Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 1 Hansard (16 February) . . Page.. 177 ..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
child's age and the desirability of promoting the child's reintegration and the child's assuming a constructive role in society.
Article 40.4 states:
A variety of dispositions, such as care, guidance and supervision orders; counselling; probation; foster care; education and vocational training programmes and other alternatives to institutional care shall be available to ensure that children are dealt with in a manner appropriate to their well-being and proportionate both to their circumstances and the offence.
My question, Chief Minister, is: Could you tell us whether you think this UN convention is important enough to warrant the Australian Government taking action, if necessary using external affairs powers, to ensure that laws within the whole country, not just the Territory, are consistent with this convention?
MR SPEAKER: Excuse me, Chief Minister. Standing order 117(c)(iii) states that questions should not ask Ministers for a legal opinion.
Ms Tucker: On a point of order: I am asking for the ACT Government's position on the role of conventions. That is basically what this is about. If this ACT Government does not have a position, then they just need to say so.
MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, I am happy to answer the question.
MR SPEAKER: You cannot give a legal opinion, Chief Minister.
MS CARNELL: That is right. That is exactly what this about. There are a number of different opinions on whether the approach that the Northern Territory and Western Australia have taken is in contravention. The only entity that can determine that is a court, not this Assembly. Similarly, as Ms Tucker will know, there is a reasonable body of opinion that believes SIPs are contrary to international conventions and others that believe that they are not. Some people with reasonable profile believed that going ahead with the SIP was in contravention of an international treaty. We did not believe so in this place. It was our balanced view that it was in the best interests of the people who live here in the Territory to go ahead with that approach.
It is not up to this place or for me to give a view on whether mandatory sentencing is contrary to the international convention. I have heard both arguments put. I have a personal feeling, but it is not appropriate for me to put that forward in answer to a question. It is only a personal opinion. If the Commonwealth Government believes that the Northern Territory and Western Australian governments have contravened an international treaty, then I am confident they will take that to the courts. If not, the governments elected by the people in that Territory and that State should be able to determine what government they have in place and determine whether those governments should stay in government.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .