Page 5113 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
prior to her death and it gave her great joy. Her funeral is in Brisbane next Thursday and I would very much like to include some aspects of the apology at her funeral.
Enough time has passed now that many women who are affected by the forcible removal of their children are nearing the end of their lives, and this only adds to the need to act promptly so that our actions may be seen and heard by them, and hopefully they may have some of their pain eased by our efforts.
There is a significant concern by some of those affected by this that an apology without a proper inquiry and community understanding of what happened is not the right way to go. I agree that there does need to be a proper understanding of what happened to these mothers. As I said, today is the first step, and I hope that the Assembly will give its support for a national inquiry and subsequent apology.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child, in article 5, provides:
States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents …
Article 9 provides:
States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child.
It is important to note that what occurred was illegal. It was not in accordance with the law of the day. Justice Chisholm of the Family Court described it as effectively “kidnapping” in his evidence to the New South Wales inquiry into the issue. He made the point of explicitly stating that it was not in accordance with the law and that the practice did breach international laws of the time as well as the laws of Australia.
There are reports that not only were young mothers given drugs to sedate or coerce them into signing forms to relinquish their babies, but also that some were tied to beds during the delivery to ensure that they did not try and escape with their baby, and that young mums were only released from the hospital after having signed the required adoption forms.
It was commonplace for screens or barriers to be erected so that the women could not see or touch their babies before they were taken away. As a mother myself, I do not think I can imagine anything more horrific than the thought of never being able to touch my children, of always wondering what had happened to them. The anguish of being subject to such cruelty, powerless to do anything to get them back, I imagine would be almost unbearable.
On a more positive note, the motion also recognises that it is Children’s Week. In fact, today is the day that Australia recognises Universal Children’s Day. I felt that it was appropriate to recognise this in the context of what is a motion on recognising the harms done to children both as parents and as adoptees because it does show that we have changed as a society, and we recognise the role children play, the rights of children, and in fact have a very positive alternative to the practices of the past.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video