The Progress
Below is the work to date — the documented updates, the correspondence, and the persistence required to dismantle a decade of secrets, lies and shame. It will take time, but the era of doing it alone is over.
Update 1 — The Minister for Social Services
A measured beginning, a familiar silence: the Commonwealth’s response to documented post‑apology harm reveals the distance between sympathy and accountability.
What We Told the Minister
On 9 September 2025, the Action Alliance wrote to the Minister for Social Services. It was the opening move—a formal notice that the era of waiting was over.
We wrote on behalf of a survivor whose case is a blueprint for systemic failure. For a decade, the Queensland Government issued records that were materially inconsistent. When the contradictions were exposed, the response was not a correction, but a retreat into silence. This was not a clerical error; it was a direct interference with the survivor's mental health and legal standing.
The pretence ends here. We attached evidence obtained via Right to Information that speaks for itself. We didn't ask for sympathy; we asked for a pathway to direct engagement and a reckoning with the facts.
The Game of Avoidance
Twenty‑four days later, the reply arrived. It was not signed by the Minister, but by a Deputy Secretary. It contained the standard repertoire of the State: the acknowledgement of "distress," the thanks for "courage," and the familiar warmth of a hollow apology.
It was technically correct — and profoundly incomplete.
The Department retreated behind jurisdictional boundaries, claiming the Commonwealth is a bystander to state adoption laws. It offered to "promote" and "encourage," but never to compel. It ignored the historical reality that the Commonwealth funded the institutions and shaped the policies that necessitated the apology in the first place.
The response acknowledged the pain, but ignored the failure. It recognised the story, but refused the responsibility.
Accountability cannot be delegated.
Update 2 — Our Response to the Minister
A line has been drawn: the government’s choice to retreat behind jurisdictional boundaries has clarified the path forward. The next move no longer belongs to the State.
Why We Wrote Back
Clarity has replaced consultation. After receiving the Deputy Secretary’s reply, the Action Alliance issued a formal response. It was not written in anger, but in the cold recognition that the Commonwealth continues to treat forced‑adoption survivors as peripheral, manageable, and safely ignorable.
Our reply addressed the half‑truths embedded in the narrative of “limited jurisdiction.” We outlined the historical record Canberra continues to sidestep: its decisive role in shaping the national adoption framework, the financial levers used to pressure unmarried mothers, and the oversight of medical standards that enabled coercive practices.
The National Apology acknowledged sorrow, but not responsibility. It recognised harm, but ignored the Commonwealth’s role in creating the conditions for that harm.
The Shift in Strategy
The government’s response has clarified its position. We have adjusted ours accordingly. We are no longer seeking meetings, working groups, or the theatre of "managed consultations."
The first action begins in Queensland. We are moving beyond historic wrongdoing to focus on the ongoing administrative failures that continue to fracture the lives of survivors today. This is the opening move in a coordinated national strategy—a legal path that will culminate in a unified federal case.
A line has been drawn.
The era of asking for permission is over.
Update 3 — The Australian Association of Social Workers
The limits of a professional apology: when presented with documented evidence of systemic failure, the peak body for social workers chose sympathy over advocacy.
Our Outreach to the AASW
On 11 September 2025, we wrote to the National President of the AASW. We asked the organisation to stand by the commitments made in its own "unreserved apology" issued just months prior—a document that acknowledged serious breaches of human rights and a responsibility to stand with survivors.
We presented a window into the Queensland reality: a decade of inconsistent records, administrative obstruction, and the quiet erosion of rights. We didn't ask for a symbolic gesture. We asked for four practical steps: acknowledgment, public endorsement of a federal inquiry, direct advocacy with decision-makers, and membership mobilisation.
These were actions entirely consistent with their own stated values.
Recognition Without Responsibility
The reply arrived fifty-six days later. While expressing "regret," the AASW made its position clear: it does not consider itself a peak body for those affected by forced adoption, does not regard itself as a subject‑matter expert, and will not engage in direct advocacy.
The apology of June 2025 spoke of challenging harmful systems and committing to truth. Yet, when faced with evidence of post-apology harm, the Association declined to act.
It was a performance of empathy without the burden of engagement. Acknowledgement without advocacy. Recognition without responsibility.
We will keep the AASW informed, as they requested. But our work does not depend on their involvement.
An apology that costs nothing changes nothing.
Update 4 — The DSS Video Meeting
The Newcastle Analogy: if 300,000 citizens in any other context had their identities sealed and their histories rewritten, the nation would not tolerate it. For survivors of forced adoption, this is the daily reality.
What We Put on the Table
On 19 September 2025, we met with senior officials from the Department of Social Services (DSS). It was a direct account of a system failing in plain sight—a system where the burden of bureaucratic failure falls entirely on the victims.
We presented a comprehensive suite of immediate federal actions: a Royal Commission with binding recommendations, Section 96 funding conditions to compel state compliance, and a national records access protocol to end the era of redaction and "inconsistent information."
We asked the central, stinging question: Who were these apologies for? In Queensland, a forced adoption is still not legally recognised as such. The apology has no legal doorway. It remains a promise with no place to land.
The Sound of Silence
Following the meeting, we wrote to the Department with a simple request for clarity. We asked what is legally possible, what the Commonwealth is willing to support, and whether the promise of 2013 still stands.
We were clear: Apology language will not suffice. Words without action have become a form of harm in themselves. We offered the government a chance to reclaim the word "unprecedented"—to choose justice over delay.
We asked for a response within 30 days. We asked for answers, not sympathy.
What came back was not commitment. It was not even a timeline. What came back was silence.
Silence is now part of the evidence.
Update 5 — The Department of Social Services
“What does good look like?”: when a senior official asks a survivor to define justice, it is not a consultation. It is an abdication.
Our Letter to the Secretary
On 22 September 2025, we wrote to the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. DSS is not a bystander in this story; it is the custodian of the 2013 National Apology.
The conversation preceding this letter was marked by a question that has since become a national reckoning: What does good look like? This question is a test of integrity that the State failed. To ask a survivor to define "good" is to pretend the government is not already in possession of the facts. It is to ignore decades of Royal Commissions and human-rights frameworks. It reframes a national failure as a "design problem" for survivors to solve.
Survivors should never be asked to design the remedy for the harm done to them. The government already knows what "good" looks like. It simply refuses to choose it.
Sleight of Hand
The Secretary’s reply arrived with the courtesy of the standard repertoire: sympathy, general concern, and an invitation to more process.
The Department offered to "reinvigorate" working groups and invited us to provide a list of "desired features" for records access. These are familiar manoeuvres. They signal movement without committing to direction. They return the burden to the people least resourced to carry it, and most entitled to expect better.
After decades of reports and recommendations, the Commonwealth does not lack guidance. It lacks resolve. DSS sits at the centre of this story. Its response tells the country that the promise of 2013 was not a moment of truth, but a moment of theatre.
The government does not lack guidance; it lacks resolve.
Update 6 — The 13th Anniversary of the Queensland Apology
The question at the heart of the ceremony: If the government refuses to acknowledge a single case of forced adoption in law, then who was the apology actually for?
What We Said in the Room
On the eve of the thirteenth anniversary, survivors gathered in a room for remembrance, but not yet for justice. Thirteen years ago, the Queensland Government promised that stories would be honoured and practices never repeated.
But anniversaries reveal the distance between words and reality.
The state may no longer take the baby—but it still holds the truth. Survivors still face the same redactions, the same refusals, and the same bureaucratic obstruction. At the event, we spoke plainly: The apology has no legal doorway. It has delivered no accountability, no justice, and no pathway to closure. We invited the community to join us—not in anger, but in the clarity that the systems that caused the original harm have simply been replaced by new systems that conceal it.
The Movement Widens
The response was immediate. The gratitude in the room was not for the ceremony, but for the truth. For thirteen years, these facts had been left unsaid in public; once spoken, the impact was unmistakable.
In the days following, we were inundated with messages from across the country. Survivors, parents, and adoptees are no longer waiting for the soft language of "acknowledgement." They are seeking the hard language of reform. The movement is growing in strength and number, but it only moves as fast as the community that carries it.
The apology was delivered in 2012. The work of justice is happening now.
The work of justice is happening now.
Update 7 — The Outreach to Jigsaw Queensland
A request for solidarity: the Alliance puts its non-negotiable demands to Jigsaw Queensland, testing whether "support" includes the pursuit of legal and legislative truth.
The Demands on the Table
On 10 January 2026, we wrote to the leadership of Jigsaw Queensland. For 50 years, Jigsaw has assisted those affected by adoption, now operating as the state’s primary provider of Forced Adoption Support Services—funded by the same federal Department of Social Services (DSS) that has met our recent inquiries with silence, and supported by the same Queensland Government we are now compelling to act.
We presented Jigsaw with our Non-Negotiable Demands—the same framework our members are currently using to compel the Queensland Government to act. These demands are not requests for "healing"; they are requirements for justice:
Mandatory Reclassification: Moving files from "Standard" to "Forced" Adoption.
The Reversal of the Burden of Proof: Requiring the Crown to prove a removal was voluntary, rather than forcing the survivor to prove it was coerced.
Full Disclosure: An end to "privacy" redactions that protect the identities of public officials who orchestrated the original harm.
Legislative Definition: Ending the "legal homelessness" of survivors by defining Forced Adoption within the Adoption Act 2009.
The Response from the Gateway
The reply from Jigsaw’s CEO was brief. It acknowledged an "unusually busy start to the new year" and promised a future discussion.
While we wait for Jigsaw to consider its position, the reality remains: an organisation dedicated to "openness and honesty" is now faced with a specific path to achieving it. We asked for more than a meeting; we invited a public conversation—a podcast to walk through these demands in the light of day.
The question for every funded service provider in this space is now the same: Does your mandate to support survivors include the courage to challenge the State that funds you?