George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

The allegations reported on the front page of the Australian 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, who was stolen as a two-year-old and adopted by a family in Queensland. She is 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 selling them as commodities to overseas adoption agencies. Although it is far from clear from the vague terms in which the Attorney-General’s statement is couched, it appears to be the government’s position that, as the child or children in question are Australian citizens, the adoption of the children stands as far as Australian law is concerned. However, while saying that, the Attorney-General 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 appear thus 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 determination by the Australian courts, where the outcome may vary from case to case? If it is the latter, will the Australian government intervene in such proceedings? What position will it take if it does? The Attorney-General’s statement leaves all of these issues unclear.

It is not enough to say that the best interests of the child will be the governing criterion, for that statement alone provides no clear guidance as to the policy of the Australian government on any of those issues which I have raised. It is all very well for the Attorney-General to make his ministerial statement on behalf of the government as if he has done his job in relation to this matter, but all he is doing in reality is deferring the matter to the courts and hoping for the best. The fact is that he has left a string of key questions unanswered in relation to this matter. In addition to the questions I posed a few moments ago the following questions arise, the answers to which are opaque from the Attorney-General’s statement:

• Can he assure Australian parents that they will not face the expense and uncertainty of proceedings in the courts of their adoptive children’s country of origin?
• For parents concerned about the status of their adopted children, are resources available to answer any questions or specific concerns that they might have?
• Would Australian government assistance be available to either the birth parents or the adoptive parents in a circumstance such as the one there was, the subject of the report?
• Is it a condition of the granting of an adoption visa that the immigration department carry out checks with regard to the legitimacy of the adoption agency before the adoption visa application is granted?
• Are there plans for legislation to deal with the determination of the appropriate parenting orders where there is a dispute either as to the validity of the adoption or the antecedent circumstances in which the adoption occurred?

The Attorney-General’s statement provides no guidance on any of these questions. In addition there are difficult questions as to the possible conflict of the laws of Australia and the countries of birth of adopted children, compounded by difficulties created by inconsistencies between different laws governing overseas adoption in the various states within Australia.

A number of these matters were considered by the 2005 inquiry into adoption of children from overseas in 2005, chaired by the member for Mackellar, Mrs Bronwyn Bishop. In September 2006, the previous government accepted the majority of the recommendations, including the recommendation that the Australian government take primary responsibility for the management of intercountry adoption programs and for the establishment of new programs.

These reforms would go a long way towards ensuring that these distressing cases are not allowed to occur in the future—and, if they do, that there is transparency and clarity for the various parties involved as to the manner in which they are to be dealt with. This government needs to take national leadership now to ensure that cases such as these where children have been adopted in Australia from a country prior to that country’s ratification of the Hague convention do not cause unnecessary trauma to parents, and most importantly to the children involved.

As Dr Nelson, the Leader of the Opposition, said on 23 August:

We mustn’t undermine confidence nor the ability of Australians to be able to adopt children from overseas. Many of these children desperately need homes. They can only dream of living in a country like Australia with a loving Australian family, and whilst the investigation continues, and we should get to the bottom of it and find out what went wrong, under no circumstances should we move away as Australians from our ability to be able to adopt children from overseas.

Australia’s overseas adoption programs are important. They make lives better. To ensure confidence into the future, and to clarify the situation as to those affected by these distressing cases lately reported, the Attorney-General must take leadership and clarify a policy position on behalf of the Australian government. His statement today signally fails to do so.

Question agreed to.