Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given I had only a short amount of time earlier, I will recommence my speech. Of all the many policies that governments are called to deal with, those dealing with the lives and the welfare of children, as the most vulnerable group in our society, must surely be the most important. Children everywhere deserve a safe and secure home environment. However, it is the sad reality that in some countries, for a range of complex social, cultural or economic reasons, there are children unable to be cared for by their parents, extended families or anyone else and who have no possibility of growing up in a family environment in their country of birth. For some of these children, intercountry adoption might be the only way in which they can have the opportunity to be part of a secure and loving family and to have a chance at a better life.

Intercountry adoption is a complex and sensitive matter for all parties concerned, and a decision to remove a child from its country of birth and possibly, in some instances, from its birth parents is not one that the Australian government believes should ever be taken lightly. Nevertheless, we support international adoption arrangements made under the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, which have established safeguards to ensure that intercountry adoptions take place in the best interests of the child and also that eligible, caring families in Australia and elsewhere have the opportunity to adopt an overseas born child and provide that child with a family, a home and a future that he or she might never otherwise have had.

Unfortunately, for too long now significant barriers have faced Australian families wanting to adopt from overseas. Inconsistent rules, high costs and lengthy waiting periods are common—so much so that they have been found to deter many people who would have liked to adopt a child from even starting the adoption process. In recognising that the processes required in bringing together those children from overseas who legitimately need a safe and loving home with those Australians who dream of providing one have been overburdened with inconsistency and complex red tape, the Prime Minister announced in December of last year that the government would simplify overseas adoption by the end of this year. At this point, I want to recognise the personal commitment to this issue made by our Prime Minister. By removing those bureaucratic requirements and delays which serve little real purpose and benefit no-one but simply add to the complexity and cost faced by adopting families, the government wants to make it easier to adopt when such action is clearly agreed by all parties to be in the best interests of the child.

Australia's overarching requirement for any potential partner-country willing to participate in intercountry adoption arrangements with us is that the country essentially meet ethical and legal framework standards and safeguards equivalent to those required under the Hague convention to ensure that intercountry adoptions take place in the best interests of the child. In those cases where a country is not a signatory to the convention but is seen to satisfactorily meet convention standards, we see no reason why adoptions in that country should not be recognised in the same way as adoptions in convention countries. The changes proposed in this bill will, therefore, place children adopted by Australian citizens under bilateral arrangements in the same position as those adopted under Hague convention arrangements—that is, they will be able to travel to Australia with their new families as Australian citizens on an Australian passport.

Seeking as it does to reform the current procedural requirements and reduce unnecessary red tape, the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Intercountry Adoption) Bill 2014 is a positive step forward in delivering the government's promise. The key feature of the bill is an amendment which expands the scope of the existing Hague convention provisions so as to include adoptions in accordance with bilateral arrangements. The decision-making framework remains the same. The amendments made by the bill will apply for the benefit of all children adopted under bilateral arrangements, whether the adoption was finalised before or after the amendments come into force.

The government has clearly been delivering on its commitment to improve adoption procedures in other ways. A report by senior officials on options to reform overseas adoption, which was informed by public submissions, has been considered. Improvements have already been announced to the process for families adopting children from Taiwan and South Korea, and a new overseas adoption program with South Africa has commenced—and there are a further seven new programs in the pipeline. COAG has agreed in principle to a new national overseas adoption service from 2015, and options to reduce waiting times for visas for adoptive children from overseas are being developed. In addition, the government will introduce amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act so that obtaining Australian citizenship can happen in a child's country of origin as well as to address processing problems associated with the visa system.

The Abbott government is clearly committed to adoption reform to enable more Australians who wish to adopt a child from overseas to achieve this wonderful outcome. Bringing together a child in need of a home, particularly a special needs child, as children of intercountry adoption so frequently are, with those who wish to offer a safe and loving family is something that should be managed as sensitively and with as little unnecessary red tape as possible. Potential adopting parents are required to go through an extremely complex and robust vetting process—and rightly so—but should not have to deal with any more red tape than is absolutely necessary. I strongly support this bill and commend it to the House.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Children are such a natural part of marriage and life partnerships. They are such a natural function of the biology of life and, for most, a natural and fairly easy process. There is no slight intended to women who face the not insignificant challenges of pregnancy and childbirth meant there. The basis of the family is the key pillar of our society and cannot be overstated. But for some, it is just not easy. Having children is not a straightforward affair and it can be a heartbreaking and demoralising experience when close friends and family start and complete their families and couples are left behind, because—despite every effort—they cannot have children.

This bill is about inter-country adoption, but I would briefly like to touch on local adoption. Australia is undoubtedly scarred by the experience of the Stolen Generation. I will not go back over the history of that experience, the motivations behind it and mixed outcomes it provided. The long-term result is that local adoption has fallen well out of favour. However, with the tragedy of totally dysfunctional parents and the revolving door of foster placements—and God bless those wonderful people who selflessly devote themselves to foster parenting—I fear Australian family law courts are not making the best long-term decisions for at least some of the children.

Is it not possible, even highly likely, that a child removed from serial parental failure and moved in and out of foster homes would not have a far greater chance at life if the responsible agencies and courts were simply to make the decision that—where the child's current circumstances are intolerable and the likelihood of that situation improving substantially are remote—they would be far better off with parents that will love, cherish and nurture the individual? It seems to me our family court system and agencies are haunted by the past and that collectively we are not bold enough to make the right long-term decisions.

It is also worthwhile reflecting also that in the 2012-13 financial year, Australia spent $237 million on assisted reproductive technology through the Medicare system. There is no cap on the number of treatments nor is there any age restriction. I am not suggesting for one minute that couples with fertility issues should not avail themselves of this service, but we do know as each cycle fails the chances of a successful pregnancy with further treatment reduces. Perhaps if more viable alternatives existed—and in this case we are talking about adoption—and perhaps if it were easier to adopt, couples who are desperate to have families may well choose to abandon the IVF programs earlier and follow the path of adoption.

To return to this bill, which refers to international adoption: I was recently contacted by Tanya Fry, a 39-year-old teacher. It is so typical, really. Her and her husband have run the full gauntlet, first from the decisions to have a family, to the initial disappointment of not easily getting pregnant, to the long-term sadness of that failure, to the seeking of help and to the fertility and IVF roller coaster. Nothing is easy, personal or particularly private about the process. Then in their late 30s, Tanya and her husband realised that they would not be able to have their own biological baby and decided that perhaps adoption would be the best option.

I would like to read a few paragraphs from a letter that Tanya has penned for me. This starts in the middle of the letter:

Our main concern is the time it may now take to adopt from overseas (as it is near impossible to adopt within Australia). My husband and I are approaching our 40s and are concerned that the process is going to take so long that we will run out of time. There are significant amounts of people in the same situation as us and it is Important to note how stressful this process is. Couples including ourselves have generally been through significant infertility challenges before making the decision to adopt (in our case recurrent miscarriage). It is really important to us that the timeline suggested for this restructuring is followed so that we are not put through additional stress.

The application is quite a difficult one to fill out.

That is, the application for inter-country adoption.

My main concerns are with the BMI question, my husband has a very muscular build and is not overweight yet his BMI is over what is required (only slightly). It seems ridiculous that someone so fit and healthy could be rejected because of his build.

While watching television I become increasingly upset seeing adverts asking for money to help children/orphans overseas who have nothing. I don't understand how there can be so many children in the world who need parents and why it is so hard to adopt a child. My husband and I are both on good incomes and have the means and ability to raise a child without any assistance. We would be outstanding parents so why is it all so hard!

That is not the end of the letter, but I will end that quote there.

I do not know the prospective parents that well, but I did meet Tanya for the first time the week before last. I am pretty confident that a couple who have tried so hard are likely to be good parents. They have good jobs, a home and commitment. They have already proved far more than most of us are ever asked to do. When we are people who are lucky to be able to raise our own children, we do not get asked how heavy we are. We do not get asked intrusive questions. We just start families. Most of us do a pretty fair fist of actually becoming good parents. What criteria is that to judge people on? We are not even counselled before we start a biological family. It just makes me wonder what we are doing and why we make it so difficult to adopt from overseas.

Then there was the news for Tanya and her husband that the application going okay, but they might have to wait five to seven years. I know adoption is not for all parents and its main emphasis should be on the children, but it is hard to believe—with all the children in the world living in poverty with no family or at least no functioning family and living without education—that we cannot find a way to bring these two needy parties together and that we cannot find a way so that a needy child can live a life of relative privilege in Australia with successful people who could be their loving and compassionate parents if they were only given the chance.

While I recognise that for a number of reasons inter-country adoptions have declined across the globe, it is very concerning to me that Australians were able to adopt just 129 children last year. That is a very small number. It is a small number of the tens of thousands of available children in the world who could have a life of comparative privilege and it is a very small number of the desperate potential parents who are given the opportunity to have what so many of us take for granted—a family.

I know the world is not a perfect place and there will always be those who take advantage of others. We must be ever vigilant so Australian adoptions are never associated with events that could possibly be construed as trafficking. That is why Australia should form adoption programs only with countries or third parties that meet the criteria of the Hague convention. I congratulate the government on taking the initiative of opening a new program with South Africa and making improvements to the process with South Korea and Taiwan. I am also very pleased that COAG have endorsed the move to a national agency to facilitate international adoption to help speed up the granting of suitable visas. It makes sense to have a national desk—after all, migration is a national responsibility and our government-to-government relationships are at this level.

This bill will allow the granting of citizenship as soon as adoption is verified, enabling the newly adopted children to travel with their parents on an Australian passport. It will not suddenly make overseas adoption easy—and I hope there is more we can do in that space—but it is a significant step in the right direction. I hope we can do more in this area and complete the lives of Tanya and her husband and many others like them around Australia and really improve the opportunities of the children that they might adopt.

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be speaking on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Intercountry Adoption) Bill 2014. The purpose of this bill is to facilitate the granting of Australian citizenship to children who have been adopted by Australian citizens under the bilateral adoption arrangements between Australia and countries that are not party to the Hague convention on intercountry adoption. As the Prime Minister said in the House on 29 May this year, policy reform and progress on intercountry adopting has been in the too-hard basket for far too long and simply because of red tape.

This bill has at its very heart a humanitarian focus that looks to remove the unnecessary red tape that gets in the way of children from around the world who have no parents or no effective parents being able to have a much better life in Australia. When you look at the state of the world at the moment, with the rise of mindless terror and vicious international criminal conduct, it is imperative that all of us do all we can to remove the barriers for entry for these children. That is absolutely clear. To this end I find it more gratifying that the policy focus of the bill in removing red tape for these children to have a safe and loving home in this country is not just a symbolic gesture but very real. It will produce outcomes that will make very positive and tangible differences to the lives of so many children around the world.

Earlier Madam Speaker was in the chair. I want to pay tribute to her and the work she and her committee did many years ago in this area. Too often in the past seven years the people of Australia have had their expectations falsely built up by symbolic actions with no substance behind them, but this bill is different because this government is different. Indeed, this promise was made by the Prime Minister in December last year when he committed to reforming overseas adoptions by the end of 2014.

To this end, on 19 December last year Prime Minister Abbott announced that he would establish the Interdepartmental Committee on Intercountry Adoption to consider options for reform and to improve intercountry adoption processes. There were a total of 108 submissions. Twenty-six were from organisations and the remainder came from individuals representing adult adoptees, adoptive and prospective parents, academics and individuals with a professional interest in intercountry adoption, and parents and children who are now adults deeply affected by past practices of forced adoptions. In addition, the Prime Minister received 60 items of correspondence on intercountry adoption reform.

Submissions made to the interdepartmental committee expressed a significant level of frustration with Australia's current approach to intercountry adoption. The particular issues raised were the Commonwealth's approach to selecting intercountry adoption partner countries, the quality of the states and territories' administration and level of support provided to prospective adoptive parents, the cost, the waiting times, the uncertainty of outcomes not only overseas but also within Australia, and the standard of postadoption support services. There were other criticisms that related to the current Commonwealth-state model of regulating intercountry adoption and the lack of nationally consistent laws, policy and procedures. That made it really difficult for families who had moved interstate and across territories to receive consistent and predictable levels of support. It also made it very difficult to provide consistent outcomes across Australia.

Taken as a whole these frustrations can represent significant impediments to Australians considering intercountry adoption. Given the frustrating history, the interdepartmental committee itself stressed that there is an imperative to be clear about the impact that any reforms are likely to have on these impediments to ensure expectations of families are realistic with regard to the future of intercountry adoption in Australia and to make clear that in many cases they will go towards improving the experience of people participating in intercountry adoption rather than making a dramatic change in the rate of adoptions.

It should also be noted that 24 of the submissions made to the committee did not support intercountry adoption and highlighted concerns with the safeguards in place to protect parents and children from unlawful practices and the effects on children growing up outside their culture. Such concerns were acknowledged up-front by the Prime Minister in his second reading speech, when he said:

We do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past, but we do want to remove the red tape and reduce the delays—that do not benefit anyone.

The interdepartmental committee noted that Australia is committed to ensuring that all parties to intercountry adoption arrangements are protected from exploitation and abuses. These vulnerable parties clearly include children and birth families, where a child has been relinquished, and the prospective adoptive parents. It should not automatically be assumed that the interests of these parties are necessarily in conflict. The interdepartmental committee addressed these concerns quite directly on page 8 of its report when it states that:

Greater efficiency in the process, so long as it does not come at the expense of thoroughness, may remove some of the frustrations experienced by prospective adoptive parents, while also reducing the amount of time spent by children in institutions. Australia's approach to adoption recognises that children who cannot be brought up with their family are entitled to grow up in a permanent, secure and loving family environment. A more efficient intercountry adoption system would be better able to provide children with this environment in a timely fashion.

Australia's current regulatory approach observes the international principles guiding intercountry adoption which is set out in the 1993 Hague Convention on the protection of children and cooperation in respect of intercountry adoption.

The fundamental principles in the Convention are: (1) the best interests principle that the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration in all Convention intercountry adoptions; (2) the subsidiarity principle that adoption is subsidiary to care by family, and intercountry adoption is subsidiary to domestic adoption; (3) the safeguards principle that safeguards must be developed to prevent the abduction, sale of, and traffic in children; (4) the cooperation principle that authorities must establish and maintain effective cooperation to ensure that these safeguards are effectively maintained; and (5) the competent authorities principle that only competent authorities—appointed in each country—should be permitted to authorise intercountry adoptions.

For the purposes of the Hague Convention, the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department is the Australian central authority for intercountry adoption. The states and territories are also central authorities under the Hague Convention. However, owing to the lack of political impetus from the Commonwealth, states and territories and the complexity of amending state and territory legislation that relates to both intercountry and domestic adoption, this work has not been progressed, despite many attempts. This is not an acceptable situation. As the Prime Minister said on 5 May this year:

For too long children who legitimately need a safe and loving home and Australians who dream of providing this home have been hindered by red tape and confusion. The Government is pleased to be able to undertake real action to bring families together.

Consistent with these goals, the government has been moving ahead in progressing this issue.

Apart from the Prime Minister's commissioning of the Interdepartmental Committee on Intercountry Adoption report, the government has also put in place amendments to the Family Law regulations that will make it easier to recognise adoptions from Taiwan and South Korea. We have also opened a new overseas adoption program with South Africa; we have instructed officials to commence discussions with seven other countries about possible new overseas adoption programs; we have chaired a COAG meeting which agreed in principle to the Commonwealth providing a new national overseas adoption service from 2015. We have introduced amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to make it easier for children from Taiwan and South Korea to obtain Australian citizenship in their country of origin; and have asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to develop options to reduce waiting times for visas for adoptive children from overseas. The government is now working through the details of the new reforms with the states so that the new approach to overseas adoption can commence as early as 2015.

The purpose of this bill is to facilitate the grant of Australian citizenship to children adopted by Australian citizens under bilateral adoption arrangements between Australia and countries that are not party to the Hague Convention on intercountry adoption. Under such bilateral arrangements, Australian citizens have for several years been unable to adopt children from South Korea, Taiwan and Ethiopia. Although the intercountry adoption program with Ethiopia is now closed, there are a number of families who are awaiting the finalisation of their adoptions.

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 the adopting families. Under the amendments 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 Australian passports with their new families as Australian citizens. The bill will place children adopted by Australian citizens under bilateral arrangements in the same position as children adopted by Australian citizens under Hague Convention arrangements.

The overarching requirement from Australia's perspective that a potential partner country is, first, willing participate in intercountry adoption arrangement with Australia, and, second, will meet the standards in safeguards equivalent to those required under the Hague Convention. Where a non-convention country meets these standards, there is no reason why adoptions should not be recognised in the same way as adoptions in convention countries. The government has recently given effect to this principle by amending the Family Law (Bilateral Arrangements—Intercountry Adoption) Regulations 1998 to provide for automatic recognition of adoptions in partner countries once the adoption is finalised and an adoption compliance certificate has been issued. And in this regard, the bill enhances the wellbeing of adopted children by creating a more streamlined and cost-effective process which allows them to commence their lives in Australia more quickly.

The bill will not change post-adoption support arrangements, which are provided by state and territory governments in accordance with their respective laws. While the laws and procedures may vary in some respects between states and territories, support services are provided to adopted children and their families on an identical basis whether the adoption took place under the Hague Convention or under bilateral arrangements. Children adopted from Hague Convention countries, which issue adoption compliance certificates, are already able to obtain Australia citizenship as soon as the adoption is finalised. This has been the case since the enactment of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. The adoption compliance certificate provides assurance that the adoption has been carried out in accordance with the ethical and legal framework required by the Hague Convention. The process for adoption under bilateral arrangements, including automatic recognition under Australian law, is in substance identical. There is no reason why those children should be treated differently under the Australian Citizenship Act.

The key feature of the bill is an amendment to subdivision AA of division 2 of part 2 of the act. The amendment simply expands the scope of the existing Hague Convention provisions, so that they also cover adoptions in accordance with bilateral arrangements. There are many important safeguards that the government has built into this legislation. These would be relevant, clearly, if fraud or some other irregularity came to light before citizenship was granted. Similarly, the minister must not approve a child becoming a citizen if the minister is not satisfied of the identity of the child. The amendments proposed by the bill would apply for the benefit of all children adopted under bilateral arrangements, whether the adoption is finalised before or after the amendments come into force.

The government is realistic: this bill is not a magic bullet to solve all of the problems associated with intercountry adoption that have existed for decades, but it is an important and substantial step forward, and the bill gives hope to families. It gives hope to children without parents, where no hope previously existed. It is through actions such as these that we show our humanity—where we can demonstrate that we are not prepared to accept the status quo that presently values bureaucracy and red tape over the welfare of children. Never can such a situation be acceptable. We as a parliament must reject it. As I said earlier, there has never been a more important time for legislation of this kind to be put before the House—so that we as a nation can demonstrate to those who inflict hatred and fear upon the world that Australia offers hope and love to those who deserve a better life. There can be no more deserving recipients than children with no parents.

I commend the bill to the House.

John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak today for the government's Australian Citizenship Amendment (Intercountry Adoption) Bill 2014. Last year, the Prime Minister announced that the government would improve overseas adoption by the end of 2014. The government has been delivering on that commitment. There are three categories which well express the foundations of this amendment. These categories are historical, personal—personal in a constituency sense, and humanitarian. These are separate categories, but they are inextricably intertwined.

Intercountry adoption was first practised widely by the United States as a humanitarian response to the situation of European children from Germany, Italy and Greece, orphaned by World War II. In the 1950s, children similarly orphaned or abandoned during the Korean War were adopted by families in the US and in Europe, and intercountry adoption extended to Vietnam in the 1960s, following the Vietnam War. It was not until the Vietnam War that intercountry adoption was practised in significant numbers by Australian families. Subsequently, as interest in intercountry adoption increased, adoptive parent groups established during the Vietnam War began to extend their operations to other Asian countries.

In 2005, Bronwyn Bishop MP was Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services, and launched that committee's report titled Overseas Adoption in Australia. Two key findings of the 2005 report were: that    Australia's per capita rate of adoptions from overseas was less than one-third the rate of most First World countries; and that the Commonwealth, rather than the states and territories, should establish and manage new programs with overseas countries. Furthermore, the 2005 report found that fees in some states were too high, and that rules were needlessly harsh. One Australian state used a Body Mass Index to determine those parents who might be too fat to adopt. Another state required prospective adoptive parents to be fingerprinted. There was also a range of signals from state authorities demonstrating that they did not want people to adopt from overseas. When discussing submissions and evidence received by the 2005 committee, the Chairman also noted that, 'Adoption officials have a great deal of power over adoptive parents. Some parents declined to give evidence because they were afraid it might jeopardise their chances of a successful application.' This is unconscionable behaviour on the part of public servants: putting their personal or professional prejudices—wishes—before the very reasonable and understandable longing of parents wishing to adopt. The Chairman of the 2005 committee added: 'In the area of intercountry adoption, ministers and their departments have been unaccountable for too long. The committee is pleased to redress the balance.'

In June 2008, the responsibilities of the Commonwealth government and of the state and territory governments were set out in the Commonwealth-State Agreement for the Continued Operation of Australia's lntercountry Adoption Programme. This demonstrated that good intentions prevailed, though—sadly—actual practice lagged behind. Finally, in December 2013, our Prime Minister announced that he would establish a committee to report to him in 2014 with options for implementing reform within Australia over the next 12 months to improve intercountry adoption. The committee was chaired by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. It had senior representatives from the Attorney-General's Department, DFAT, the Department of Immigration, and the Department of Social Services. In April 2014, the Report of the Interdepartmental Committee on Intercountry Adoption was completed and tabled. One clear term of reference was: 'immediate steps that could be taken for improving and streamlining the delivery of intercountry adoptions to make intercountry adoption easier and faster for Australian couples'. The 2014 report provides both immediate and longer term options for reform. It noted also that the short-term reforms, in and of themselves, are unlikely to see a significant change in the numbers of adoptions. However, they may assist in reducing some of the frustrations that are experienced in Australia.

The Prime Minister noted in May, during the second reading debate for this bill, that he would not pretend that everything was going to be simple and straightforward immediately. However, he did say that this bill will provide 'significant new hope for parents without children, and significant new hope for children without parents'.

With regard to parents, I now address the personal side to my support for this amendment. A constituent of mine, Ms Jo Ellem, contacted me in March this year. In April, I met with Ms Ellem and her husband in my office and heard their story. It took them five years to bring their first child home, and they have now been waiting seven years to adopt their second child.

During the 2005 parliamentary inquiry, Ms Ellem was invited to present to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services, chaired by the Hon. Bronwyn Bishop MP. The Hon. Julia Irwin MP was deputy chair of the committee. In her covering letter to the report, the Hon. Bronwyn Bishop MP referred to the diligent and enthusiastic support of her colleagues on the committee, making special mention of two Labor party committee members, her deputy chair, the Hon. Julia Irwin MP, and the Hon. Harry Quick MP. It should be noted that there was no dissenting report to the committee's report.

Despite the committee's agreement and its bipartisan nature, it is Ms Ellem's belief that the findings of that report are still to be addressed. However, Ms Ellem was much heartened by the Prime Minister's statements regarding intercountry adoptions just two days before she contacted me, and she sought my assistance to get her message to him. According to Ms Ellem, most of the nine programs available for Australian couples to adopt are barely functioning, and they all have long waiting times. She and her husband have been told that there is no end in sight. Nevertheless, they continue to explore all options.

Ms Ellem found out about a new program for the adoption of mixed race children being run in Japan. Ms Ellem called Family and Community Services New South Wales—FACS—and asked them if they would ring the intercountry adoptions branch in Canberra to pursue the adoption of mixed race children from Japan. I regret to inform the House that Family and Community Services New South Wales refused to even call the intercountry adoptions branch in Canberra. Ms Ellem was told that, even if they did call and even if the Canberra branch said that FACS New South Wales could decide whether this should happen, FACS would refuse to do so. Rather, FACS New South Wales told my constituents that they should look at existing programs in Thailand and the Philippines. Both these countries have waiting periods of four to five years, or even longer. FACS New South Wales told my constituents that it did not have the resources to do otherwise. This was greeted with incredulity by Ms Ellem.

She and her husband have paid a great deal of money to FACS for their adoptions. They do not object to the not-inconsiderable fees, but they do object to the fact that their monies appear not to be used as they would or should have been. As already noted, their second adoption has been going on for seven years, and there have been further fees paid for what clearly is little or no facilitation or progress.

As her elected representative, I made formal representations to the Prime Minister, to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and to the Attorney-General. Later, I was very pleased to receive an email from Ms Ellem telling me that she had received a telephone call from the Prime Minister's office. Senator Brandis's office had also contacted her. She also had a meeting with the Prime Minister's senior policy advisor on social affairs and has had further communications with the Prime Minister's chief of staff. I am proud to point out that this is a government that, from the Prime Minister down, takes action, seizes the initiative and puts the interests of Australians first.

Finally, there is a humanitarian side to this bill. The history of intercountry adoption is humanitarian—the generous, enlightened and humane response of the United States and of European countries from the 1940s through to the Vietnam War, at which time Australia became more involved, and on to the present day. We pride ourselves as a nation on our enlightened generosity, our charity and our compassion, and we will continue to pursue a humane response to this matter.

MPs involved in the various committees were deeply moved by their experiences during the various inquiries. Their feelings were moved on a number of levels. During the 2005 inquiry, Labor MP Harry Quick said he was deeply moved by his visit to a Chinese orphanage—and understandably so. However, he was also upset that some parents here in Australia felt afraid to give evidence in public in case their chance of a successful application to adopt was harmed. He was quoted as saying:

It is disappointing that we have six states and two territories that are thwarting parents … when there are literally thousands and thousands of young children … who can be placed in loving families, supported far better than they are wandering the streets of countless cities right across the world.

By 2005 Australia's per capita rate of adoptions from overseas was less than one-third the rate of most first world economies. In Australia in 2004, there were 434 intercountry adoptions. In 2010, this number had dropped to 222—a 60 per cent fall. This decline has continued in Australia, with only 129 intercountry adoptions in 2012-2013. This is hardly a magnanimous, charitable and humane approach to a desperate problem which so many generous and loving Australians who want to become parents or who want to complete their families stand ready to alleviate.

There is no decline in Australia in the numbers of couples like Ms Ellem and her husband who want to adopt, yet it would appear that the lack of unification between the states and territories, combined with endless red tape regarding the processing of adoption applications, is preventing Australian couples from applying for overseas adoption.

The 2005 federal parliamentary committee into adoption found that state authorities were biased against adoption generally and appeared, in principle, to be prejudiced against the practice of adopting children from overseas. The 2014 committee's report received submissions that expressed a continued and significant level of frustration with Australia's current approach to intercountry adoption. Particular issues raised include the quality of states' and territories' administration and level of support, and the cost, waiting times and uncertainty of outcomes.

Our Prime Minister and this government have seized the initiative and have taken action. We have opened a new overseas adoption program with South Africa and are commencing discussions with several other countries about possible new overseas adoption programs.

It behoves us to live up to our values and standards of charity and common humanity and to remain mindful that, in improving the adoption process for prospective parents, the paramount consideration for the government is the best interests of the child. There have been bipartisan efforts on the part of this House to reform. May that bipartisanship continue, and may this bill, as presented by the Prime Minister, be accepted by this parliament. I echo the words of the Prime Minister: the effort we are making in this important area will result in more children who need families and more families who want nothing more than to provide a loving and stable home being brought together. I commend this bill to the House.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank members for their contributions to the second reading debate on this bill. This bill was, as we know, introduced by the Prime Minister, which emphasises his strong personal commitment and the commitment of his government to the reform and improvement of intercountry adoption. I remind the House that the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Intercountry Adoption) Bill 2014 amends the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to facilitate the grant of Australian citizenship to children adopted by Australian citizens under bilateral adoption arrangements between Australia and countries that are not party to the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in respect of Intercountry Adoption.

The bill is a reflection of this government's commitment to reform overseas adoption and to streamline processes to assist parents and their adopted children. The bill gives effect to one of the recommendations made in the report of the Interdepartmental Committee on Intercountry Adoption published in April 2014. It means that children adopted by Australian citizens under bilateral adoption arrangements between Australia and other countries will be able to apply for Australian citizenship as soon as the adoption is finalised. They will then be able to apply for an Australian passport to travel to Australia with their new families as Australian citizens.

The bill seeks to place children adopted by Australian citizens under bilateral arrangements in the same position as children adopted by Australian citizens under the Hague convention. Since 2007 children adopted by Australian citizens under Hague convention arrangements have been able to apply for Australian citizenship in their home country. Countries with which Australia establishes a bilateral arrangement must meet the same standards and safeguards as those required with adoptions made between countries that have ratified the Hague convention. Where a non-convention country meets those standards, the government contends that there is no reason why adoptions should not be recognised in the same way as adoptions contracted between convention countries.

As the process for children adopted under bilateral arrangements, including automatic recognition under Australian law, is in substance identical with those processes under the Hague convention, it is the government's position that the children should be treated the same in regard to access to Australian citizenship. This was recognised by the interdepartmental committee, which identified this issue as suitable for immediate reform. The government has moved quickly to act on that recommendation.

This bill acknowledges the hard work, dedication and perseverance of Australians who have embarked on the challenging journey of intercountry adoption. They have our admiration and respect. On a personal note I wish to commend all of them for their deep, longstanding desire to be a parent. This is something that goes to the very core of our being. I know the pain that they feel when they have been unable to realise their own dreams of being a parent naturally. The fact that they can get over that personal disappointment—although I suspect that can never occur fully—and then turn around and look at a new opportunity and bring a young life in another place into their own home and take them under their care and treat them as their own is truly an inspiring feat. It is a wonderful thing that we can come together in this chamber, and I am sure as will occur in the other chamber, and pass this bill, which will make that process just that little bit easier. It should not have to be so hard. Certainly, there have to be protections, certainly there have to be proper processes and certainly these things need to be in place. But for all of those parents who want to fulfil that opportunity to be parents, because in their hearts they have always been parents, this gives them the opportunity to take that step just that little bit more easily than it could be done before.

It is the intention of this government, and I am sure all members of the House, that we continue to work on these matters and make these processes and systems more effortless if we ever can. It is work in progress. It is work that is occurring in a bipartisan and multipartisan way in this parliament. Above all, I hope that those who are going through this process see the passage of this bill as an encouragement and an endorsement of what they are seeking to do in their own lives and in the lives of others. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.