ECPAT NZ brief on Section 17 and intercountry adoption

Strengthening Section 17 to Protect Children

Overview

This brief recommends targeted amendments to Section 17 of the Adoption Act 1955 to close pathways for trafficking through intercountry placements, while preserving lawful, child-centred options for genuine family-based care, as is customary in the Pacific. Amendments should introduce robust child safeguards and transparent oversight, without abolishing Section 17. Any legal changes must be co-designed with Pacific Island governments and guided by an understanding of Pacific kinship practices, so reforms fit local realities rather than simply importing Western models.

Why change is needed

Loopholes remain: Aotearoa’s adoption and child protection laws are outdated and leave room for exploitation. The Adoption Act, including Section 17, lacks clarity and nuance, creating vulnerabilities.

Preventing exploitation: Strengthening Section 17 is necessary to reduce trafficking and exploitation risks while keeping legitimate family care pathways available. Reforms must balance preventing the abuse or commodification of children with avoiding unintended harm to normal, culturally appropriate, and often beneficial, kinship care.

International and regional frameworks

The Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption provides a strong international framework to safeguard children, birth families, and adoptive families. It insists that:

• adoption must be in the best interests of the child;
• domestic alternatives be explored first;
• organisations meet strict ethical standards.

Many Pacific countries have not signed or ratified the Convention. This means their safeguards differ, and often don’t fully protect children in the way the Convention intends. At the same time, the Convention does not always fit Pacific cultural realities, where collective family responsibility and customary adoption play a central role, and in some circumstances it may be in the best interests of the child to not be automatically placed within a new family in the home country, but to be placed with existing family in a second country.

The Pacific context — why children move and how care usually works

Children travel to New Zealand for many normal, positive reasons: established family networks, temporary or longer-term kinship care when parents migrate for work, access to health or schooling, and responses to family or community stressors (including climate impacts).

Customary adoption and kinship care: In Pacific Island communities, caregiving often reflects deep family connections and collective responsibility. These arrangements are fluid and based on reciprocity, not intended to sever ties with the child’s birth family. They do not align neatly with western concepts of adoption.

We cannot simply apply a one-size-fits-all international or western legal model. The challenge is creating child protection systems that respect and incorporate customary practices while ensuring strong safeguards against exploitation.

Core principles for reform of Section 17 of the Adoption Act 1955

1. Child-centred protection — Amendments must prioritise the best interests of the child and protection from exploitation.
2. Amend but do not abolish Section 17 — Retain the lawful pathway, but narrow opportunities for misuse by tightening definitions, checks and oversight.
3. Pacific-led consultation and cultural fit — Work with Pacific governments and communities to ensure reforms respect customary care and sovereignty.
4. Align with international standards — Draw on Hague Convention principles, but adapt them to Pacific contexts to ensure cultural appropriateness.
5. Transparency and accountability — Strengthen documentation, data collection, and post-placement oversight to detect and respond to abuse.

Recommended changes

• Clarify language and definitions: Define terms such as ‘orphan’, ‘abandonment’, and ‘transfer of custody’ to close semantic loopholes.
• Mandatory pre-placement assessment: Require independent, culturally competent assessments of each proposed placement.
• Enhanced verification of origin and consent: Ensure informed consent from parents/guardians or customary authorities, with a clear chain of documentation.
• Risk-based distinction: Create separate processes for customary kinship care (supportive, low intervention) and formal intercountry adoption (high-scrutiny, Hague-style safeguards where applicable).
• Post-placement monitoring and data: Establish a central register and routine followup to track outcomes and identify risks.
• Stronger enforcement: Target brokers and facilitators of illicit placements (technically child traffickers) not families acting in good faith.
• Capacity building in the Pacific: Support Pacific governments to strengthen their child protection systems, records, and cross-border collaboration.
• Implementation: process and safeguards
• Consultation and co-design: Reforms must include formal consultations with Pacific Island governments, regional bodies, and Pacific community leaders in New Zealand.
• Phased approach: Immediate fixes for clear loopholes, followed by medium-term structural reforms.
• Culturally competent practice: Train decision makers to recognise customary kinship systems while safeguarding children.
• Resourcing: Fund cross-border social work, interpreter services, record-keeping, and monitoring.

Why consultation matters

Reforming Section 17 requires deep consultation and careful consideration, not urgency. Hasty lawmaking risks undermining the very protections it seeks to strengthen. Pacific communities have distinct cultural traditions of care, and their governments must be equal partners in shaping any reforms. Without co-design and adequate time, changes could inadvertently erase customary practices or weaken trust in New Zealand’s intentions. Taking a deliberate approach ensures safeguards are strong, culturally appropriate, and sustainable, rather than reactive fixes that create new problems.

Why urgency is not appropriate

Parliamentary urgency is generally reserved for true emergencies, such as natural disasters, public health crises, or immediate fiscal measures. Section 17 reform, while important, does not meet that threshold. Rushing such complex and culturally sensitive reforms under urgency would risk creating poorly designed laws, ignoring Pacific perspectives, and undermining confidence in the process. A measured, consultative approach will deliver stronger, more durable protections for children. Reforming Section 17 requires deep consultation and careful consideration, not urgency. Hasty lawmaking risks undermining the very protections it seeks to strengthen. Pacific communities have distinct cultural traditions of care, and their governments must be equal partners in shaping any reforms. Without co‑design and adequate time, changes could inadvertently erase customary practices or weaken trust in New Zealand’s intentions. Taking a deliberate approach ensures safeguards are strong, culturally appropriate, and sustainable, rather than reactive fixes that create new problems.

Conclusion

Reforming Section 17 of the Adoption Act 1955 is necessary to close loopholes that enable trafficking, but should not bluntly remove legal pathways that families rely on. Carefully targeted amendments, co-designed with Pacific partners and coupled with stronger safeguards, monitoring and capacity building, will protect children while respecting Pacific kinship systems and sovereignty.