PAST ADOPTION PRACTICES

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (12:00): By leave, I move my motion in the following amended form:

That this house calls on the Premier to move a formal statement of apology in the parliament, including but not limited to noting—

(a) that with regard to past adoption practices, it is now recognised that for a significant part of the 20^th century, the legal, health, and welfare systems and processes then operating in South Australia meant that many pregnant unmarried women were not given appropriate care and respect that they needed, and were sometimes coerced to give up children for adoption;

(b) that processes, such as the immediate removal of the baby following birth, preventing bonding with the mother are recognised in many cases to have caused long-term anguish and suffering for the people affected; and

(c) that this parliament acknowledges that previous parliaments and governments share responsibility for the application of some of the policies and processes that impacted upon unmarried mothers of adopted children, and now apologises to the mothers, the adoptees and the families who were adversely affected by these past adoption practices, and we express our sympathy to those individuals whose interests were poorly served by the policy of those times.

On 29 February 2012, the Community Affairs References Committee of the Senate released its report entitled Commonwealth Contribution to Former Forced Adoption Policies and Practices. It found significant evidence of illegal practices resulting in forcible removal of children from their parents between the 1950s and the 1970s. I note that that was the scope in which the Senate inquiry was framed, but I further note that the motion which I have moved and which we have been talking about refers instead to 'a significant part of the 20^th century', as many adoptees in this situation were born earlier than the 1950s or more recently than the 1970s, and it is not appropriate that they in any way are made to feel like they would be missing out on the opportunity for closure and healing that could be offered by such an apology.

The Senate committee's recommendations included a recommendation that an apology be delivered by the commonwealth, states and territories, institutions and organisations that were involved in the practice of forced adoptions. The Liberal Party recognises the value, healing and reconciliation that can be offered by apologies of this nature. The Hon. Dean Brown, when he was the minister for Aboriginal affairs, was the first minister in an Australian parliament to offer a formal apology to the stolen generation. We know the value the stolen generation apologies at state and federal level, and the apology to the forgotten Australians, have had for those involved. This group of people—the mothers, the adoptees and their families—many of whom were adversely affected, will gain value from this apology.

I gave notice of this motion on 13 March, following the Liberal Party's agreement to support such an apology. I note that the Hon. Tammy Franks, who is in the chamber to observe the debate on this motion this morning, moved a similar motion in the Legislative Council on 14 March, and yesterday Premier Jay Weatherill formally gave notice that on 13 June he on behalf of the government and the parliament will be sponsoring a formal apology, and we certainly welcome that. It is a wonderful thing to see that the Liberal Party, the Greens, the government and, as far as I am aware, other parties represented in the parliament are coming together to support this formal motion. The Premier's ministerial statement yesterday was well written. He said:

What is clear is that many families were deeply affected by these past practices, and, as the Senate report recommends, an apology should be given for any impact that these past practices may have had on their lives.

Families need recognition of the fact that in cases where mothers felt pressure to relinquish children, they have spent decades dealing with the impact, as have their relinquished children.

The value of this motion today remains, for a number of reasons. Firstly, when The Advertiser reported that this motion was going to be debated today, a number of people (particularly adoptees) contacted my office—as indeed a number had previously, which was one of the causes that led me to move this motion—and suggested specific things. As I have already mentioned, there is the importance of broadening the scope of the motion to relate to the whole of the 20^th century so that those born in the 1940s, the 1980s or the 1930s and so on are not left out, because their pain is every bit as real as the pain of those from the 1950s and the 1970s.

So, I hope that the government will take that on board. I recognise that the Minister for Education and Child Development will be conducting broad community consultation in the 2½ months ahead, and I am sure that she will take that on board. I imagine that a number of the people who have contacted me have and will continue to speak to her in the months ahead to take that on board.

Paragraph (b) of the motion talks about the issues related to the immediate removal of the baby following birth preventing bonding with the mother. This was a particularly pertinent and important part of the apology for many of those I have spoken to. I will talk later about how that is also particularly an area where state policy had an effect on the practices and the institutions, which, again, gives value to the importance of this parliament supporting the apology.

The third issue I particularly want to mention in the context of the wording is that, when the Western Australian parliament dealt with this issue in 2010, it was framed in the context of mothers, children and families, but, of course, many of the adoptees who were relinquished in this way, often through coercion or force, are now grown. They were born in the 1940s and 1950s, so we are talking now about people who are now in their 60s and 70s, and it is not appropriate for them to receive an apology as children.

I realise they are the children of the mothers who gave them up, but many of them feel (and I can certainly understand why) that they should gain recognition as adoptees in their own right, not just as children. They are the grown adoptees, and in many of their cases they have been denied the opportunity to receive the love of their birth mother who should have had the opportunity. They were not relinquished because they were bad or wicked or evil, even though their mothers may have been told so at the time.

On 19 October 2010 Colin Barnett, the Premier of Western Australia, became the first Australian Premier to move a motion which was supported in a bipartisan way. Many members of parliament spoke on the motion to formally apologise to families affected by former forced adoption practices. At the time Premier Barnett acknowledged that previous parliaments and governments were responsible for some of the processes that affected unmarried mothers and their children, and recognised the long-term anguish and suffering which they had caused.

This apology was acknowledged by the Senate and consequently a motion was passed to launch an inquiry into those policies and practices across Australia. The committee concluded—again, supported by all sides of politics—that governments had carried out unethical and sometimes illegal practices when it came to forcibly removing the children of unmarried mothers for adoption. Reviews of the welfare system at the time indicate that the South Australian government, too, was complicit at least in forcing mothers to give up their children by withholding assistance from those who were anything but financially destitute.

In addition to the lack of financial support provided to unwed mothers, there were also cases where they were subjected to grooming by those around them and pressure, including by state institutions. Moved from their community into the confines of a home, women were told that adoption was the right thing to do and was best for the child. The women had the details of their pregnancy and the future of their child concealed while alternatives to adoption and information on potential financial assistance was often withheld.

Relinquishing the child for adoption was often a traumatic process, with mothers detailing accounts to the Senate inquiry of threats, intimidation, sleep deprivation and emotional pressure placed on them in those contexts. In many cases consent was surrendered under duress, others were denied the right to revoke consent and some had the right to consent withheld altogether. A number of these incidents occurred at government institutions.

It is important to note that expressions such as 'thought in the community to be in the best interests of the child at the time' are not necessarily appropriate because there are a number of examples of people who made statements to the Senate inquiry and who are on the historic record pointing out the damage that this was causing at the time. It was a view held by many in the community but it was not a universal view of the time.

I note particularly the contribution made by UnitingCare Wesley and the Uniting Church in relation to the Senate inquiry. UnitingCare Wesley was, of course, involved through the Kate Cocks Memorial Babies Home, which dealt with adoptions. I will quote briefly from a historical record in relation to that because it talks about some of the circumstances surrounding adoption and the role that state government had in policy terms, even in the non-government institutions such as that run by the Uniting Church and UnitingCare Wesley. It states:

To start with they were meant, asked, requested to stay for six weeks and to feed their babies. It was quite controversial and I often wondered why Miss Cocks insisted on it. Now when I am much older, I realise how wise she was.

It goes on:

What Miss Cocks did she obviously did with tremendous insight and maturity and there were fewer problems with the girls who cared for their babies and nursed them for six weeks than for those who in the latter part of the 1960s did not see their babies and who asked for them to be adopted without seeing them. A function which was primary to life, that they bring a child into the world, nurture it and care for it, had been stopped half way. There are far more problems from those who did not care for their baby than for those who did. From about 1968 the girls could choose whether they saw their babe or not. There was a terrific outcry from the department of community welfare that it was cruel, that it was wicked, that it was this, that it was that. Well perhaps it was, but in the long run was it? At all times adoption was considered by Miss Cocks, Miss Pitt and by myself as a personal choice of the girl.

That the opportunity to bond with the babies was even considered as controversial, even for those first six weeks, is most unfortunate, and the government must acknowledge its role in that.

I would like to quote briefly from the statements made by Simon Schrapel, the Chief Executive of UnitingCare Wesley, Adelaide, who wrote:

It is evident from the accounts of mothers whose children were adopted at Kate Cocks home and other institutions around Australia, that many single mothers experienced significant pressure and coercion to give up their babies for adoption. This pressure came from family, broader society and the institutions which managed adoptions. This was wrong and the Uniting Church and UnitingCare Wesley Adelaide made a formal unreserved apology to both those mothers who were affected by such practices and to the children who were adopted for their separation.

I note in passing that the Uniting Church has now also agreed to use the term 'adoptees' rather than 'children'. Simon Schrapel went on to write:

The grief and years of shame endured by mothers who relinquished children under pressure is a sad chapter in Australian history. The circumstances in which many children were adopted and the subsequent decades of silence has also prevented many adopted children appreciating the love and heartache felt by their birth mothers.

It is now time to put the record straight. The past cannot be undone—but we can as a society now provide a compassionate approach to those mothers and children involved in the practice of 'forced adoptions'.

The Senate inquiry recommendations provide us with the opportunity to make amends. It is an opportunity for governments, on behalf of us all, to say we acknowledge what was done in coercing mothers to give up their children for adoption was wrong. It was wrong for society to countenance such actions and for those directly responsible to implement such practices.

As I said, a number of adoptees and family members have spoken to me over the last few weeks and I want to record one or two comments of those people, although I think the opportunity on 13 June will hopefully give the opportunity for many more of those stories to be told. In brief, I want to quote from one person, who would prefer not to be named, who wrote:

I am a victim of past adoption practices—they robbed me of my mother and my heritage.

It was many long years before I was able to be reunited with my mother. I ask myself, if only the South Australian government had refused to cooperate with the federal government and had instead taken a stand for decency by supporting these poor, frightened, unmarried women? My mother would not have been dispossessed and I would have had the opportunity of being raised by her.

Through apologies to the Stolen Generation and the Forgotten Australians, the institutional recognition of wrongdoing has made a positive contribution to reconciliation in enabling those affected to move on with their lives. A similar process is also appropriate for this group who have been victimised by inappropriate practices of state institutions.

I commend the motion to the house. I commend the motion that is before the Legislative Council to that council. I am sure that all members will support the formal motion of apology that the Premier intends to move on 13 June. I hope the government will look at the words I have read and the statements I have made this morning and take that into account in framing it. I commend the motion to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.