HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-07-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PAST ADOPTION PRACTICES

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (11:02): I move:

That this council:

1. 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;

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

3. accepts with profound sorrow that many mothers did not give informed consent to the adoption of their children, and to those mothers who were denied the opportunity to love and care for their children, we are deeply sorry;

4. recognises 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.

We are here today for two special purposes: first, to recognise that forcible adoption practices caused deep distress and hurt to many South Australian mothers, their children and families; second, to apologise for those practices.

The immediate stimulus for the apology has come from a report that was provided earlier on this year by the Senate's Community Affairs Reference Committee's inquiry into former forced adoption policies and practices, but that committee itself was also preceded by many years of dedicated advocacy on behalf of all those who had been wronged.

The committee mostly examined people's experiences of forced adoption, which happened particularly between the 1950s and the late 1970s. However, we accept that forced adoption practices also occurred outside of that time period. Those practices clearly had profound effects on many South Australian families. The committee's report does indeed make harrowing reading. The report tells us of cases where mothers were rushed into signing adoption consent forms, often before they had time to fully recover from the immediate effects of giving birth. Some women were in fact never given consent forms to sign, and in some cases we understand that women's signatures were forged on adoption forms. Mothers were told that their babies had died, and in fact they had already been placed for adoption.

More subtle forms of coercion occurred in a variety of different ways. Mothers were made to feel that adoption was the only responsible and unselfish thing to do. They were often advised to simply forget what was happening, never to speak of it again, and simply to get on with their lives. Many of these women were made to feel that they were wrong and somehow unfit to have become pregnant in the first place, often being single mothers, and then wrong to want to keep their own child.

The shame and silence that surrounded pregnancy out of wedlock, as I said, meant that many of these women were seen by society at the time as being unfit mothers. They were made to feel as if they were unfit to be mothers. Mothers were often not informed about the adoptive families, and the very fact of their adoption was often kept secret from the children. The adoption practices at the time had the potential for lifelong consequences for the lives of those women involved and their children, as well as others, such as their families, the father, the adoptive parents and their families.

We understand that between 1950 and 1980, more than 17,000 children were adopted in South Australia, although it is obviously extremely difficult to determine just how many of these involved forced adoption by government agencies or churches. We recognise that those practices directly affected many of those parents whose children were adopted by force and many of those people who were separated from their parents as children. Unfortunately, as I said, this practice was not just restricted to the period between 1950 and 1980. In fact, we simply do not know how many women and children were involved in forced adoptions.

This apology extends to all past forced adoption practices, whenever they occurred. This apology is long overdue, but we hope it will be a significant moment for those affected. Families need recognition of the fact that in cases where mothers felt pressured to place their children for adoption they have spent decades dealing with the adverse impact of that practice, as have their children. It is a validation and acknowledgement for people of what happened, of what their experiences were.

Young women were made, as I said, to feel unworthy and unfit and therefore not entitled to keep their children, and they have suffered enormously because of those feelings. We have also seen the enormous suffering of those who were adopted as children and who have been separated from their families of origin.

There are extremely distressing cases of mothers being forced to give up their babies, mothers who were made to feel compelled to offer their baby for adoption and many cases of children who were not even aware they were adopted. Many women have carried a huge burden of guilt about what was done to them. It is hoped that this will be of some healing to them: to have parliament acknowledge that it was through its policies that this was allowed to happen to them.

These adoption practices were a product of multiple failures. Those policies reflected the failure at the time to provide the support and assistance that those women and children deserved and the failure to undertake basic human practices. These failures resulted in the birth experience often being frightening and lonely and having tragic lifelong consequences.

We acknowledge that those practices denied many people the experience of having children brought up by their birth parents. We acknowledge the wrongs that led to those losses and we recognise the great fortitude of the many who were most affected. To all those affected by these policies, I say sorry. For the lies, the fear, the silence, the deception, we say sorry and offer the very small comfort that we are determined to ensure that these things never happen again.

We offer this unreserved apology not just as an act of atonement, but as an expression of open-hearted admiration and support for those to whom it is owed. I would also like to recognise the leadership displayed by the Premier, Jay Weatherill, on this issue and also acknowledge the ongoing commitment of the Hon. Tammy Franks. I commend the motion to the council.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (11:12): I second the motion. I join the House of Assembly and fellow Legislative Councillors in offering a formal and visible apology from the whole Parliament of South Australia. That apology is extended for all past forced adoptions, the ones we are aware of (through the inquiry of the Senate's Community Affairs References Committee) and the ones we do not know about and will never know about.

We recognise today that these instances, where mothers did not give informed consent to the adoption of their children and were denied the right to love and care for their children, has caused grief and sorrow which is not quarantined to the past.

We know that between 1950 and 1980, 17,000 children were adopted within the state welfare department and state hospitals, and even more through churches and non-government agencies. These practices have consequently meant that, today, many people are disconnected from their origin and are not loved and cared for by their own family in a way that only a family can care for its own child.

I want to acknowledge the pain and anguish that those deprivations still cause those who were adopted and their families of origin. At the same time, I join the Premier in remembering that some of the people subjected to these practices have gone on to experience life, possibly unaffected by their experience and perhaps not feeling that an apology is necessary. We acknowledge the strength of character of these people in pursuing life, unjaded by their experiences.

Today's motion is one which resonates with every member of the community and every member of parliament. We all have intimate experiences of the relationship between mother and child, the influence they provide through our formative childhood years, our often tumultuous adolescent period and also throughout adulthood, where we often begin to recognise them as a friend, rather than a figure of authority. Throughout life, a mother and her guiding hand is often the only constant basis of support.

Today we remember, acknowledge and apologise that, for thousands of children and mothers, this vital relationship was prevented by government departments and unfamiliar faces. As the Leader of the Opposition described: these forced adoptions—the physical removal of babies from their mothers—were unethical, immoral and, in some instances, illegal. It was a travesty against human rights, which is difficult, if not impossible, for most of us here to digest.

For many of us who have been blessed with a family with children, the imagery of this happening to our own families is indeed almost physically painful. I hope with every fibre of my being that our society has grown enough that it will never again be allowed that someone's basic human rights would be so robbed simply due to a person's circumstances being considered 'shameful' or not the social norm, which is how pregnancy out of wedlock was considered at the height of these injustices.

Well above the scope of politics, policy and legislative decisions, it is our unequivocal responsibility as a parliament and a state to ensure that these injustices are never able to happen again. As the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council, I second this motion of apology on behalf of the parliament for the role the state of South Australia has played in causing this suffering. We apologise for the suffering of mothers robbed of their own babies, for the years of painful silence endured by them and their families, and for the denial of the basic right of adoptees to love their mothers. We are truly sorry. I commend the motion to the Legislative Council.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (11:16): The Greens welcome the historic events of today and, of course, of yesterday as a landmark in a journey from hurt to healing. This apology is, of course, symbolic, and this institution more than most knows full well the power of symbolism. Just as the power of a society to shun and shame a young mother with an unplanned pregnancy was once so intense, the powerful symbol yesterday of a leader of government, the Premier, in that position saying that he is sorry, and his being joined by a Leader of the Opposition in her saying that she, too, is sorry, can be felt. The power can serve to show that the time for isolation, shame and silence is now done and that truths may not only be told but believed.

Yesterday and today, that symbolic power was reinforced, heard and supported across our political divides. Previous parliaments and governments, of course, share responsibility for the application of some of the policies and processes of past forced adoptions. They profoundly, deeply and destructively impacted mothers, fathers, their children and their immediate and extended families. The pain they feel may never be forgotten, but an apology for many is a way of working towards healing.

It cannot be denied that the maternal bond formed throughout pregnancy is an intense physical and emotional closeness, and a women should never have this forcibly taken away from her. Yet it is a process that, as a larger community and as a larger society and as governments, we did indeed condone. I stand here today as a member of this parliament not only to express my sympathy to those individuals whose interests were poorly served by the policies of those times but to say that we shall stand vigilant that such treatment should never be condoned again.

This is a very important motion, following from the tabling of the report of the Community Affairs References Committee, entitled 'Commonwealth Contribution to Former Forced Adoption and Policies and Practices'. It is there being alleged that many young unmarried mothers were unethically drugged and even illegally lied to in order for them to give so-called permission to give up their baby to a family that was seen by both institutions and the governments as more fitting—married families, heterosexual couples who were then married and seen to be a more legitimate household for that child to be raised in.

Instead of receiving support and understanding, these mothers were treated as sinners and condemned to a tortuous life, with the pain of having a child taken away from them. Instead of flowers and baby booties, they were surrounded by shame and grief, and they were silenced and isolated. As a consequence, many went on to live a life plagued by mental health issues, drug and alcohol abuse and higher suicide rates.

I was pleased to see that the federal parliamentary Senate committee inquiry report received cross-party support from the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Greens and the Independents. I commend the work of all the members of that committee and, in particular, the chair of the committee, Greens Senator Rachel Siewert.

I also acknowledge that the member for Morialta, John Gardner (the shadow minister for communities and social inclusion) brought this matter to the attention of this parliament in the other place, and I acknowledge his good and important work in doing so. His moving and heartfelt speech yesterday in the house was a testament both to the strength and the fragility of family. This motion before us today seeks to play a role in the long healing process from one depressing chapter in our country's short white history—the forced adoption practices that saw babies stolen from the hospital bed of their vulnerable mother.

It is clear to me from the submissions to the inquiry, as well as from the stories I have heard personally outside the inquiry, that the sorrow and emptiness that results from having a baby taken away can last a lifetime and it continues to have a negative impact on so many. That is why the recommendations of the inquiry admonished the practice of compelling unwed mothers to relinquish their babies. While some arguments were made that this was done with good intentions at the time, I also note and commend that Catholic Health Australia, the Uniting Church and indeed the Western Australian government before us have all acknowledged that these practices were harmful and have rightly apologised.

I note that many young married couples were similarly under enormous pressures to become parents when they could not conceive, and there are many stories of heartache and pain to be told on that side of the story as well. Through our experiences investigating this issue, both from the Senate inquiry and through other processes, I would hope that we would now recognise that families are not a homogenous quantity and that to compel that homogeneity is indeed to inflict harm.

One particular mother I would like to pay tribute to today—as I did when I moved a motion in this place calling for this apology—is adoption campaigner, Lily Arthur. Her newborn son was taken from her in 1967, just one year before my own birth. At that time, at 17, unmarried and pregnant, she was placed in a home for delinquent girls. She went into labour. She was strapped to a hospital bed and, when her son was born, she was denied a chance to even look at him, much less touch or hold him. Heavily sedated, she was given adoption papers to sign. She was threatened with going into maximum security girls' homes if she resisted and was told that her son would be better off with another family. She was sent back home alone and she never recovered.

My own then 18-year-old unwed mother fell pregnant with me in 1967. There was a similar shame cast on her by her family and community in the small country New South Wales town where she grew up and then lived, but in her case she was forced into an unhappy marriage in order that she raise me. I know that my mother and I of course were lucky in this outcome by comparison.

Unlike my mother, Ms Arthur is one of the tens of thousands of Australian women estimated to have been forced into adopting their children by government and church-run homes and hospitals between the 1940s and the 1980s. It is estimated that 250,000 Australian women were subject to the practice of closed adoption during this period, where adoption papers were sealed in order to put a break between mother and child.

Ms Arthur, of course, went on to become the coordinator of Origins Supporting People Separated by Adoption. I acknowledge the work of both that organisation and of course the Senate committee in unpacking some of the further ramifications of those forced adoptions. Today I also echo her call that survivors of forced adoption require not just an apology but also reparations, such as access to counselling, increased Centrelink support and better access to records.

To the friends and families of those today who were subject to forced adoptions and continue to experience feelings of grief, pain and loss, I unreservedly apologise. An apology of course is a welcome step forward, but it is not the only step. I cannot emphasise enough the importance of the provision of counselling services, redress, access to records and reconnection as we all take this step forward from injustice to respect.

Today we ensure that the mothers who were once shunned, shamed, isolated and made invisible are no longer ignored in this parliament. I stand here today and say, 'I am sorry for this,' and make a pledge that I will do my best to see that similar injustices are not repeated. With that, I commend the motion to the council.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (11:23): Dignity for Disability has, I think, built up a rather solid reputation for being willing and able to stand up and speak on issues that concern many people in our community who might, for want of a better less clichéd word, be considered vulnerable. In the context of today's and yesterday's important apologies, I think this naturally extends to the protection of children and families, so it gives me great pleasure to place on the record our strong support for this motion.

Of course, it is also with great sadness that I do this. As I am sure all members have, I have heard many stories over the past few weeks of the mothers, children, and to a lesser extent though just as vital, the fathers, who were separated under policies of the past, and I was and am deeply moved by them. I would like to thank all of those who have spoken out about this horrendous experience, as I imagine it was a tremendously difficult thing to do. But it was also the right thing to do, for without the courage of these people in highlighting the issue I doubt that we would be discussing it here today. I do not want to recount these stories too much not only because they have already been told many times in the context of today and yesterday but also because they are not my stories to tell.

While my own birth was nowhere near as harrowing an experience as those of the adoptees about whom we are speaking today, it was not without its challenges for my family. I was born three months premature, tiny and severely underweight. Because of this I had to be taken away from my mother shortly after my birth by caesarean, to have all manner of tubes and needles inserted into my body and to be placed in an incubator. My mother, whom I love dearly and who I know loves me, has, on a few occasions throughout my life, told me of the pain she felt at not being able to hold me properly during this time. Given that physical proximity between mother or parent and child is known to play an important role in helping to develop that important bond between them, I cannot imagine the pain which ensues if this involuntary separation continues for decades or even for a lifetime. For this pain, I am deeply sorry.

While I do not wish to, in a sense, over politicise this important event by making too much mention of issues which perhaps do not directly relate to it, I do feel a need to briefly raise just two points. I think both of these have to do with questioning whether we have truly come as far away from the thinking of the past as we think we have. To put it plainly, what we are witnessing today, as we did yesterday, is an apology for the way in which parents and children were forcibly separated from one another essentially because they did not fit into the mould of what the society of the day considered to be the accepted traditional family unit.

While I think it is undeniable that over time society's definition of an 'acceptable family', if you will, is largely broadening to encompass family set ups that were previously not considered of value—single mothers is one particularly relevant example—I personally feel, and fear, that phrases like 'traditional families' or 'traditional family values' are still very much alive in our society and in our political debates today. They are still being used to deny certain types of families the freedom to be fully recognised or even simply to be together, or to make it seem that one type of family is somehow more of a family than another type.

There are several examples I could use here, of course. Some people with disability, in modern-day Australia, still fear having their children taken away from them on the basis that they are not considered, on the simple and shallow basis of their disability, to be a fit parent when, in the vast majority of cases, with the correct networks and supports around them, they would be ready and willing to be very capable parents indeed. Same-sex parents could also be an example of a family unit that is yet to be fully accepted and correctly supported. I could go on, but in the end the point I am trying to make is that I believe we must move towards creating a society in which families are only separated when there is concrete evidence, such as abuse or neglect, that separation is in the best interests of one but preferably both parties, and not just because of some preconceived notion about what constitutes a family.

I think this ties in quite nicely with the second point I would like to make, very briefly. I do not think it is a secret that our current systems are failing to adequately protect many children in many ways. I said that I did not want to go off on too big a tangent, so I will not list those ways, but, simply put, the lesson from both our past and present failings in the areas of family and child protection must be this: prevention will always be better than cure, and in this case, better than an apology.

While it is quite noble of our Premier, our government and our opposition to be putting forward this apology today, and I do not wish to underplay the significance this holds, surely it is preferable that we conduct ourselves in a way that will not leave our fellow Australians feeling that an apology is owed to them. I think we owe it to the people to whom we are apologising today to ensure that their suffering is not completely in vain.

Of course it is also important to note that the victims, or moreover the survivors, of forced adoption practices are only one group that has suffered due to what might be called systematic failings. Victims of abuse, for example, do not fall within the scope of this apology necessarily, but I would like to extend my personal apology to all those who feel they have been wronged in some way. I am a strong believer that, until we are all free, none of us are truly free and I look forward to creating a society in which this can become a reality for all of us.

I will perhaps touch on this a little more shortly, but now I feel that it would be very remiss of me not to remark on the fact that I believe that I am immeasurably fortunate to be one of the people here able to discuss openly this issue today, discuss it as though I knew exactly what it is that the families torn apart by the adoption policies of our past have gone through. What a luxury I have bestowed on me to be able to be here in this room, quite removed from the anger, the frustration, the loss and the pain of these people, to which I suspect the passage of time is no stop.

There are probably countless people who have suffered this agony directly who may never have the chance to properly voice their stories. These silent sufferers are the most important people in this whole issue, to an extent. Their silent but undeniable pain should serve as a reminder to us that we must work constantly to ensure that no suffering is condoned by a lack of avenue through which to voice it. I want to see these avenues open more and more, not just so we can give a voice to those seeking justice and shed light on previously hidden issues in our society, but so that parliaments which succeed those of us here today do not need to gather like this again, apologising for their own wrongdoings and their own failures.

I think that one of the most beautiful and frustrating things about being part of the human race is that, while we can, and often do, talk about how sorry and ashamed our past makes us, and how proud we are of how far we have come, we can never be exactly sure as to where we are in terms of the human race's growth trajectory, if you like. We can never be exactly certain that we have done our best or that we have reached our full potential, and this is why we must enthusiastically and constantly strive to do more and to do better in all things.

In short, for what it is worth, yes, we have come a long way from what we now see as the barbaric and shameful treatment of children and families of our past, but I do not accept that we are doing enough for the children and families of our present or, more importantly, of our future either. Let us work to ensure that today's event amounts to more than an apology for our past. Let us make it a contract, a promise for our future.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (11:33): I rise to support the motion. Yesterday I had an unusual experience, and that is that I sat as a stranger in this house as the House of Assembly conducted the motion which we are now dealing with. I sat in the strangers' gallery with a family friend, a lady who went through the turmoil that has been described by so many. It happened to her many years ago, but she wanted me to sit with her in the strangers' gallery through the motion. It was an experience I will never forget.

As the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, minister Portolesi and the member for Morialta spoke and relayed some of the stories that had come to them and that they wanted to put on the record, my friend quietly said to me on several occasions, 'That is my story.' She experienced, I think, the great majority of terrible things that we have heard went on over many years.

A number of us can probably remember the community attitudes that, unfortunately, led to those practices. Certainly, pregnancy outside marriage was something that was seen as shameful. The young women had to go away to have a child, they had to disappear and then come back to the community and pretend that nothing had happened, and pretend for the rest of their life that nothing had happened. One of the significant points when this lady said to me, 'That is my story', was when we heard about the instances of women having a pillow put over their chest as they were giving birth so that they could never see the baby they were giving birth to. That was her story.

There is no doubt about the long-lasting impact on this lady who I sat next to yesterday. There is no doubt about the long-lasting impact on many others who were here in the gallery of this chamber and many others who were in other parts of the building watching the proceedings. So many people I have spoken to who have followed the apology have expressed to me their own personal understanding of what happened many years ago. Unfortunately, in some cases it was not what we would call many years ago.

I indicate to the council my particular gratitude to the member for Morialta, Mr John Gardner, who was the one who originally brought the suggestion to the Liberal Party joint party room that there should be a formal apology. We subsequently supported him, and we are very pleased that the government has taken up that suggestion. The motion that was dealt with yesterday in the House of Assembly and here today has resulted from that.

We heard yesterday from Mr Gardner about his own personal experience where his adopted elder sister had been separated at birth from her twin and how, some 30 years later, they have now been reunited. We heard about other instances of the impacts on the children involved. We heard about the impacts on the young men, the fathers who never got to see or have any involvement with their child.

I was particularly taken with something that the Leader of the Opposition, Isobel Redmond, put into the debate yesterday. I would like to read that, if I may. I quote:

I read through some of the submissions made to the Commonwealth Contribution to Former Forced Adoption Policies and Practices—

report, I think it is—

and I have one with me today. The name has been withheld but it is written by an adoptee, a person now middle-aged, who, after much searching, has finally found her birth mother. If I may, I would like to read a small and particularly poignant excerpt:

'The day we first met we sat in her lounge room and spoke at length but I could make little sense of anything she said. The words were bouncing around my head. I was entranced by the movement of her face and the music of her voice and nothing else would penetrate my mind. This strange experience went on for two days before clearing so that I could converse as an adult. I later realised that this was a necessary resumption of the infant's gaze at the mother, part of the developmental bonding: 50 years later I briefly resumed the task of being a baby.'

I think that encapsulates the things, the feelings that none of us who have not experienced these matters can ever understand but going through with the apology today and experiencing the people who came yesterday to listen has a profound impact. I have my own personal experience of sitting next to this wonderful lady, who, I think, benefited from being here while the motion was put. It certainly has had a profound impact on me, and I think we need to make sure that we never allow these sorts of things to happen again. It is important that we recognise the distress and hurt caused to so many in so many different ways by those practices. Today I say sorry and strongly support the motion.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (11:41): I rise to support the motion. I acknowledge the warm and powerful speeches by the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and other parliamentary colleagues in the other place yesterday and in this chamber today. I particularly acknowledge the initiative and passion of the shadow minister for families and communities, John Gardner, and the Hon. Tammy Franks and their roles in bringing this important matter to the attention of this parliament.

On 15 November 2010, the Senate referred to the Community Affairs Reference Committee an inquiry that directed the committee to investigate matters related to former forced adoption policies and practices. The response was so overwhelming that the committee had to extend its reporting date considerably. Evidence presented to the committee suggests that adoptions were common in the post-war period, with approximately 140,000 adoptions between 1951 and 1975, 40,000 of which occurred between 1965 and 1972.

Australian adoption law and practice changed rapidly from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, reflecting the rapid social change that was occurring across Australia. The data shows that the peak in adoptions was reached in 1972 with a recorded 9,798 adoptions. Within four years of this peak, the number of adoptions had halved. By the turn of the decade into 1980, this number had reduced to a third of that peak, and in 2009-10 only 412 recorded adoptions occurred throughout Australia.

According to the interpretation of the data within the committee's report, the rapid decline in adoptions after the period of 1971-72 was strongly connected to the rapid decline in births amongst women collectively, but particularly amongst teenage women. While many of these adoptions would have involved free and informed consent, many did not. Evidence provided to the Senate committee shows that many adoptions were most commonly arranged for babies of single mothers. I was saddened to note the data provided by the Royal Women's Hospital in Victoria, where it was shown that between 15 and 30 per cent of births between 1950 and the early 1970s were 'hospital arranged adoptions'.

This motion and the speeches in support of it have highlighted the pain and suffering of mothers, fathers, adopted sons and daughters, their friends and their families. I affirm that I have heard these voices and join other members of both houses in saying sorry. I cannot imagine the heartache that has been suffered by parents and children alike. I am strongly of the view that an important element of any act of apology for past acts is repentance: to turn around, to redouble one's efforts to ensure that you do not make the same or similar mistakes in the future. As one poet put it, 'History repeats itself—it has to, nobody listens.'

Forced adoption programs were not the product of a distant and evil regime: they were in our country and in our times. These policies and practices were developed by people of good will, but they were wrong. So, today, let us recognise the pain of forced adoptees, their mothers, their families and their friends. Let us also humbly accept that, in our imperfection, we may be making decisions today that will have negative and often unintended consequences for others in the future. Let us be alert to the impact that our current policies are having on vulnerable South Australians, particularly children, so that the seeds of such heartache are not sown on our watch. We are sorry.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (11:45): I also rise to support the motion and note the heartfelt apology yesterday from the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr John Gardner and from members here today. In fact, we tend to repeat the mistakes of the past. I will recall one circumstance in my family on the forced adoption issue. When I was 14, I had a 15-year old cousin who fell pregnant. She went to hospital. She had to go away, of course, for some months before the baby was born. She came home without her baby, and it was quite obvious after a week that she was not going to recover from having to relinquish her baby. So the family gathered together and fought for that mother to be able to get her baby back.

We went to our Catholic priest, our parish priest, as a group, as a united family. We were actually prepared to go public with the story that this was a forced adoption. Of course, that forced the hand of the Mater hospital in Brisbane then to return that baby to its rightful mother. That baby was later adopted by my cousin's older sister so that my cousin could still always have contact with her child and still be a part of its life. That story ended happily. Everybody moved on with their life. The baby was raised in a happy family.

My cousin went on to marry the father of that baby and have five more children to him. The grandmother (my aunty) was able to maintain her relationship as grandmother with that child. However, the disruption—although it was only for two weeks—was still traumatic for my cousin. I think if we as a family had not been prepared to stand together and put that conditioning of being ashamed to the side and fight for what we knew was right for my cousin at the time, hers would be one of the stories that we would be hearing about here today.

There is no doubt that there is an everlasting bond between a mother and child, regardless of the interference other people run in the course of a mother giving birth to her child and then in their being able to keep that child or not. I think even the children know. Even though they may have been brought up with a family in a loving home, I have heard many times that a child just knows that there is something just missing and they cannot quite put their finger on it.

I can also relate that to my story with my 10-year old son, who is not my birth child. At the age of seven, without any provocation, without any reason, he came to me one day and asked, 'Mum, am I adopted?' There had never been a hint in our family that Tyrone was not my birth child and not the blood brother of his four brothers. He was never treated any differently. When I asked him why he asked that question, he said, 'Cos I just know.'

These children grow up with that mystery in their lives as well, and we have no way of knowing what effect that has on them and their development, no matter how good their family is. As my son said, 'I have had a blessed life,' but there is still that gap in their life, that hole in their heart that they live with.

This is a very important time, with this apology now after so many years for parents who were forced to adopt their babies out. Finally, they are being heard and finally their pain, suffering and the deprivation of their human rights have been acknowledged and validated both by the federal Senate inquiry and by this parliament yesterday and today.

What I would like to say is that, from the bottom of my heart, I am sorry that we as a parliament and we as human beings have, over many generations, tended to miss the mark. Without taking away from the apology yesterday and what we are doing in here today, I would like to point out some very valid facts.

We may not have adoption consent forms anymore, where parents were forced to sign their children's life away to somebody they did not know and forcing those mothers and children to be separated for decades. Now we have voluntary orders, where parents are being forced to sign their children into foster care and into the guardianship of the minister.

Also, how many more apologies will we have to make in the future? We have apologised to the stolen generation, and we have apologised to the victims of abuse in state care. Yesterday, we apologised to the victims of forced adoption, and the common thread in all of the speeches was, 'We didn't listen,' 'We didn't hear you,' 'We didn't act quickly enough.'

Will we, in 15 years' time, be apologising to the young girls who are now being coerced into having an abortion? And they are being coerced; I have heard the stories. Will we, in 10, 15 or 20 years' time, be apologising to the foster carers who out of the kindness of their heart have taken on children with severe emotional problems from abuse and neglect, those foster carers who have had those children ripped away from them? Those children were ripped away from the only family they have ever known because, by the perception of a social worker, they had built an unhealthy strong bond with each other, which one would think would be the purpose of foster care.

Will we be apologising to the children who are in state care now who should not have been removed from their family, as in the case of forced adoption, when all the family needed was a bit of support and a bit of assistance to be able to get their life on track from a snapshot of the difficult time they were going through? Will we be apologising to the children who were not removed who should have been? It is all very well for us to stand here and feel it in our heart and feel the pain—and we acknowledge all the suffering—but, as I have said in this place many times, when are we going to start to do it differently and to do it better? I commend the motion to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT