Louise Markus (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak with delight on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Intercountry Adoption) Bill. This bill has the ability to deliver incredible outcomes on an issue that impacts many people. This bill is for the parents that long to nurture a child and for a child that longs to be nurtured. Our government wants to make adoptions easier for Australians who yearn for a child and for children that face the uncertainty of being in an orphanage or out of home care. While many organisations do a wonderful job caring for children, I am sure we can all agree that a stable family is the best environment for a child's development and future. Prospective parents invest much time and energy in what can be a long and emotional journey. The decision to adopt is a decision most would not have come to lightly. In many cases, the decision is made after an already anxious time in their lives—family planning issues and unsuccessful and heartbreaking IVF attempts.

The decision by our Prime Minister in December 2013 to reform adoption by the end of this year was a very welcomed one, for many. In June, Australians celebrated National Adoption Awareness Week and founding member Deborra-Lee Furness said:

We always knew we needed a champion and a leader within government to bring about change, so let's aim for the top. I'm thrilled to have the Prime Minister on board.

I recognise and appreciate all the work Deborra-Lee and her husband, Hugh Jackman, have undertaken for this very important issue. The Prime Minister's commitment led to the report of the Interdepartmental Committee on Intercountry Adoption, which was released in April this year. Following the receipt of more than 100 submissions, the report recognised many deficiencies and shortcomings that impede the process of adoptions. There are protections and safeguards that must be adhered to, to ensure that adoption will provide a genuinely safe and loving home; however, there is no need to delay the process once this has been established and both countries have come to agreement. By the time the adoption process has been finalised, in many cases taking years, families are eager to be united without further delay. There is a gamut of red tape that exists around intercountry adoption that has caused much complexity and frustration. This bill is a start to the process of unravelling and alleviating the unnecessary parts of that red tape.

In 2005, I had the pleasure of being a committee member on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services. Led by the now Speaker of the House, the Hon. Bronwyn Bishop, the committee conducted an inquiry into the adoption of children from overseas after reviewing the 2003-2004 annual report of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Intercountry adoption is now the main form of adoption in Australia. At the time of this committee inquiry, we found that there had been a sharp decline in the number of adoptions in Australia within the last 40 years. The peak of adoptions was in 1971-72, with over 9,000 adoptions, however in 2003-2004 there were only 73 adoptions. The particular emphasis on that inquiry was on the inconsistencies between state and territory approval processes for overseas adoptions. Throughout that inquiry it became evident that the issue was far more complex than we could have imagined and there were a number of key recommendations made to the government at the conclusion. Given my close involvement and exposure to this issue I am so pleased to see a real attempt being made to strengthen Australia's intercountry adoption process.

It is pleasing for me to see that our Prime Minister and this government is continuing with its commitment to ease the burden associated with the process of overseas adoptions. Families want to be brought together as soon as possible. This government wants to make it easier to adopt when it is in the best interest of the child. We want to improve the process without the mistakes of the past. Since 1 July 2007, adoptions finalised outside Australia were provided a specific pathway for children adopted under full Hague convention arrangements to apply for Australian citizenship. This bill will facilitate the grant of Australian citizenship to children adopted by Australian citizens under bilateral adoption arrangements between Australia and countries not party to The Hague convention on intercountry adoption. This will enable children adopted under bilateral arrangements to arrive in their new homeland as Australian citizens, such as those adopted from South Korea and Taiwan and families currently awaiting finalisations of adoptions from Ethiopia.

Amending the Australian Citizenship Act so that a child will come to Australia as an Australian citizen will not only eliminate some of the time delay but give a sense of 'reality' and authenticity to the relationship after the many years of completing documents, interviews, letters and emails. A child would have mixed emotions arriving to a new future, but imagine the euphoria of the parent and child meeting and being welcomed by their country. On 5 May this year, the Prime Minister and the Attorney General announced the commencement of a new intercountry adoption program with South Africa. With this arrangement now in place, I am sure there will be many Australians who will pursue this path.

The many separate and different eligibility criteria in our states and territories can also present challenges. In May this year, COAG agreed to a national system for intercountry adoptions, which in itself will make a significant difference to the process. The Commonwealth will act swiftly with our states and territories to put this measure in place by early 2015. As the government believes this is an important issue, it will fund the cost of a national approach.

As a mother, I know how important and precious children are and how blessed I am to have them. I hope they realise how blessed they are to be part of a loving family. If I am able to assist others in having this same experience then I will be glad that I was able to contribute to that. I thank the Prime Minister for having the fortitude to encourage and pave the way for this to occur.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Intercountry Adoption) Bill 2014. Last year, the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, teamed up with adoption activist Deborra-Lee Furness and her husband, Hugh Jackman, to announce coming changes to make it easier to adopt children locally and abroad within a year. Prime Minister Abbott announced that initial changes would be made to ensure no unnecessary delays for families who have adopted from countries where Australia has bilateral adoption agreements. Today, this bill has come to fruition, and a nation of parents-to-be celebrates.

This bill will streamline access to citizenship for children adopted by Australian citizens through bilateral arrangements made by Australia with specific countries. The proposed amendments will mean that adopted children from these countries will no longer require a visa to enter Australia. They will instead be immediately eligible to apply for, and be granted, Australian citizenship once the adoption is finalised overseas. 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 an Australian passport, with their new families, as Australian citizens.

Previously, only countries that had signed up to The Hague convention on intercountry adoption would yield an automatic adoption order when arriving in Australia. For countries with which Australia has a bilateral adoption agreement but which are not formal signatories to The Hague convention, the process is much more complicated and risks court delays to have these adoptions recognised in Australia. Currently, after a couple has completed the adoption process in the child's home country, there can sometimes be lengthy court processes at the Australian end—a 12-month wait is typical.

The bill will also ensure improvements to the process for families adopting children from Taiwan and South Korea. In 2012-13, 40 per cent of intercountry adoptions were from Taiwan and South Korea. In June 2012, Ethiopia closed its intercountry adoption program with Australia. Under this program, Australian couples have adopted more than 600 children. These changes will also benefit those who have not finalised their Ethiopian adoption. We have now opened a new overseas adoption program with South Africa, and we are also commencing discussions with seven other countries about possible new overseas adoption programs. As of late 2013, Australia has intercountry adoption programs with 13 countries: Bolivia, Chile, China, Columbia, Fiji, Hong Kong, India, Lithuania, the Philippines, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan and Thailand. Programs with Bolivia, Fiji and India are currently on hold due to a decision either by the Attorney-General or by the relevant overseas authority.

Adoption in Australia is a big issue. Adoption rates in Australia have been falling since the 1980s. In 1988-89, 1,501 adoptions occurred across Australia. In 2012-13, only 339 adoptions occurred. In 1988-89, 244 of the 1,501 adoptions were intercountry. In 2012-13, 129 of the 339 adoptions were intercountry. There has been a 77 per cent decline in adoptions in Australia over the last 25 years and only two in five adoptions were intercountry—and it is not from lack of trying. Adoptive parents in Australia are dying for the chance to share their home and heart with a child, but the process is just too difficult. Each country has a different set of rules and set of hoops to jump through—whether it is age restrictions, language barriers, living in the country for a length of time or even stopping any kind of reproductive program you may have previously used. It has become a heart-breakingly difficult situation and children are missing out on opportunities for safe homes, loving families and better lives. If they have endured all that and succeeded then, at the end, they should not have to worry about entry to the county due to bureaucratic rigmarole of a visa. The government wants to remove the red tape and reduce the delays that do not benefit anyone. We need to create opportunities for families that can offer a better life and a safe and loving home to children who do not have parents.

In my electorate of Paterson, I know of these hurdles from listening to my constituents who have come to me to assist them. I would like to talk about constituents like Dr Samuel Vidler, who, with his wife and two young sons, moved to China to do voluntary medical work with the community and with orphaned children. Whilst working there he came into contact with an abandoned little girl, Maggie. She was 18 months old, with stage four HIV-AIDS. She was very unwell and had been abandoned in the city of Hanzhong. Due to the fear of this condition in the community, his family took her under a foster care arrangement, believing she had only six months of life remaining. One and a half years later, with good medical care and the love of a family, her immune functions miraculously returned to normal levels. Maggie is now a three-year-old girl and her blood tests show that the HIV had become undetectable. She learnt English and was fluent in both English and Chinese. She was intelligent, happy, and loved by the only family she had ever known.

The Vidler family's time in China was also coming to an end, and they wanted to return home. The family quite understandably wanted to make Maggie's living arrangements with them permanent by adopting her. Over the 18 months she had stayed with them, the family had grown to love her as one of their own. She was, and I quote Dr Vidler, 'an integral part of the family,' and he could 'not imagine her now being sent to another country, to another family.' The adoption should have been relatively straightforward. Dr Vidler and his wife are both doctors and able to give their foster daughter good medical care. They were financially sound and had a strong marriage and family base. They sent in an application to the China Centre of Adoption Affairs in Beijing and it was accepted.

However, due to the tricky red tape laws in Australia, Dr Vidler was facing some difficult hurdles. The Australian government would only consider an application for citizenship once the adoption was completed. But the Chinese government would only allow the adoption to go through if the accepting country had guaranteed to accept them. The Australian embassy in Beijing acknowledged that once an adoption is complete, they would be willing to view her application. This bureaucratic process was tearing a family in two and putting a little girl's world in jeopardy. It was causing undue stress on a family who had only wanted to help an abandoned, sick little girl to stay in good health and have a great future in front of her. Red tape was strangling what should have been a relatively straightforward procedure.

Dr Vidler contacted my office for my assistance in the matter. I was only too happy to represent the family to the then minister for immigration, Chris Evans. Luckily, he saw the situation as it was, and it was fixed. I am glad to say that Maggie now is living and thriving in Australia with her adopted family. However, it should not have taken a ministerial representation to have the matter resolved. Both countries were happy for the adoption to occur but bureaucratic difficulties delayed this child's happiness with her family in her new home country. It is time to get rid of this ridiculous red tape.

Sadly, it is not the first time I have heard about bureaucratic issues when adoption is being discussed. Adoption is a deeply personal and emotional journey, it does not mix well with rules and regulations that only serve to delay and obstruct a happy ending.

Recently, I represented another constituent who was going through the same painful process. Her name is Hayley Hoawerth. I last spoke to Hayley, then known as Hayley Tull, in 1997. At this time Hayley was fighting a battle with Wilms tumour. This affliction required surgery to remove the tumour and then up to 72 weeks of chemotherapy to ensure the cancer was completely cleared. It therefore took a toll on Hayley's body. Hayley was a tower of strength throughout this, and I am happy to report that she is still with us today, happy and healthy.

Now married, Hayley Hoawerth moved to Fiji in October 2012 as her husband Shane had a work opportunity there. During this time, some Fijian friends asked if the Hoawerths would like to adopt their soon-to-be-born baby, as they already had a child and could not afford another. They also did not want to send the unborn child to an orphanage as they knew the Hoawerths could give the child everything she ever needed. The Hoawerths received their daughter, Navaia, when she was two days old, and has been in their permanent care ever since. At 20 months old, they applied to the court and received full guardianship. In May this year they were granted full adoption rights through the court, where she took their surname and was issued a new birth certificate stating the Hoawerths were the official parents of Navaia. They obtained her Fiji passport with the new name and applied for a new Australian tourist visa, as they travel home regularly on holiday. They are now attempting to get permanent residency for Navaia. They received advice from another couple from Australia, who adopted a child four years ago in the same circumstances. This couple said to gain permanent residency for their child they obtained a tourist visa and travelled to Australia and applied for permanent residency under a child visa. Residency was granted within a few months.

The Hoawerths were planning on doing this but after reading her old tourist visa, they discovered there was a new condition denying them another visa whilst in Australia. They asked for my assistance in this matter. All they had done was offer a new life for an unwanted child, and assisted their Fijian friends with an emotional burden. Now they were stuck between the two countries due to the red tape of visa conditions. Thankfully, I can now report that common sense has prevailed. After discussing the situation with immigration officials, Navaia was granted an unconditional tourism visa in July. The family can now come home and lodge a child visa application during their next holiday. It does not make sense that good people who have good hearts are being denied the freedom of moving on with their new lives and the new addition to their family. It is not an easy decision to adopt a child; it is life-changing.

I went through this with one of my own electorate office staff and his wife. They were struggling with a decision to adopt, particularly via the intercountry adoption program. They were considering this option after seven traumatic years of trying to have a baby naturally. They shared with me the frustration and desperation they faced and the heartbreaking decision of having to choose between IVF treatment and going down the adoption process. While they would have loved to have done both, the reality was that the intercountry adoption route was littered with diabolical bureaucracy, an undetermined length of time waiting, and astronomical costs. It meant they had to choose the IVF option.

While they have been blessed recently with the birth of their first son, Ethan, they have expressed their hope to still go down the adoption path in light of the Abbott government's announcement about positive changes to the intercountry adoption program. When I heard about their struggles with the process of adopting both here in Australia and overseas, I found it unfathomable that such couples are finding it so hard to adopt, given their capacity to love and that there are so many children around the world crying out for loving parents. I hope and I pray that these changes will make the processes easier for such loving parents to adopt as many children as they need and they can, because they are parents who want to share their love and provide a stable home. This is not a hard bill to support. It is common sense. Let's support those who want to support the unwanted children of the world. I commend this bill to House.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today, following the very eloquent words of my colleague Mr Baldwin, to also speak in support of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Intercountry Adoption) Bill 2014. A fundamental duty of government is to reduce the burdens and bureaucracy on individuals as they go about trying to live their lives. This government is continuing that important task of making life simpler for the people of this country through reducing red tape, and I welcome this bill as another example of how we are trying to make life simpler through reducing that red tape when it comes to intercountry adoption.

Adoption is a wonderful gift because it allows couples to become parents for the very first time, or it allows couples to complete their family through adoption. It is also a wonderful gift for those children who are being adopted. It provides them with a stable family. It provides them with a new life of opportunity ahead of them, a life in Australia with all of the wonderful things that that involves. So when members of our community are trying to map their way through a complicated maze of government regulation both here in Australia and overseas, it is even more important for us as legislators to look to simplify matters as far as possible. We all know the emotional cost that those who are seeking to adopt go through, but the added burden of red tape and regulation makes that so much more difficult.

Like members across the chamber, I receive correspondence from our community and from those people who have embarked upon the journey to adopt and so fulfil their life's goal to become parents. Less and less are those people able to adopt domestically. We have seen a rapid decline in the number of children available. In part, this is a good thing because this means that there are fewer parents who feel unable to care for those children. However, for those yearning to be parents and yearning to take care of children this does diminish their options. So some couples choose to look overseas. This is continuing a strong and proud tradition here in Australia of helping those less fortunate than ourselves and of looking around the world in order to do that. In choosing to adopt a child from a less fortunate place around the world and bring them to our lucky country, our strong and prosperous nation, they are making a significant investment not only in that child but also in the future potential of our great nation.

The bill before us today will help to reduce some of the bureaucratic hurdles that make it more difficult for Australian citizens wishing to adopt children from abroad. This bill acknowledges a fundamental tenet that, no matter where a child is born, a child of Australian parents should be an Australian citizen. When an Australian couple is blessed with the opportunity to have a baby, they welcome that baby into their family and also into our wider Australian family as an Australian citizen. Likewise, through our adoption of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, Australian citizens who adopt children from countries that are signatories of the convention are also able to welcome their children as full citizens of our country. However, this is not the case for intercountry adoption, and it is certainly not the case where Australia has a bilateral agreement with a particular country but they are not a signatory to the Hague Convention.

Intercountry adoption has been undergoing a global decline. In fact, we have seen a decline of more than 50 per cent since the global peak in 2004, with adoptions to Australia falling from 434 in 2004-05 to 129 in 2012-13. Thankfully, this decline is partly for positive reasons, as with global development—often supported by Australian aid and trade agreements—families in some countries have been less in need of giving up their children for adoption. Yet the decline in intercountry adoptions has also surely been influenced by the complex processes, high fees and extended waiting times for families who wish to adopt.

Through this bill, adoption of children from countries that are not party to the Hague Convention but with which Australia has a bilateral agreement should become a little bit easier by granting Australian citizenship to children adopted from these countries. To date, this will benefit citizens and adopted children from three countries: Ethiopian, South Korea and Taiwan. I encourage the honourable Attorney-General to continue discussions with further suitable partner countries around the world so that this might be available with other countries as well.

Once the adoption process for a child from Ethiopia, South Korea or Taiwan has been successfully completed, these adopted children can only receive a passport from their birth country and have to apply for an Australian migration visa to enter Australia under the previous law. This bill, though, will allow children to be granted Australian citizenship on adoption and they will be able to fly to Australia for the first time with an Australian passport when they come with their new family. In delivering these changes to make it easier for children from overseas to be adopted and to grow up here in Australia, the best interests of children must be paramount. This legislation, though, will continue to ensure that all proper and probative standards and safeguards continue to be in place to protect children.

I am sure the Attorney-General will continue to work with COAG partners to develop a new, improved national system for intercountry adoption. Any future bilateral arrangements that Australia enters into must also ensure the requirements of the Hague convention are met. However, to make the process as easy as possible for parents, there is no reason why adoptions from countries with which we have bilateral agreements should not be recognised in the same way as adoptions in Hague convention countries.

I, therefore, commend this bill to the House because I believe that it is our responsibility to streamline the adoption process as much as possible for families adopting a child and bringing them to a new life in Australia. This small but very important change to the intercountry adoption program will be an important part of the wider government strategy for helping our citizens wishing to adopt while continuing to protect the rights and interests of children, in accordance with our international obligations. I commend the bill to the House and thank those in the House, both on this side of the chamber and those opposite, for their support of this bill.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today in support of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Intercountry Adoption) Bill 2014. The bill amends the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to allow a person adopted outside Australia by an Austrian citizen to acquire Australian citizenship in accordance with a bilateral arrangement between Australia and another country. Many members have spoken on this bill and have provided the details of the legislative framework. However, in essence, this bill provides Australian citizenship to adopted children of Australian parents. The adopted child will be able to travel to Australia as an Australian citizen without needing to obtain a passport from the home country or an adoption visa under the Migration Regulations 1994. The bill is compatible with human rights. It does not raise any human rights issues. Rather, for children adopted outside Australia by an Australian citizen, it will make their transition to a better life a whole lot easier. It is also another commitment that this government is fulfilling to the Australian people.

On a personal level, I wanted to speak very briefly on this bill today as I have met a number of loving couples in my electorate who would have made wonderful parents. They wanted to offer their homes and were prepared to open up their hearts to a child who did not have a home and family. While many of these couples have waited years and have been disappointed, this legislation will assist others in their situation. Anything we can do to assist these couples is worthy, and this bill seeks to address some of the problems.

The other reason I wanted to participate in this debate today is that I also hope that by speaking on this bill and by raising awareness of the benefits of adoption we can start a conversation within the community and hopefully make adoption of children from within our own country also easier. I know this is an emotive issue; however, it is a conversation we should have.

This bill is about creating an entitlement to citizenship for the easier processing of children adopted under the Hague convention arrangements and under bilateral arrangements. As the Prime Minister has said:

The government wants to make it easier to adopt when it is in the best interests of the child.

The government announced in December 2013 that we would improve overseas adoption by the end of this year. We are delivering on that commitment. We have improved the process for families adopting from Taiwan and South Korea. We have considered a report by senior officials on options to reform overseas adoption. It was informed by more than 100 public submissions. We are running a new overseas adoption program with South Africa and are in discussion with seven other countries about the possibility of new overseas adoption programs.

I congratulate the minister and the Prime Minister. These amendments will reduce even more red tape when it comes to intercountry adoption. And I thank those couples willing to open up their homes and hearts to these children. Our community will be stronger for their efforts.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As yet another contributor to this debate in considering a bill to change the Citizenship Act to streamline the process of intercountry adoption I really only rise to deliver a cautionary note in this area. Having lived overseas for a significant part of my pre-political life, I am a little bit cautious about this extremely complicated area of intercountry adoption. I have seen some of the source countries from where these children originate. There is a temptation, I think, in a very superficial way sometimes to visualise this as effectively an airlift out of the red zone for children who have no future in source countries. There is the general Western notion that we can offer them all a better life. I have no doubt that there is an incredible amount of love amongst recipient parents, who, in many cases, have explored every other option to no avail. It is encouraging to see at least in the Hague convention a genuine focus on identifying the best interests of the child. I also concede that probably the most frustrating thing for impassioned and well-meaning couples in a place such as Australia is the cost, wait and uncertainty around adopting a child.

But I wonder whether when we look back on and read this debate decades from now we might just feel that we skimmed over some of the more sensitive elements. They are ones that are almost imponderable to us now, but we need to be extraordinarily cautious when we move minors—in most cases, infants—from one nation to another.

While we in this chamber have absolutely no doubt that by setting up bureaucratic protections we can ensure the best interests of the child, I want to make the simple point that that is not quite so simple to do in a number of source countries. I know that in some cases we are dealing with free democracies and fairly elaborate public service structures, where there can be some hope of that occurring; but that is not always the case. It is not always the case that we can be 100 per cent sure that this will be in the best interests of the child. We do not have to go much further than recent media reports about arrangements made between Thailand and Australia.

I am also concerned in essence that a judgement by an individual or by an official that this is an act of last resort may not always be the case. While it may well be written in the conventions and in the legislation that this should be an option of last resort, I am aware of two other things. I know first of all that we are nation that invests heavily in enabling couples to become families. We have probably the world's most generous IVF arrangements and we are seeing an expansion in surrogacy as well. I understand that that does not suit everyone. Adoption plays an incredibly important role there. But I just whether decades from now we will look back and be absolutely certain that each one of these arrangements, with all the information that we have before us right now, would have been in the child's best interest.

If there is one sense that I have deep in my heart, it is that a decade or two from now we will have a very, very different view about the importance of children remaining with birth parents, with the extended families and within their own cultures. I think it is a prescient but also cautionary note that we need to remember that in one of the wealthiest countries in the world we should never assume that, simply because we have more resources here, a child's life will automatically be better. I have got no doubt also that there is also an enormous selection bias at play, where those children who have come to live in Australia will almost always say that that has been an enriching and a better experience for having done it. But we need to remember that there is also a family at home. There is also an extended family unit in that developing economy, which not only remains silent but is almost completely disengaged from this process.

So I appreciate the efforts here to simplify and streamline to make sure that these are adoptions of last resort, but I do remain very concerned that that child who moves from one country to another leaves behind, like a furrow in a field, a gap can never be filled. It can never be filled not simply because there may have been in this case no direct biological first degree parent but because we have made an assessment that their life will be better somewhere else. We have made an assessment that that child does not necessarily belong as part of a greater extended family simply because at that temporal moment in time we could not actually find the appropriate people to fulfil the role.

I am concerned that there will be, through expanding these networks, a greater and greater demand upon these officials in source countries to set up these arrangements and to ensure that they occur. In some ways, the great risk of coming up with a system that has less cost, less wait and less uncertainty is that we reduce that window of opportunity to ensure that this is absolutely in the child's best interest. I have got an enormous amount of faith in the people who are often working in very, very uncertain arrangements in difficult economies; but I think we just need to for a moment release ourselves from this notion that we are airlifting children to a better future and to a better life, because that is a distinctly Western way of examining this problem.

I commend the fact that we are part of the convention and I commend the fact that we are identifying one-to-one strong bilateral relationships with countries where we will be engaging this process, but I would make that cautionary and concluding note that we must never, ever forget that we leave behind a family unit in these source countries in many cases. While our instantaneous assessment now is that the child is better off, I would love to know that that family unit and the broader culture is also better off having participated in inter-country adoptions.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an issue that is close to the hearts of many women and men in Australia today. It is a proud moment for me, as a representative of the people of Solomon and the Northern Territory, to be able to stand here in this parliament today to debate this very important piece of legislation.

While I am not at liberty to identify them by name, I would like to dedicate this speech to the couples that I have spoken to during my time as a local member who have been pushing for changes to the rules surrounding overseas adoption. While they have not been substantial in number, the passion, the emotion and also the very good sense that these people have brought to this discussion has been both powerful and compelling. I strongly emphasise with their predicament and with their determination to have a family. The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Intercountry Adoption) Bill will go some way towards simplifying the overseas adoption process for them and for other couples in my electorate.

Children give life to families and give enormous personal and collective joy, on an individual basis as well as to couples and families more broadly. In recent months, I have been reminded of this. Our son and his wife just had a baby, Evie. She has brought amazing joy to the family and is quite extraordinary. Evie has been brought into a loving, stable family with lots of extended family to dote over her and spoil her. But the same cannot be said for countless other children who have been born both overseas and in Australia.

There are pockets of tremendous disadvantage in the Northern Territory, particularly in some remote communities. There are places that are very tough for the adults that live there, let alone for the children. Notwithstanding these challenges, every child has a right to be brought up in a loving, supportive family. It follows that parents have a responsibility to provide the type of environment where children can thrive and prosper.

This government has indicated a willingness to support parents in providing the best opportunities for their children and there is a mutual obligation for that. This is the balance that federal and territory governments are trying to strike with their policies as they relate to the delivery of welfare and school attendance. It is about protecting the interests of children. I say this because I think it is important that this government cannot be accused of turning a blind eye to disadvantage in its own backyard while legislating to support children from overseas.

But today's legislation is focused specifically around improving the processes around overseas adoption and, as the Prime Minister said in his second reading speech, for too long adoption has been in the too-hard basket. For too long it has been too hard to adopt and for too long it has been a policy no-go zone. As I alluded to earlier, one of the greatest rewards of being a member of parliament is that I am able to in a small way be involved in helping people improve their lives and be involved in making decisions that have a positive impact within families. In opposition the Prime Minister identified a raft of red tape within the overseas adoption process that created a barrier to the smooth facilitation of child adoption. Already the government has improved the processes for families adopting from Taiwan and South Korea, a new overseas adoption program has been opened with South Africa and discussions have already commenced with seven other countries.

As part of the process of enabling overseas adoption in Australia the Prime Minister has commissioned a interdepartmental committee report. The committee is charged with identifying options for implementing reforms within Australia. Chaired by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the committee has senior representatives from the Attorney-General's Department, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Immigration and Border Protection as well as the Department of Social Services. I recommend anybody considering adopting a child from overseas, or with an interest in this subject, read this report. It is well researched, informative and takes an eyes wide open approach to this complex and sometimes emotive issue.

In the process of removing overseas adoptions from the too-hard basket, the government is well aware of some of the pitfalls that could potentially derail trust in this scheme and damage its reputation permanently. For instance, Australian authorities suspended the overseas adoption program with India as a result of child-trafficking allegations. It is a given that Australia requires that all programs be ethical and meet the standards and principles set by The Hague convention. This was ratified in 1993 and underpins the framework under which overseas adoptions have taken place over the past two decades. At its core the two key principles are: firstly, that the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration in all convention countries and, secondly, that adoption is subsidiary to care by family, and intercountry adoption is subsidiary to domestic adoption.

The report identifies that the practice of legally adopting a child from another country was first practised widely by the United States as a humanitarian response to the enormous number of children from Germany, Italy and Greece orphaned during World War II. In Australia it was not until the Vietnam War and the resultant war in Cambodia that overseas adoptions were practised in significant numbers. The report says that in the final days of the Vietnam War the Australian government authorised two dramatic airlifts of about 280 children from orphanages in Saigon to be adopted by Australian families. This was part of the US-led initiative known as Operation Babylift that saw over 2,500 Vietnamese orphans removed from their war torn country.

While a number of factors have contributed to a recent decline in the number of overseas adoptions worldwide, including strengthening economies in the South-East Asian region, the number of overseas adoptions in Australia is, in comparison to other developed nations, relatively low. I say this based on the discussions I had with the constituents I referred to earlier. They were unable to have children naturally or through IVF and found themselves being stymied by red tape during the overseas adoption process. This was extremely frustrating for them and, speaking generally, they felt frustrated and angry at a bureaucracy that put up roadblocks where there should not have been any.

Throughout the 1980s the number of overseas adoptions peaked at 420 and in the 1990s it dropped to a relatively constant figure of around 250. Australian ratification of The Hague convention in 1998 and an increase in adoptions from China saw numbers increase again, peaking at around 434 in the 2004-05 financial year, but we saw the number decline to 129 in the 2012-13 financial year.

The report says that the number of adoptions by Australians of overseas children is among the lowest of any developed country. That was the point I made earlier. It says the proportion of children adopted with special needs, such as being older or members of sibling groups or having disabilities or medical conditions, is exceptionally low compared with those in other developed countries. Numerically, rather than as a percentage of the population, it does certainly appear that Australia is behind the eight ball when it comes to overseas adoptions. In 2010, for instance, there were 222 intercountry adoptions in Australia. This compared to 655 in Sweden, a country with less than half of our population. The Netherlands, with about 16 million people, had 697 adoptions. Canada, with 35 million people, has an overseas adoption rate almost nine times that of Australia. Americans adopt by far the most children from overseas—with 12,149 adoptions in 2010.

As I said earlier, improving economic conditions in developing countries is one reason identified in the report for a substantial reduction over the past decade or so in adoptions. With the decline in Australia of around 60 per cent between 2004 and 2010 on a par with other Western nations, but by any measure the figure is, as I said, still pretty low. In my jurisdiction of the Northern Territory, the number has increased from one in the 2009-10 financial year to nine in 2011-12 and to 10 in the 2012-13 financial year. This was in part as a result of amendments made by the Northern Territory government that meant children born overseas could be issued with a full Australian birth certificate. Probably, the key recommendation in the interdepartmental report—and this is what we are discussing today—is recommendation (2), which enables children from non-Hague signatory countries with which Australia has a bilateral arrangement to obtain citizenship in their country of origin, where one or both of the adoptive parents is an Australian citizen.

At present children adopted by Australian citizens under bilateral arrangements require a passport from their home country and Australian adoption visa to travel to Australia. As the Prime Minister has already said, this imposes an additional complexity and cost on the adopting families. This bill will allow children to be granted citizenship as soon as the adoption is completed they will then be able to travel to Australia on an Australian passport with the new families as Australian citizens. It goes without saying that Australia will be very careful about with whom it strikes bilateral arrangements and that these agreements have in place the standards and safeguards that ensure the process is transparent, open and accountable.

The government does not pretend that the amendment today is a silver bullet that will certainly lead to overseas adoption rates soaring, but we are of the view that, if we do not start somewhere, nothing will improve. This legislation is a step forward and not the complete journey; as the government, we know there is still more to be done. But through the passage of this bill the Australian community can see for themselves the benefits of having a united government with a clear, coherent narrative as opposed to one that is divided, lacks focus and cannot wait to get out of office. Government is about helping people and helping the country. I think both those boxes are ticked with this amendment. The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Intercountry Adoption) Bill will help to give life to families and give life to neighbourhoods and communities. It is impossible to underestimate the pleasure that children can bring—watching them develop from infancy to childhood through their teen years to adulthood and eventually having their own families. It is with great pleasure that I commend this legislation to the House.

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

Of all the many policies governments are called to deal with, those dealing with the lives and welfare of children—the most vulnerable group in our society—must surely be amongst the most important. Children everywhere deserve a safe and secure home environment. However, it is a sad reality that in some countries, for a range of complex social, cultural or economic reasons, there are children who are 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 will have the opportunity to be part of a secure and loving family and to have a better 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 have, and do, support international adoption arrangements made under the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, which has established safeguards to ensure that intercountry adoptions take place in the best interests of the child and which offers eligible, caring families in Australia and elsewhere the opportunity to adopt an overseas-born child and provide it with a family, a home and a future he or she may never otherwise have.

Unfortunately, and 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 like to adopt a child from even starting the adoption process. In recognising that the processes required bringing together those children from overseas who legitimately need a safe and loving home, and those Australians who dream of providing that home, have been overburdened with inconsistency and complex red tape, the Prime Minister announced in December 2013 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 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 costs 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 of any potential partner country willing to participate in an intercountry adoption arrangement 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—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue his remarks.