Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 421 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I quote from "A Call to the Nation", adopted at the Australian Reconciliation Convention in May 1997:

Members here today who do not support this motion need to explain what they think reconciliation means. They need to explain how it is a fair go when white-collar crimes such as fraud, obtaining financial advantage by deception and related offences are not subject to mandatory detention. How is this policy in the interests of reconciliation when the evidence is clear that the more access juveniles have to the criminal justice system, the more frequently and deeper they will become involved in crime. They need to explain why, according to the ABS, since mandatory sentencing in late 1997 the Northern Territory prisoner population has increased by 42 per cent and why, according to the National Children's and Youth Law Centre, the majority of those sentenced have been young Aboriginal men. In Western Australia indigenous children constituted 80 per cent of cases under mandatory detention laws before the Children's Court of Western Australia between February 1997 and May 1998. All members in this place have supported reconciliation. The ACT submission ignores this. States rights are more important.

The fourth point of my motion is the matter of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The following groups and individuals are of the view that this law may be in breach of the Convention on the Rights of the Child: The Law Council of Australia; the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission; ATSIC; the National Children's and Youth Law Centre; Sir Ronald Wilson, former High Court judge; former Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Gerard Brennan; the Criminal Lawyers Association of Western Australia; Amnesty International; the Australian Bar Association; Martin Flynn, lecturer, Law School, University of Western Australia; John Willis, associate professor, La Trobe University; the Law Society; the International Commission of Jurists and the Australian Law Reform Commission, to name just a few.

Obviously, this is an important point, because it is through this that the external affairs powers can be used by the Federal Government. But it is also important because it raises the issue of international conventions and whether or not they are binding. It is true that Mr Burke from the Northern Territory does not think it has anything to do with the Northern Territory if we are signatory to an international convention. However, 23 experts in law from 11 university law schools which I have already mentioned say:

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .