one case in particular in which a nine-year-old Indian girl called Zabeen, stolen as a two-year-old, has been adopted by a family in Queensland, innocent of her origins and the circumstances in which she came to Australia. This appears to be but one of several such cases. The allegations demand a clear and considered response.

The Attorney-General’s statement is the response by the Australian government for which we have been waiting since the reports first surfaced. It is of great concern to the opposition that there has been no clarity or leadership from the government on this important matter. This has unfortunately been compounded by the Attorney-General’s empty statement.

Crimes pertaining to the illegal trafficking of children are among the most insidious imaginable, whether they involve taking children to serve as child soldiers or sex slaves or even to sell them as commodities to overseas adoption agencies. This is only one step removed from the farmers who buy children to work on the cocoa farms of Ghana and the Ivory Coast. These child slaves labour at great risk to their personal safety. They are exploited with no regard to their futures. Such examples generate public outrage, as World Vision’s ‘Don’t Trade Lives’ campaign has demonstrated. On this matter, I note with great concern that the government have declined to support my recommendation that chocolate from non-fair-trade sources be removed from all Commonwealth departmental vending machines. I use this opportunity to again urge the government to reconsider their course of inaction in this area.

Returning to the core subject of the Attorney-General’s statement: although it is far from clear from the vague terms in which the statement is couched, it appears to be the government’s position that, as the child in question is an Australian citizen, the adoption of the child stands, as far as Australian law is concerned. However, while saying that, he has also acknowledged that if the allegations are proven then the birth parents may be able to bring a case in the Family Court for the restoration of the child to India. The position of the government would thus appear to be inconsistent. Is it the policy of the government that the interests of the Australian adoptive parents should prevail over the interests of the overseas parents from whom the child was abducted? Or is this a matter which depends upon a determination by the Australian courts where the outcome may vary from case to case? If it is the latter—

See this speech in context