Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (16:51): I want to raise an issue of child safety and whether an international convention, which is nearly 50 years old, and its application is serving the interests of the safety of Australian children. This is an issue I've worked on and raised several times throughout my parliamentary career. It's an issue I became aware of because of one of my courageous constituents who has been forcibly separated from her infant daughter for several years.
Her Australian daughter no longer lives in the safety of this country and has been forcibly returned overseas by a court order. Since meeting my constituent, I've met other people whose Australian children are in similar situations overseas. Because of this law, Australian courts, Australian bureaucrats and Australian police aided the removal of Australian children to foreign countries.
The situation for my constituent came about because of the actions of the application of an international convention that doesn't put the protection of Australian children as a paramount consideration. On Sunday, Channel 9's 60 Minutes broadcast an investigation into the way in which the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is currently being implemented in this country.
I commend 60 Minutes for bringing those stories to the Australian public. What was shown was deeply confronting. I encourage every member of this parliament to watch it.
Since that story was broadcast, I've been contacted by other people whose families have been adversely affected by the application of the Hague convention and who are fearful for the safety of their children. The Hague convention was well intentioned. Adopted in 1980, it was designed to deal with children being taken across international borders.
The purpose of the convention was to return the child to its habitual place of residence. Under the convention, the removal to the habitual place of residence can only be challenged where there's a grave risk that the return of the child would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation. But those terms are interpreted very narrowly.
Practitioners who've worked in the field for many years have rarely, if ever, seen a case where the Australian child is allowed to remain in Australia. Judges may but are not required to consider family violence when determining these matters. When issues of domestic violence are raised they're often not tested, as would be the case in ordinary family court proceedings.
The way courts deal with the Hague convention cases reflect an outdated understanding of attitudes towards child safety. In the 46 years since the Hague convention, the world has changed. Our understanding of the hurt inflicted on children who witness or experience abuse has changed enormously, and the convention has not.
When I was the shadow attorney-general in 2022, I raised these issues with the then attorney-general Dreyfus. I asked him to review the application of the Hague convention. His department made a small amendment to the Family Law Regulations.
This was a legislative note which clarified that courts may have regard to the risk that returning a child would expose them to family violence. This was well intentioned, but my concern is that it has simply not gone far enough. In November 2024, the Family Law Council did a report on the Hague convention.
That report Protecting victims of family violence, including children, in the family law system: international child abduction made several recommendations for legislative reforms, but it did not consider the merits of the convention itself. Today, I'm calling on the Attorney-General to convene a public inquiry into the Hague convention. That inquiry should examine whether the grave-risk-of-harm threshold is fit for purpose; consider whether courts should be required, not merely permitted, to take evidence of domestic violence into account; and ask whether Australia should advocate at an international level for reform of the convention itself.
My questions to the Attorney today are as follows. At present, the Hague convention's return orders are procedural in nature only. There's no cross-examination of evidence, and sometimes evidence isn't even considered.
Are there plans for Hague cases to be heard like other family law cases and become proceedings where evidence can be heard and tested? Has the government considered amending the law to require that domestic violence 'must' be considered when assessing the grave risk of harm to the child, rather than, as currently is the case, that it 'may' be considered. Has the government considered legislative changes so that, in Hague convention cases, the psychological effects on young children who are exposed to domestic violence can legitimately meet the grave-risk-of-harm threshold, as outside observers will tell you that they do?
And has the government considered amendments to allow the Attorney-General to step in in relation to the return of children who would otherwise be at risk of physical or sexual abuse under a Hague return order? These are important and serious issues which concern the safety of Australian children and the way in which an international convention that is 50 years old deals with those under Australian law.
They're important issues. I raise them in a serious way because of the effect that they've had on my constituents and other families across this country.