PAST ADOPTION PRACTICES
19/07/2012
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.
