Page 3585 - Week 12 - Thursday, 20 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
should it have to determine the best interests of the child? The Constitution does not give the Federal Government the right to give children new rights. That is contained within State responsibilities.
What will happen if the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is approved by the politicians, because it certainly would not be approved by the people if they knew what was in it? What will happen is that, if the States' laws do not fully accord with the laws of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, they will be required to do so by the Federal Government. If they do not agree with that, the Federal Government will take Federal action to introduce it into law, using the supposed external affairs power. It is interesting that there was a High Court decision that said the external affairs power of the Commonwealth Government can be used to control the internal affairs of the States. This is absolutely contrary to the intention of our Constitution, and any fool who understood that the colonies intended to limit the power of the Federal Government, well knowing what Lord Acton had said, would understand that.
I refer to article 5, which says:
States parties shall respect the ... rights ... of parents ... to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction ...
Who determines a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child? Of course, the state. And who determines appropriate direction? Once again, the state.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
MR SPEAKER: Order! It being 4.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr Collaery: Mr Speaker, I require the question to be put forthwith without debate.
Question resolved in the negative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .