Interview with Mr Pat Rogan, MP (ret), who spearheaded the campaign along with Dr. Christine Cole and the mothers she represented, many who had worked hard over decades, to gain an Inquiry into Past Practices in Adoption. Mr Rogan referred to this as the Stolen Babies Scandal

Interview with Dr. Geoff Rickarby- exposing the kidnapping and trafficking of Australian unwed mothers’ newborns under the guise of adoption

Black and White Babies Stolen under Same Legislation and Policy

Full blooded Aboriginals were expected to ‘die out’ and therefore were not targeted for assimilation policies (Manne: 1999, cited in SMH: 1999, 4s, Spectrum, Feb 27,  p. 27).  Manne also states from the time the Commonwealth took over management of the Northern Territory from South Australia, the rounding up of the ‘half-castes’ began.  Manne states: “The policy appears to have been the brain child of the first Commonwealth Chief Protector of Aborigines, Dr. Herbert Basedow”.  A Commonwealth policy carried out and enforced by State authorities.  He also states that at the heart of so called ‘child rescuing’ was “an astonishing indifference to two fundamental human needs – the bond of the child to its mother and the rootedness of individual identity in a culture”.  Murdoch[1]  stated that is exactly what the British reformers failed to acknowledge: the suffering they inflicted on poor parents and single mothers when they took their children away, many thousands sent overseas, losing not only their families, but cultural identity.[2]  The same could be said about those who failed to acknowledge the acute suffering and trauma they inflicted on single mothers in taking their newborns away at birth or soon after, in 20^th century Australia[3] (Cunningham: 1996, p. 21; Mather: 1978, p.109; Harper[4]: 1978, p. 112; Rickarby: 1998, pp. 68-69; Roberts[5]: 1973, p. 97).

The Aboriginal Board did not have the power to remove Aboriginal children from their families (Trevorow v State of South Australia: 2007).  All ‘part- Aboriginal’ mothers or white mothers’ with Aboriginal children were treated in the same manner within hospitals and mother and baby Homes.  Ms Wendy Hermeston states:  “The ways of removal graduated over time.  They went from covert to overt … pressure was placed on women … the pillow held up  … the mother not being able to see the child to cut off those emotional bonds … it graduated over time, the actual forced removal where superintendents police or the mission manger went into the missions and removed children … [adoptions] came into play over the 1950s and 1960s … welfare workers, doctors, anybody within the system, basically is the same. Aboriginal women were dealing with the same workers that non-Aboriginal women were dealing with … we’re talking about adoption … so the same people non-Aboriginal people dealt with in the system… I definitely consider it unethical …Yes, I do think it was illegal (Report 22: 2000, pp. 228-229). 

The newborns were removed ostensibly under either Child Welfare or Adoption Acts, and Indigenous mothers like their white counterparts were forced to sign consents.  Fortunately their plight has been recognized and they have been apologised to, they make up 17% of the Aboriginal stolen generation (Cheater: 2009, p. 178)[6]. 

According to Cameron Raynes, when researching archival material for his PhD, in South Australia, he came across correspondence of William Penhall, the last Chief Protector of Aborigines in South Australia (1939-1953).  According to Raynes (2005) Penhall colluded with authorities at Umeewarra, Koonibba and Gerard missions, and with the Colebrook Home, to systematically deny Aboriginal parents the right to raise their own children.  In 1951, Penhall wrote: “The Aborigines Protection Board has NO power or authority to remove children from their mothers, and in fact has never done so.  Whenever children of aboriginal descent in South Australia are neglected or ill-treated, action is always taken by the Children’s Welfare Department in the same way as that department deals with neglected white children.  A number of children are placed in special institutions by the Board for training, but this is only done with the consent of the parents”. 

Raynes stated: “Under the Aborigines Act 1939, the Aborigine Protection Board (APB) of which Penhall was secretary, was the legal guardian of all Aboriginal children under 21.  Specific provisions of the Act related to the custody of Aboriginal children under which the board could arrange for the direct transfer of control for a child from its guardianship to the Children’s Welfare and Public Relief Board (CWPRB).  Alternatively, the APB could refer a case to the CWPRB, to use its general procedure – as used for the white population – to commit a child to an institution against the wishes of its parents … Penhall asked for advice from the Crown Solicitor (1949) as to whether he could use parts of the Act, other than that allowing a transfer of control from his Board to the CWPRB to remove Aboriginal children form their parents.  Hannan, the Crown Solicitor, suggested that certain sections in the Act could be used in tandem to confine any Aboriginal child or otherwise to a reserve or Aboriginal institution.  But he added: ‘I do not think the Board has any powers in the matter’”.

In fact removing children constituted a violation of his Board’s role.   Under section 7(g) of the Act, the Board had a duty ‘to exercise a general supervision and care over all matters affecting the welfare of the aborigines, and to protect them against injustice, imposition and fraud’.   “It is clear that the Koonibba Mission and UAM (United Aborigines Mission) benefited financially from their illegal holding of Aboriginal children”.  The Homes received a departmental subsidy and child endowment for each child in their home. Additionally the UAM kept 80% of the wages of their inmates when they were sent out to work. The justification used for illegally taking Aboriginal children from their mothers, Penhall, a Methodist preacher explained, “this method of dealing with the aboriginal race offers the best prospect of success. So long as the children continue to grow up in the old environment there won’t be any radical change in the character of the people.”  Penhall like his colleagues in the CWPRB never admitted their part in stealing children, either black or white. This according to Raynes: “effectively quarantined the SA public from this aspect of the public service” (Raynes: 2006, The Adelaide Review, March 18, pp. 8-9).

There are many parallels between White Australian mothers who had their baby stolen for adoption and Indigenous mothers.

To quote Sir Charles McKellar white and Aboriginal mothers were considered part of the same sub-group: “racially inferior whites”.[i]  Therefore deemed ‘unfit’ to rear their infants.  When discussing the Infant Mortality Bill (Later the Infant Mortality Act (NSW) 1904), Mackellar discussed the high mortality rate of ‘illegitimately’ born infants and blamed it on the neglect of their mothers.  He proclaimed: “The Bill aims at placing the State Children Relief Board in loco parentis to any mother who bears an illegitimate child”[ii].  The way Australia solved the problem of this “inferior” class was to remove their children and assimilate them amongst the ‘industrious’ classes’,[iii] or as the government perceived it: a ‘class above their own’.[iv]    

According to Shurlee Swain, Indigenous adoptees have been marginalized both in the story of the Stolen Generations and in the history of adoption in Australia.[v]  Adults who had been adopted as children made up 35.5% of the witnesses who gave evidence before the Bringing Them Home Inquiry.[vi] Christine Cheater states that nearly 17% of the stolen generation were adopted and that adoption “exemplifies the worst excesses of the forced separation of Aboriginal children from their families…to this very day [many] may not be aware of their Aboriginal identity.[vii]  Link-up, the Aboriginal organisation used to facilitate reunions estimates there is “100,000 Australians unaware of the their Indigeneity because they are the descendants of children removed and brought up in the non-Indigenous community.”[viii] 

A social worker I interviewed for my research stated that she had never got over the guilt of having to ‘railroad’ a Indigenous mother of 24 into adoption, when she trained at Crown St Women’s Hospital. She was told during her training that she had to shame mothers into feeling disentitled to their babies, because it was better for the babies if they were adopted.  It was not about what the mothers wanted.  It was not whether the mother was Indigenous or not, it was because the mother was unwed. It was the practice in the hospital to systematically remove the babies from single mothers if they were without support. 

Prime Minister Rudd repeated in his apology the need for practices such as the forced removal of children from their families never to be repeated again, but if he demarcates the practice by race and does not acknowledge that it also happened to non-Indigenous mothers and if he does not take into consideration the fact that any group that is marginalised and dehumanised can be exploited by those more powerful who need something they have, then the barbaric practices of the past will be repeated.  The people who worked within the adoption industry did not remove babies based on race, they took them because there was a demand by infertile couples to be provided with babies.  And the removal of the babies was justified because unwed mothers, as a group, were dehumanised and infertile couples, who were in the more powerful position, were deemed more worthy to parent their babies.   The system got away with its barbaric practices for decades because it was not subject to any accountability and there was no transparency and the removal of babies satisfied a demand. Mothers had their babies taken by coercive means up until at least 1982 – when the Health Commission sent around a circular informing medical and social work staff that they were breaking the law by not allowing mothers their right to access their infants.  And mothers themselves were silenced because those in more powerful positions told us that we should go home and forget about what happened, then when we continued to grieve for our stolen children we were ridiculed and then later dismissed by those in authority who now state:  “Oh, white mothers had a choice. They ‘chose adoption”. 

I believe the matter of whether or not Indigenous mothers who went through the same experience as non-Indigenous mothers, whilst subject to the same laws and practices within the hospital were apologised to is a very important political point.   Therefore I emailed the Minister for Indigenous Affairs: Jenny Macklin and Link- Up on Monday, 11 February, to gain clarification on this point.  I wrote:

“Hi Ms Macklin,

I would like to know whether the apology this Wednesday is inclusive of Indigenous mothers who had their babies forcibly taken from them in hospitals immediately after birth and who were required to sign ‘consent to adopt’ forms before being allowed to leave hospital?  Is the apology inclusive of Indigenous children forcibly taken from their non-Indigenous mothers at birth?  Ms Wendy Hermeston, former worker with Link-Up, gave evidence at the NSW Upper House Inquiry into Past Adoption Practices, described how mothers had pillows or sheets placed in front of them so they could not see their babies at the birth and of the other coercive practices used to deprive these mothers of their babies.  And how when some of these mothers tried to revoke their coerced consent within the 30 day period they were told their baby had died, only to have their adult child find them years later.

In 1969 the NSW Aborigines Act abolished the Aboriginal Welfare board and repealed the Aboriginal Protection Acts and Indigenous mothers were subject to the same relevant Child Welfare Acts as non-Indigenous mothers”.[ix] 

Kind regards

Christine Cole

So far I have not received a response.  I did however ring Ms Macklin’s office on the 14 February,  and was told by the person who was in charge of fielding questions relating to the apology, Mary-Ellen, that:

“Indigenous mothers who had their babies taken from hospitals, after 1969, would be included in the apology”. 

Excerpts from the 1997 Bringing Them Home Report

The 1940 Act did not give the new Board the same administrative removal powers. To remove a child the Board now had to proceed under the Child Welfare Act 1939 and establish to the satisfaction of a Children’s Court that the child was `neglected’ or `uncontrollable’.[7]

In theory at least the court process in the Child Welfare Act 1939 provided safeguards against the kinds of discretionary separations that the Board had previously engaged in.[8]

From 1943 Aboriginal children deemed `uncontrollable’ by the Children’s Court became the responsibility of the Child Welfare Department. They were usually sent to a State Corrective Institution such as Parramatta Girls’ Home or Mt Penang.

During the 1940s and 1950s the Aborigines’ Welfare Board and the Child Welfare Department worked closely together to place Indigenous children.

The powers of the NSW Board differed from those in some other States in that it never had guardianship of Indigenous children and therefore could not consent to the adoption of one of its wards. However the Adoption of Children Act 1965 allowed for the consent requirement to be waived if `that person is, in the opinion of the Court, unfit to discharge the obligations of a parent or guardian by reason of his having abandoned, deserted, neglected or ill-treated the child’. Rather than endeavour to contact the mother of a child whose foster parents wanted to adopt him or her, the Board applied to the Children’s Court to waive the consent requirement.[9]

Most of us went to Crown St. Hospital. That’s where my son was born, and then we went back to the hostel with the baby. Once we were there, we had the Welfare coming in, asking you what you was going to do – telling you most of the time that your parents didn’t want you, the father of the baby didn’t want you … they said to me they couldn’t find anyone that wanted me, and they couldn’t find anywhere for me, like a live-in job where I could take the baby. And then they said the only one they could find that was willing to take me was my eldest sister, who I’d never seen since I was a little girl – she’d gone before us: she went away with some white people that were supposed to take her away for a good education – and they said she was the only one who was willing to take me, but she didn’t want the baby. So they brought the papers in and told me to sign and that was it.

Confidential evidence 689, New South Wales: woman removed in the 1960s and placed in Parramatta Girl’s Home[10].

From 1951 in WA Aboriginal children were more likely to be removed under the Child Welfare Act 1947 by the Child Welfare Department than by the Department of Native Welfare acting under the 1936 Act.[11]

 In 1958 the Special Committee on Native Matters warned that `removal of a child from his mother at an early age can cause serious psychological and mental disturbances’. This warning was ignored (WA Government submission page 26).[12]

---

[1] Murdoch, L. (1970). Imagined Orphans: Poor Families, Child Welfare, and Contested Citizenship in London. New Brunswick, New Jersey and London: Rutgers University Press.

[2] Eekelaar, J. (1994). ‘The Chief Glory’: The Export of Children from the United Kingdom, Journal of Law and Society, 21(4), Dec, pp. 487-504

[3] Cunningham, A. (1996). Background Paper for the Minister of Community and Health Service On Issues relating to Historical Adoption Practices in Tasmania, 4 December

[4] Mather, V. (1978). ‘The Rights of Relinquishing Parents’ in Proceedings of the Second Australian Conference on Adoption, Cliff Picton (Ed.), Melbourne: The Committee of the Second Australian Conference on Adoption; Harper (1978) in Proceedings of the Second Australian Conference on Adoption, Cliff Picton (Ed.), Melbourne: The Committee of the Second Australian Conference on Adoption

[5] Roberts, P. (1973). ‘The Gaps and How We Might Fill Them’   Clive Picton (ed.)  in Proceedings of Second Australian Conference on Adoption: Current Concerns and Alternatives for Child Placement and Parenting, Melbourne; The Committee of the Second Australian Conference on Adoption.

[6] Cheater, C. (2009). ‘My brown skin baby they take him away, In Ceridwen Spark & Denise Cuthbert (Ed.), Other People’s Children, Melbourne: Australian Scholarly Publishing.

[7] https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/bringing-them-home-chapter-3

[8] ibid

[9] ibid

[10] ibid

[11] https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/projects/bringing-them-home-chapter-7

[12] ibid

---

[i] Mackellar: 1913, pp. 86, 91; NSW SCRD: 1904, p. 24 cited in Cole: Stolen Babies Broken Hearts, Vol 1, Doctoral Thesis, Western Sydney University, 2013, at p. 43

[ii] Ibid at p. 43 NSW SCRB: 1904, p. 24. 

[iii] Ibid at p. 43 NSW SCRD: 1902, p. 24, 1904, pp. 18, 24; NSW CWD: 1925, p. 5; Reekie: 1998, pp. 74-75

[iv] Ibid at p. 43 NSW SCRD: 1883, p. 4; 1894, p. 1, 1902, p. 24, 1904, pp.  18, 24; 1908, p. 19; NSW CWD: 1925, p. 5; Garton: 2008, 2012, p. 254

[v] Swain, Shurlee. ‘Homes Are Sought for These Children Locating Adoption within the Australian Stolen Generations Narrative’ American Indian Quarterly

Vol. 37, No. 1-2, Special Issue: Native Adoption in Canada, the United States, New Zealand, and Australia (Winter/Spring 2013), pp. 203-217

[vi] ibid

[vii] Cheater, C. (2009). ‘My brown skin baby they take him away’, in Other People’s Children: Adoption in Australia, Ceridwen Spark & Denise Cuthbert (Eds) pp.176-193, at p. 193

[viii] Swaine, ibid

[ix] https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/bringing-them-home-chapter-3

The Dynamics of Torture by Government Representatives

Excerpt: Human Rights Abuses in relation to Commonwealth Policy of Forced Removals

October 2011 Dr. Christine A Cole (Phd)

Punishment

In 1960 Dr. Wessel[1] warned adoption workers that not allowing women access to their infants was punitive and cruel and served no medical purpose. In 1965 Mary Lewis[2] warned social workers that not allowing mothers access to their infants was punitive and illegal.  In 1967 Sister Borremeo[3] warned that not allowing mothers to access their infants was illegal.   In 1982 a Health Department Circular[4] stated that women who were being denied access to their babies not only had their legal rights violated but were subjected to coercion and duress by social and welfare staff. Social workers were employed by the government and has representatives of the government had been subjecting unwed mothers to bullying, coercion, punitive, inhuman and degrading treatment.   In 1984 Dr. Kath MacDermott[5] described the inhuman and degrading treatment that women suffered because of the policy of forced removal of their infants.  MacDermott stated that women had suffered abusive treatment at the hands of government representative on the basis of their marital status.  In 1992 the Australian Government was advised by Cathleen Sherry that it was in serious violations of a number of International Treaties to which it was signatory.

Imprisonment

Survivors of the unwed mother and baby homes did not feel free to leave. They were threatened with having the police hunt them down. This was not necessarily an idle threat, a mother who grabbed her baby and ran had the police called to bring her back.[6]  Women after given birth were not permitted to leave the hospital until they signed an adoption consent.[7]  The Lady Wakehurst, annex of  the NSW Women’s Hospital at Crown Street, to where unwed mothers were spirited away without their babies, was kept locked, women had their clothes taken and had no access to them until they were permitted to leave.

The Australian State was aware that mothers were expected to sign consents before being allowed to leave the hospital.  For instance the minimum time agreed upon by the Commonwealth and State Minister when drafting the Commonwealth Model Adoption Act was to fit in with hospital procedures.  The government was informed  that mothers were usually not discharged until 5 days had elapsed and so it was decided that consent should be taken before mothers were allowed to leave, so they “would not have to be chased down”[8].  In other words, to ensure that mothers did not have a chance to garner support and keep their infants. So it seems the Commonwealth and State governments conspired with adoption workers to ensure as high as possible number of adoption consents were obtained

Women’s testimony at the NSW Inquiry convey extreme mental suffering because of being incarcerated and forced to sign consents. Some were promised a glimpse of their infant if they signed, others thought if they got out of the hospital they could come back and reclaim their infant.  If they were unable to get support from a strong advocate they were told when trying to reclaim their baby – even only after a few days “sorry your too late, your baby had already been adopted”[9]

Forced Labour

Women were used exploitatively as cheap or free labour in the Homes and in private domestic employment usually arranged by the hospital social worker.[10]

Physical maltreatment. 

Some women have complained that in the Homes and private employment they were expected to work long hours whilst pregnant, were abused by their employer, or by the Matron in the Home.  They were constantly reminded either by the Matron or the social worker, depending on where they were employed, that they had committed a sin by getting pregnant and/or they were carrying an infant for a married couple who were more deserving than them to be its parent.  The constant belittling caused many women to suffer life-long identity problems, poor self image and lead many to self harm.[11]

Isolation 

Pregnant women were not encouraged to form friendships in the Homes, they often felt isolated. They were transported across borders were cut off from their partners, friends and family.  Many were given false names and their mail was interfered with so that their whereabouts was hidden. Family visitation were usually denied to mothers in Homes and mothers working in private employment. Verbal abuse was common as was the constant belittling because of being pregnant out of wedlock.  In the maternity wards they were often left for hours without assistance and when they spoke to nursing staff  were ignored.  One trainee midwife informed the author that she was instructed by her superior that staff were not allowed to speak to the mothers.   In general the women recall feeling continually denigrated, humiliated and isolated.[12]

Conclusion

The interference of the birth process and the brutal separation of the mother-infant dyad has caused life-long pain, distress, predisposed the mother and infant to post traumatic stress disorder and pathological grieving, dissociative and amnesia states, which has been passed on to subsequent generations. The Australian State by failing to acknowledge or validate their suffering by accepting responsibility and offering a heartfelt apology continues to violate their rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

---

[1] Wessel, M. A. (1960). The paediatrician and adoption., New England Journal of Medicine, 262,  441-450

[2] Lewis, M. (1965). Unmarried Mothers, Paper presented at the Australian Welfare National Conference

[3] Borromeo, M. (1967). The Natural Parent, Australian Journal of Social Work, 20(1), 11-13

[4] Health Commission Circular No 82/297

[5] K MacDermott, Human Rights Commission discussion paper no. 5, 1984

[6] Cole (2008) at 247

[7] Chisholm, in Report 21 (2000) at 178

[8] Hon R. J. Hamer Adoption Children Bill, (1964) Vic Hansard, vol 274, pp. 3647-3648

[9] Testimony from the NSW Inquiry: Releasing the Past Adoption Practices 1950-1998,  (2000). Final Report, Report 22; Sherry: 1982

[10] Cole (2008) at 153

[11] Sherry (1992); Cole (2008)

[12] Cole (2008); Cole (2011) Unpublished thesis; Sherry (1992)Lorne-Johnson, S.  (2001)Betrayed Forsaken: The Official History of The Infants’ Home Ashfield, Sydney: The Infants Home Ashfield

Just slipping through the cracks

Slipping through the cracks. I never saw.

Held prisoner in a place that resembled a war.

It started with the tearing of my flesh.

Ground down.

Until I could barely

Utter a sound.

Freak. She cried, the woman in the gown.

Frown, and frowned.

But no sound.

I sat up, reached out.

Only to be slapped down.

Words left my mouth

But nobody heard.

No ears to listen, no eyes to see.

Blinded by the hate.

Not your baby.

Not your fate.

I was left standing at the gate.

Empty womb, empty arms.

Tease glistened

As I shout.

What’s wrong?

What’s wrong?

What’s wrong with my baby?

So many drugs

So, no sound.

She didn’t cry

I leapt up.

Then pushed down, hands all around, hate abounds.

She’s not yours.

She’s gone to where she belongs.

Strangers. Gaping mouths with lusted lips curled up

In a grimace.

She’s ours.

Not from our body, but, who cares.

You’re a nobody, you don’t deserve to hold the one you bore

That’s for us.

We’re in control

They told us

She’s  ours

We own her.

Her soul belongs to us.

We’ll grow her, we’ll train her up.

She no longer belongs to you

The government gave her to us.

We take possession

And God help you if you ever

Turn up.

She’ll grow to hate you

And only know

What we tell her.

You gave her away.

What difference will it make

She will be happy

Knowing only us.

We saved her from you. That’s what we’ll tell her and that’s what she’ll believe.

We won’t call it brainwashing

We call it, she’s the chosen one.

She will be happy with our lies.

That’s the price, you pay

For falling into our trap.

We sit in the driver’s seat

You aren’t even in the car.

The train has left the station.

Your life

Will not be the same.

Learn to live with your loss as we learn to live with our gain.

Yet years down the track

We’ll let you know

How much money we spent, and how much you owe, for all that we have done

To raise the child we’ll tell everyone, you left behind.

@ Christine Anne Cole.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/alarm-bells-the-foster-child-who-s-won-a-settlement-from-the-state-20221018-p5bqps.html

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/alarm-bells-the-foster-child-who-s-won-a-settlement-from-the-state-20221018-p5bqps.html

Holt Intercountry Adoption Agency pays out millions

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02PeByfWYjXTBapYzWyJKZEEPqZA4eb9MdGoUQ6Nr9JAJnhpMnzm69b5htcboim4CYl&id=1060479002&sfnsn=mo&mibextid=RUbZ1f

Adoptive parents starve and abuse children placed in their care

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02tKTdn9AJbSgDpUJMsR1NBLdsXcZSLMEsB2Hek4DDfETXS57wP9amxdxAUsgreGjXl&id=1060479002&sfnsn=mo&mibextid=RUbZ1f

Mothers of Illegal Adoption

For all mothers who want support to discuss issues caused by the theft and kidnap of their newborns please join Mothers of Illegal Adoption (MIA). Politically incorrect, but grounded in the reality of truthspeaking, denied to us for decades you can find a home in MIA.

For those who want to join a supportive group of mothers who understand where you are coming from and are unafraid to speak the truth – join this amazing group of Mothers whose children were stolen for adoption

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1247456035730847

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1247456035730847

10th Anniversary of PM Julia Gillard’s Apology for Illegal Adoptions of white stolen babies – 21/3/2023

Members of the Apology Alliance Australia

Novotel Canberra

Lynne Williamson and Dr. Christine Anne Cole – Members of the NSW Memorial Committee for Illegal Adoptions and Members and Advisors for Mothers of Illegal Adoption (MoIA); Members of MALA

Click on the link below for more pictures of Mothers and Adoptees attending the Memorial for the 10th Anniversary of the Apology given by former PM Julia Gillard in Canberra on 21st March, 2013 to the survivors of the brutal governmental policies and practices that tore apart families to provide babies for the adoption industry. A failed social engineering experiment grounded in eugenics and Malthusianism.

https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipMzlsZ8Jsetg6BqDteHjziQDrZNENHkmH8gU5xHn3XN0hMCQkJwUpKaLYDe71VUZg?key=S0RYcmx4eXpvTk5lRzZESnpnYUxHSFhMNXVBRV93