PAST ADOPTION PRACTICES

Adjourned debate on motion of the Premier:

That this house recognises that the lives of many members of the South Australian community have been adversely affected by adoption practices which have caused deep distress and hurt, especially for mothers and their children, who are now adults.

We recognise that past adoption practices have profoundly affected the lives of not only these people but also fathers, grandparents, siblings, partners and other family members.

We accept with profound sorrow that many mothers did not give informed consent to the adoption of their children.

To those mothers who were denied the opportunity to love and care for their children, we are deeply sorry.

We recognise that practices of our past mean that there are some members of our community today who remain disconnected from their families of origin.

To those people adopted as children who were denied the opportunity to be loved and cared for by their families of origin, we are deeply sorry.

To those people who were disbelieved for so long, we hear you now; we acknowledge your pain, and we offer you our unreserved and sincere regret and sorrow for those injustices.

To all those hurt, we say sorry.

(Continued from 18 July 2012.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (15:42): I rise to speak on this motion only to mention two things. This is a motion which the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Morialta spoke to at the time of a special sitting (in fact, it was the only item of business) in July. They admirably put the basis upon which a formal statement of apology was recorded and which, I would hope, will be unanimously passed by this parliament to recognise the grief, pain, hardship and legacy of a policy in respect of past adoption practices, in particular that meant that many pregnant, unmarried women in previous decades had not been given the appropriate care and respect they needed, and in some cruel and unhappy circumstances had even been coerced to give up children for adoption.

Times have changed. Removal of babies, often immediately after birth without any opportunity even to view or to hold the baby by the mother—or indeed the father if known or present—is one which is long past. However, this motion is to recognise the long-term anguish and suffering of the people affected by this practice, and the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Morialta, I think, admirably set out and covered not only examples of this but also the circumstances and the extent of which the legacy of this practice has extended and affected adversely the lives of many South Australians.

I will not traverse those, but I do want to say two things. One is that I think that in this process the member for Morialta has been unfairly overlooked in recognising the work he did in bringing this matter to the attention of the parliament. On the day before this motion, in similar terms and advanced by the member for Morialta, was to be debated, the government—in particular, the Premier—came out and announced that this would be an initiative of his government, to have a motion before the house for this recognition.

I think that is churlish at best, and incredibly selfish and in bad taste at worst. I think this is an issue that every member in the house has been touched by—either personally or through a relative, friend or neighbour—and I do not in any way doubt that the passage of this motion will have anything other than the complete and 100 per cent support of every member of this house. Yet the government, on such a sensitive issue, has to be so desperate to gain attention for itself that it has acted in a manner to prevent the member for Morialta proceeding with the motion and being given the due credit and recognition that he deserves.

The second matter I want to talk about is this. I would have liked the opportunity, as a member of this house, to speak on this matter in July. However, there was a new regime of practice being offered by the government—I would suggest being imposed on this parliament—which was that we would resume for a day, on a day the government had apparently invited persons adversely affected by this, and indeed those who had been very strong in lobbying for this type of recognition not just in our parliament but around the country, to be present. It was convenient for all those invited that we debate it on a particular day.

In fairness to any South Australian who has subject matter before this parliament that is pertinent to their portfolio, interest, aspiration or particular grievance, I think it is important that we try to fit in and accommodate that. I have no problem with that; it is a reasonable courtesy to those who have been successful in advocating a particular reform—in this case the passage of a motion in the parliament as a means recognition. Yet on this occasion the government had determined that we would resume on that day, we would all come back to parliament, and there would only be one or two speakers. In this instance, and quite properly, it was the lead speaker and seconder—namely the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition—and, in some acknowledgement to him, the member for Morialta, who was our shadow minister covering these issues but who had, in particular been the architect of the original motion, who were allowed to speak.

When I say allowed to speak, the government will say, 'Look, we give notice on these things that this is a process we have in mind, that we would invite the Leader of the Opposition to speak and so forth, so this was all agreed.' However, it is agreed by imposition. The government sets the agenda in this house, and I think it was quite inappropriate to have acquiesced into a program of debating the motion on that day by only a few speakers, then adjourning the motion to accommodate a morning tea that was scheduled for the stakeholders and those who are present.

I have no problem about the morning tea. Have any kind of celebratory event—I totally support that, I think was an excellent idea of the Premier. However, it should not have impeded the passage, the full determination of this matter, on that day in July, so that the resolution could be passed in the presence of those most aggrieved, and they would be able to celebrate the passage of the motion itself. That could have occurred. But no, the Premier has to set an agenda that suits him and his public presentation of getting all of the glory of such a moment.

That is what this is about, and that is what I think is so hurtful, in a debate so serious as this, so important, and so very special to the people who have been adversely affected, that they should be used as some pawn or puppet in the program that suits the Premier. I think that is unconscionable, and I think that it should never again be repeated in this house.

When we have an opportunity to celebrate the passage of something that will clearly have unanimous support, it should be allowed to occur and, as best we can, we should accommodate celebrations around that, allowing those who might be invited to attend to rejoice in that celebration. Full marks for all the arrangements for that; however, absolute condemnation for the Premier in trying to (a) take the big credit for this, and (b) then so orchestrating the management of the passage of this motion to suit his own means, way above the parliament and the people of South Australia.

Ms THOMPSON (Reynell) (15:51): I would like to return to the topic of the forced adoptions of children and the apology that was made to them in this house before the winter break. I want to commend both the Premier and the minister on their speeches. I thought they covered the items brilliantly, with great diplomacy and tact. I also want to commend the member for Morialta for sharing his personal experience of the issue of the adoption of children.

This is a very complicated issue, and I was pleased that the minister, in the time of preparation of the apology, invited all of us and the public at large to make contributions to what might be the final form of the words expressed, and also to the comments made in the house on that day.

I want to particularly commend Belinda Marsden, who I understand was the wordsmith who crafted those very finely balanced words of apology. The reason they need to be finely balanced is because the issue is incredibly complicated, and so many different people came at the topic from so many different perspectives.

I contacted the manager of Coolock House, a Centacare facility for young mothers in our community, which is in my electorate. These young mothers who are now being supported would have, in many years past, had their children removed from them. The manager was very interested in participating by making a contribution to the discussion, so she invited me around that very same day to have a meeting with her staff. The staff met before my arrival to canvass some of the issues. So, what I am reporting now is what came from the manager and staff of Coolock House, who are directly connected with the issue as it is in today's world, and therefore reflect very closely on what has happened in the past.

The main point that they wanted to make was that very few participants in the process had a genuine choice. They all played a role in meeting society's expectations. Every journey was different, but together they made a very sad pathway. The Coolock House people wanted it recognised that all participants probably thought they were doing the right thing, and they want all parties recognised: the mother especially, the father (if relevant), and the child.

They also see that the child's grandparents may be feeling extreme guilt, especially in light of recent publicity. Did they do enough for their child? Should they have been more forgiving or accommodating? They also thought they were doing the right thing for everybody concerned. How many adoptive parents now feel guilty that they had the joy of a child through the continuing anguish of others? We have to consider their ongoing feelings as well in consideration of this matter.

The Coolock House people talked particularly about the phrase, 'This was dishonouring motherhood.' They spoke of the long-term impact on the mother, as well as the feelings of deep loss. Many would have been traumatised by going to hospital for subsequent births, thus diminishing what should have been a joyful experience. How many of them had continuing problems with relationships, as they were always fearful that their child or partner would be taken away? What impact did this have on the ability for them to attach to subsequent children? How much were these children affected by the lack of attachment?

The Coolock House people also expressed their concern for the workers in the system and the extent to which they were hardened by taking children away. One of the workers has sat through the births of two children in situations where the mother knew the child was going to be removed at birth. She said the mother went through labour trying to keep the child inside her rather than lose the child. She found this incredibly hard and was very upset when talking to me in that group and thought that the workers involved would have had similar feelings at times even though they also presumably believed that they were doing what was in the best interests of the child.

Another group that was considered was all the Aunt Mabels who had supported girls who had been sent to them to hide their pregnancy. How do they now feel? This is a very sad period in our history and one from which we can learn a lot. The workers and I also were full of praise for Gough Whitlam for introducing the supporting parents benefit which enabled many families for the first time to have a real choice. It was in 1973 that the supporting mother's benefit was introduced for single mothers not entitled to a widow's pension. The new benefit was payable after a six-month waiting period during which time the states remained responsible for the single mother's income support under the commonwealth/state cost-sharing arrangements introduced in 1968.

Subsequently, this benefit was extended to single fathers and the waiting period was abolished. However, they were all clear that while some might call this social engineering, it was the clear case of a government making a wise decision that stopped a lot of pain and gives us the responsibility of allowing families to be strongly together and to support families in times of need rather than just remove children.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (15:57): A constituent presented at my electorate office prior to Christmas 2010 regarding the possibility of the South Australian parliament issuing an apology to unmarried mothers who relinquished their children because of the attitudes of the times and the lack of support across government agencies in Australia. It was pointed out to me that on 19 October 2010 the Premier of Western Australia, Colin Barnett, gave a bipartisan apology to the women, their children and the families who were affected by unsupportive adoption practices from the 1940s until the 1980s in Western Australia, and it was this news that had precipitated my constituent's visit and her quest to get a similar apology undertaken in South Australia. I read Mr Barnett's contribution. He said:

...past practices were very firmly focused on the goal of ensuring that the children of unmarried mothers were provided with the best life opportunities that were available, and the prevailing view of the time was that these life opportunities resided exclusively with caring, married adoptive parents. Options for unmarried motherhood were extremely limited, resulting in incidents where unmarried women gave up their babies for adoption without there having necessarily been proper thought and attention applied to their own wellbeing. There has been significant change in both the law and policy since that time, designed to strike a better and more considered balance of the interests and rights of both children and parents.

I think the Premier of WA enunciated the issue quite well.

My constituent, and there have been many stories told during this debate, was relinquished at birth in 1972. She stressed to me that it is important to mothers, their children and their families that it be publicly acknowledged that unmarried women did not give their babies away because they did not want them, but rather because the process that led to adoption was so flawed that the adoption of choice was removed, in effect.

My constituent's birth mother was 17 when she became pregnant. She attended at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital for confirmation of her pregnancy. She was advised that it was too late for a termination, that is past 12 weeks. A social worker was called, advice was given that there was no alternative but adoption, and preliminary paperwork was undertaken. This decision was made because the father of the child did not want to marry the mother and her parents did not want the daughter's future compromised by the 'stigma' of having a child as an unmarried mother.

There was discussion at this time of a federal government move to introduce a single mother's supporting pension, but this was denied by the social worker dealing with this particular case, closing a possible door of choice, despite this pension being made available in 1973. I agree with the comments of earlier speakers that this was a pioneering move by the federal parliament, a bipartisan move, and one that transformed the face of Australia.

The teenage mother in my constituent's case gave birth to her baby, which was taken from her in October 1972. She presented at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital three weeks after the birth to complete the signing of the relinquishment papers and was only advised at the time that she had given birth to a baby girl. She did not see her baby, have any physical contact with her baby or have an opportunity to consider any other outcome but adoption.

The concept of this apology is not to blame any government department, state government or individual for past practices, but to recognise the problems with the government policy, the medical system and the values and the culture of the day. I was pleased that in the case of my constituent, she was subsequently reconciled with her birth mother at a much later time and the story ended far better than it began.

I want to draw my comments now to the involvement of adoptive parents in all of this, because I think they are a group who may be feeling particularly sensitive to this debate and to this motion. I am sure that in almost every single case those adoptive parents did what they thought was best for the children they were adopting, loved those children, did their very best to bring those children up, and knowing that those children were not with their birth mothers did everything they possibly could to replace the love and the care that that child needed.

There have been changing attitudes on the question of adoption. While the first adoption legislation in Australia in the 1920s fostered relatively open adoptions, a second wave of legislation passed in the 1960s emphasised the importance of 'a clean break' from birth parents and enshrined the principle of secrecy around the adoptive status of the children. They were to be raised by their adoptive parents as if born to them. This principle was meant to provide adoptive parents with heirs without fear of stigma or interference from the biological parents, but it also operated to allow the unmarried mother, her child and her family to be shielded from the supposed shame of an illegitimate birth.

Subsequent revelations decades later of the history of the treatment of removed children, whether Indigenous, white Australian or the British children who travelled to Australia in imperial forced migration schemes well into the 20^th century had a profound impact on public perceptions of adoption. The notion of 'coming home', mobilised with great effect by Indigenous Australians to account for their experience of separation from family into institutions or adoption, came to stand for the adoptive experience generally. This concept stigmatised adoptions in general as entailing loss, removal from roots and pain, while at the same time idealising the birth family, minimising if not shutting out the role and experiences of the adoptive family.

Recognition of the damaging effects of previous adoption policies had burgeoned in the 1970s and the 1980s. Beginning in the mid-1970s all Australian states and territories reviewed adoption legislation and embarked on initially cautious reversals of previous secretive practices throughout the 1980s. National adoption conferences, convened in Australia in 1976, 1978 and 1982, brought together people affected by adoption with professionals and researchers. These conferences served as important for the activism and the agitation on adoption law reform.

Workers in the field began to tend towards the view that children should be with their biological parents where possible. Sociologist Rosemary Pringle suggested as late as 2002 that adoption in Australia had lost virtually all of its social policy credibility. Then in 2005 and again in 2007, in two significant reports from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services, adoption appeared to re-emerge on the political agenda as a viable social policy.

The 2005 report endorsed not only intercountry adoption but suggested that adoption rather than foster care and other out-of-home care might also be in the best interests of many Australian-born children. It also reversed the Australian tendency towards non-interventionism in family matters. The standing committee emerged from its investigations, by its own admission, 'unequivocally in support of intercountry adoptions as a legitimate way to give a loving family environment to children from overseas who may have been abandoned or given up for adoption'. This is contrasted with the negative attitudes to adoption found within the state and territory welfare departments responsible for processing adoption applications at the time. These attitudes ranged from indifference to hostility.

The fact is that adoption in past and current circumstances still does, in many cases, perform a very valuable role within our society, helping many children who would otherwise have no-one there to love and care for them. What is best for the children is what stands out as being the prime and foremost consideration. There are so many who cannot have children who desperately want them. As we look overseas in particular so many unwanted children are growing up on the streets of countries near and far with no-one to love and care for them. I think we need to signal to parents who adopt children in such circumstances that what they are doing is a great endeavour of love and commitment and something they should be forever proud of and extraordinarily welcomed by the children who might otherwise have no-one to love and care for them.

The other group that I want to refer to are the fathers. I had an interesting conversation with one of the families affected by all of this when we first moved this motion in a special sitting. I must say it really knocked me over with a feather, because in essence the story was that these two very young teenagers got together and conceived a child. Pressure from both families and from the system ordained that the child would be adopted. I think it was a 17-year-old boy and a 15-year-old girl who pleaded with their parents and pleaded with everyone involved to be allowed to marry and to have the child and keep the child but who were not allowed to do that as a result of pressures from within their own families, as well as from professionals and the system of the day.

Amazingly, the child was adopted and lost to both of them. A year or two later they both married and went on to have several other children naturally themselves and remained happily married for the rest of their lives. Only many years later, they were able to reconnect with the child they had naturally as teenagers. You think, 'This is mad; this is the world gone mad,' because the fathers have also, in many cases, been victims of this whole arrangement of the past. The perception that in every case, the fathers were just fly-by-night fathers who then vanished into the ether, leaving the mother with the child, was not in all cases the case. In many cases, the fathers themselves were emotionally and in many other respects traumatised by the whole experience. So, this is not just an issue for women; this is very much an issue for women and men—for couples and for families as a whole.

The other group that have been caught up in this and have no doubt found the entire notion and process very reflective are the parents of the pregnant mothers and the fathers involved in these unwanted pregnancies of the day. It has become apparent that, in many cases, extraordinary pressure was brought to bear on pregnant mothers and on the fathers by their own parents and their own families to relinquish the children.

In noting that, we recognise that the values of the time (the 1940s, 1950s and the 1960s) were very different from today. We have to be very careful before being judgemental of the parents of the 1950s and 1960s who may have pressured their children to relinquish unwanted babies. These were different times with different values and different systems.

I have heard of cases explained to me where, within years of the unwanted child having been given up, it has essentially busted families apart through the guilt, the shame and the emotional distress of feeling that a mother had been pressured by her own parents to give up a grandchild, etc. It is just an absolute and utter mess, this entire saga. So, to the adoptive parents, to the fathers and to the natural parents of the pregnant mothers, I say, 'The house remembers you, too.'

Looking back in time is a very easy thing to do. Being judgemental of the actions of others, using the values of today to place a template over the actions of yesterday, is something of which we are all often guilty from time to time. In this particular case, it is worth putting oneself in the shoes of the people who were caught up in these tragic affairs and to try to see it as they saw it, in the context of the day. No-one can really do that except for the people who were involved, but for those of us who stand here today, 20, 30 or 40 years later, we need to remember what they were going through.

The other thing I draw from this entire debate is the remarkable gift of contraception and, indeed, 'the pill', must surely stand out as the greatest scientific advance of the 20^th century. If you could put your finger on one innovation that changed the face of the world, it would have to be the contraceptive pill because it has acted to intercept so many tragic decisions that might otherwise have followed had it not been gifted to humanity.

The other great message in it all to me is the recognition and the rise of women to their full and proper place. We often talk about when women were first given the right to vote, when women were first given the right to be members of parliament, when women first achieved the right to do this or to do that, but surely all of this tells a story of women gaining control over their own life and their own body and over their own future, which I think is a great and grand story that we need to tell our children and our grandchildren in the years ahead.

In all of this, there are two things that we can take away from the debate and from this motion: one is the absolute primacy of children and their best interests and why they must always be considered first and foremost ahead of the parents and ahead of any other considerations. What is best for them must be the decision we make.

The other overwhelming point that rises from all of this is the primacy of love and the fact that love conquers all and that, with love, we can all go forward together as a family, no matter what tragedy has struck us, and succeed in life. With that, I commend the motion.

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (16:15): This apology is for the around 415,000 natural mothers who, in the fifties and sixties, faced such a terrible experience at a time when they were most vulnerable. Government and churches were involved in a practice we have now come to recognise as the worst possible action that could have been taken in the circumstances. The apology is for state-sanctioned legislative processes that separated mothers from their children. Adoptions were forced and mothers who lost their babies to adoption had no support from families, from society or from the state.

Mothers loved their babies. They did not have unwanted babies. Like all mothers, they had very much loved and wanted their babies. Mothers had no choice but to sign consent forms and there was no support for the mothers as the society norms of the day had dictated what would happen. Mothers suffered profound trauma and grief over the loss of their children. It was a grief that was not recognised by most. They had to do their grieving in isolation and without anywhere to turn for understanding. This disenfranchised grief has had a profound effect on all aspects of their lives and relationships, especially with subsequent partners and children.

Studies have demonstrated that the grief suffered by natural mothers increases over time rather than lessens. About 40 per cent of mothers who lose children to adoption suffer from secondary infertility and have no further children. The reasons for this are not well known and, I believe, not yet studied so we can actually learn why.

My understanding of this issue and the need for an apology comes from my friendship with a woman I worked with and greatly admire, even before I became aware of her personal experiences. I owe her a great debt for it is in listening to her and her story and the stories of other women with whom she was in contact that I better understand the impact of society's actions and the lessons we can all learn in caring for each other.

Reunions look lovely on TV; they do not, however, negate the loss and grief felt by the natural mother. Reunions are an opportunity for the mother and an adult child to perhaps forge a new relationship but do not render null and void the lack of relationship in the past. Not all reunions are a happily ever after scenario and may or may not provide some peace for the mother. To all mothers so cruelly affected, I add my apology and heartfelt desire that they will find some peace from the recognition of their hurt.

Mr PICCOLO (Light) (16:18): I would like to speak briefly on this matter. I will not cover all of the ground that has been covered by those speakers who spoke very eloquently about this topic, but there are a couple of things I would like to raise and I would also just like to highlight a case that has come to my attention of a person who lived in my electorate and speak about her experience.

The pain caused to parents whose children were forcibly adopted cannot be underestimated. Particularly for the mothers who were, in many cases, not able to see their child, I would not even pretend to understand what that pain is like because I just do not know. So, I am not going to pretend to say that I understand that but, as a parent, I can understand and appreciate what it could be like to lose a child or fear to lose a child.

A couple of things spoken about by both the Premier and also the minister really caught my eye, and this is from the child's perspective. Quite rightly we have discussed in this place the experiences of those adults, the people who actually gave birth, but I think that one of the areas we need to focus on just as much are the children. I would like to quote from what the Premier said (and I know that the comments were supported by the minister), because I think that there are some powerful messages in what the Premier said on the day. I would like to quote specifically:

Children who are separated from their mothers and placed for adoption have, as adults, shared their experiences of being separated from their family of origin and of learning that this had not been voluntary. This wrong practice denied them the opportunity to be cared for by the parents who brought them into the world—and the opportunity to be loved by them and attached to them...They were denied access which they might otherwise have had to their identity and their history. They were deprived of contact with their heritage.

It is this particular issue I would like to talk about because giving birth to a child or being a child is more than just who you are today. You are really a person made up of your histories. Your identity is formed by your culture, your understanding of your culture, where you come from, etc. In my case, I am the product of Italy—the people who were born in Italy and who lived in Italy, yet I have lived very little time in Italy.

Those sorts of things are very important to children. We form our opinions of ourselves, we form our understanding of who we are in society by who our parents are. Our parents provide us with a direct link to our history, and this adoption practice stopped that. It intervened. It cruelly took away a whole generation of young children and their ability to have a direct link to their past, their history and their cultural values, and we should not underestimate how important that is. Often when children find out they are adopted one of the first things they seek out is their true lineage, where they come from, what were the circumstances of their parents, their grandparents, their aunts, etc.

The Premier made another very important point, and I quote from his speech:

Many fathers were denied access to their children. Too often, as a result of pressure, the father was not even recognised on the child's birth certificate. This is a source of anger for children who now know their fathers and want their heritage acknowledged—

again, that issue of heritage, of knowing, of linking to your past—

But some fathers will perhaps never know the son or daughter who was adopted. We acknowledge the wrongs that led to the loss of these relationships. We recognise that fathers also lost their children.

The reason that I raise those two quotes out of that speech is because it is important that we understand that. It is important in any future legislation which comes before this house that we do not forget that—that we do not deny a future generation of children that link to their heritage, that link to their parents, that link to their grandparents, etc., because it is very important.

I would just like to briefly mention an experience—and I can only do it briefly, and perhaps not do it full justice—of a woman in my electorate, whose name is Heather Taylor, and she was forced to give up her child. Her story reflects many of the things which the Premier, the minister and members opposite spoke about on the day. The one thing she told me about her experience when she came to see me once (which really moved me) was that, when she was giving birth to her child, a pillow was put across her stomach so that she could have no contact whatsoever with her child. I just think that is a horrible thing to do.

This story has a reasonably happy ending. She actually met her daughter years later. She put her name on the register. Her daughter did come looking for her mother, and it has been a story which has ended well. Fortunately, the child was put into a good family, and Heather actually thanks the adoptive parents who looked after her daughter. It is interesting, also, to note that, despite the harshness of her experience, Heather has no bitterness towards her father who pressured her to give up the child, and to society at large. What she does want to say is that people need to understand that this happened.

That is what this motion is about. It is about acknowledging what happened so that those people can have their pain and their experience recognised and that it is not just something that is gone, passed through history, but to say, 'This did happen.' As I said, the message I would like to provide is that, whenever again we think about legislation or practices or policy in this place, let us not forget the impact that we have on those children.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Minister for State Development) (16:24): I thank all honourable members for their contributions. The way in which members have come together on this apology motion has been to the great credit of this parliament. The descriptions of the experiences of mothers that have been set out in these contributions have been harrowing indeed. As I indicated in my contribution, these mothers were held to be wrong to have become pregnant, then wrong to have wanted to keep their own child, then wrong for having given way in the face of all the forces pressing them to be separated.

Since this debate began I have been contacted by a number of mothers and other family members who have been touched by these forced adoptions. They have passed on to me, to pass on to the parliament, their gratitude for the acknowledgement and recognition that this parliament has given them.

I would like to thank everyone who has made this resolution, and the ceremonies that attended it, a success. In particular, I acknowledge the Minister for Education and Child Development, the member for Morialta, and all the officers of the minister's agency—and indeed our ministerial office—who played a role in ensuring that this particular apology, and the ceremony attached to it, were successful.

It required some careful management and handling, because emotions are raw in this matter. It is still the case that for some people the apology aroused feelings of hurt and loss, which made people feel angry. There is no doubt about that. To some people this has not been of benefit; but for the overwhelming majority of the people who have been touched by this, I think they have now seen that it is an acknowledgement of their pain and loss.

For many people it has allowed them to retell the story of their life not as being one of wrong and of being a victim, but rather of being someone who has been subjected to a wrong and who was strong enough to have survived. This is very powerful in the healing process for the people have been affected by grief and loss, to allow them to retell the story of their life. The parliament, in the way in which it expresses community norms about what is right and wrong, can allow a person to heal in a much more constructive and effective way than if they are left to suffer the guilt and loss that so many of the people touched by these affairs have suffered.

We have done a good thing here in passing this resolution, and I want to thank all those members who have played a role in it for their thoughtful contributions. I commend the motion to house.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

Motion carried.