Adoptee Rights Australia was formed in 2018 in response to the lack of a national advocacy body for adopted people. The majority of adoptees in Australia would not have been adopted if it weren’t for coercive and illegal policies and practices.
On the 10th Anniversary of the Apology for Forced Adoptions in Australia, the announcement made by the Minister for Social Services, Amanda Rishworth MP is devastatingly inadequate.
- Most of the Recommendations agreed to 10 years ago were never implemented. Concrete undertakings to make good on those broken promises are needed.
- The Forced Adoptions Support Services (FASS) needs urgent review.
- Lived experience representative advocacy organisations still have no voice.
10 YEARS ON
Adoptee Rights Australia has reviewed relevant outcomes of the Senate Inquiry into the Commonwealth Contribution to Former Forced Adoption policies and practices.
The majority of the undertakings made in the Commonwealth Government Response have not been implemented. Some that have been implemented are partial, and often quite different to the intention of the agreed upon recommendations.
We call upon the current Government:
- to reinstate any work that was discontinued when the Standing Council on Community and Disability Services was disbanded
- to review the efficacy and uptake of Forced Adoption Support Services (FASS)
- to identify which Recommendations involving records tracing and information FASS covers, and implement those which are not covered by FASS.
- to provide consultation, transparency and accountability to lived experience stakeholders
- to provide funding for and inclusion of adoption lived experience representative advocacy organisations and an advocacy framework to ensure our voices are heard.
Part 1. Government undertakings made, and what should have happened after the Apology 10 years ago
Part 2. What Adoptee Rights Australia calls for, 10 years on
Part 3. Table of relevant Recommendations, the Commonwealth Government Responses and outcomes.
Part 1. 10 YEARS ON – What should have already happened
The inquiry had two terms of reference (Refer to the ‘Table – 10 YEARS ON’ for a detailed assessment of all relevant Recommendations):
1. the role of the Commonwealth Government, if any, in contributing to forced adoptions, and
2. “the potential role of the Commonwealth in developing a national framework to assist states and territories to address the consequences for the mothers, their families and children (sic) who were subject to forced adoption policies.”
The National Framework and oversight of state and territory governments crucial to many undertakings in the Commonwealth Government Response was summarily disbanded by the Liberal Coalition government before it could get beyond developing its Terms of Reference:
- 21st March 2013 – The Apology was made. The government response stated “The national framework will be progressed through the Standing Council on Community and Disability Services…”
- April 2013 – Attorneys General at the meeting of the Standing Council on Law and Justice agreed they would only consider non-legislated changes that could provide greater harmonisation for access to birth information. (In December 2014, in the Final report of the Forced Adoptions Implementation Working Group, under ‘Harmonisation of Records’ it was stated: “Ruling out legislative amendment is contrary to the needs and interests of people affected by forced adoption. If those needs and interests require legislative amendment, that is what should occur” (p.13-14).
- 7th September 2013 – change of government.
- 25th September 2013 – The Forced Adoptions Issues and Directions Working Group was set up and developed Terms of Reference to guide the work. A ‘key element’ of the national framework was to be the harmonisation of birth records and re-connection services between states and territories.
- 13th December 2013 – The decision was made by what was then known as COAG (the Prime Minister, State and Territory Premiers and Chief Ministers) that the Standing Council on Community and Disability Services would be “discontinued”.
- 27th June 2014 the Standing Council on Community and Disability Services agreed on a new governance structure. This structure did not include the Forced Adoptions Issues and Directions Working Group and its activities. “Ad hoc work can still be progressed with states and territories at officer level, depending on the issue.”
10 years on
- No national framework has been developed
- No harmonisation of births, deaths and marriages registers has been implemented, and there has been no facilitation of a single national access point to those registers
- Fathers’ names cannot be put on birth certificates in accordance with what was intended
- No principles to govern post-adoption information have been agreed on or implemented by the states and territories
- Adopted people in NSW are waiting two and a half years for their information
- Variations between jurisdictions lead to devastating and inconsistent outcomes, depending on where the adoption occurred
- The only public review of FASS (the Forced Adoption Support Services Post Implementation Review, 2018) shows there was very limited uptake and there has been no public review since. There is no accountability or transparency about the services or outcomes
- Minimal data collection has been done on our population by the contracted service providers
- There appears to have been very limited uptake and awareness of the Australian Psychological Society (APS) Forced adoption training for professionals
- The APS has recently received a further grant to upgrade the Forced adoption training, but will not provide any information on who was consulted for this upgrade
- Find & Connect hasn’t been extended, and no alternative has been implemented
- No new national services have been created, including a search and contact database, as discussed in the 2014 Scoping Study
- A statement of principles for access to personal information from non-government organisations, with a Past Adoption Practices Consultative forum supported by a national consultation group including people with lived experience did not proceed
- The National Archives of Australia Project website is now archived on Trove & practically inaccessible. No alternative history of adoption site has been set up
- The public – and many with lived experience – are generally not aware of the Apology or any services available
Part 2. 10 YEARS ON – what is needed now
Adoptee Rights Australia is not only asking the Commonwealth Government to follow through on promises made in the past. Adults who were adopted as infants and children must be listened to and recognised as a separate and vulnerable population. Knowing our mothers were forced is just one facet of the separation and ongoing adoption experience.
Adoptee Rights Australia is calling for action on urgent issues that were not addressed 10 years ago, including:
- The need for an approach that is governed by the principles of Accountability, Transparency, Consultation and Inclusion.
- Inclusion of Australian Intercountry adoptees. Adoptee Rights Australia has always included Australian Intercountry adoptees, who are subject to the same inconsistent and draconian Australian Adoption Acts as domestic adoptees. We consider that issues of consent, coercion, mistreatment, and stigma surrounding single motherhood are also embedded in intercountry adoption practices. We urge the Commonwealth Government to recognise that Intercountry adoptees face, along with their domestically adopted peers, struggles with identity, belonging, uncertainty, and loss, which can be painful and lifelong.
- Fathers’ names on birth certificates are not the only issue. Correction of mothers’ names, names on death certificates, the addition of siblings’ names are needed.
- The need for research: There has been minimal research in Australia on outcomes for adoptees over their lifetime, yet overseas studies suggest that people who are adopted are over-represented in suicide, suicide attempts, alcoholism, substance abuse, homelessness and incarceration.[1] In one of the few Australian studies, the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) found that adopted people are more likely to experience “mental health disorders, poorer wellbeing, higher psychological distress”; that they encountered “problems with attachment, identity, abandonment and parenting their own children”; and, “almost 70 percent” of the adopted individuals who participated in the study agreed that, “being adopted… had a negative effect on their health, behaviours and/or wellbeing while growing up”, regardless of whether the experience with their adoptive families “was positive or negative”.[2] This study shows there is a great need for further research on this vulnerable Australian population. No further research was done, and this study has been archived.
- Notification of adoptive status. An unknown number of Australians don’t know they are adopted and there is a duty of care to notify them of their adoptive status, to take responsibility for implementing comprehensive support, and to ensure they have a right to reunion, not graves. Adopted people (and subsequent generations) have limited access to knowledge of family health issues at best. Those who don’t know they are adopted have the added risk of believing that their family medical history is that of genetic strangers. Australia has ratified the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child and therefore has an obligation under Article 8, (2) “Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing speedily his or her identity.”
- Discharges of adoption should be straightforward for the adopted person, with consistency in all jurisdictions.
- Investigation of human and civil rights breaches in the existence of vetoes, gag laws on the identification of parties to adoption, and other discriminatory aspects of adoption legislation.
- The recognition in policy and legislation that the DNA landscape has changed completely since 2013.
- The Commonwealth Government should lead the implementation of redress and restorative measures for all those affected, with recognition of the harms of adoption itself to adopted people.
- Removal of the Statute of Limitations as a defence in adoption claims.
- Access to records. The need for a statement of Access Principles for Records Holders & Best Practice Guidelines in providing access to records co-designed by lived experience stakeholders (like the 2015 Forgotten Australians and Child Migrants document produced with DSS). This should be done with Commonwealth support for state and territory legislative change, if necessary, to enable consistent application of the principles.
- Adoption awareness training. Co-design of training in adoption issues for crisis services like Beyond Blue, Lifeline and Mensline, etc. Adoption and adoption trauma informed competence training for government employees, e.g.: employees of Births, Deaths and Marriages, and employees of non-government services.
- Funding for access to services used by those who do not use FASS.
- Funding for and inclusion of Adoption Lived Experience Advocacy Representative Organisations and an Advocacy Framework to ensure our voices are heard.
Adoptee Rights Australia calls for an Inquiry into adoption itself – past and present. An Inquiry should include terms of reference that are co-designed with lived experience stakeholders, and investigate the long-term outcomes of adoption for adopted people, including the above points, the effects of identity change, genealogical bewilderment, restriction on access to information (past and current), cumulative trauma, duty of care in historical and current post adoption services, reunion, jurisdictional inconsistencies and their effects, illegal practices and redress, etc.
Part 3 Table of Relevant Recommendations, the Commonwealth Government Responses and outcomes
10 YEARS ON
Definition of ‘Agreement in principle’
The agreement is not legally binding because it has not been finalized. However, it indicates that the two parties have reached some level of consensus and that they intend to move forward with a contract. As a result, backing out of the agreement or radically changing the terms may be viewed as an activity in bad faith. For example, when a country reaches an agreement in principle with another and then reneges, it can make them look bad in the eyes of the international community.
|
#
|
Original Recommendation or summary
|
Govt Response summary
|
Is the outcome what was agreed to? or agreed to in principle? Other comments.
|
|
1
|
A national framework to address the consequences of “former forced adoption” to be developed by the Commonwealth, States and Territories through the Standing Council on Community and Disability Services.
|
AGREED IN PRINCIPLE
notes also a matter for the states and territories.
“The national framework will be progressed through the Standing Council on Community and Disability Services… and will comprise the following key elements…”
The ‘key elements’ of this included an undertaking to work towards harmonisation of birth records & re-connection services between states & territories – see Recommendation 13
|
NO – Work on the National Framework and any national oversight was discontinued completely from June 2014.
Additional Estimates Hearings Feb 2015:
A number of the Senate Inquiry recommendations relate to the Commonwealth and the states and territories working together to improve outcomes for affected people.
The Adoptions Issues and Directions Working Group, under the COAG process, developed Terms of Reference to guide the work.
However, the current COAG structure does not include the work relating to the Senate Inquiry recommendations.
However, work can progress with the jurisdictions informally and as identified on a needs basis.
|
|
2
|
National Apology
|
AGREED to issue an apology
|
YES – An apology was made.
|
|
3
|
States/Territories & non-govt institutions Apology
|
AGREED IN PRINCIPLE
notes this is a matter for them
– Does not say ‘also a matter for them’ like in Recommendation 1, so takes no responsibility and makes no undertakings to do anything.
|
YES – the Government did not undertake to do anything, so the outcome is what was agreed to.
|
|
4
|
Apologies should satisfy the 5 criteria…
|
AGREED IN PRINCIPLE – for Commonwealth and notes it’s up to states/territories and non-gov institutions.
|
YES, but no undertakings were made by the Govt to require states and territories or previous non-government forced adoption facilitators to issue apologies.
|
|
5
|
Should include statements that take responsibility for past policy choices…..
|
|
6
|
“The committee recommends that formal apologies should always be accompanied by undertakings to take concrete actions that offer appropriate redress for past mistakes.”
|
AGREED
$5 million – FA training development by the Australian Psychological Society (APS), & to ATAPS for mental health services (ATAPS was already accessible)
(see Recommendation 8)
$5 million over 4 years support, counselling, records tracing support (see Recommendation 8)
$1.5 million to National Archives Australia (NAA) for the FAA History Project (website and exhibition) (see Recommendation 20)
|
BOTH YES & NO, mainly no.
– YES The formal apology was accompanied by undertakings to take concrete actions. The question is whether these actions were appropriate? and even if they were, NO, not all of these actions were carried out appropriately (see recommendations 8 and 20).
The growing consensus of those with lived experience of adoption is that WE HAVE NOT HAD APPROPRIATE REDRESS for the past mistakes.
Recommendation 6 is also linked to Recommendation 10, because Recommendation 8 was supposed to be partially funded from what was agreed to in principle in Recommendation 10 – and this was not implemented, so another NO.
|
|
7
|
Apology to be in range of forms, widely published
|
AGREED
yes, it will be
|
UNSURE – the fact there was an Apology at all is not widely known – reflected in the uptake of FASS as shown in the 2018 AHA Report.
|
|
8
|
“the Commonwealth, States and Territories urgently determine a process to establish affordable and regionally available specialised professional support and counselling services to address the specific needs of those affected by former forced adoption policies and practices.”
(to be partially funded by Recommendation 10)
|
AGREED IN PRINCIPLE
$5 million over 4 years to provide a suite of services (extended),
APS FA training (1.5 million)
ATAPS (3.5 million)
The outcome was subject to being informed by the Scoping Study
|
Technically, YES it’s what was agreed to, but does it address the specific needs of those affected? – from the low uptake, as shown in the 2018 FASS AHA Report, NO.
– and NO, because Recommendation 10 wasn’t applied according to the intent of the terms.
The only public review of FASS has been the 2018 AHA report. FASS service providers had substantial control over who was made aware of the review. It still shows issues including minimal numbers accessing the service for the amount spent. Funds could be better spent & targeted with consultation & inclusion of those with lived experience.
– APS have claimed there was an Expert Reference Group (ERG) consulted on the recent update of the original FA training ($489,000 grant from DSS) but have refused to provide details on who or what groups make up the ERG.
– Both need to be more transparent and accountable
|
|
9
|
‘peer support’ funding, to deliver services in the areas of:
– promoting public awareness of the issues;
– documenting evidence;
– assisting with information searches; and
– organising memorial events.
(to be partially funded by Recommendation 10)
|
AGREED IN PRINCIPLE
The outcome was subject to governments being informed by the Scoping Study
This ended up being the FASS grants
|
Because it was subject to being informed by the Scoping Study, it is technically YES, BUT it was not applied according to the intent of Recommendation 9, and NO because Recommendation 10 wasn’t applied according to the intent of the terms.
The grants are very small, not ongoing, and all work in co-ordinating them is usually done by volunteers; “documenting evidence” and “assisting with information searches” can’t be done under this FASS grant model, unless the group receiving the grant is part of a larger, funded body (which wasn’t the intention of the Recommendation).
A peak body for mothers/fathers of loss, and a peak body for adoptees could have been funded, along with Federal and State services – just like what is provided for Forgotten Australians, Child Migrants and other vulnerable populations, filling what is a gaping need for advocacy and making available lived experience for consultation, for both groups.
But funding lived experience national advocacy groups like the three funded Forgotten Australian and Child Migrant National advocacy bodies compared in the Scoping Study was unconvincingly dismissed (p.149). All adoption advocacy groups being mischaracterised as ‘peer support’ minimised their roles from the start.
|
|
10
|
“financial contributions be sought from state and territory governments, institutions, and organisations that were involved in the practice of placing children of single mothers for adoption to support the funding of services described in the previous two recommendations.”
|
AGREED IN PRINCIPLE
“It is expected that the Australian Government will progress this work through the Standing Council on Community and Disability Services and senior officials represented by the Standing Council on Community and Disability Services Advisory Council.”
|
NO or unlikely to have been done – if done, no transparency, no details provided
Additional Estimates Hearings Feb 2015:
Following a COAG decision on 13 December 2013 to discontinue the Standing Council on Community and Disability Services, on 27 June 2014 the Standing Council on Community and Disability Services Advisory Council (SCCSDAC) agreed on a new governance structure which did not include the Forced Adoptions Issues and Directions Working Group and its activities.
The implication of this decision has been that the Adoptions Issues and Directions Working Group, established to progress the Senate Inquiry recommendations relating to the states and territories, has been dissolved.
Ad hoc work can still be progressed with states and territories at officer level, depending on the issue.
|
|
11
|
The Federal government should lead discussions with states & territories to consider the issues surrounding the establishment and funding of financial reparation schemes.
|
Combined “NOTING” (not agreement with) 11 & 12
The government stressed these were matters for the states but was leading the discussion on these in October 2012 “The Australian Government led discussion about these recommendations at the Standing Council on Law and Justice (SCLJ) meeting on 5 October 2012. At that meeting, these recommendations were referred to the Standing Council on Community and Disability Services… for further consideration” from the Govt Response
|
YES as no undertakings were made at Recommendations 11 or 12
Additional Estimates Hearings Feb 2015:
A number of the Senate Inquiry recommendations relate to the Commonwealth and the states and territories working together to improve outcomes for affected people.
The Adoptions Issues and Directions Working Group, under the COAG process, developed Terms of Reference to guide the work.
However, the current COAG structure does not include the work relating to the Senate Inquiry recommendations.
However, work can progress with the jurisdictions informally and as identified on a needs basis.
It should be noted that the key areas for progression are those where the states and territories have jurisdictional responsibility under the Constitution – reparation, redress and records access.
December 2014 Final Report of the Forced Adoptions Implementation Working Group p(5) included
9: That in accordance with recommendation 11 of the Senate Report, the Commonwealth Government lead discussions with States and Territories on issues concerning the funding of financial reparations for people affected by forced adoption.
and 10:
That grievance mechanisms be established under the leadership of the Commonwealth Government in accordance with recommendation 12 of the Senate Report.
|
|
12
|
Grievance mechanisms to be established by institutions & state governments, where evidence established of wrongdoing & ensure REDRESS is available.
|
|
13
|
Integrated Birth Certificates (not assessing, these were NOT called for in the submissions to the Senate Inquiry)
|
|
jurisdictions investigate harmonisation of births, deaths and marriages register access and the facilitation of a single national access point to those registers.
|
AGREED IN PRINCIPLE to 13 & 14
but notes Birth Certificates & BDM registers are the responsibility of states
– the government still led discussion of this at the Standing Council on Law and Justice on 5 October 2012. At that meeting, agreement was reached for an officer level working group to examine these recommendations.
|
13 – NO – a “key element” of the National Framework in Recommendation 1 is harmonisation of records.
April 2013 meeting of the Standing Council on Law & Justice, Attorneys General agreed to consider only non-legislated changes that could provide greater harmonisation for access to the BDM information. (From Additional Estimates Hearings, Feb 2014).
December 2014 Final Report of the Forced Adoptions Implementation Working Group included the statement (p. 13-14) “(Harmonisation of records) The States and Territories have taken the approach that they are prepared to consider reforms which do not require legislation, a proposition which the Commonwealth appears to have accepted. The Working Group respectfully recommends that that approach be further investigated in the interests of achieving the full implementation of the concrete measures referred to in the apology and the Government’s response. Ruling out legislative amendment is contrary to the needs and interests of people affected by forced adoption. If those needs and interests require legislative amendment, that is what should occur.
& 14 – NO – Additional Estimates Hearings Feb 2015:
(p. 7) On 6 June 2014, the Attorney-General informed the Chair of the Implementation Working Group that the issue of fathers’ names on birth certificates has been resolved as each state and territory has an administrative process in place to allow this. BUT there is no administrative process in place to allow this according to the intent of the Recommendation & THIS ISSUE IS NOT RESOLVED.
|
|
14
|
Fathers names to be added on birth certificates & the process is to be administrative not requiring a court order
|
|
15
|
That the Community & Disability Services Ministers Conference agree on, & implement in their jurisdictions new principles to govern post adoption information & that
-all adult parties to an adoption be permitted identifying information.
– all jurisdictions provide an information & mediation service
– contact vetoes remain but upper limit
|
AGREED IN PRINCIPLE
notes also a matter for states & territories. Expects that the Australian Government will progress this work through the Standing Council on Community & Disability Services
|
NO
Additional Estimates Hearings Feb 2015:
A number of the Senate Inquiry recommendations relate to the Commonwealth and the states and territories working together to improve outcomes for affected people.
The Adoptions Issues and Directions Working Group, under the COAG process, developed Terms of Reference to guide the work.
However, the current COAG structure does not include the work relating to the Senate Inquiry recommendations.
However, work can progress with the jurisdictions informally and as identified on a needs basis.
|
|
16
|
Commonwealth funds extension of existing family tracing & support services to include adoption records & policies, using Link-up Qld and Jigsaw as a blueprint.
|
AGREED IN PRINCIPLE
The outcome was subject to governments being informed by the Scoping Study
|
NO – Either it’s been done with a radical change of terms OR none of this has happened.
The Scoping Study strategy that was closest to Recommendation 16, but it didn’t happen:
– Establish new national services, including a search and contact database, assistance with DNA testing and matching, and assistance with international records and family tracing;
Additional Estimates Hearings Feb 2015 (p 11)
|
|
17
|
Extend Find & Connect information service to include adoption service providers
|
AGREED IN PRINCIPLE
States the Scoping Study will include exploration of existing Australian, state & territory government information services,
(discussed from p128 of the Scoping Study)
|
NO
Find & Connect hasn’t been extended, and no alternative has been implemented.
|
|
18
|
non-government organisations with responsibility for former adoption service providers (such as private hospitals or maternity homes) establish projects to identify all records still in their possession, make information about those institutions and records available to state and territory Find and Connect services, and provide free access to individuals seeking their own records.
|
AGREED IN PRINCIPLE
Notes it’s a matter for the non-government organisations.
notes that the Government’s response to recommendation 17 looks to identify the most appropriate mechanism for information sharing for those affected by forced adoption practices.
|
YES as no undertaking was made to require non-government organisations to identify records.
If there was a repository to organise historical records, like Find & Connect, then they might be supplied.
|
|
19
|
the Community and Disability Services Ministers Conference, in consultation with non-government organisations that had responsibility for adoption services and hospitals, agree on and commit to a statement of principles for access to personal information, that would include a commitment to cheaper and easier searches of, and access to, organisational records.
|
AGREED IN PRINCIPLE
As part of the scoping study that will be undertaken to guide the composition of the specific service response, a Past Adoption Practices consultative forum, led by the Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, will be convened. The study would be undertaken by an independent consultant and would be supported by a national consultation group involving people affected by forced adoption practices, Commonwealth and state and territory government officials, archival experts and existing service providers.
*This work will be progressed through the Standing Council on Community and Disability Services.
|
NO
This didn’t happen.
Additional Estimates Hearings Feb 2015:
A number of the Senate Inquiry recommendations relate to the Commonwealth and the states and territories working together to improve outcomes for affected people.
The Adoptions Issues and Directions Working Group, under the COAG process, developed Terms of Reference to guide the work.
However, the current COAG structure does not include the work relating to the Senate Inquiry recommendations.
However, work can progress with the jurisdictions informally and as identified on a needs basis.
|
|
20
|
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth commission an exhibition documenting the experiences of those affected by former forced adoption policies and practices.
|
AGREED
The Australian Government is funding National Archives of Australia $1.5 million over three years to deliver a Forced Adoption Experiences History Project. This will include an exhibition to increase awareness and understanding of experiences of individuals affected by forced adoption practices and a website to identify and share stories of forced adoption experiences.
|
YES this was done,
BUT
The NAA Project ‘website’ contents are now archived on Trove & practically inaccessible
|
Timeline references
(1). March 2013 – Federal Apology by Labor – & the Commonwealth Contribution to Former Forced Adoption Policies and Practices including Govt response was tabled 21 March 2013:
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Completed_inquiries/2010-13/commcontribformerforcedadoption/index
(2). 7th Sept 2013 – Federal election, Liberals in power. Within 3 months they had discontinued the Standing Council on Community and Disability Services, so the Working Group established to progress the Senate Inquiry recommendations was dissolved.
(3) 25th September 2013 – The Forced Adoptions Issues and Directions Working Group was set up and developed Terms of Reference to guide the work. A ‘key element’ of the national framework was to be the harmonisation of birth records and re-connection services between states and territories.
(4). 13th December 2013 COAG decision to discontinue the Standing Council on Community and Disability Services (see #7 below)
(5). Feb 2014 – 2013-14 Estimates – Additional Estimates Hearings
https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/04_2015/1._2013-14_additional_estimates_hearings_-_february_2014_0.pdf
(6). Feb – 2014 – Forced Adoption Support Services Scoping Study
https://aifs.gov.au/research/commissioned-reports/forced-adoption-support-services-scoping-study
(7). June 2014
“Following a COAG decision on 13 December 2013 to discontinue the Standing Council on Community and Disability Services, on 27 June 2014 the Standing Council on Community and Disability Services Advisory Council (SCCSDAC) agreed on a new governance structure which did not include the Forced Adoptions Issues and Directions Working Group and its activities.
The implication of this decision has been that the Adoptions Issues and Directions Working Group, established to progress the Senate Inquiry recommendations relating to the states and territories, has been dissolved.
Ad hoc work can still be progressed with states and territories at officer level, depending on the issue.” This was advised at the Additional Estimates Hearings February 2015
(8). Dec 2014 – Forced Adoptions Implementation Working Group (chaired – Hon Nahum Mushin) – Final Report to the Honourable Scott Morrison MP, Minister for Social Services – [some of the recommendations were very helpful, but it ignored a lot of issues, went off topic & out of scope – focus should have been on supporting the useful Recommendations, instead the working group came up with new ones. Part of it strongly requested it should be tabled, but it was never tabled. Anything useful appears to have been ignored].
https://www.dss.gov.au/families-and-children/programmes-services/family-relationships/forced-adoption-practices/forced-adoptions-implementation-working-group-documents
(9). Feb 2015 – 2014-15 Estimates – Additional Estimates Hearings (p14)
https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/04_2015/2._2014-15_additional_estimates_hearings_-_february_2015_0.pdf
(10). March 2018 – Forced Adoption Support Services Post Implementation Review
https://www.dss.gov.au/families-and-children-publications-articles/forced-adoption-support-services-post-implementation-review
