Page 3584 - Week 12 - Thursday, 20 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
treaty, in other words, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
It is perhaps relevant that we look at the United Nations. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the United Nations has, and has had for some time, a distinct bias against Western-style democracies and towards totalitarian-style regimes. This was the reason why the United States and the United Kingdom left UNESCO in 1984 - because of political bias.
Let us have a look at a statement that the Attorney-General made in the house when we last discussed this matter. Mr Collaery talked of the ACT Government approving the ratification of the optional protocol. I would think that most people in Australia and even people in this Assembly would not know what the optional protocol is. Notwithstanding that, the people of Canberra have been committed by their laughingly called "elected" representatives to a UN treaty that does not need to be ratified and does not need to be passed and debated fully in Australian parliaments. We have been committed, even though we do not know it, to a treaty linked with the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
If this protocol is approved before the people of Australia understand what it is, if a legal case in Australia is found in the High Court and someone does not agree with it, it would mean that there can be an appeal to the United Nations. If the appeal went against the High Court ruling of Australia, it would be binding under international law on Australia and Australians. Personally, I think that is appalling.
I noted a few moments ago that when I mentioned the right of appeal to the Privy Council of England, which has had one of the best democratic systems ever devised and which we were privileged to inherit, Mr Connolly said, "It was a good thing, too, that the right of appeal to the Privy Council was done away with" - not that many people in Australia necessarily know anything about the Australian Act from which that occurred. I am sure that Terry Connolly and the Labor Party, as they have indicated, would be perfectly happy to have the right of appeal given to the United Nations - an organisation with, in many cases, an absolutely appalling history of the derogation of rights and of doing nothing about things that should have been handled long ago.
Let us look specifically at some of the articles within the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 3 says that in all actions concerning children the best interests of the child will be paramount. Who decides the best interests of the child? Of course, the Government does. But what standards are used? What standards are used by a government that would compel the people of Australia, the children of Australia, to compulsory drugging via fluoridation? This may be its opinion, but what right
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .