Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on this very important inquiry by the Senate Community Affairs References Committee into the Commonwealth contribution to former forced adoption policies and practices. This inquiry has been a very emotional and traumatic journey and has involved a large number of personal stories which would have been very difficult to share. I would like to place on record my thanks and appreciation to all those people who have recounted their painful stories. Many of these stories had not been told before. You have all made a personal sacrifice, but it is a sacrifice that means your experiences can no longer be ignored. I would also like to acknowledge that, very understandably, some women found giving evidence too distressing and have yet to tell their story.

Since the beginning of the inquiry in November 2010, the committee has received hundreds of individual submissions and submissions from organisations, including boxes and boxes of archival material. Also obtained was a range of additional information, correspondence and answers to questions placed on notice with witnesses. A range of documentary records were also used. The committee held 10 public hearings and visited every capital city except Darwin. I will talk particularly about the hearing in my own home state of Tasmania a little later on. I would like to give my sincere thanks to the committee secretariat for their support and research for this important inquiry. Their hard work is evident, I believe, in the quality of the final report.

The term 'forced adoption' is as cruel as it sounds. For a period of time from the late 1940s up until, in some cases, the late 1980s, single mothers were made to give up their babies. This fact is indisputable. They were forced to do this through a range of different means, including being coerced, being drugged, being tricked into signing adoption papers or being physically shackled to beds. I think I can speak for all members of the committee when I say that the pain these young women must have experienced, and still continue to experience, is unimaginable for those of us who have not been through it.

As evidenced by the stories told in the report, these women were also treated appallingly throughout their pregnancies by the very institutions that were meant to be caring for them. There are allegations of unethical or even unlawful practice. In some cases doctors, nurses, social workers and midwives showed no respect to these frightened and often very young women. There are also descriptions of poor medical treatment being provided to these mothers during the birth, with medical staff taunting them about their unwed status and not providing proper pain relief or proper treatment. Some of the behaviour towards these mothers can only be described as unethical. One of the mothers who made a submission recalls:

I was treated inhumanely. A nurse even told me the pain I was experiencing was punishment for getting pregnant before marriage. I was ignored and left alone with the contractions until the birthing began. I had no idea what to expect. They shouted at me, and then pushed a gas mask onto my face. They made comments about me, but didn't talk to me at all.

To add to the pressure being exerted to adopt their child out, vital information was also withheld. Single pregnant women were not told of the social security benefits available to them were they to keep their baby; they were pushed towards adoption as their only legitimate choice. Added to this, many families sent women away to unfamiliar surroundings with no family or friends for support. Once babies were born, the 'clean break' theory on many occasions was implemented. The 'clean break' theory meant that mothers were often denied the right to hold or even see their child before it was taken away. They were given drugs to dry up their milk, their breasts were bandaged up and they were not told the gender of their child. When they asked to see their babies they were told it was in the best interests of their children that they were sent somewhere else and they were selfish to not want the best for their child.

At the hearing in Hobart I heard one of the mothers describe her experience in the hospital in an eloquent and powerful way. She said:

They created an unbalance of power: the power of hospital staff was lined up alongside that of married prospective adoptive parents who wanted a baby—my baby. Staff allegiance was to them, not to me. They did not hear or see me. I was nothing and no-one. I was in a place where I was supposed to be cared for—hospital—but I was ignored. I was guilty of nothing, yet I was made to feel ashamed, guilty, inferior and bad.

The Salvation Army representative at the hearing in Hobart also supported these descriptions. He spoke of recalling the great distress of mothers in hospitals at not being able to see their babies and of mothers not recalling signing consent forms and not being able to revoke the consent even within the legal consent period. Many, I have to say, never knew that revoking consent was even an option.

Many more similar stories were told. We heard that the ripple effect from these forced adoptions is huge and includes the mothers, their children and some of the nurses and social workers who look back on the practices with anxiety. We heard firsthand from mothers how the ongoing trauma of having their baby forcibly removed is still impacting on their lives. They also spoke of the successful and unsuccessful attempts to reunite with their children who were taken away and the anger that many of the children who were adopted still felt. The former chair of the joint select committee of the Tasmanian parliament that looked into adoption between the years of 1950 and 1988 told a story of a 17-year-old woman who had a loving supportive boyfriend and a grandmother she lived with and who was going to look after the baby so the girl could resume her work and study. Despite having all this, the baby was forcibly adopted because she was unwed.

In light of these practices that I have just outlined and the many submissions made to the inquiry, the report handed down today outlines some very clear recommendations. Perhaps the strongest of these recommen­dations is the call for the Commonwealth to issue a formal statement of apology that identifies the actions and policies that resulted in forced adoptions and that acknowledges the harm suffered by the many parents and children who suffered from forced adoptions. This is because, despite adoption coming under individual state and territory jurisdiction, the Commonwealth is the only body that can legitimately encompass the states and territories in an apology, and the report finds it cannot completely absolve itself of responsibility.

Related recommendations advise that the apology should include statements that take responsibility for the past policy choices made by institutions' leaders and staff and not be qualified by references to values or professional practice during the period in question. The report also states that this apology should be presented in a wide range of forms and be widely published. There is acknowledgment of the other apologies that have already been made, such as the apology from the Western Australian state govern­ment and a handful of other institutions, and the recommendation that other state and territory governments and non-government institutions that administered adoptions should issue formal statements of apology. The development of a national framework through the Community and Disability Services Ministers Conference to address the consequences of forced adoption is also a recommendation.

Other recommendations are about ensuring greater access to records, making these searches easier, and that any institutions that hold records have the undertaking to identify all records and make the information available. The report also recommends that the Commonwealth commission an exhibition so that the experience of those affected by forced adoption practices are documented and not forgotten.

Finally, I would like to note that there is a recommendation that the Commonwealth establish as a matter of urgency affordable and regionally available specialised professional support and counselling services to address the specific needs of those affected by forced adoption as well as the establishment of Commonwealth funded peer support groups. Due to the lack of records, we cannot accurately say the number of forced adoptions that occurred in Australia, but we can estimate that the figure is many thousands. It is made very clear in the report that the practice of forced adoption was wrong, not just by today's values, but by the values and standards of the time. This report cannot change what happened, but it can go a small way towards recognising and righting the wrongs of the past.

I would like to extend my gratitude to all those who shared their accounts with us. It is only through hearing your stories that we can properly understand and acknowledge the practice of forced adoption. It will enable all Australians to know your stories, to understand the wrongs that were carried out on young mothers and young fathers and their children and that these unethical practices shattered lives and did happen. I commend the report to the Senate. I think a fitting way for me to conclude is by using the poignant words of one of the mothers who gave evidence to the inquiry. She said, 'Last but not least, I want people to know that I loved my baby, that she was wanted, and that I am her mother.'