Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 17 September 2012:

With reference to the closure of the Ethiopia-Australia Intercountry Adoption Program, and the fact that, according to freedom of information documents, the decision not to renew the program was made prior to 20 January 2012:

(1) On what basis did the department arrange a trip to Ethiopia and communication about that trip in April 2012, despite the decision to close the program having already been made.

(2) Why did the department not complete the files that were in country and provide a 12 month wind-down of the program.

(3) Why was the program not suspended given that, for example, one file was called to leave Australia for Ethiopia in November 2011 despite the program's imminent termination.

(4) Given the department's confirmation that refunds will be provided to affected families for the overseas component of the adoption application, whilst uncertainty remains as to whether state departments will reimburse costs and fees associated with assessments, has the department conducted any follow-up with state departments in order to ensure that families are reimbursed for total fees paid; if not, what steps will the department take to ensure that state departments reimburse families.

(5) In regard to the administration of the program in Tigray:

(a) why did the department arrange for a female representative to hold discussions concerning community programs and suitable orphanages in Tigray, despite known gender-equality issues in the region;

(b) was this situation sensitively handled and did the Australian representative speak Tigrian; and

(c) why did the department not employ advisors with the necessary cultural needs experience in Ethiopia.

(6) Why is Australia's performance in intercountry adoption processes comparatively poor, despite fees being significantly higher than in other countries.

(7) Why does Australia spend more money, yet apparently accomplishes less, than other countries in relation to intercountry adoptions, and has the department considered that an independent not-for-profit organisation, with accountability to the department, may be better positioned to run the program.