Child trafficking fear over new laws on inter-country adoption

As debate over inter-country adoption heats up, the Government is keeping quiet. 

By LUKE MORTIMER

Proposed changes to Australia's inter-country adoption laws  could open the market for vulnerable children to be sold to local adopters, experts fear.

RMIT Dean of Graduate Research and former head of the School of Political and Social Inquiry Prof Denise Cuthbert said the Government’s proposed changes – which would make it easier to adopt from countries that haven’t signed the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-Operation in Respect of Inter-country Adoption – would strengthen child trafficking syndicates.

The convention bans payment for children and requires consideration to be given “to the child's wishes and opinions”.

“Where we deal with non-Hague countries we place children at very grave risk of trafficking,” she said.

“Not one doubt in my mind that this [child trafficking] will all happen.

“Even in those programs with Hague signatory countries there have still been instances of child trafficking. There are no guarantees. It’s a global market, and there are privateers and unscrupulous people operating.”

While adoption certificates issued in signatory countries are automatically recognised under Australian law, people seeking to adopt from non-signatory countries need to apply through their relevant state adoption authority.

The Government’s proposal would remove this distinction for non-signatory countries Taiwan, South Korea, and Ethiopia, through establishing inter-country adoption bilateral arrangements.

Prof Cuthbert said the move would undermine Australia’s international commitments.

“Very regrettably, the current Prime Minister and his Government seem to have been unduly influenced by the pro-adoption lobby,” she said.

“The general direction that they’re moving in is to seek to remove what they see as unnecessary and time consuming red tape, but … that red tape is there for a very, very good reason.

“They’re prepared, it would seem, to run this campaign without due regard to the Hague Convention. They want to open programs with non-Hague countries. They want to access more children, and faster.”

In a joint submission to the Interdepartmental Committee on Overseas Adoption with Monash University Professor Emerita Marian Quartly and Griffith University’s Dr Patricia Fronek, Prof Cuthbert argued that even under the convention, adoptees were not always provided with adequate protection against child trafficking, and that to loosen those regulations would place children at a much greater risk.

“Even with such processes in place, Australian ICA [inter-country adoption] is not immune to problems such as child trafficking as demonstrated by several well-publicised cases,” the submission states, referring to evidence that dozens of trafficked Indian children were adopted by Australian families during an inter-country program that ended with in 2010.

In further evidence that Australian families have adopted children who have not been afforded the basic rights set down in the convention, statistics show inter-country adoptions from China have dropped 32.3 per cent to 10.9 per cent since that nation signed up in 2005.

But Australian Families for Children president Ricky Brisson says the proposed changes won’t make adopting from non-signatory countries faster or easier.

“It’s not improving the adoption process we’ve got in any way, other than the finalisation of the process,” she said.

In their own submission to the inter-departmental committee, Australian Families for Children called on the Government to reform inter-country adoption laws so NGOs could process applications, rather than the relevant state government department.

“Australia needs a whole of government approach to policy and legislation for adoption,” it said.

“Australian Families for Children asks that the development of new inter-country adoption program be initiated, led and managed by adoption accredited agencies.

“Australian Families for Children is asking the Government to appoint an independent body, [a] national adoption bureau, to oversee adoptions, accredit adoption organisations, endorse country to country agreements proposed by accredited bodies and take on the role of a central authority.”

Ms Brisson said the adoption community was concerned the Government’s prolonged silence could mean they don’t plan to deliver on the proposed changes.

“The concern we have today is that one; the Government is not telling the community what the hell they are doing,” she said.

“There’s a lack of commitment on all levels. Basically, [there has been] a lot of talk and no tangible results. We don’t even know what the proposed amendments are. Nothing’s been released.

“Nothing’s come out for consultation, either. The adoption community is quite disillusioned with what is happening, because really there is nothing much happening.”

Almost 50 pages of an inter-departmental committee report released in April were redacted – which included the committee’s recommendations – and Ms Brisson said a Freedom of Information request asking for the omitted pages to be made public was unsuccessful.

Worse, she says, is that the Government’s delayed promise of reform has caused uncertainty for state adoption authorities, and has brought application processing to a  halt.

“A lot of the states are putting a freeze on accepting new applications until such time as the reform comes in, so there’s families that are stranded in the pipeline, not being able to apply,” she said.

Prof Cuthbert said her opposition to the Government’s proposed changes came down to “what we believe adoption is for”.

“One view is that adoption is one option, on a continuum of care options, for children who for whatever reasons can’t be taken care of by their families of birth,” she said.

“But another view, and a view that seems to be very popular in the Australian community, is that adoption is a form of family formation for Australian adults, either individuals or couples, who for whatever reason can’t have children of their own.

“Does being poor, either [from] a poor family or a poor nation, mean that it becomes an open door for the affluent to walk in and take those children?

“The global imbalance in wealth and power plays out in inter-country adoption arena in a very, very invidious and regrettable way.”