Page 2682 - Week 12 - Thursday, 16 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I say is that they are treated differently, unequally according to some of the homeless youth groups, from others who do get allowances. There are direct implications on the state, not on the individual, to pursue equitable income support policies for young persons.
In the deportation area, of course, there are in this Territory at this very time two or three children facing exclusion from this country in breach of the existing declaration which is appended to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act and in prospective breach of this convention. There has been a series of reports by the former Human Rights Commission criticising the Hawke Government's decision to deport a number of Australian children, as, in effect, by excluding the parents the child is forced to go. This is in absolute breach of the requirement of keeping the family together as an effective unit. These reports are No. 18, by the former Human Rights Commission, on the human rights of Australian-born children whose parents are deported; No. 10, human rights of Australian-born children, a report on a complaint of a married couple; and report No. 15, human rights of Australian-born children, a report on the complaints of other parties.
These reports are a sorry saga in the Hawke Government's failure to support the conventions that it mouths off about in the United Nations. Read them. The Attorney-General, Lionel Bowen, noted them but refused to endorse them, I understand. Further, we have had the appointment of Brian Burdekin, from the Prime Minister's own staff and direct area, to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Mr Speaker, I am a great critic of that commission in terms of what it has effectively done and how its funds are being spent. But that is for another time and another place. (Extension of time granted)
Mr Speaker, the complications of Mr Stevenson's motion are many and varied, but the second part of his motion, which requires full public and parliamentary debate on all UN conventions, is not something that we would disagree with. In fact, that is something that, as he says, should occur and it is something that we would all welcome.
Of course, as a democratic Assembly, I respect the strength or force, as Dr Kinloch put it, of Mr Stevenson's views and convictions. They do not find acceptance with me because I have spent a good part of recent years pursuing interests related to this convention and a failure by the Hawke Government to effectively implement human rights, not only in this area but in other areas.
Selective implementation of human rights is the ultimate bad faith, in my view, Mr Speaker. If this convention and knowledge of it and public debate about it will bring about a more equitable treatment of children and will oblige the states to put into place proper machinery to deal with child abuse and the many things that we are aware of in this society, I welcome it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .