Thanks, Rhrosty, for letting the light of reality into this discussion. My own childhood was secure and privileged, but that is no excuse for brushing aside the experiences of countless others with mealy-mouthed excuses about different times, different public perceptions. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Rhrosty’s final paragraph is a dire warning put in another way by Harry Truman – (paraphrased): “When a finger appears under the door jump on it, or it will be followed by a hand and an arm and reach for your throat.”. We have seen a probing finger in this article and in some of the responses to it.

thank you for a politically incorrect but very realistic article
The reality was that single mothers then were vulnerable and marginalised
This was the best solution under the conditions of the time and was generally made with the best intentions
The issue that should now be raised is whether , because of these past "mistakes" , this will inhibit the people now in charge making any decision at all , for fear of being critised and held to account in the future

peasant... disagree with your 'reality'
single mothers back then were definitely 'vulnerable' ... but

marginalised ??
"(tr) to relegate to the fringes, out of the mainstream; make seem unimportant"

That doesn't go near to explaining the trauma experienced and abuse of human rights and life long pain of each mother and child ...

Nobody is served by minimising the pain of others.

The Government have never and will never perfect their job/responsibilities, they will always (seemingly) do the best they can at any given time, make improvements... accountability is essential.

It's just an apology... it clearly made a difference to them... and may there be many more!

thanks Brendon for some balanced perspective. No doubt Conroy would want you shut up and the ABC allowed to continue to sprout its dogmas and propaganda.

An apology to those who had their children taken from them without their consent is not ipso facto a condemnation of adoption as a policy.

The apology was about forced adoptions and I think we would be a pretty callous society if we did not acknowledge some of the tactics used to separate mother and child using what were, in some instances, highly illegal processes. Not to mention highly unethical and against any semblance of what might constitute human rights.

In effect it was the State, or delegates of the State, that took it upon themselves to make these decisions on behalf of others when they had no right.

The Catholic Church haven't yet apologised for the baby farming and the failure of the guardian ad Litums appointed by the courts for their role in the abductions of newborns from the 'legal status' of mother upon the child. Catholic health in the mainland/Newcastle dioceses certainly apologised for the practise as they were the administrators of such hospitals in that dioceses, but not outside that dioceses. Under the 1958 Adoption of children Act in Victoria, the parish priest appointed by the courts failed to act under rules 19-21, and as such false affidavits were sworn to the courts.
I was born under the Victorian 'removal policy' written in 1960 by the superintendent of the RWH and delivered by him under the influence of LSD that both my mother and I were subjected to in the birthing suite. The effects were lifelong with the mothers milk poisoned by LSD and in turn if the child was to go out to the mother, the child was a risk of death by gangrene. The effects of LSD in eutro knocked both mother and unborn child into a comatosed state where the child required a forceps delivery and aspiration to I've life. The child received kidney damage as a result and the pension entitlement were paid to the hospital, not to the mother.. My mother passed away due to cancer some 25 years ago, and the same fate awaits me with a cancer diagnosis from 25 years ago.