Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on a bill that expresses this government's commitment to helping every man and woman who has, or will, put their heart, mind and a significant amount of money into giving a better life to a child by bringing him or her to this great country of ours. The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Intercountry Adoption) Bill 2014 seeks to amend the Australian Citizenship Act 2007.

Before discussing the significant benefit these amendments will bring to Australia's adoption processes, let us look at exactly what is intercountry adoption. It refers to the adoption of a child from overseas by prospective parents in Australia. The adoption must be arranged by a state or territory welfare authority. The term does not refer to adoptions which prospective parents have arranged by themselves and which may be illegal. Needless to say, this decision is not entered into lightly by prospective adoptive parents but, unfortunately, current processes often make it a long and arduous one. At its core, that is what these amendments seek to improve.

In Australia, intercountry adoptions are recognised by the Commonwealth when they are processed under the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption or, as most people simply put it, the Hague convention. They are also recognised when the child in question is adopted by Australian citizens through bilateral arrangements made by Australia with countries who are not signatories of the Hague convention.

The Hague convention came into force in Australia in December 1998 and was designed to protect the best interests of children involved in adoption and to establish cooperation amongst contracting states, thereby preventing the abduction, sale of or trafficking in children. This government's reason for proposing these amendments is not only to encourage Australians to undertake intercountry adoptions in those cases where it would improve the life of the adopted child and the lives of the adoptive family, but also to improve the processes that are currently undertaken by prospective parents to adopt a child. We are achieving this by continuing our overall agenda to reduce regulation and to improve Australia's adoption processes, by streamlining access to citizenship for children adopted by Australian citizens through these bilateral agreements.

Previously, Australian citizens have been able to adopt children from South Korea, Taiwan and Ethiopia under prescribed arrangements in the Family Law (Bilateral Arrangements—Intercountry Adoption) Regulations 1998. This government has already announced improvements to bilateral arrangements, specifically for those families adopting children from Taiwan and South Korea. Although it is important to note that Australia's intercountry adoption program with Ethiopia is now closed, the changes by this government to adoption processes will also help those families who are currently waiting for their adoptions to be finalised.

Those changes will effectively remove the requirement for families to obtain an adoption order in Australia, which would generally be granted after a 12-month wait. Instead, these improvements will allow adoption orders from South Korea and Taiwan to be recognised in Australia without needing to go to a state or territory court. In essence, the amendments that the government seeks to make further expand this scope. It does this by amending the Australian Citizenship Act, so that the process for families adopting a child under a bilateral agreement are brought in line with those who adopt from countries which are parties to the Hague convention.

It is the view of this government that, where the same standards and safeguards are in place to those countries who are party to the Hague convention, the same adoption processes should apply. By passing these amendments, we will improve the adoption process by allowing children who are adopted under Australia's bilateral agreements to no longer require a visa to enter Australia. They, instead, will immediately be eligible to apply for, and be granted, Australian citizenship once the adoption is finalised overseas. Put simply, adoption approvals will change to an automatic process which will allow the adopted child to travel to Australia, as an Australian citizen and on an Australian passport, with their new family, as long as Australia has signed a bilateral agreement with the home country. This will significantly improve the administrative processes of adopting a child under these arrangements, and will save adoptive parents a significant amount of time and money. This is because, under the current processes, a passport from the child's home country has to be obtained, and an adoption visa issued under the Migrations Regulations 1994.

Although the financial benefit of these changes will be significant, we must not forget the emotional strain that is placed on families wishing to open their hearts to an adoption. By reducing the time frame for processing adoptions, this government will help to reduce the amount of stress placed on these families.

The amendments proposed by this bill were announced by the Prime Minister in December last year when he committed to establishing an interdepartmental committee on intercountry adoption. The purpose of this committee was to recommend options for implementing reform within Australia over the next 12 months. The committee finalised its report in April.

In total, 108 submissions were received by the committee from stakeholders, as well as individuals representing adult adoptees; adoptive or prospective parents; academics; individuals with a professional interest in intercountry adoption; and parents and children, who are now adults, who were deeply affected by past practices of forced adoption. When investigating different approaches to streamline the intercountry adoption process and to create a framework for reform, this government of course could not do so without first acknowledging and being aware of Australia's unfortunate history of forced adoption, as a means to ensuring that history does not repeat itself. The majority of submissions received by the committee were supportive of intercountry adoption, with an ongoing theme being the need to focus on the child's interests first and foremost.

It is also important to note those submissions which were not supportive of intercountry adoption, in order to understand and acknowledge any legitimate concerns being raised. These concerns generally focused on appropriate safeguards being in place to protect parents and children from unlawful practices. This is something that should be of concern to all Australians, which is why I am pleased that any partner country Australia forms bilateral agreements with is expected to meet the same standards and safeguards as those who are signatories to the Hague convention. These standards and safeguards were recently met by South Africa, with the Prime Minister announcing the commencement of a new intercountry adoption program on 5 May. The Abbott government has also now commenced discussions with seven other countries about possible new overseas adoption programs. I look forward to these programs being established and more children being welcomed to Australia by their loving families.

These agreements will go hand-in-hand with the COAG's agreement in principle to implement a new national overseas adoption service from 2015. The minister for immigration is also developing options to reduce waiting times for visas for adopting children from overseas.

These are significant changes that I believe reflect the commitment that is made by many Australian families to improve the lives of children from other countries by caring for and loving those children as they would one of their own.

I am aware of two Western Australian families who each made the brave and heartfelt decision to adopt a child from another country. One of these children is from China and the other is from Cambodia. In each case, I must say that the story of the child's past was very tragic and that in each case the child was living in an orphanage in their respective country at the time of adoption.

One of my constituents, Jane Foreman of Geraldton, adopted her son from the Philippines more than six years ago, and she is currently waiting to adopt her son's two sisters. This is what Jane said in an email to me recently:

Thanks for meeting with me Melissa. After I left you, I phoned Adoption Services and found that we had finally received allocation for our son's two sisters!!!

I have been busy getting all the paperwork completed and our immigration papers will be couriered to the Philippines tomorrow!

I am really pushing for an 8 week waiting time until we can meet and bring home our two new daughters.

Melissa, six years of waiting has been too long for them and for us.

I am very thankful to our Prime Minister for taking up the issue of Inter-country Adoption and committing to streamlining the process to make it easier for Australian families to adopt.

This cannot be good for anyone—the waiting, the worry, the stress and anxiety, not to forget the expense, and the separation of a brother from his two sisters for so many years. We must expedite this process.

When we think of the costs involved in the adoption process, I think it is important to remind each member in this place and all those outside it that families do not make this decision flippantly. It is both an emotional and a financial decision to not only add value to their own lives but improve the life of the adopted child. They do this by opening their homes and their hearts and all that this great nation has to offer.

To get to this point, the families did, however, face a time-consuming and costly process. The first cost is the adoption fees in Australia, which vary greatly between the states and territories. In fact, just for the first application, fees can vary from $2,706 in Western Australia to $10,503 in South Australia. This does not take into account other costs such as airline travel, overseas accommodation, and the costs of preparing documents which are more commonly known as notarisation fees.

Families also then need to take into account the estimated adoption fee of the child's home country. This again varies. As an example, Taiwan—which had the highest number of intercountry adoptions with Australia in 2012-13, at 28.7 per cent of total adoptions—has an estimated adoption fee and cost of between US$5,000 and US$14,000, depending on the child's needs and the agency facilitating the adoption.

As you can see, the costs quickly add up. Over the past decade, there has been a decline in the number of overseas adoptions in Australia, with 370 in the 2003-04 financial year—

(Quorum formed) By passing the proposed amendments before us today, those in this place will highlight to every Australian and our international neighbours that we support intercountry adoptions. We support intercountry adoptions when it is in the best interests of the child and when appropriate safeguards are in place, aligned with the Hague convention. This government is demonstrating our commitment to helping Australian families adopt by expediting this process and implementing key reform measures that benefit both the child being adopted and the families who have made this brave decision. I am pleased this government has used its heart and mind to formulate these policy measures which will help so many Australians. I commend this bill to the House.

Labor is supporting this legislation but I think it would be fair to say that we do have some concerns about the direction of the legislation. Like the member for Durack, I know many Western Australians, wonderful people, who have adopted children from places like Ethiopia, Zambia, India and Korea. They have been fantastic and committed parents. In many instances it has not simply been a case of people being unable to have children. Many people who have entered into these arrangements have done so after visiting a Third World country, seeing the circumstances of these children, and feeling an enormous desire and moral obligation to assist them. They believe that adopting those children, giving them an opportunity to grow up and be educated and cared for in the secure environment of Australia, is the way to do it. I think we all totally understand the bona fides of the vast majority of people that want to engage in overseas adoption.

I think it is important that we look at the essence of what this legislation does. At the moment Australia is a signatory to the Hague convention on adoption. That convention sets in place a whole regulatory framework about the circumstances which lead to a child being available for adoption. As a result of the participation in the Hague convention, if an adoption process has been approved in that country, then under Australian law, the adopted child automatically has available to them Australian citizenship and can enter Australia as an Australian citizen.

In addition to the arrangements under the Hague convention, Australia has a number of bilateral arrangements with countries that are not signatories to the Hague convention. The argument that has been entrenched in this bill is: let us provide the same right to those children who have been approved in the countries on the other half of these bilateral arrangements. The existing situation is that, when a bilateral adoption arrangement has been agreed to by the country supplying the child, there needs to be an additional process. That procedure needs to go before an Australian court and will be subject to an Australian court order accepting that adoption. Then Australian citizenship and associated entitlements come with that.

The case that has been put before the government, which the government has agreed with, is that where we have those bilateral arrangements we should put aside that additional requirement and treat the children that are adopted under those bilateral arrangements in exactly the same way that we treat those children that are adopted under the Hague convention.

On the surface of it, this is not an unreasonable proposition. The question is: is there an exact equivalence between the regulatory regimes of those countries that are signatory to the Hague convention and those that are not signatories but with whom we have entered into those bilateral arrangements? I think it is important to understand that, when we entered into those bilateral arrangements, we were conscious that there would be this other process, this other step, that took place. As I understand it, the evidence—particularly evidence that has been given to the Senate in the last month in relation to this bill—would suggest that there is not an entire equivalence between the provisions in the countries that are the subject of bilateral arrangements and the standard of provisions within the Hague convention. So it is not necessarily the case that there is an equivalence. Indeed one of the countries that was the subject of a bilateral agreement was Ethiopia. Eventually, we had to shut down the adoption program in that country, because there were grave concerns about the way in which children were being procured for the program. The evidence before the Senate told us that the families of the children who had been referred for adoption did not understand the adoption process or the consequences of it and, once informed, the children were no longer available for adoption.

There have been many concerns raised—not about the bona fides of the Australian parents wanting to adopt—about the scams and the schemes that are developed for financial advantage in these receiving countries. It is certainly the case that they exist even in countries under the Hague convention. There were a number of examples cited from India, which is a signatory, where children have been made improperly available for adoption. The concern is, by retrospectively changing the legislation and giving the equivalence to bilateral arrangements as Hague convention arrangements, that we must insist that there be strong enough protections.

In the UNICEF evidence in the Senate inquiry, they referred to Hague convention countries having an Intercountry Adoption Technical Assistance Program and a permanent bureau in place which monitors the operation of the convention and the adoption. It is not simply a question of the standards being the same, but is there any enforcement mechanism in place that would assist people to recover children that may have been trafficked and improperly made available for adoption?

We know that there is some difference—and it is certainly very difficult for me to assess at this point just how significant that difference is—but, firstly, the provisions and the protection of the Hague convention are not exactly mirrored in those bilateral arrangements; and, secondly, there is no Intercountry Adoption Technical Assistance Program and a permanent bureau that monitors the operation of that convention that then gives parents trying trace their children some capacity, through some agency, to do that.

It is very important to understand that there is always the ability for these arrangements to be scammed, and we have to be absolutely clear that the interests of the child must be paramount. We have to be alive to the differences between the standards that may be there and the institutional enforcements that may be available under the Hague convention that are not necessarily available in those countries with whom we have these bilateral arrangements.

We should not be complacent about this. We have seen the amazing complexities—almost unimaginable complexities—that have emerged with the surrogacy arrangements that have been entered into in Thailand. The very great range of different stories and the availability of surrogacy arrangements in Thailand, legal or otherwise, are not clear. The availability of commercial surrogacy and the degree to which people see a commercial opportunity have created outcomes that very many people are uncomfortable with. I refer particularly to the case of the Japanese man who had 15 surrogate children, nine of whom were in utero at the time the story broke, and the very real concerns about traffic, abuse or perhaps something other than what appears on the face of it to be the provision of a loving family environment for those children.

I understand the overwhelmingly good intentions of people who want to adopt children. Who of us hasn't gone to India or other Third World countries and seen children begging that you would just like to pick up, put in your bag, take home and deeply want to help? In all of these measures we must be very, very alive to the real problems that emerge. We have seen stories of Aboriginal children, children from other countries, children from South America, and Argentina—indeed from Ireland—who have been improperly made available for adoption and the great tragedy not only for the mothers and families who have lost their children but, ultimately, for the receiving parents and most of all the children who have been the subject of these arrangements.

Whilst I understand the motives of this—and the Labor Party will be supporting this bill—I think it is an area in which we should move with great caution.

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Intercountry Adoption) Bill 2014 because I think it is a very important bill. Sometimes in the quest for power that is the federal parliament— (Quorum formed) The value of interpersonal relationships are sometimes lost in this place, the place of power, the place where people aspire to great leadership. But, really, what is it that matters? It is family. Family is one of the key statutes of Australian society. We have strong families and from those families we build communities and from communities we build countries. But understanding families and understanding the values of families is very important.

One of the things that is very important to families is the upbringing of children. For couples that are unable to have children, it is always a heartbreaking experience; it leaves them somewhat hollow at times. To be able to take the wealth that is in Australia and to be able to provide a safe and secure home to a child from another part of the world that has not had that opportunity is a wonderful thing. To have legislation that is freeing that up is something we should be proud of. It is something I think is a great tribute to our Prime Minister. It is one of the very important pieces of legislation that he personally introduced into this chamber.

This bill amends the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to allow children adopted under a bilateral arrangement to apply for Australian citizenship in their country of origin. The bill will streamline access to citizenship for children adopted by at least one parent who is an Australian citizen under a bilateral agreement with certain countries. At this time those countries include: Taiwan, south Korea and South Africa as well as past adoptions from Ethiopia. It means that these children will no longer require a visa to enter Australia.

In the words of the Prime Minister:

For too long adoption has been in the too hard basket.

… … …

… adoption is about giving children a better life.

… … …

The government wants to make it easier to adopt when it is in the best interests of the child.

… … …

It is red tape that impacts on children who legitimately need a safe and loving home and Australians who dream of providing that home.

… … …

At present, children adopted under bilateral arrangements require a passport from the home country and an Australian adoption visa to travel to Australia. This imposes additional complexity and cost on adopting families. Under the arrangements to be made by this bill, children will be able to be granted citizenship as soon as the adoption is finalised. They will then be able to travel to Australia on an Australian passport, with their new families, as Australian citizens.

One of the great things about Australia is our diversity. What we have seen out of that diversity is that people are able to adopt children from other countries and are not looked at differently. Intercountry adoption is not looked at with disdain. In fact there are groups around that can offer support and ensure that a child from another country also has some expression and some contact with their own culture as they become a citizen of Australia and get involved with the culture here.

It is the good pieces of legislation that lift the Westminster system. It is the good pieces of legislation that restore belief in the Australian parliamentary system and this is a good piece of legislation. This in time will allow families to grow. It will allow kids to have love that they would never have had and will allow future citizens of Australia to look back at this piece of legislation and say, 'Wasn't it good that there were men of wisdom, men of character and women in this chamber who saw the value of intercountry adoption, saw the value of the great Australian dream of having a family and passed this legislation.' I commend this legislation to the House.

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mallee is indeed right: this is about families. This process does involve an enormous amount of commitment on behalf of those people that choose, often in very, very different circumstances, to embark on what can be a very drawn-out, complicated and tortuous process—to do something that I think all of us want to instinctively want to be able to do, and that is to be part of a family or to raise a family. Some of us have been very fortunate; others less so.

A number of speakers this evening have talked about priorities. I understand and absolutely respect that, indeed, the interests of the child should be paramount. But also the notion that a loving couple, wanting to raise a child in a family situation in a house where they can experience life and have opportunities that they simply would not have I think is something well worth supporting. Indeed, what could be better than a loving family—of course, with the right and proper checks in place; the right and proper balances to make sure that this process is a rigorous one? Indeed, it is a rigorous one.

I have two stories tonight—both friends of mine, two families that had very different experiences. One is an older couple who spent a very, very long time to adopt two sisters from the Philippines. They adopted the elder sister and then a year or so later they adopted her younger sister. It was a very, very long process for them. It involved an enormous amount of commitment on their behalf. It certainly was not a simple process. Indeed, it was a very costly process. Whilst it seems it may not be appropriate to talk about the cost in these situations, nevertheless for some families this is the reality that precludes them, and the financial burden is certainly something that restricts their ability to be able to undertake this process.

Some of the things that frustrated this particular family were the processes involved and what one could loosely described as 'red tape'. Again, it is absolutely critical that appropriate checks and balances are put in place and that the child's interests are, indeed, paramount. The process that they went through for their first child was almost replicated again for the second child. That included visits to the house and so forth. These seemed at the time, in I guess what was a heightened emotional time for all of them, perhaps a little bit of an overreach in terms of the second daughter and the process there.

Both the families that I spoke to spoke terribly highly of the caseworkers that they had been allocated to support them. Indeed, one of the families pointed out that they have since become terribly good friends with the caseworker that was involved really as much in the process as they were as the new parents.

There was, of course, as I say, what they described as excessive paperwork, particularly in respect of the second child, which was duplicating a lot of the processes that they went through for the first child, which were indeed rigorous. Again, I do not want to dwell on this, by any means, but their first adoption cost them over $40,000—as did the second adoption. In total it took him 10 years for their two daughters to eventually become Australian citizens.

One of the things I also mentioned was the discrepancies that exist from state to state. Whilst it was a long, drawn-out process for this particular family in Tasmania, I understand that in other states that is even more onerous. That is something that COAG, and we as legislators, should certainly look at.

The second family that I spoke to had a very different experience. They already had three children of their own and they chose to adopt a young lady from China. For them it really was quite a painless process. Those were the words that they used. As they described to me, perhaps they got the system at the right time. Perhaps it was because they had three children of their own. Certainly Georgia, their daughter, who is very much loved, has come into a wonderful home and she will have opportunities that she simply would not have had in the circumstances that she was left as a very young child in China, her birthplace.

It involved six months of hard work in terms of the paperwork. I think the hardest thing for the parents was the six months after that process, having gone through the paperwork, it then took six months until the time that they were able to be advised that they could travel to pick up their daughter. Indeed, that was a very difficult and a very long wait. In their circumstance, their daughter, like so many of the children in the orphanage from which they adopted their daughter, had been left at the post office with only a piece of paper describing her birthdate. That was her. They had no name, no other information. Like so many other children in the orphanage, this was the circumstances with which she came into the world.

They chose China because at the time adoptions from Ethiopia was not available. There have been a number of speakers talk about the situation, and rightly so, and the decision made to cease adoptions at that time from Ethiopia. They chose China as an alternative because Ethiopia at the time was not available. Again, they talked very, very fondly about the local caseworker, the work that they had done and how closely she had worked with them to secure this adoption.

Again, a number of speakers have commented on these situations, but having gone through all the process, having made all the payments that they were required to make, on adoption at the time they were due to pick up their daughter, they were asked to pay an additional US$1,000 right at one minute to midnight. They did not flinch, of course.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being nine o'clock, with great sadness I interrupt the member's excellent contribution, because, I have to admit, I share the passion on this issue.