Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am in continuation from last year but, given that that was some time ago, I will remind the chamber about where I was coming from at the time. I can see the smile on your face, Mr President, because you remember the occasion very well, I am sure.

As I was articulating in that short time last time, the Australian Greens are extremely concerned about the fast-tracking of intercountry adoption processes. We have seen the trauma that can be caused by flawed adoption practices to the child, the relinquishing family and the adoptive family. For some, there is an assumption that adoption automatically leads to a better outcome for the child. We obviously understand the very deep—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me, Mr President. I am sorry. It is slightly distracting.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. Could I ask senators to keep any noise down and maybe have meetings outside of the chamber.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, there is an assumption that adoption automatically leads to a better outcome for the child that is being adopted, and obviously on many occasions that is true, but there are many that it is not true for.

We obviously understand the deep desire for people to become parents. For those of us who do have children, it really is impossible for us to imagine what it must be like to want to have children and to be unable to. However, having said that, we in this country know the consequences of some of the adoptive processes for all involved, including the relinquishing parents. I use the term very carefully when I talk about 'relinquishing', because we know from past experiences that parents in some cases were not relinquishing parents. Those children or those babies were taken from those parents.

We know, however, from past experiences that adoption processes can have bad outcomes for the child, obviously for the relinquishing parents but also for the adoptive parents. There is no guarantee that the practices we saw in this country not several decades ago are not in fact being carried out through overseas adoptions. We cannot pretend that we are not aware of the lifelong consequences of adoption for the child who becomes an adult, for the relinquishing parents and for the adoptive family.

We now have high-profile people promoting adoption. While I am sure they are coming from a desire to help children, we cannot allow this to override the need for proper consideration, protections and oversights. We need to ensure we are listening to the evidence based policy and appropriate expert stakeholders, not just on the goodwill of those high-profile people that are pursuing this cause. Sometimes I am deeply concerned adoption could take place at the expense of the child's interests. I will come to the overwhelming need to make sure that we are doing this in the child's interests.

Australia must be vigilant to ensure the necessary safeguards are in place to protect parents from being coerced into 'relinquishing' their children, to ensure that intercountry adoption is a last resort and there is appropriate post-adoption care, support and services for children and families. The Australian Greens are deeply concerned that the so-called one stop shop, where children may be seen as commodities and the goal is a swift acquisition of them, is not the way to go in adoption. This country has been there. We know the consequences of that swift approach to adoption.

The presumption that adoption is good, that Australian parents are all loving and that children will have a better life here is not a fair assumption to make. What evidence is this based on? I would argue that there is overwhelming evidence to show that, if we are not extremely careful with adoption, it can lead to very poor life outcomes for everybody involved. All legal rights to extended families, heritage, homeland are extinguished. We are deeply concerned that this may occur and that the children have no say in this matter.

We need to be asking the government on what evidence the decision to facilitate easier and faster overseas adoptions is based. What evidence is relied on to show that this in fact will be in the best interests of the child and that they can guarantee, when they start allowing adoptions from non-Hague countries, that all the concerns that have been raised—and I will go into those in a minute—can be addressed?

I am deeply concerned that the government may be so quickly forgetting the history of child removals and the reports that we have seen in this country: the Bringing them Homereport, the forced adoption reports and the three reports on forgotten Australians and former child migrants. These are lessons that we can never, ever forget in this country. This country has watched the intergenerational harm caused by the displacement of children and by dispossession. We have the legacy of the stolen generations, the forgotten Australians and the travesty of forced adoptions. Those directly affected continue to pay a very heavy price, and I have spoken at length in this place about those costs. Unless we get this right, Australians will unfortunately continue to pay a heavy price socially and a heavy price in terms of the cost to health, because we know it has poor health and life outcomes. Justice will also, we believe, be threatened for these people.

That takes me to this bill and why we are debating it in this place now. The Greens are concerned about a number of aspects of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Inter-country Adoption) Bill 2014. Allowing intercountry adoption through bilateral agreements outside of the safeguards, transparency and procedures of the Hague convention on intercountry adoption is of concern to us. The bill does not focus on the best interests of the child, and we know where that leads. The bill could facilitate an environment where forced or coerced adoption practices could take place—again, this country knows very well what occurs then. There is the lack of a requirement for adequate post-adoption support services. These concerns were clearly shared and articulated by many submissions and witnesses during the committee inquiry into this bill. There are many risks associated with adoption through bilateral agreements with non-Hague-convention countries. The Hague convention of 1993 set out guidelines which considered the child's interests to be of paramount importance. Bilateral agreement to not necessarily meet the same standards.

The stated reason for this bill is to cut waiting periods and allow for easier and more convenient adoptions. International Social Service Australia said in evidence to the committee that the benefits to adoptive parents 'are grossly outweighed by the risks associated with adopting children in non-Hague countries'. We know that countries that have a very limited child protection process do not have the capacity to monitor individual cases. In these countries, individuals or criminal organisations can exploit the loopholes in intercountry adoption. As International Social Service Australia's representative said to the committee:

Whilst Australia has signed the convention, it is difficult for Australia to monitor the systems in countries that are adopting children that have not signed the convention. For this reason, I think promoting bilateral agreements with non-Hague countries and finalising adoptions in overseas countries have lots of risks associated. So I do not support this bill.

The Australian Greens are deeply concerned that this bill puts convenience to adoptive parents above the best interests of not only the child but also the birth parents. The Australian Greens argue that the risks outweigh the convenience of speeding up adoption with countries that have not signed the Hague convention. The interests of the child are better protected by the safeguards and standards of the Hague convention, and we would prefer that Australia encourage non-Hague countries to become signatories to the convention rather than simply caving in and doing bilateral agreements with them.

I come to the best interests of the child. The Australian Greens believe that all legislation that affects children must be in the best interests of the child. Evidence to the committee from Dr Gillespie of UNICEF emphasised the need to keep the interests of the child at the centre of the intercountry adoption process. He said:

… we emphasise the best interests of the child test. We note that the CRC, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, talks about 'primary' interests of children whereas the Hague convention talks about consideration of children being 'paramount' in intercountry adoption. UNICEF would not support any dilution of those standards …

In order to properly protect children and families, the first thing we need to do is work with countries to enhance and improve their child protection systems and supports for the parents of those children through that process. The best interests of the child must stay at the centre of our decision-making process. As UNICEF said:

In the very first instance, the Convention on the Rights of the Child says that a child should be with its own family.

That is what we should be focusing on: making sure that every possibility is explored for the child to be able to stay with its family. I am not Pollyanna; I know that in many circumstances that is not possible—but that does really need to be at the centre of our thinking. Dr Gillespie went on:

In all circumstances, that is what we should be striving for. If that is not possible—and that is also about why we do development, to try to bolster systems to ensure that children and families can be supported—then that child should stay in its own culture and with family members or extended family members in that country. Again, our job is to help build systems with those foreign governments to make sure those child protection systems are strengthened before we get into this.

…   …   …

If all of that is exhausted—in a way, the convention says that intercountry adoption should be a last resort after those have been exhausted—then we look at how best we can minimise and protect.

Therefore, the Greens think we need to be ensuring that the best interests of the child should be at the centre of this legislation; unfortunately, we do not think this legislation goes far enough to ensure that.

Now I want to look at forced and coerced adoption, something this country knows a lot about. I remind this chamber that in little over a month we will be acknowledging the second anniversary of the apology to those affected by forced adoption in our own country.

The past forced adoption processes in Australia have caused ongoing trauma. I do not think anybody in this place is unaware of that trauma, to all those involved. As Professor Nahum Mushin, the Chair of the Forced Adoptions Implementation Working Group, noted, the consultation for the submissions on this bill had a 're-traumatising effect' on affected people. In other words, this is an ongoing trauma for all involved.

We have a responsibility to ensure that we do not create situations for such practices to recur. The Australian Greens are very concerned that this bill could assist in making coerced and forced adoption practices more likely. As UNICEF said, it is important to remember that intercountry adoptions can take an extended time because of the complex nature of the process:

… it takes time and due diligence and also that children are genuinely available to be adopted. We do not want to see any more cases where parents adopt into the Australian context only to discover that the child should never have been considered genuinely available for adoption. That is a really complex thing for parents to have to live with. What does that mean then for your parenting, what is meant for your family, what does it mean for the child, what does it mean for the biological family?

Unfortunately, illegal and unethical adoptions are more likely in non-Hague countries. Without due process and systems around child protection, children and families are at risk of exploitation. International Social Service Australia said:

The more bilateral agreements we have with non-Hague countries, the more unethical and unlawful adoptions we are going to have.

As UNICEF said:

… it has been noted in other country contexts that sometimes there is not due process around free, prior and informed consent from parents and situations where parents are actually being pressured to surrender their children to adoption programs.

A deep concern is that by agreeing to non-Hague convention adoptions these practices will occur more.

I would like to talk briefly about post-adoption support, an issue that came up significantly during the inquiry as well. We are concerned that faster adoption processes provided by the bill may mean that important supports and services do not occur. One issue that is not included in the bill is post-adoption support, or adequate post-adoption support. As several of the witnesses stated, appropriate post-adoption support is very important. There is no provision in the bill to ensure that bilateral agreements will be required to have the same standards in post-adoption support and follow-up as the Hague convention. The Hague convention currently requires post-adoption assessments, which usually occur in the first 12 months after the adoption process. There is also follow-up with the relinquishing family from the country of origin.

It was pointed out to the inquiry that it is essential that there is contact and support for the relinquishing family, the child and the adoptive family. There are several issues with post-adoption support, including the need for long-term post-adoption support for both families and adoptees, and also the important support and assessment back in the country of origin in that first year. International Social Service Australia said that post-adoption support is very, very crucial. 'It is not just the formal reports that we are talking about; it is the informal support that the family needs and may require throughout that child's upbringing.' They continued:

Also, we are funded by the New South Wales government support service for adult adoptees to search for their birth parents overseas. It is important to understand how much of a profound impact that can have on adoptees in later life when they become an adult to find out that their adoption was unethical and unlawful.

I know from the work that I have done with forgotten Australians, former child migrants, those affected by forced adoptions and the stolen generation how important it is that services are available—in fact, lifelong services. We are currently putting in place support services, after all these years, for those who were affected by forced adoptions. That is critical and important evidence that shows the lifelong impacts that flawed adoption processes can have on people. Just adopting a child, unfortunately, does not necessarily have a 'happy ever after' conclusion. We are already having significant problems with this process in Australia, after all those decades of forced adoption processes. By loosening up the overseas adoption processes so much, we are in danger of repeating that, of putting another generation of people through that.

As I said, I deeply understand people's heartfelt desire to look after children who they think they can help by bringing from overseas. I am not saying for one minute that these processes are always flawed, but we know from the evidence that many have poor outcomes. We know the lifelong impact on so-called relinquishing parents or biological parents. Some people call them birth parents. We must guarantee that the adoption is not unethical, that every move has been made to ensure that there are other supports or other potential avenues to support that child in their culture and in their country of origin. We cannot speed it up at the cost of the child, of the parents and of the adoptive parents. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee looked at this bill very closely. Indeed we had a number of witnesses give evidence to the committee. A lot of the issues that Senator Siewert has just spoken about were issues that the committee was also concerned about, but the committee deliberated, addressed those issues and asked questions. The committee was of the view that the bill should be passed and the committee made a couple of recommendations.

I take on Senator Siewert's theme, that children who come to Australia and are adopted by Australian citizens in many instances have a much better future ahead of them than they perhaps would where they were. That became clear from some of the evidence given to the committee.

The Senate referred the provisions of this bill to the committee in June 2014. The bill allows for acquisition of Australian citizenship by a person adopted outside Australia by an Australian citizen in accordance with bilateral arrangements between Australia and another country. In particular, the bill amends the Australian Citizenship Act to create entitlement to citizenship in accordance with bilateral arrangements—that is the same as the entitlement currently provided to persons adopted in accordance with the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. The Hague convention process as implemented into Australian law provides for the immediate grant of citizenship following completion of the adoption in a foreign country. The statutory regime set out in subdivision AA of division 2 of part 2 of the act allows for the immediate grant of Australian citizenship following completion of the adoption. This allows the adopted child to travel to Australia as an Australian citizen and, thereby, removes the need for the child to obtain a passport from the home country and an adoption visa under the migration regulations.

The bilateral arrangements to which the amendments will apply are identified in the Family Law (Bilateral Arrangements-Intercountry Adoption) Regulations. The regulations currently apply to adoptions under bilateral arrangements with Ethiopia, Korea and Taiwan. These are the only three countries who are not signatories to the Hague convention that these arrangements will apply to. In all three cases, the bilateral arrangements are exactly the same as the provisions of the Hague convention. I heard what Senator Siewert said; I do not agree with her because these are issues that were raised by the committee with witnesses who understand the issues. It was made very clear that the provisions of the Hague convention would apply to these few bilateral agreements we have. One of those countries with which we have that bilateral agreement is in the throes of becoming accredited under the Hague convention in any case. Regarding another one of those three countries, where life is not perhaps as ordered as it used to be when these arrangements were first made, that country, as I recall the evidence given to the committee, no longer is dealt with under these bilateral arrangements because of the concerns that Senator Siewert mentioned. The Australian officials have thought that for the moment those bilateral arrangements with one of those countries would be suspended.

This bill will speed up a lengthy process and will allow Australian parents to be connected with their adopted children in a much simpler way. With no disrespect to Senator Siewert, I have to say that Senator Siewert takes the typical Greens line—the glass is always half-empty, never half-full. The number of people and the number of children who will be benefited by this amendment and reform is very significant, and that is something that we as Australians want to ensure does happen. Sure, we have to be very careful of those very few who fall through the cracks, but, by and large, this is a reform which will make the whole process much better.

The committee made three recommendations. Of these recommendations, in response to the concerns raised by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, the committee urged the government to positively state its position regarding the primacy of the child's interests in the operation of the revised scheme for intercountry adoption. The committee recommended that, subject to other recommendations, the bill be passed. The second recommendation was:

The committee recommends that the child protection principles set out in the Hague Convention, particularly the overarching requirement that the best interests of the child be the paramount consideration in intercountry adoption processes, be explicitly articulated in Australia's bilateral arrangements and, where relevant, in the related legislation and regulations.

The department has indicated that that is how it will proceed. The third recommendation was:

While not directly relevant to the committee's terms of reference, the committee strongly urges Commonwealth, state and territory governments to ensure that adequate resourcing and priority is provided for follow up monitoring and support to ensure that it fully addresses Australia's obligations to adoptees throughout the adoption cycle, regardless of whether adoptions take place under the Hague Convention or under bilateral arrangements.

So, regardless of which it was, we are very concerned and Australia is concerned to ensure that adopted children are properly cared for in Australia.

On the human rights issue, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection provided the committee with evidence that it had reviewed the amendments against the provisions of seven key international treaties. As the children to whom these amendments are relevant are located outside Australia's territory or jurisdiction, Australia's obligations under seven core human rights treaties are not effectively engaged. However, once these children come within the Australian territory or jurisdiction, these rights and freedoms articulated under the seven core international human rights treaties will be enlivened. The department added that, in its opinion, the bill enhanced the wellbeing of adopted children by creating a more streamlined and cost-effective process which allowed these children to commence their lives in Australia more quickly.

The Attorney-General's Department advised that the bill would not change post-adoption support arrangements which were provided by state and territory governments in accordance with their respective laws. Whilst the laws and processes may vary in some respects between states and territories, support services were provided to adopted children and their families on an identical basis whether the adoption took place under the Hague convention or the bilateral arrangements.

During the inquiry, the committee also noted advice from the relevant department that the bill would not in any way compromise the interests of the child nor the standards and safeguards applied to intercountry adoption programs under bilateral arrangements, which will continue to mirror the principles of the Hague convention. Additionally, we were told that COAG has given in principle support for the utilisation of an existing agency to provide services for intercountry adoptions. An agreement was reached at the COAG meeting in October 2014. As far as I am aware the details of that program have not yet been finalised or announced. The streamlined citizenship process created by the bill will make overseas adoptions faster, easier and more cost-effective for adopting families and will enable adopted children to settle more quickly and easily into their new lives and access key support services more immediately upon arrival in Australia.

The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee strongly endorses the passage of the bill through the parliament. I thank all those who gave evidence to the committee during its deliberations. I thank the deputy chair, Senator Collins, and other members of the committee for their attention to the evidence and the material given to the committee in researching and considering this bill. The bill is a reform and I urge the Senate to do as the Senate committee did—that is, agree with the adoption of this bill.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to 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.