"I am pleased to advise the Adoption Act 2009 was passed by the Parliament on 18 August 2009. The new law will come into effect on 1 February 2010.
The passage of the Adoption Act 2009 heralds the most significant reform to Queensland's adoption law in over 45 years. As Minister for Child Safety, I am honoured to have been given the responsibility of leading the debate and passage of this historic legislation through the Parliament on behalf of the Government.
The Adoption Act 2009 is available for download free of charge from the Queensland Legislation website (www.legislation.qld.gov.au under 'Acts as passed for 2009) and printed copies can be purchased from the Queensland Government Bookshop (www.bookshop.qld.gov.au).
A team is in place to undertake the range of activities that are required to prepare for the delivery of adoption services under the new law. The Adoption Reform Implementation Team is working closely with Adoption Services Queensland to develop the new policies and practice that will support service delivery under the new law.
Now that the Adoption Act 2009 has been enacted, the reform team's priority is to develop information and resources about the changes to the law and how they affect various client groups and other people with an interest in adoption. This information will be distributed through a range of communication activities to ensure as many people as possible are aware of the changes and how they will be affected.
The best source of information about the key areas of change introduced by the Adoption Act 2009 is the department's website (www.childsaftey.qld.gov.au), which will continue to be updated with new information leading up to the Act's commencement on 1 February 2010.
_____
You can also contact the Adoption Reform Implementation Team for information or confidential advice on how the law might affect you. The team's contact details are listed at the end of this letter. Until the new law takes affect in 2010, adoption services will continue to be delivered in line with the Adoption of Children Act 1964.
Yours sincerely,
Phil Reeves MP
Minister for Child Safety
and Minister for Sport
Minister for Mansfield
Contact the Adoption Reform Implementation Team
Postal address:
GPO Box 806 Brisbane, Qld 4000
Phone:
1800 811 810 (Qld only)
(07) 3224 8045
Phone (TTY):
(07) 3012 8655
Fax:
(07) 3235 9422
Email:
adoptionreform@childsafety.qld.gov.au"
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Our next Meeting on the 31st October 2009
Our next meeting will be a south side meeting.
New ladies welcome.
Thanks to all who attended our last north side meeting.
For details,
Contact: Trish Mob;0417 077 159 or
Marg Mob;0402 336 480
New ladies welcome.
Thanks to all who attended our last north side meeting.
For details,
Contact: Trish Mob;0417 077 159 or
Marg Mob;0402 336 480
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
My letter to Anglician Church
As you see I have requested that my letter be removed from this blog.
To all that commented on my personal letter, thank you.
For all others, shame on you!
If the comments had been on my letter I would not have had them removed.
You have forced me, as a mother to return to the dark times, Silence and Isolation!
It took me a long time to decide to put my very personal letter on this blog.
Keep up the good work fighting, you will achieve NOTHING.
Margaret Hamilton
To all that commented on my personal letter, thank you.
For all others, shame on you!
If the comments had been on my letter I would not have had them removed.
You have forced me, as a mother to return to the dark times, Silence and Isolation!
It took me a long time to decide to put my very personal letter on this blog.
Keep up the good work fighting, you will achieve NOTHING.
Margaret Hamilton
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Language as part of the Rehabilitation Process
Many years ago, if anyone asked me how I was, I would invariably say,"not too bad." I was not complaining about my lot in life, but I was not propelling my state of being into a positive realm.By answering in the negative, I was sabotaging my own existance, which had already been sabotaged by many negative categories, or the "nons-uns-and ins-, as I came to regard them.
In 1963, the Australian culture enabled itself to take my newborn baby by treating me as non-human. By labeling me as unchaste the N.S.W.Government made laws to "protect"my baby from being mothered by his own mother. By categorising me as unfit because I was unmarried,and uncaring for the well being of my baby if I wanted to keep him, a whole scenario came into play that enabled the Church and the State to treat me in an inhuman manner. I was deemed insensitive to the needs of childless couples and inconsiderate of the needs of those who wanted my baby. I was regarded as ungrateful by a Matron who's paperwork I would mess up by my desire to have my child.
I never recovered from that year. To be on the wrong side of the dominant cultural "ethic" is a totally isolating experience. My personal balance sheet was in the red, with not much hope of getting back to breaking even.
In 1965 I enrolled in English 1 at the Queensland University. Nothing meritorious about my progress, as how well can you do in quantitative terms wile struggling with undiagnosed P.T.S.D.
But in qualitative terms, I had begun to look at the power of the English language, and the psychologically disabling effect of the "negative spin". I determined to intercept my existence in positive terms from then on. My state of being went from "not so bad"to "fine," "great" "terrific".
In the late 1970's the term "birth mother"emerged from the American lexicon. I was horrified, determined that the term must have been devised so that someone else could claim the term "mother." The shift had been accomplished- from mother and adoptive mother, it had become "birth mother"and "mother."
The old labeling switcheroo had returned.
I refused to accept the label "birth mother,"with its connotations of baby farms; it clearly defined temporal role in my child's life, its implications of sheer physicality and nothing more; and its put-down element of servicing the needs of the infertile.I was not, and never would be, a service provider for the infertile.
Initially my complaints about the term were ignored. Again I found myself out of step with the dominant social terminology. In 1979 my world started spinning. I did not stop spinning for 4 years.I determined that only when mothers began to fight back would we be able to assert ourselves and our rights to a decent place of dignity and respect within our culture. We simply had to "come out"- whether it be in our families, our neighbourhood and clubs, so that we could find each other.
AND WE DID!
Even from the start, the path wasn't going to be without its boulders. And some boulders were other mothers. I had heard time and again,
"Wouldn't you think they could all work together without all that undercurrent? "
But when an entire culture traumatise a class of it's citizens, it is very difficult for those citizens to regain trust in anything, let alone their fellow "traumatees." The culture that engages originally in name calling to extract the mother's babies with force and acrimony spawned a sub-class of traumatees who engaged in the name calling at other mothers. Counselling alone does not assist a mother back to "normal life."For a start, she must be able to complete the birthing process. When it is not possible for this to happen, you have a disenfranchised mother fixed at the point of psychological development at the age when she gave birth to her stolen child The resulting damage to that mother, her family, her friendships, her work relationships, is like the ripples of a stone tossed into a pond-concentric and ever widening, until it encompasses the entire surface of the water.
" I CHOOSE TO BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE "WHITE STOLEN GENERATION."
"White" in inverted commas. "White"does not determine colour in this sense; in fact white is total absence of colour. I simply refuse to be called "non-indigenous.""Non-indigenous" is a term devised by others. It is a non-term, which I won't subscribe to. It encompasses negative nomenclature. If I am to stay positive about myself, my life, my well being, I cannot go back to being a "non-anything."
Australia is my place of birth. I am a native Australian. As Tjanara Goreng Goreng says, I, as a native born Australian, am protected by the Rainbow Serpent. The Rainbow Serpent protects ALL those born in this land, without exception. The Rainbow Serpent does not enquire the colour of my skin- by virtual fact that I came into being in this land, guarantees the lessons and obligations must face, as well as the guarantees and deligations of others born here.
When quizzed on the exact nature of Kevin Rudd's apology to the indigenous stolen generations, the indigenous liason officer from Jenny Macklin's office stated that all indigenous people, whether adopted of fostered, were apologised to, whether separation from their family occurred before or after the Protection Board existence. The apology was not intended to include any other class of people. So if a white mother and an indigenous father had a child taken, the child and the father were apologised to. The white mother was not.
The indigenous mothers who had their babies taken after 1969, that is after the Protection Board Acts were extinguished, were taken under the Welfare Act,under which the white women lost their babies. The indigenous women and their babies were separated by the same concent takers who took the white women's babies, from the same hospitals. The indigenous women were apologised to, the white women were not.
In fact, women of any colour or nationality who lost their babies- Greek, Russian, Vietnamese, Philipino, mixed race ( non indigenous) were not apologised to.
I could have used the word "other." It is slowly creeping into the Australian lexicon to mean any other race besides indigenous.
But Kevin Rudd's apology to the Stolen Generation was based on race and ancestry. You will have to verify this by contacting his office yourselves.
Quite simply, the indigenous stolen generation were apologised to, all others were not. I am glad the indigenous mothers and children received an apology, as I know personally the liberating effect an apology from a perpetrator can have on the psyche of the aggrieved person.
We were not apologised to because of the colour of our skin. Most of us who lost our babies were native born Australians. So what should we be called? Ourselves? Others? No thank you. I was not apologised to by Kevin Rudd because I had no aboriginal blood in my ancestry. Kevin Rudd and his office made the distinction. I have no concerns about that.
I simply choose to call myself, "white" instead of " non-indigenous,"or "other."All others are included in the "White Stolen Generation." Those who would not permit me to call myself "white" IN THIS CONTEXT, are themselves engaging in inverse racism.
In a nutshell, all those without any aboriginal ancestry, were not apologised to. And so the Apology Alliance emerged- an inclusive group of all who were not apologised to by the Prime Minister, and who were prepared to work towards receiving an apology.
The Declaration of Profound Loss united us on 21st. November 2008. To us, Adoption Awareness Week was another wound we had to deal with. No cause for celebration, but an experience of renewed grief and loss, of pain and suffering- it was like having to deal with Two Mother's Days a year instead of one.
Some of our mother's are in their seventies and eighties. They need an apology NOW. They need acknowledgement that what they experienced were DARK DAYS in the history of the Australian Nation. In Geoff Rickarby's term, Australia experienced a "blip"in its psychological development.
The practice of systematic child theft must never happen again. Implicit in an apology is an assurance that the culture and our laws will be vigilant in the protection of the mother-child bond now, and in the future.
Our country needs a Senate Inquiry into the nature of child theft, its extent, and an ultimate call to accountability of those who engaged in the process. We do not want a watered down affair like the N.S.W. Inquiry that had many recommendations but has so far achieved a grant for a book of mother's stories, (Releasing the Past) and a grant for post adoption assistance.
We need an Inquiry that gives a forum to the accounts of victims.
PERPETRATORS MUST NOT BE GIVEN A VOICE THIS TIME!
OUR NATION MUST CONFRONT, IN A SPIRIT OF ATONEMENT, WHAT IT DID TO ALMOST TWO GENERATIONS OF ITS DAUGHTERS,WHO WEREN'T INDIGENOUS, BUT WERE 'WHITE'. THE 47,000 INDIGENOUS CHILDREN TAKEN,HAVE BEEN APOLOGISED TO.
the 180,000 "WHITE" BABIES TAKEN, ARE STILL WAITING FOR THEIR APOLOGY.
Jan Kashin
7th October 2009
In 1963, the Australian culture enabled itself to take my newborn baby by treating me as non-human. By labeling me as unchaste the N.S.W.Government made laws to "protect"my baby from being mothered by his own mother. By categorising me as unfit because I was unmarried,and uncaring for the well being of my baby if I wanted to keep him, a whole scenario came into play that enabled the Church and the State to treat me in an inhuman manner. I was deemed insensitive to the needs of childless couples and inconsiderate of the needs of those who wanted my baby. I was regarded as ungrateful by a Matron who's paperwork I would mess up by my desire to have my child.
I never recovered from that year. To be on the wrong side of the dominant cultural "ethic" is a totally isolating experience. My personal balance sheet was in the red, with not much hope of getting back to breaking even.
In 1965 I enrolled in English 1 at the Queensland University. Nothing meritorious about my progress, as how well can you do in quantitative terms wile struggling with undiagnosed P.T.S.D.
But in qualitative terms, I had begun to look at the power of the English language, and the psychologically disabling effect of the "negative spin". I determined to intercept my existence in positive terms from then on. My state of being went from "not so bad"to "fine," "great" "terrific".
In the late 1970's the term "birth mother"emerged from the American lexicon. I was horrified, determined that the term must have been devised so that someone else could claim the term "mother." The shift had been accomplished- from mother and adoptive mother, it had become "birth mother"and "mother."
The old labeling switcheroo had returned.
I refused to accept the label "birth mother,"with its connotations of baby farms; it clearly defined temporal role in my child's life, its implications of sheer physicality and nothing more; and its put-down element of servicing the needs of the infertile.I was not, and never would be, a service provider for the infertile.
Initially my complaints about the term were ignored. Again I found myself out of step with the dominant social terminology. In 1979 my world started spinning. I did not stop spinning for 4 years.I determined that only when mothers began to fight back would we be able to assert ourselves and our rights to a decent place of dignity and respect within our culture. We simply had to "come out"- whether it be in our families, our neighbourhood and clubs, so that we could find each other.
AND WE DID!
Even from the start, the path wasn't going to be without its boulders. And some boulders were other mothers. I had heard time and again,
"Wouldn't you think they could all work together without all that undercurrent? "
But when an entire culture traumatise a class of it's citizens, it is very difficult for those citizens to regain trust in anything, let alone their fellow "traumatees." The culture that engages originally in name calling to extract the mother's babies with force and acrimony spawned a sub-class of traumatees who engaged in the name calling at other mothers. Counselling alone does not assist a mother back to "normal life."For a start, she must be able to complete the birthing process. When it is not possible for this to happen, you have a disenfranchised mother fixed at the point of psychological development at the age when she gave birth to her stolen child The resulting damage to that mother, her family, her friendships, her work relationships, is like the ripples of a stone tossed into a pond-concentric and ever widening, until it encompasses the entire surface of the water.
" I CHOOSE TO BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE "WHITE STOLEN GENERATION."
"White" in inverted commas. "White"does not determine colour in this sense; in fact white is total absence of colour. I simply refuse to be called "non-indigenous.""Non-indigenous" is a term devised by others. It is a non-term, which I won't subscribe to. It encompasses negative nomenclature. If I am to stay positive about myself, my life, my well being, I cannot go back to being a "non-anything."
Australia is my place of birth. I am a native Australian. As Tjanara Goreng Goreng says, I, as a native born Australian, am protected by the Rainbow Serpent. The Rainbow Serpent protects ALL those born in this land, without exception. The Rainbow Serpent does not enquire the colour of my skin- by virtual fact that I came into being in this land, guarantees the lessons and obligations must face, as well as the guarantees and deligations of others born here.
When quizzed on the exact nature of Kevin Rudd's apology to the indigenous stolen generations, the indigenous liason officer from Jenny Macklin's office stated that all indigenous people, whether adopted of fostered, were apologised to, whether separation from their family occurred before or after the Protection Board existence. The apology was not intended to include any other class of people. So if a white mother and an indigenous father had a child taken, the child and the father were apologised to. The white mother was not.
The indigenous mothers who had their babies taken after 1969, that is after the Protection Board Acts were extinguished, were taken under the Welfare Act,under which the white women lost their babies. The indigenous women and their babies were separated by the same concent takers who took the white women's babies, from the same hospitals. The indigenous women were apologised to, the white women were not.
In fact, women of any colour or nationality who lost their babies- Greek, Russian, Vietnamese, Philipino, mixed race ( non indigenous) were not apologised to.
I could have used the word "other." It is slowly creeping into the Australian lexicon to mean any other race besides indigenous.
But Kevin Rudd's apology to the Stolen Generation was based on race and ancestry. You will have to verify this by contacting his office yourselves.
Quite simply, the indigenous stolen generation were apologised to, all others were not. I am glad the indigenous mothers and children received an apology, as I know personally the liberating effect an apology from a perpetrator can have on the psyche of the aggrieved person.
We were not apologised to because of the colour of our skin. Most of us who lost our babies were native born Australians. So what should we be called? Ourselves? Others? No thank you. I was not apologised to by Kevin Rudd because I had no aboriginal blood in my ancestry. Kevin Rudd and his office made the distinction. I have no concerns about that.
I simply choose to call myself, "white" instead of " non-indigenous,"or "other."All others are included in the "White Stolen Generation." Those who would not permit me to call myself "white" IN THIS CONTEXT, are themselves engaging in inverse racism.
In a nutshell, all those without any aboriginal ancestry, were not apologised to. And so the Apology Alliance emerged- an inclusive group of all who were not apologised to by the Prime Minister, and who were prepared to work towards receiving an apology.
The Declaration of Profound Loss united us on 21st. November 2008. To us, Adoption Awareness Week was another wound we had to deal with. No cause for celebration, but an experience of renewed grief and loss, of pain and suffering- it was like having to deal with Two Mother's Days a year instead of one.
Some of our mother's are in their seventies and eighties. They need an apology NOW. They need acknowledgement that what they experienced were DARK DAYS in the history of the Australian Nation. In Geoff Rickarby's term, Australia experienced a "blip"in its psychological development.
The practice of systematic child theft must never happen again. Implicit in an apology is an assurance that the culture and our laws will be vigilant in the protection of the mother-child bond now, and in the future.
Our country needs a Senate Inquiry into the nature of child theft, its extent, and an ultimate call to accountability of those who engaged in the process. We do not want a watered down affair like the N.S.W. Inquiry that had many recommendations but has so far achieved a grant for a book of mother's stories, (Releasing the Past) and a grant for post adoption assistance.
We need an Inquiry that gives a forum to the accounts of victims.
PERPETRATORS MUST NOT BE GIVEN A VOICE THIS TIME!
OUR NATION MUST CONFRONT, IN A SPIRIT OF ATONEMENT, WHAT IT DID TO ALMOST TWO GENERATIONS OF ITS DAUGHTERS,WHO WEREN'T INDIGENOUS, BUT WERE 'WHITE'. THE 47,000 INDIGENOUS CHILDREN TAKEN,HAVE BEEN APOLOGISED TO.
the 180,000 "WHITE" BABIES TAKEN, ARE STILL WAITING FOR THEIR APOLOGY.
Jan Kashin
7th October 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Apology from Anglican Church of Australia
The apology reads:
Dear Mrs Hamilton
Thank you for your letter of 12th September 2009 regarding your experiences in St. Mary's Home in Toowong.
I apologise for the delay in replying to your letter.
I was most concerned when I read of your distressing experiences in St. Mary's in 1966 and the sad separation from your baby as he was taken for adoption. As you have so poignantly written, the effects of that separation are still with you and your son even after so many years. These effects may perhaps be only slightly lessened by your knowledge that he is alive and safe.
It is concerning now to be made aware of actions taken in the past which- while often taken with the best of current knowledge at the time- have now caused so much distress and hurt to those persons directly involved.
I sincerely apologise to you for the hurt and distress caused to you by past actions of the Church and those persons employed by the Church at St. Mary's. On behalf of the church, I would like to offer you pastoral support and counselling. If you consider this may be helpful, please contact Mr Rod McLary- Director of Professional Standards- on 3835 2266. Mr McLary will then make the necessary arrangements with you.
I trust that you may be able to commence your journey towards healing as you address the effects of the adoption of your son.
Yours faithfully,
The Most Revd Dr Phillip Aspinall
Archbishop of Brisbane
Margaret Hamilton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)