Open minds, not always seen, can find a link on the ABC web page.
It is about this subject and has other links, all to reliable sources.
All seeming to back the thoughts of the women here, and mine.

Firstly, Lexi, that is an email addy not a website.
Secondly, why don't you post the exact url where, QED, your point is proven? Quite simple really. However, may I impose upon you further to ensure that your references are not merely to this generic term "practices" (which may or may not pertain to government actions, it's never defined) but, instead, to overt policies legislated and carried out by government that forced adoptions upon unwilling mothers. (I've already acknowledged that welfare was not provided until 1973, a position that I acknowledge brought about adoptions, so you can spare me that one).

Furthermore, do you acknowledge that families made decisions about adoption, and generally behind closed doors? I haven't heard any concession on this from you, as if it simply didn't happen.

Suseonline, I ask again, just because I am quite interested, What right should anybody have to expect the rest of us to pick up the tab for spreading their spawn, DNA, offspring, people, (geez, I dunno, sorry Poirot if I'm hurting feelings again) into the world? I've said my piece on this but I'd really like to hear a cogent justification.

OTB: "Government was responsible for the policy that encouraged and permitted the excesses to occur. Government was also responsible for the social problem attributable to the lack of support for unplanned pregnancies." Encouraged? This is not supported by legislation of the day. Government did not see its role then as the surrogate breadwinner it is today. Many "social problems" we have today as a result of this change makes issues surrounding adoption comparatively insignificant, IMO.

Luciferase,

The formal legislation is only part of it. Heads of government agencies have the delegation to interpret legislation and frame policy and processes to implement. Ministers are kept informed.

It has always been the expectation of government that its policies are interpreted in line with its ideology. The is the whole messy business of the public service being required to be 'responsive' to the government of the day. It has resulted in incoming governments in recent times going much further than the Westminster model and appointing senior public servants of choice (who then appoint their own in turn). That is moving towards the US 'Spoils System'.

As you say, the (Menzies) government of the day did not see itself supporting unmarried mothers. Its decisions were deliberate. It is apparent from the strong message of the women's magazines of the day and from the lack of complaints at the time that Australian women agreed with the policies (as women voters also strongly agreed with sending young men who couldn't vote to Vietnam). The brutal honesty is that it was policy framed on the morality of women and very largely enacted by women.

I take it you are not denying the evidence that the parliamentary committee had before it and its assessment of that evidence.

That parents mainly women suffered as a result of the misled policies is clear. All children would have suffered to an extent through loss of medical history. Some claim emotional loss as well. That there were victims is agreed and to my knowledge no politician has raised objection. Many years of operation of the policies would indicate that government was made fully aware of the distress it caused, and the moral and ethical problems.

How far harm and poverty should go before government acts is ultimately decided by the electorate. That goes some way to explaining why the Whitlam government was eventually elected.

You disagree that government is morally bound to act to support the poor. You disagree with child support under any conditions. Others disagree with you.

Onthebeach, you do go on.

In my experience, in the day, it was not only those less well to do girls who could not keep their nickers on. In the day when breeding was not a career choice, girls getting pregnant accidentally, rather than by choice was the norm.

Accidents were spread through out society, & in fact it was the more privileged families who were more likely to be appalled, & kick the offending girl out. It happened to a number of acquaintances who were definitely not of any underprivileged class.

No one has a right to decide to go on welfare. Top overcome this problem today we should seriously consider a choice of adoption, or you are on your own.

This should include the father if this is known, & proven.

I suppose this is academic. If the boat people are allowed to continue to flood the country, the country will inevitably become Muslim, & we all know what will happen then to unwed mothers.

OTB:"I take it you are not denying the evidence that the parliamentary committee had before it and its assessment of that evidence."

I'm not saying the evidence is wrong, there was clearly suffering. The conclusion was essentially that government could have done more but didn't, such as paying welfare to unwed mothers, not that it "forced" adoptions through legislation. I disagree with apologizing for what the committee perceived to be past wrong-doings because I do not think they were wrong. Any apology should be made within the families in which the forcing took place rather than laying the blame at the feet of my parents and grand-parents, which is what has been done by a parliamentary apology.

"You disagree that government is morally bound to act to support the poor." Incorrect, you made that up.

"You disagree with child support under any conditions." Incorrect with respect to widows and deserted mothers of under 18 children who were responsible in their reproductive intentions i.e. to raise children in a family capable of supporting their needs.

"Others disagree with you." Correct.

My parents and grandparents were not wrong, IMO, yet we will be compensating thousands on the basis that they were, just wait and see.

Luciferase "Suseonline, I ask again, just because I am quite interested, What right should anybody have to expect the rest of us to pick up the tab for spreading their spawn, DNA, offspring, people..."

You may 'spread spawn' Luciferase, but the average human makes love and may have children as a result.

Australia is rich enough and has many good people who don't want to see children suffer as a result of their parent's decisions.

So if a child's parent(s) is unwilling or unable, for whatever reason, to work enough to provide enough food and shelter for them, then the Government will step in and provide enough for the basics at least.

The average intelligent Australian knows we have to at least try to do our best for innocent children who would otherwise be in dire straights without help.

I don't believe parents should get paid to sit on their behinds forever, but some of these people are just beyond help at times, so their kids shouldn't have to suffer.
And no, we shouldn't punish the kids by dragging them away from their parents and adopting them out... That is inhumane.

If we say that all people, including parents, should work if they are able, then we should also have all our elderly working until they are physically unable to as well.
Thay's only fair isn't it?