Let’s take a look at what has happened sinced the Apologies

On 6 June 2014, the Attorney-General informed the Chair of the Forced Adoption Implementation Working Group that the issue of fathers’ names on birth certificates had been resolved as each state and territory has an “administrative process” in place to allow this.*

*(This information was in the “Communiques” of the Forced Adoption Implementation Working Group, which were on the DSS Forced Adoption website up until at least 2023, but as of March 2023 this information has been removed. ARA is following up why this was removed and where it is now stored)*

But, if getting your father’s name added to your original birth certificate in NSW, for example, takes 6 years and requires going to the Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal, this clearly indicates that the so-called “administrative process” does not function effectively. The issue is definitely not resolved — and this is supported by feedback and other case histories ARA has received about the process across all jurisdictions.

Why? Because the administrative requirements of this “administrative process” are prohibitive and can be almost impossible for most adopted people to satisfy. There are no effective administrative processes in place, contrary to the intent of Recommendation 14.

The states and territories have shown no interest in making any changes that support the recommendations of the Senate Inquiry, and the successive Federal governments have shown no interest in providing the leadership and creating the promised National Framework wherein the states and territories might feel compelled to show an interest.

Only one month after the National Apology for Forced Adoption – in April 2013, at a meeting of the Standing Council on Law & Justice, Attorneys General from all the states and territories agreed to consider only non-legislated changes that could provide greater harmonisation for access to Births Deaths and Marriages (BDM) information. (From Additional Estimates Hearings, Feb 2014).

In December 2014, the Final Report of the Forced Adoptions Implementation Working Group included the statement:

“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.” (p. 13-14).

• If legislated changes are required to fix this issue, then there is no reason they should ever have been ruled out!
• If it is impossible to achieve a straightforward process for those affected by adoption to get their father’s names added to birth certificates, then why shouldn’t the laws be changed?
• Why won’t the Federal government do as they promised and create a framework to lead the states and territories in restoration of the rights of adopted persons, when all have apologised for causing this harm?
• Why did the states and territories claim this issue was fixed when it wasn’t? And why are they continuing to ignore this issue?

The only recommendation from the Senate Inquiry that some jurisdictions have chosen to legislate is the introduction of Integrated Birth Certificates (IBC’s).

In practice, the introduction of IBC’s has added to the usual general misunderstandings that surround adoption, being misinterpreted as fixing the problem of adding fathers’ names.

With misleading public framing in articles such as Adopted people can have biological parents on birth certificates under Victorian bill, and with politicians like Victorian Attorney-General Jaclyn Symes contributing to the confusion, understanding is further distorted. Symes is quoted in that article as saying that with IBC’s, adopted persons “…would be able to include their birth parents, adoptive parents and the date of their adoption on their certificate.” There is no mention or attempt at clarification that the only natural parent information that can be put on the integrated birth certificate is what is on the original birth certificate.