Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Hansard source

I thank senators for their contribution to this second reading debate on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Intercountry Adoption) Bill 2014. The bill which was introduced into the House of Representatives by the Prime Minister emphasises his strong personal commitment and the commitment of the government to reform and improved intercountry adoption. Adoption should always be in the best interests of the child and we do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past. However, what we do want to do is remove the red tape, but not the safeguards, and reduce the delays that do not benefit anyone.

I remind the chamber that the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Intercountry Adoption) Bill 2014 only amends the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 insofar as to facilitate the grant of Australian citizenship to children after they have been adopted by Australian citizens under bilateral arrangements. While bilateral arrangements may be between Australia and countries that are not party to the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, I remind the chamber that all such adoptions are compliant and consistent with the principles of the Hague convention.

The Prime Minister noted when he introduced this bill that it is another step in delivering reform to intercountry adoption. The bill gives effect to one of the recommendations made in the Report of the interdepartmental committee on intercountry adoption released in April 2014, which recognised that where bilateral arrangement adoptions with nonconvention countries have standards and safeguards to protect children that are equivalent to those required under the Hague convention, the adoptions should be treated in the same way as Hague convention adoptions when assessing Australian citizenship.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that children adopted by Australian citizens in accordance with a bilateral arrangement will be able to apply for Australian citizenship in the same way as children adopted from Australia's intercountry adoption partners which have acceded to 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 have the same standards and safeguards as those required with adoptions made between countries that have ratified the Hague convention.

As the process for children adopted under bilateral arrangements, including automatic recognition under Australian law, is in substance identical to those processes under the Hague convention, it is reasonable and equitable for both the adoptees and their families that the children should be treated the same regarding access to Australian citizenship. This was recognised by the interdepartmental committee as an area suitable for immediate reform. The government has moved quickly to act on this recommendation. It will mean the child and the adopting family will be spared the process of applying for and meeting the cost of an Australian visa. It will mean that an application for Australian citizenship can be made immediately after the adoption is finalised, following an application for an Australian passport. The bill will not prevent the child from having access to dual citizenship. Whether a child can have dual citizenship will depend on the relevant laws in a child's country of birth, as is currently the case.

Where a non-convention country meets Hague convention standards of intercountry adoption, Australia may have a bilateral intercountry adoption program with them. South Korea and Taiwan are the only countries with which Australia has bilateral adoption programs. These arrangements with South Korea and Taiwan have existed since 1978 and 1984 respectively. South Korea is in the process of acceding to the Hague convention. No new bilateral arrangements are under consideration at this time. The countries with which new programs are being discussed are all parties to the Hague convention.

Passage of the bill does not sanction any changes to the adoption process. Parents who adopt from countries with which we have bilateral arrangements are assessed by states and territories through the same robust process as parents who adopt from countries that are parties to the Hague convention. This assessment process includes the requirement for prospective adoptive parents to provide an Australian national police check. The best interests of the child remain the paramount consideration in the adoption process, regardless of whether this occurs under the Hague convention or a bilateral arrangement. This bill makes no change to existing arrangements or safeguards to protect children from exploitation.

I thank the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for its report on this bill. The committee recommended that the bill be passed, subject to two issues: (1) that the child protection principles in the Hague convention, particularly that the best interest of the child is the paramount consideration in the adoption process, be explicitly articulated in the bilateral arrangements and, where relevant, in related legislation; and (2) that the Commonwealth, state and territory governments ensure adequate resourcing is provided for follow-up monitoring and support to adoptees and their families.

In relation to the first issue, the government considers that such an amendment is not required, as the principles of the Hague convention, including the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration, are adhered to in all of Australia's intercountry adoption programs.

In relation to the second issue, state and territory adoption authorities currently facilitate post-adoption support for adoptees and their families. The new Intercountry Adoption Support Service announced by the government will also explore this issue, and I advise the Senate that on 25 January 2015 the Prime Minister announced the Intercountry Adoption Support Service will be established as soon as April 2015. The Prime Minister confirmed the new service will include a website and a dedicated 1800 helpline, with trained staff to assist families in working with state, territory and overseas authorities, and to provide referrals to other support services. The new service will aim to reduce the waiting time for Australian families while maintaining the necessary safeguards for children, consistent with Australia's obligations under the Hague convention on intercountry adoption.

I note that the Greens provided a dissenting report to the Senate committee inquiry and I would like to briefly address the four issues that they raised in their report. First, the Greens are concerned that bilateral arrangements are, as they view them, 'outside of the safeguards, transparency and procedures of the Hague convention'. I respond to this concern by emphasising that the overarching requirement from Australia's perspective is that an intercountry adoption partner country meets the standards and safeguards equivalent to those required under the Hague convention. Australia assesses a country's intercountry adoption legislation and infrastructure for compliance with the Hague convention and also assesses its practical compliance with the standards and principles of the Hague convention. Australia only has intercountry adoption programs with countries that meet the standards of the Hague convention in practice. This is not dependent on whether they are parties to the Hague convention.

The key Hague convention standards and principles include: (1) the existence of safeguards to ensure that intercountry adoptions take place in the best interests of the child; (2) consideration of all options for permanent care for the child in the child's country of origin before considering intercountry adoption; and (3) measures to prevent the trafficking of children, including no facilitation payments.

The Attorney-General's Department assesses and monitors Australia's intercountry adoption programs using a number of measures, including: ongoing review of child protection and adoption legislation, guidelines and infrastructure in the overseas country for compliance with standards of the Hague convention; monitoring the practical operation of the adoption program in overseas countries; regular dialogue with authorities in the overseas country, including central authorities, government departments, adoption agencies, embassies and visits to the country; monitoring reports from various non-government organisations on child protection issues in the overseas country; exchanging information about adoption processes with other countries; and maintaining relationships with other relevant stakeholders.

The second issue raised by the Greens is:

That the bill does not focus on the best interests of the child …

As I have previously noted, the guiding principle for all intercountry adoptions undertaken by Australia, including through bilateral arrangements with countries that are not parties to the Hague convention, is that the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration in the intercountry adoption process. The bill does not affect this fundamental principle.

The third criticism or issue raised by the Greens is:

That the bill could facilitate an environment for forced or coerced adoption practices to take place …

This is not the case. The bill makes no change to existing intercountry adoption arrangements or to the safeguards that are in place to ensure that an adoption is in the best interests of the child. All Australia's active intercountry adoption programs have been assessed as complying with the standards and principles of the Hague convention, regardless of whether the country is a party to the Hague convention. Furthermore, the government is committed to ensuring that all parties involved in intercountry adoptions are protected and takes seriously all allegations of unethical or illegal practice in intercountry adoption. If there were allegations of unethical or illegal adoption practices in one of Australia's intercountry adoption programs, the government would consider a number of options to address the issue. These include formally reviewing the relevant program against the Hague convention principles and standards; advising the appropriate authorities in the relevant countries of Australia's concerns; communicating Australia's concerns to other countries and international organs, as appropriate and consistent with our obligations under the Hague convention; suspending or closing the program with the country in question; and investigating whether, under the program, any offences have been committed under Commonwealth, state or territory laws.

Together with state and territory central authorities, the Australian government has also developed a protocol for responding to allegations of trafficking children in intercountry adoptions. The protocol provides information to assist adoptees and adoptive families. It sets out measures that can be taken if allegations of unethical or illegal adoption practices are made, and the support and assistance available for adoptees and adoptive families.

The fourth criticism or issue raised by the Greens is that there is a lack of a requirement in the bill for post-adoption support services for adoptees and their families. I have previously addressed this issue and note that the state and territory adoption authorities currently provide these services and that the bill does not change this—and I confirm again that, on 25 January 2015, the Prime Minister announced that the Intercountry Adoption Support Service will be established as soon as April 2015.

Senator Siewert, in her contribution to the second reading debate, moved a second reading amendment. In relation to the second reading amendment moved by Senator Siewert on behalf of the Australian Greens I advise the Senate that the government opposes the amendment, as it considers it to be unnecessary. This is because the overarching requirement from Australia's perspective is that an intercountry partner country meets in practice the standards and safeguards required under the Hague convention for intercountry adoption. This is the case whether the country is a signatory to the Hague convention or not.

As I have said previously, all Australia's active intercountry adoption programs have been assessed as complying in practice with the standards and principles of the Hague convention, as new programs will not be established unless they are assessed as Hague convention compliant.

I would also like to respond to the conclusion of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights that the bill is likely to be incompatible with Australia's international human rights obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I note that the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law has issued an outline of the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption. This outline explains that the Hague convention gives effect to article 21 of the Convention of the Rights of the Child by adding substantive safeguards and procedures to the broad principles and norms laid down in that convention. As the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection at the time said, in his response to the committee:

Given that all of the country programmes which the Australian Government has established must meet the standards of the Hague Convention, the government is of the view that Australia’s intercountry adoption programme as a whole is consistent with Article 21 of the CRC.

As I have already explained, all of Australia's active intercountry adoption programs demonstrate practical compliance with the standards and principles of the Hague convention, and this includes holding the wellbeing and rights of the child as paramount.

The bill also acknowledges the hard work, dedication and perseverance of Australian citizens who embark on the challenging journey of intercountry adoption, and they have our admiration and respect. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.