Page 3586 - Week 12 - Thursday, 20 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
Ministerial Statement and Papers
Debate resumed.
MR STEVENSON: Articles 12 to 16 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child were basically lifted from the treaty I mentioned earlier - the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. There is one major difference. Instead of the word "persons", it talks of "children" and of "child". Certainly, there are inalienable rights that parents have regarding freedom of association, freedom of communication, freedom of privacy and other things, but any suggestion that these rights should be the right of children - any person under the age of 18 - is a nonsense. Every parent I speak to bar none - and I have spoken to a number of them concerning specifically this treaty - says that parents have the right to determine who the child shall associate with, what the child shall look at, et cetera. And, indeed, they do.
Article 13 talks about freedom of expression, as I mentioned. There are limits to the rights which our children should have. The rights should be the parents' rights of responsibility in rearing their children.
In Australia there are adequate laws to cover every case of the abuse of children. If there are not, they should be introduced under our parliamentary system and not through treaties that people do not have the opportunity to find out about and that make us internationally bound under law. The suggestion that these things cannot bind us internationally is a nonsense. It would be like saying that because the police are on strike we will go out and steal cars because they will not be able to enforce the law. If we agree to international law, we should follow it; but we should not agree to international law that gives the state power to determine and take away the rights and responsibilities of parents. There has been too much of that.
Let me give a brief example about what happens when the state gets involved with parental and child control. There have been too many tragic examples of children being removed from their homes by overzealous government officials. I think we all remember the Melbourne boy who divorced his parents in 1986, supposedly on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. He later claimed that government social workers duped him into the action and was happily reunited with his parents in 1989. The South Australian father denied access to his children had to sell his home to find the $60,000 before he could clear his name and regain access to the children.
There have been many calls for a moratorium on the rights of the child. A one-year moratorium was called for by the Federal shadow Minister for Health, Dr Bob Woods; and indeed this should happen. (Extension of time granted)
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .