by Lynelle Long, Founder of InterCountry Adoptee Voices (ICAV)
Adapted from the 2023 UN Special Rapporteur report for Denmark’s biannual adoption magazine. Denmark sought to understand why Australia, often praised for leading truth investigations and issuing apologies to the Stolen Generations, Forced Adoption cohort, and Forgotten Australians, has failed to address its own history of intercountry adoptions or respond to affected adoptees seeking justice and recognition.

Australia has a long and troubling history of illicit and illegal adoptions that have ignored basic human and child rights. For more than two decades, survivors and their advocates have sought acknowledgement, redress, and accountability, yet responses have been limited, delayed, or symbolic. This report outlines the evolution of Australia’s intercountry adoption system from the 1970s through to 2025, documenting well evidenced cases of trafficking falsified records, and coerced relinquishments from countries including Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan, India, Chile, Romania, Ethiopia, and Thailand. It also chronicles ICAVs 20 year advocacy journey with successive governments, highlighting repeated calls for truth, justice, and support for victims. Despite growing international action on similar cases, Australia has yet to initiate a comprehensive inquiry or reparative framework. Adoptees continue to seek formal recognition, access to records, search and reunion mechanisms, and a survivor centred national response.

1. Historical Context

This report will focus exclusively on Australia’s history of intercountry adoption which except for what ICAV has published, is not well documented. Australia’s intercountry adoption history is distinct from its domestic adoption history.

1.1 Wartime Beginnings (1970s)

Intercountry adoption in Australia emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s, driven by adoptive parent lobbying to bring children from war-torn Vietnam. Advocacy groups mirrored movements in the United States to successfully influence Commonwealth and State policy. Adoptive parent and journalist, Rena Briand’s book, The Waifs openly describes how she forged documents and bypassed official resistance, paving the way for large-scale adoptions via informal parent-agency networks inside Vietnam.

Operation Babylift in 1975 became Australia’s first government sanctioned wave of intercountry adoption, occurring before any legal framework existed. Academic Patricia Fronek documented that humanitarian narratives of “rescuing orphans” overshadowed the reality that many children were not orphans, and political pressure from adoptive parent groups pushed Prime Minister Gough Whitlam to approve the airlifts. Media and emotional appeals created an environment where identity checks and legal safeguards were secondary to speed. 

Many children were removed without legal relinquishment, with records falsified or lost. Legal cases in the USA later revealed wrongful removals but most of these Vietnamese parent claims were unsuccessful. The Vietnam experience established a lasting template in Australia: lobbying and emergency narratives could open adoption pipelines, as seen with South Korea two years after Operation Babylift. This early period set a precedent for fast tracking adoptions with minimal oversight, embedding a policy oriented towards expediency of process for adoptive parents over rights protection of the children, the adoptees who would grow up to speak out for themselves in the future. 

1.2 Formalisation and Growth (1980s – 1990s)

Intercountry adoption expanded to include children from South Korea, India, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Chile, Taiwan and other countries. During this time adoption programs were mainly administered by State/Territory authorities, having taken over from adoptive parent adoption agencies. By 1993, the Hague Convention for Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption was concluded and Australia ratified it, entering into force in December 1998. 

The same year, the first Commonwealth-State Agreement was established to allocate roles between the Commonwealth and State/Territory authorities. By 1999, overseas adoptions surpassed domestic adoptions for the first time.

1.3 Centralisation and Oversight (2000s)

In 2005, the Bronwyn Bishop-led House of Representatives Inquiry into Overseas Adoption in Australia examined administrative and processing issues focusing mostly on the needs of the adoptive parents. The inquiry called for stronger national coordination and harmonising between States/Territories. 

Ten years later, the Commonwealth launched Intercountry Adoption Australia (IAA), part of a 5 year $33.6m funded national reform package that included an information and referral service for prospective parents wanting to adopt children from overseas. The intention of the funding was to increase the number of countries Australian parents could adopt from and to provide more services to assist in this goal. It was through ICAVs 2015 Prime Minister meeting that a small portion of this funding was reallocated to our current nationwide post adoption service, which has mainly provided psychological support to all intercountry adoptees and their families.

1.4 Current Framework (2020s)

Australia remains a Hague receiving state with a Commonwealth and State/Territory Central Authorities. The Commonwealth government’s role is to ensure the country meets its international obligations under the 1993 Hague Convention and to provide lifelong supports to impacted people. The role of the States/Territories is to assess and prepare adoptive parents and supervise the post placement period and to report on these to the sending country. This division creates gaps in responsibilities and results in no-one taking full responsibility for issues like illegal adoptions because neither owns the issues end-to-end.

2. Documented Illicit and Illegal Adoptions

Publicly available records and testimonies highlight several cases involving children adopted into Australia through illegal or irregular practices. These cases expose systemic failures in oversight, redress and accountability.

Across the countries listed below, the same systemic patterns are visible with adoptees often made paper orphans via falsified records and a lack of consents. Programs are frequently closed then reopened without any accountability or support for victims. Investigations, when they do occur, are conducted by the same State or Commonwealth authorities who facilitated the original adoptions and focus narrowly on paperwork rather than lived harm or international human right obligations.

2.1 Vietnam (1960 to 1980s)

As discussed above in Wartime Beginnings, these adoptions were first organised with minimal oversights or standards by adoptive parent agencies and later in Operation Babylift, by the Australian Commonwealth. Australia has a documented 540 Vietnamese adoptees who arrived between 1970 and 1980. Humanitarian rhetoric masked systemic failures in verification and identity preservation. 

2.2 South Korea (1960 to 1999)

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) concluded in March 2025 that the South Korean government systemically violated the human rights of children sent abroad for adoption between 1964 – 1999. The investigation was initiated by 367 Korean adoptees across 11 countries who alleged falsification of their identities and documentation. After a two year and seven month inquiry, the TRC found that intercountry adoptions were conducted without proper legal oversight, consent, or transparency, resulting in severe infringement of adoptee’s constitutional and international rights. 

The TRC confirmed widespread institutional failures and misconduct:

• Forgery and falsification of records, including false orphan registrations and fabricated abandonment reports
• Lack of valid parental consent and tokenistic public notices to locate biological families
• Identity substitution replacing deceased or reclaimed children with others under the same adoption file 
• Commercialisation of adoption including forced “donations” and profit driven child placements
• Mass exportation of children to meet overseas demand, often under unsafe and unethical conditions
• Failure of guardianship duties, with agencies informally transferring custody before legal completion.

The TRC found that successive Korean governments delegated all adoption authority to private agencies without regulation, turning child welfare into an export system that prioritised foreign demand and financial gain over children’s rights. It concluded the state breached its duty of protection and failed to uphold international human rights standards. 

Recommendations called for an official state apology, remedies to address identity falsification, a survey of adoptee citizenship and legal status, and ratification of the Hague Convention on intercountry adoption, and binding reforms to ensure adoptee rights are recognised and restored. 

Overall, the investigation is Korea’s first formal acknowledgement of state complicity in decades of adoption related human rights violations. 16 cases included in these findings were of Korean adoptees sent to Australia. Australia has a documented 878 Korean adoptees from this period.

To date, no Australian inquiry has addressed these specific cases despite clear evidence of rights violations documented by the TRC. The TRC Commission urges partner countries including Australia, to address redress mechanisms and facilitate truth and reunion processes for impacted adoptees. 

2.3 Taiwan – Julie Chu Cohort (1980s)

Between 1980 and 1982, 24 Taiwanese children, including 15 sent to South Australia (SA), the remaining number sent to Victoria (VIC), were trafficked for adoption through Taiwanese lawyer Julie Chu. She falsified household registrations to make unrelated children appear legally relinquished. Chu was convicted in Taiwan in 1982 for trafficking and document fraud.

When this scandal broke out, the Australian government confirmed the adoptions were legal rather than investigating the legitimacy of the adoptions. The then SA Minister for Community Welfare declared the adoptions “valid and binding in Australian courts” and by 1983, both Taiwan and Australia had formally accepted them as legal. No support, apology, or remedial steps were offered to affected families or victims.

Renewed media coverage in 1998 in Taiwan prompted some Taiwanese women to submit DNA in hopes of finding their children but Australia took no further action. 

In 2011-2012, the issue resurfaced when an Adelaide based Taiwanese adoptee sought information. The SA central authority confirmed trafficking had occurred but concluded no further inquiry was warranted, arguing the scandal had already been addressed in the 1980s. Officials decided not to contact the 24 adoptees, assuming the parents were already aware. Instead, adoptees requesting records were “flagged” and would receive a media dossier about the case and referred to counselling services. 

Internal 2012 memoranda acknowledged that like Australia’s forced adoption era, the Taiwanese adoptions were legally upheld despite clear ethical breaches. The then Minister Grace Portolesi wrote to Attorney General (AG) Nicola Roxon asking for Commonwealth discussions with Taiwan to assist adoptees in interpreting fraudulent documents and tracing origins. It is unknown what actions were taken by the AG, however little has been provided for this cohort at a State or Commonwealth level.

At a 2017 national meeting, only two SA adoptees had been given information. A proposal by ISS Australia for proactive outreach and support was rejected by Commonwealth and State due to ethical and resource issues. Instead officials opted to review the national trafficking protocol.

Overall, Australia’s approach has been administrative and non-restorative, recognising trafficking occurred but choosing not to reinvestigate or proactively inform adoptees, leaving assistance limited to those who come forward. 

Altogether the Julie Chu group facilitated the intercountry adoption of around 60 children worldwide. Kartya Wunderle’s experience of this is documented by her Australian adoptive mother Nola Wunderle in the 2013 book, Lost Daughter.

There is no official documented number of Taiwanese adoptees arriving in Australia prior to the late 1990s, but since then, it remains one of our longest running programs. Australia has a documented 430 Taiwanese adoptees from 1990s to current time. 

2.4 India – Multiple Agencies (1990 – 2010)

Several Indian agencies involved in adoptions to Australia have been linked to child selling, coercion, and document fraud including Preet Mandir, Malaysian Social Services (MSS), Madras Social Service Guild (MSSG). A widely publicised case was documented by adoptive mother Julia Rollings in her book, Love Our Way. Two other Queensland families shared similar experiences. All three families expressed frustration at the absence of Commonwealth or State/Territory guidance or support, with an official statement deflecting responsibility to India.

Due to trafficking concerns, Australia’s India adoption program was officially closed in 2010, but reopened again in 2018 without any redress measures for impacted families or adoptees. Australia has a documented 598 Indian adoptees in this period. 

2.5 Chile (1970 – 1990s)

Between the 1950s to 1990s, Chile experience large scale pattern of illegal and irregular adoptions involving the abduction and trafficking of newborns and children. Investigations by Chile’s Chamber of Deputies and the National Human Rights Institute (INDH) confirmed that thousands of babies were taken from mostly poor, rural mothers, many of whom were deceived into believing their infants had died at birth.

These adoptions were facilitated through a coordinated network of medical staff, midwives, judges, lawyers, social workers, clergy and international intermediaries. Children were transferred abroad mainly to Europe, North America and Australia using falsified documents and manipulated birth records. The Chilean Civil Registry, hospital, and juvenile courts often failed to maintain or provided falsified records, obstructing identity tracing. The Special Investigative Commission of the Chamber of Deputies (2018 – 2019) determined that these were not isolated incidents but a systemic and prolonged violation of fundament rights that permitted beyond the Pinochet dictatorship. 

The human rights outcomes are severe. The INDH identified violations of the right to identity, family life, and protection from enforced disappearances, which under international law, may amount to crimes against humanity. The Commission concluded that the state agents bore responsibility through acts and omissions that enabled the disappearances. Despite over 2000 judicial cases, survivors and biological families continue to face major obstacles in accessing truth and justice. 

Recent reforms include the creation of a genetic finger print bank (Forensic Medical Service, 2020) and a pilot plan (2022) by the Ministry of of Justice to facilitate DNA collection and family reunification. However, Chile has yet to implement a comprehensive truth, justice and reparative policy. Overall, the findings expose a deep institutional complicity and sustained breaches of human rights obligations particularly those enshrined in the Convention of the Rights of the Child and the Convention against Enforced Disappearances. 

Australia has a documented 41 Chilean adoptees who arrived to Australia in this period.

2.6 Romania (1990 – 2000s)

The 1991 Romanian report on the adoption of Romanian children by foreigners, prepared by Defence for Children International (DCI) and International Social Service (ISS), investigated the surge of intercountry adoptions following the fall of the Ceausescu’s regime in 1989.

After the revolution, thousands of children were discovered in severely overcrowded and neglected institutions. International media coverage led to mass foreign interest in adopting Romanian children. Between August 1990 and March 1991, approximately 2000 intercountry adoptions were authorised, with many estimates suggesting Romania’s cases represented over one third of all global intercountry adoptions at the time. Most adoptees were infants under six months old, with a growing number taken directly from maternity wards rather than institutions.

The report documents serious human rights and legal breaches. Mothers were pressured or coerced into relinquishing babies, sometimes before birth, and adoptions were finalised within days. A black market emerged, involving Romanian and foreign intermediaries exchanging children for money or goods. Officials described the situation as “a market where you sell potatoes”. Corruption and a lack of oversight led to illicit trafficking and sale of children, often without reliable medical testing, resulting in adoptive families discovering cases of AIDS, hepatitis B or psychological trauma in children. 

The experts urged Romania to halt unethical practices and establish a national adoption authority, reform laws separating abandonment and adoption procedures, and ensure adoption became an act of child welfare, not commerce. They also called foreign governments to regulate agencies and cooperate to uphold children’s rights under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).

Australia has a documented 87 Romanian adoptees who arrived in this period.

2.7 Ethiopia – Koala House (2000s)

Several Australian adoptions were facilitated through Koala House, represented by Ato Lake Gebeyehu, it was claimed he was arrested in 2007 in connection with falsified documents and unethical practices but this was later retracted by ABC. Australia did not investigate despite media reported complaints from adoptive parents and Ethiopia eventually closed its intercountry adoption program in 2018.

Australia has a documented 698 Ethiopian adoptees arriving in this period up to 2014.

2.8 Thailand (2010 – 2020s)

In the past decade, an adoptive family raised concerns with the NSW State and Commonwealth Central Authorities about serious ethical and procedural failings in her child’s adoption after discovering the mother never gave informed consent, the father was never approached, and the grandmother, still living at the birth certificate address, was never located. The adoptive family condemns both Thai and Australian authorities for enabling an illegal, premature adoption that ignored kinship options. She denounces the false birth certificate process, the lack of post adoption support, and the absence of oversight ensuring Hague compliance. The case was publicly shared in an ICAV webinar on illicit and illegal adoptions. Both governments have refused to acknowledge their role in this adoption and NSW continues to pursue this adoptive family for “abandonment” after they repatriated their Thai child back to his birth family. 

Starting in the 1990s, Thailand remains one of Australia’s longest running programs. Australia has a documented 684 Thai adoptees in this period.

3. ICAV Advocacy and Government Engagement

ICAV has represented impacted adoptees since 2005, consistently raising the same issues with successive Australian Commonwealth governments and the South Australian government, including recognition for victims, search and reunification support, and accountability for illicit and illegal adoptions.

3.1 Early Engagement and Protocol Development (2005 – 2010)

2005 Bronwyn Bishop Inquiry

ICAV participated in the Inquiry into Overseas Adoption (House of Representatives, chaired by Bronwyn Bishop). At this stage ICAV focused solely on peer support, not advocacy. The Inquiry primarily addressed adoptive parent processes but included limited recommendations for adoptees (11, 12, 25, 26). These ensured automatic Australian citizenship and birth certificates and improved data collection on adoptees, but did not mention illegal or illicit adoptions nor victim centred redress.

2008 National InterCountry Adoption Advisory Group (NICAAG)

ICAV founder Lynelle Long joined the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department (AGD) advisory group (at the time, Australia’s Hague Central Authority). Within this forum, ICAV raised the issue of illegal adoptions and the lack of support process and contributed to drafting the only national protocol on responding to allegations of illicit and illegal adoptions. This protocol remains high level and ineffective, relying on reviews by the same approving Commonwealth and State/Territory Central Authorities. 

3.2 Policy Advocacy and Limited Reform (2015 – 2020)

2015 Prime Minister’s Office

ICAV met with the Prime Minister’s Senior Advisors, calling for acknowledgement and support for victims of trafficking.

2015 Minister Christian Porter, Department of Social Services (DSS)

ICAV met with Minister Christian Porter and raised the need for supports for victims of illegal adoptions.

December 2017 Department of Social Services (DSS)

ICAV facilitated a meeting between impacted adoptees with concerns of illicit and illegal adoptions to DSS (then the new Central Authority, having taken over from the AGD). 

ICAV requested government-to-government search support, translation, travel funding to countries of origin, dual citizenship support, and name reversion assistance. To date, limited domestic elements of these requests have been funded under ICAFSS (from 2021). Search and reunion remain unaddressed.

2018 – 2020 South Australian Minister, Rachel Sanderson

ICAV wrote numerous times in 2018 right through to 2020 to Minister Sanderson requesting a meeting to discuss support and assistance for adoptees who have adoptions with illegal or suspected illegalities involved. South Australia was chosen due to it being the first state of Australia to conduct intercountry adoptions, therefore with large numbers of impacted adoptees with illicit practices. The Minister never formally responded to ICAVs requests except to acknowledge receipt of correspondence. 

3.3 Renewed Calls for Inquiry and Justice (2021 – 2025)

April 2023 DSS Family Policy Branch 

ICAV and AUSKRG met separately with DSS Family Policy Branch after an ICAV letter was sent to the Prime Minister, dated 30 Sept 2022. ICAV presented a community survey of 57 impacted adoptees, requesting official acknowledgement and accountability, a national DNA and origins search reunion mechanism, legislative reform, and implementation of The Hague Toolkit for which ICAV had participated in developing.

January 2025 Senator Linda Reynolds

In collaboration with ICAV, Senator Linda Reynolds prepared a briefing paper to educate parliamentarians on the urgent need for a broad parliamentary inquiry into intercountry adoptions. The paper outlines Australia’s legal and ethical obligations, international precedents, and legislative gaps that must be addressed.

August 2025 Minister Tanya Plibersek, DSS

ICAV and three other Korean adoptee organisations AUSKRG, KAIAN, KADConnect met with Minister Tanya Plibersek, Department of Social Services (DSS). The meeting was triggered by the Korean TRC findings and the 2025 election promise by the Labour government into a Korean adoption investigation. 

The Minister proposed a departmentally run, Korean only, private and independent investigation and requested community input for consultation. No official announcement or decision has been published to date.

Ongoing 2025 Advocacy for Inclusive Inquiry

Throughout this year, the community has actively continued to send letters to the Australian Prime Minister (PM) urging an equitable, comprehensive investigation covering a range of countries, not just a Korean adoption investigation. We ask for a Parliamentary Inquiry that is independent, transparent, and expert led. The PM has referred the matter back to Minister Plibersek for determination.

Despite ongoing correspondence, meetings, and submissions, the government’s responses have remained piecemeal and reactive, with no national inquiry or reparative framework established.

4. Gaps and Missed Opportunities

Between 2016 and 2018, ISS Australia received funding to operate a Search & Reunification Program. With additional support from the South Australian government, three trafficked adoptees received practical assistance.

• Two returned to their countries of origin to be reunited with their birth mothers.
• One returned and met the trafficker who had facilitated their illegal adoption.

This program provided the only dedicated and funded mechanisms for practical support of impacted adoptees. When it was discontinued, no equivalent service replaced it. 

Today the ICAFSS program is the sole Commonwealth funded post adoption service, focused primarily on counselling and emotional support. It’s budget of $950k per year allows funding for $67 per adoptee per year (14,000 documented to have arrived in Australia) and does not provide any practical assistance for searching, tracing, or reunification — particularly outside Australia. 

The current Commonwealth–State Agreement further compounds this gap. It does not clearly assign responsibility or jurisdiction for comprehensive post adoption support for cases of illicit or illegal adoptions. This lack of clarity leaves victims caught between Commonwealth and State/Territory systems, with no independent avenue for assistance or accountability. When adoptees have approached the States asking for support or meetings to discuss, they’ve been referred to the Commonwealth who tell us that States are developing their own trafficking protocols — which so far, has taken five years without any deadline in sight. 

5. What Australian Intercountry Adoptees Are Asking For

For more than two decades, ICAV and impacted adoptees have consistently called for recognition, justice, and practical supports in response to illicit and illegal intercountry adoptions. Our priorities are clear and grounded in lived experience. 

Impacted adoptees want:

• Formal recognition and redress for victims of illicit and illegal adoptions.
• A national, coordinated system for cross-border search and reunion, including funded DNA testing and tracing.
• Integrated post adoption supports that extend beyond counselling to include translation, travel assistance, and practical help internationally.
• Independent and transparent investigations, not led by those who facilitated the adoptions.
• Preservation and full release of records to enable truth, identity restoration, and reunion.
• Adoptee led archives and research to document Australia’s intercountry adoption history.
• A national apology and legal redress framework to provide justice and accountability.
• Public education and awareness to ensure these histories are acknowledged and not repeated.

These are long standing priorities that remain unmet despite repeated advocacy. What adoptees are asking for is not symbolic, it’s systemic reform to acknowledge harm, enable truth, allow reunion with families where desired, and deliver justice.

6. Conclusion

Twenty years after ICAV’s first formal advocacy, the Australian government has still not delivered a coherent, survivor-centred response. While other countries investigate their intercountry adoption histories, Australia delays and deflects. Without immediate action, Australia falls further behind international standards. Survivors of illicit and illegal adoption practices continue to live without justice, recognition, or truth. The time for an inquiry and redress is long overdue.

Resource

Briefing Note: Why a National Investigation is Needed in Australia?