Page 2759 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 14 August 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I now turn to the matters raised by Mr Stevenson last November. Mr Stevenson suggested that article 2, which protects children from discrimination or punishment on the grounds of their parents' or family members' opinions, beliefs or activities, would allow a child to refuse to go to church with his or her parents, or to refuse medical treatment. In his hurry to find fault - - -
Mr Stevenson: Why would you suggest that, Mr Collaery?
MR COLLAERY: I will give you your answer now, Mr Stevenson. In his hurry to find fault, Mr Stevenson overlooked the convention's preambular paragraphs 5 and 6. These recognise that the family is the natural environment for the growth and well-being of a child, and that the family as a unit should be protected. Article 5 confirms the overriding role of parents in the development of their children. The convention recognises the importance of the role parents play in all aspects of the growth of their children.
Articles 12 and 13 also attracted Mr Stevenson's attention. Article 12 recognises the right of a child to freedom of expression of views, with due weight on the child's age and maturity. Mr Stevenson thought it "extreme". However, it is the alternative that is extreme. By this I mean having words such as "children should be seen but not heard" enshrined in international law. This would effectively deny children the right to have their views taken into account when their interests would be affected; for example, on their parents' dissolution of marriage.
Article 13, which recognises a child's right to seek information and ideas of all kinds, was criticised by Mr Stevenson as allowing a child to view pornography if he or she chose. Paragraph 2 of article 13 rebuts this, and Mr Stevenson would do well to read it. This paragraph allows states to prescribe laws necessary for the protection of public morals. Laws restricting display and sale of pornography to children would still apply, consistent with the convention. Article 34 is also relevant. States are specifically directed to protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation and abuse, including preventing their exploitation in pornographic performances and materials. In addition, by becoming a signatory to the international covenant on civil and political rights, Australia has recognised rights similar to those in article 13 of the convention on the rights of the child for all human beings, including children.
I now move to article 14. This article is about freedom of conscience and Mr Stevenson raised concerns about its effect on parents' ability to have a say in their children's religious upbringing. Again Mr Stevenson has been reading only part of the text. Paragraph 2 of article 14 says that states shall respect the rights and duties of parents to provide directions to their children in their children's exercise of conscience.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .