Page 2758 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 14 August 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
not so fortunate. The protocol gives them the opportunity to obtain redress.
The second optional protocol gives signatory countries the opportunity to express their support for the abolition of capital punishment. Members are no doubt aware the death penalty is no longer carried out in this country. Again, this is not the case in all places. This protocol gives Australia the chance to state its condemnation of capital punishment. The Chief Minister has written to the Prime Minister advising him of the Alliance Government's support for the two optional protocols.
Members will also recall that the United Nations convention on the rights of the child was debated in this chamber last November. It attracted considerable contention. Australia has been closely involved in the drafting of the convention over the last decade. The convention sets out what the international community has agreed are the fundamental rights of children, namely: the rights to parental care; special protection and assistance from the state where they have been deprived of a family environment; protection from neglect, exploitation and abuse; certain minimum standards of protection in relation to judicial or penal proceedings, including the right where appropriate to alternatives to institutional care; protection from torture, capital punishment and deprivation of liberty; and, rehabilitative care where they have been victims of neglect, exploitation and abuse. I am certain we all agree that these are worthy objectives. However, doubts were raised, mainly by Mr Stevenson, about whether the intended objectives of the convention are achieved. Mr Stevenson saw the convention as a threat to parental control over children.
Before I re-examine the problems raised by Mr Stevenson, let me say that the Chief Minister's letter to the Prime Minister indicated the Alliance Government's support for the convention on the rights of the child, subject to two qualifications. The first qualification relates to article 37 concerning the punishment and imprisonment of children. Apart from the Quamby Youth Centre there is no other place in the ACT for the detention in custody of children convicted of an offence. The ACT relies on the New South Wales juvenile justice system for young offenders who are sentenced for long terms of committal. But, of course, we have no control over its day-to-day administration. While there are currently no ACT juvenile offenders in the New South Wales system, we are not in a position to guarantee compliance with the terms of article 37 when it comes to those ACT children who have been transferred to New South Wales.
The other qualification concerns education; specifically, that the type of education a child receives is a matter for a parent to decide. This is not expressly stated in the convention and we have drawn it to the attention of the Prime Minister.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .