There was never any intention of acting on the 1997 review. It was just a sop to silence the voices of the time who were calling for reform. The reviewer I spoke with didn’t even know what the Adoption Act 1955 said, and was surprised when I told her. It was a stage show, to give the appearance of “doing something”. National has never done anything at all for people affected by adoption, other than past one act which specifically applied to a couple and their private circumstances. Their inaction for over half a century is shameful, and intentional. They see their interests aligned with the pro-adoption class (oh I forgot, we don’t officially have classes in egalitarian New Zealand). Most people still misrepresent what the 1955 Act did and didn’t say, and have never read it. They think it prevented things like open adoption (which it does not) or searching for family members (which it does not) or applying for identifying information (which it does not). Most journalists just assume what it says, as do politicians it seems.
The 1955 Act itself was extremely flawed, though the real evil was the way it was misrepresented to women by social workers of the state, private institutions, hospital social workers and staff and also by many lawyers. These misrepresentations were deliberate, calculated assaults on the vulnerable, intended to intimidate and pressure. I remember reading state files where children were placed with couples were the husband had been convicted of paedophile offences, and even with people suffering from terminal illness. These state social workers pretended to be working in the “best interests of the child” (which the Act doesn’t even mention) and some children were serially adopted after poor placements; I know of one man adopted three times, placed by the state each time. I met him after his suicide attempt. Where were his best interests? Some adopters returned infants and refused any further responsibility for them, despite being the “legal” parents. The state colluded with all of this. It is shameful.
The principle partner of the law firm (also a Trustee) for St Marys Otahuhu was either incompetent? could not read? or understood the Adoption Act 1955 very well, that is probably why I was required to swear on the bible that I would not try and find my child…emotional blackmail, which of course to a naive, distressed girl was very powerful. That would be why that piece of useless shite (swearing on a bible) was part of the ritual of the other piece of useless shite (their interpretation of Adoption Act 1955) in the law office, because they knew full well they had used the ACT in a manner to suit/fulfill their agenda of removing our children to give them to those with a marriage license…regardless of suitability. I have requested an inquiry not bound and ring fenced to suit bureaucracy. I request a full inquiry into past offenses which took place under an ACT which had nothing to do with protecting children…that robbed women of their children.