The Claim
“Scrapped the National Intercountry Adoption advisory Group then 2 months later created the interdepartmental working group on overseas adoption, a body which serves an identical purpose.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core factual elements of this claim are accurate. The National Intercountry Adoption Advisory Group (NICAAG) was indeed disbanded on November 8, 2013, as part of a broader Coalition government decision to "abolish or rationalise non-statutory bodies" [1]. The announcement was made on the Attorney-General's Department website with the explanation that "the closure of this group is a whole-of-government decision that was taken to simplify and streamline the business of government" [1].
On December 19, 2013—approximately six weeks (not two months) after disbanding NICAAG—Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced the creation of an interdepartmental working group on overseas adoption [1]. The working group was tasked with examining impediments to overseas adoptions and reporting back by March 2014 ahead of the Council of Australian Governments meeting in April 2014 [1].
However, the claim that the new body served an "identical purpose" is not entirely accurate. According to a spokeswoman for the Prime Minister, the new working group was an "internal departmental body, rather than an external committee" with a "short-term mission" focused on "very specific questions - regarding impediments to overseas adoptions" [1].
Key Differences Between the Two Bodies:
- NICAAG: External advisory group established after the 2005 Bronwyn Bishop-led House of Representatives Inquiry into Overseas Adoption, comprising experienced adoption community members including adoptees and adoptive parents [2][3]
- Interdepartmental Working Group: Internal bureaucratic committee of federal public servants with a specific, time-limited mandate to identify procedural impediments [1]
Missing Context
The claim omits several critical pieces of context that are essential for understanding this policy decision:
1. Broader Government Rationalisation Program: The disbanding of NICAAG was not an isolated decision targeting adoption policy specifically. It was part of a systematic Coalition government review of non-statutory bodies across all portfolios, aimed at reducing the number of advisory committees and streamlining government operations [1].
2. Historical Policy Background: The NICAAG was established in the wake of the 2005 Bronwyn Bishop-led inquiry into overseas adoption, which had made recommendations for stronger national coordination and harmonisation between States/Territories [2][3]. By 2013, adoption advocates like Ricky Brisson of the Australian InterCountry Adoption Network were arguing that "the last thing Australia needed was another review into the adoption system when the federal and state governments had not 'implemented the recommendations from the last one'" [1].
3. The 2005 Recommendations Were Still Unimplemented: As adoption advocate Steve Nielsen noted in 2013, there was "much unfinished business from 2005 recommendations," including the fact that "each state has different legislation, policies and criteria" causing people to "reapply when they moved states" [1]. The Coalition's working group was specifically tasked with addressing these long-standing bureaucratic inefficiencies.
4. Bipartisan Context of Adoption Reform: Adoption reform has historically enjoyed bipartisan support in Australia. The 2005 inquiry was conducted under the Howard government, but its recommendations spanned multiple parliamentary terms without full implementation. The Abbott government's 2014 reforms ultimately led to the establishment of Intercountry Adoption Australia (IAA) in 2015—a $33.6 million national reform package [4]—which continued under subsequent governments.
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source is The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH), a mainstream Australian newspaper with generally high journalistic standards. The article by Judith Ireland is factual reporting that:
- Accurately reports the timeline of events
- Includes multiple perspectives from adoption experts (Marilyn Nagesh, Ricky Brisson, Steve Nielsen)
- Presents the government's explanation for the decision
- Notes criticism from advocacy groups
SMH Bias Assessment: The SMH is generally considered centre-left in its editorial stance but maintains professional journalism standards. The article itself is balanced, presenting both the government's rationale and expert criticism. The headline frames the issue as potentially contradictory, but the body of the article provides context that somewhat mitigates this framing.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Search conducted: "Labor government adoption policy Australia intercountry adoption disbanding advisory groups"
Finding: The Rudd and Gillard Labor governments (2007-2013) maintained the NICAAG throughout their terms. However, they also failed to fully implement the 2005 Bronwyn Bishop inquiry recommendations during their six years in government [1].
Key comparison points:
- The Labor government maintained the external advisory structure (NICAAG) but did not achieve the harmonisation and streamlining that the 2005 inquiry recommended [2]
- The Coalition's approach—disbanding the external advisory group in favour of an internal bureaucratic committee—was different in method but aimed at addressing the same long-standing issues
- Both governments faced criticism from adoption advocates for insufficient action on adoption reform; the difference was in approach rather than outcome
Precedent for Committee Rationalisation: The practice of reviewing and rationalising government advisory bodies is standard across Australian governments of both political persuasions. The specific decision to replace an external advisory body with an internal working group is consistent with a government seeking more direct control over policy implementation.
Balanced Perspective
The Coalition's Perspective:
The Abbott government's decision to disband NICAAG and create an internal working group was consistent with its broader agenda to streamline government operations and reduce the number of non-statutory advisory bodies. The interdepartmental working group was given a specific, time-limited mandate to identify bureaucratic impediments to adoption—a task that aligns with the government's campaign commitment to make overseas adoption "much easier" for Australian couples [1].
The working group was explicitly designed to be different from NICAAG: internal rather than external, focused on bureaucratic process rather than broad policy advice, and time-limited rather than ongoing [1].
Criticisms of the Approach:
Adoption experts, including former NICAAG member Marilyn Nagesh, questioned the wisdom of disbanding a group with "really experienced people on it" so close to making a major policy announcement [1]. Nagesh also raised concerns that the Prime Minister might be "raising false hope" about adoption availability given that overseas agencies, not the Australian government, control how many children are available [1].
Long-term Outcomes:
The Coalition's 2014-2015 reforms ultimately led to significant structural changes in Australia's intercountry adoption system, including:
- The establishment of Intercountry Adoption Australia (IAA) in 2015 [4]
- The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Intercountry Adoption) Act 2015, which streamlined citizenship processes for adopted children [5]
- A $33.6 million national reform package [4]
These reforms outlasted the Abbott government and continued under subsequent Coalition and Labor governments, suggesting the 2013-2014 changes were part of a longer-term policy evolution rather than a purely political maneuver.
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The factual elements of the claim are accurate: the National Intercountry Adoption Advisory Group was disbanded in November 2013, and an interdepartmental working group on overseas adoption was created approximately six weeks later. However, the claim that the new body served an "identical purpose" is misleading. The two bodies had fundamentally different compositions (external advisory vs. internal bureaucratic), different mandates (broad policy advice vs. specific procedural review), and different timeframes (ongoing vs. short-term). The framing suggests pointless bureaucratic shuffling, when in reality, the Coalition was pursuing a different approach to long-standing adoption reform issues that previous governments (including Labor) had failed to resolve. The decision was part of a broader rationalisation of non-statutory bodies, not a specific targeting of adoption policy.
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The factual elements of the claim are accurate: the National Intercountry Adoption Advisory Group was disbanded in November 2013, and an interdepartmental working group on overseas adoption was created approximately six weeks later. However, the claim that the new body served an "identical purpose" is misleading. The two bodies had fundamentally different compositions (external advisory vs. internal bureaucratic), different mandates (broad policy advice vs. specific procedural review), and different timeframes (ongoing vs. short-term). The framing suggests pointless bureaucratic shuffling, when in reality, the Coalition was pursuing a different approach to long-standing adoption reform issues that previous governments (including Labor) had failed to resolve. The decision was part of a broader rationalisation of non-statutory bodies, not a specific targeting of adoption policy.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (6)
-
1
smh.com.au
An adoption expert has questioned why Prime Minister Tony Abbott has set up a new group to report on intercountry adoptions just weeks after he disbanded another advisory body on the issue.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
2
intercountryadopteevoices.com
Australia’s silence on illicit and illegal intercountry adoptions and ICAV’s 20-year fight for truth, justice, and recognition of adoptee rights continues
InterCountry Adoptee Voices (ICAV) | We advocate and educate from Lived Experience -
3
gopetition.com
The Australian intercountry adoption system has been in crisis for many years. There are more…
GoPetition -
4PDF
Inter country adoption in Australia Examining the factors that drive the practice and implications for policy reform
Researchgate • PDF Document -
5
legislation.gov.au
Legislation Gov
-
6
monash.edu
Monash
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.