Page 2830 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 22 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
is highlighted because there is not, and there has not been, full and open debate on this matter. As highlighted a moment ago by Mr Humphries, the matter has just been resolved unanimously in the United Nations on Monday and the Federal Liberal Party is looking at what it would do on the matter. So there is a great deal of confusion. It has not been caused by me, because what I present is not so much my own opinion - although my own opinions are the same - but evidence. I read articles, I make quotes and, unlike the claim by Mr Duby about obscure articles, et cetera, I have quoted a High Court judge, Justice Wilson. Mr Duby dismisses a High Court judge - - -
Mr Duby: Yes, I do.
MR STEVENSON: Just like that.
Mr Duby: It is as simple as that. He is wrong.
MR STEVENSON: I think I could handle any debate with Mr Duby on that matter; we would not need a High Court judge. So let us have a look at some of the concerns that were raised in this debate. Dr Kinloch mentioned that he was concerned about problems of parental control. Indeed, the truth of the matter is that some parents do not look after their children. Some parents abuse children; some parents physically abuse children. There are many things that are done on occasions by parents, people in general.
Ms Maher mentioned that children have rights. I, of course, agree with that, but there are also parents' rights. What this entire convention is about is only children's rights and the requirement that the state enforce those rights. The articles do not talk about valid parents' rights. They say what the child has the right to do. When I introduced the matter, I read out article 2, which said:
The States Parties ... shall respect and ensure the rights set forth irrespective of the child's parents' political or other opinion.
I hold exactly to what I said. I noticed there were various things introduced by people on the other side of the chamber, but I did not see the evidence, and this is not an unusual thing in this Assembly. We quite often have anecdotal statements made, wild, farcical accusations, but where is the evidence? Article 13 states that the child shall have the right to freedom of expression; and this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through any other media of the child's choice. Do you state that that does not mean what I have just said it means, having read it out? I hear not a word, and that is the problem. What we get is accusations, innuendo and no valid debate. These things cannot be debated because what they say is what they say, and I have read out what they say.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .