Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 418 ..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
position, but as they are a minority government which claims to have an interest in cooperation and consultation, it would have been better if they had initiated some sort of discussion about this issue.
I am doing that today by putting this motion. I am asking this Assembly to condemn, and disassociate itself from, the ACT Government's submission. In the submission it was noted that the inquiry was linked to the introduction of Greens Senator Dr Bob Brown's private members Bill, the Human Rights (Mandatory Sentencing of Juveniles) Bill. The Chief Minister wrote in this submission:
... I do not propose to address the policy issue of the mandatory sentencing of juveniles which I consider to be properly a matter for which each State and Territory Government should legislate. The concern of the ACT is the threshold issue of the proposed exercise of the external affairs powers to permit the Commonwealth Government to legislate in respect of a matter traditionally and appropriately the responsibility of the States and Territories.
... ... ...
The technical Constitutional power of the Commonwealth to act to implement the relevant clauses of the Convention on the Rights of the Child is acknowledged. What is disputed is the propriety of the Commonwealth seeking to exercise this power.
... ... ...
The use of the treaties power to directly interfere in traditional State/Territory areas of responsibility should only be considered by the Commonwealth in the most extreme, urgent and compelling cases.
Mr Speaker, as I said, this submission basically puts the states rights position. It also raises a number of questions, some of which I asked in the Assembly in question time last sitting week. The first question was in response to the statement that the use of treaties powers should be considered only in most extreme and compelling cases. The obvious question was: Is a child's incarceration for stealing textas and pens and consequent death not an extremely compelling reason? The Chief Minister, after avoiding the question initially, in answer to the supplementary question said she did not believe it was of such national moment as to support the Federal Government taking away the democratic rights of the Northern Territory parliament. This is a statement I cannot support. It is a statement that indigenous people reject, our religious leaders reject, the legal community reject, the human rights community reject and many other people in our community reject.
These laws are racially discriminatory in effect. They are inconsistent with recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. They are inconsistent with reconciliation with indigenous people and, according to overwhelming legal opinion, they may breach the International Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .