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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 422 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

parts of Federal States without any limitations or exceptions. In addition, there is a general duty on States - including a federal State such as Australia - to bring their internal law into conformity with their obligations under international law. Popular sentiment in one state or territory is no justification for inaction by the Federal Government to ensure conformity with international human rights standards in all parts of Australia.

I would like to read also a letter to the Prime Minister from the aforementioned legal experts. I will seek leave to table the full submission after this debate. The letter says:

Dear Prime Minister,

In submissions to the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee, the Western Australian and Northern Territory Governments argue that mandatory sentencing laws in those jurisdictions do not infringe the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC) or any other international treaty to which Australia is party. We disagree.

For the reasons set out in the attached submission, it is our opinion that the impact of Western Australian and Northern Territory mandatory sentencing laws amount to a violation of Australia's obligations under CROC, in particular those provisions which provide that

. the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in actions by courts of law and legislative bodies (Article 3);

. detention of a child shall be used only as a measure of last resort for the shortest appropriate period of time (Article 37); and

. a variety of dispositions 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 (Article 40).

We are also concerned that mandatory sentencing laws infringe a range of further international treaty obligations including those which relate to the administration of justice (for example, the prohibition of arbitrary detention in Article 37 CROC and Article 9 ICCPR), equality before the law (for example, Article 5 CERD and article 26 ICCPR) and the protection of Aboriginal culture (for example, Article 30 CROC and Article 27 ICCPR).

Now I will deal with the arguments we have heard about consistency of approach from politicians on the use of international conventions to override state or territory laws. I will deal with these arguments because I know the Chief Minister used this argument

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