The Irony in Entrenched Bigotry in Government Responses to Forced Adoption:
A Reflection on the WA Parliamentary Inquiry
The recent WA parliamentary inquiry into the forced adoption scandal has brought long-overdue attention to one of Australia’s most devastating practices. The recommendation for financial redress for mothers, adopted individuals, and some fathers are a significant step toward acknowledging the profound harm caused by these systemic injustices. However, while these developments are crucial, they also expose deeply ingrained issues within our institutions, particularly in how they respond to advocacy and criticism from adoptees.
The WA Inquiry:
A Landmark Decision
On August 22, 2024, ABC News reported that the WA parliamentary inquiry had recommended a redress scheme for survivors of Australia’s forced adoption scandal. If endorsed by the government, this would be the most extensive financial compensation scheme in the country, marking a significant shift in how Australia addresses its history of forced adoptions. This recommendation includes mothers, adopted people, and some fathers, making it a potentially far-reaching measure to acknowledge and compensate the victims of these coercive practices.
Labor MP Peter Foster, who chaired the inquiry, emphasized the “irreparable” damage caused by the forced adoption era. The inquiry’s findings revealed that coercive, deceptive, and unlawful practices were widespread, implicating government departments, public hospitals, and non-government institutions in these systemic injustices.
The Irony of Post-Inquiry Censorship
Despite these promising recommendations, a disturbing irony has emerged. As the government acknowledges past wrongs, it continues to silence the very voices it claims to support. Many adoptees and their advocates have reported being blocked on social media by government officials and organizations, both during and after official advocacy efforts. This modern form of censorship is a continuation of the marginalization that the inquiry purportedly seeks to address.
For instance, I was personally blocked by Peter Foster on X (formerly known as Twitter) after engaging in advocacy related to the forced adoption scandal. Similarly, Albany-based adoptee Jennifer McRae, who played a key role in campaigning for the inquiry, was blocked by Ngala, a prominent Western Australian non-profit organization, after she raised concerns and criticisms. Blocking adoptees on social media by figures like Peter Foster and organizations like Ngala is a glaring example of the entrenched bigotry within our institutions. It demonstrates a reluctance to engage with the lived experiences of those most affected by these historical injustices, opting instead to silence dissent and criticism. This is particularly troubling given the inquiry’s findings of systemic unethical practices. How can we trust these institutions to deliver justice when they actively suppress the voices of those they have wronged?
The Impact of Digital Censorship on Adoptee Advocacy
Digital censorship, especially on social media, is more than just an inconvenience — it is a significant barrier to advocacy and healing for adoptees. Social media platforms have become vital spaces for adoptees to share their stories, connect with others, and push for systemic change. When government officials and organizations block adoptees, they are not merely muting criticism; they are cutting off a vital platform for many who have already been marginalized and silenced throughout their lives.
This digital silencing is particularly harmful given the context of the forced adoption era, where secrecy and shame were used to control young mothers and their children. By blocking adoptees from speaking out, officials are perpetuating the same culture of silence and coercion that characterized the forced adoption practices of the past.
A Call for Genuine Change
The inquiry’s recommendations, including the call to end “cruel” and “outdated” contact vetoes, offer a glimmer of hope. However, these measures will only be meaningful if accompanied by a genuine commitment to listening to and supporting adoptees in all their advocacy efforts. This includes ensuring that adoptees have the freedom to speak out without fear of being blocked or silenced by those in power.
Albany-based adoptee Jennifer McRae, who played a key role in campaigning for the inquiry, rightly pointed out that this moment is hugely significant for adopted people, not just in Australia but around the world. However, for this significance to be fully realized, adoptees must be allowed to engage in public discourse and challenge the institutions that have failed them. The government and relevant organizations must move beyond mere apologies and take concrete steps to ensure transparency, accountability, and open dialogue.
I have personally been told directly by the office of The Prime Minister of Australia — Anthony Albanese, that at this time, there is no indication or intention to establish a Royal Commission into this issue.
“In terms of your request for the establishment of a Royal Commission into forced adoption, Royal Commissions are a form of non-judicial and non-administrative governmental investigation and are only established in exceptional circumstances. Royal Commissions are established by the Governor-General, in accordance with the Royal Commissions Act 1902 and on the advice of the government, to inquire into matters of public importance. The government of the day determines the need to request a royal commission. At this time, the Government has not indicated an intention to establish a Royal Commission into this issue.”
The WA parliamentary inquiry into forced adoption represents a critical step towards justice, but it also exposes deep-seated issues within our institutions. While the recommendations for financial redress and the end of contact vetoes are welcome, they must be part of a broader commitment to respecting and amplifying adoptee voices. Blocking adoptees on social media by government officials and organizations is not just a matter of digital etiquette — it is a continuation of the very injustices that the inquiry seeks to address.
For true healing and justice to occur, our institutions must not only acknowledge their past wrongs but also commit to engaging openly and honestly with those they have harmed. Only then can we begin to undo the damage of the forced adoption era and move towards a future where all voices are heard, respected, and valued.
