Page 1408 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 9 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
references that have certainly guided not only my position on this but also the position of other experts in this country. I commend those to her. She will be able to read them in Hansard.
Look at those references, particularly one I spoke about in 1997—a publication produced by the Sydney-based call to arms group which had some very dark thoughts about things. They talk about teenagers and children. Let us take a broader, more realistic understanding of the sorts of concerns we are now faced with, perhaps with a depth of concern that we have never had to face in this country before—at least before 1999, once Australia had intervened in East Timor, which really put us on the radar in the eyes of al-Qaeda, JI and other groups.
I would again ask the Assembly to consider that something needs to be done where a 16-year-old may be thought by police to present a threat. It may not necessarily be that 16-year-old’s fault. We know that terrorist leaders are able, and have been able, to adversely influence young children and teenagers. There are plenty of examples of that happening around the world, where teenagers have been exploited by ruthless terrorist leaders. You have to know that; you have to prepare yourself for that; and your legislation has to be able to accommodate that concern.
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra) (5.27): I thank members for their comments on this section. Firstly, Dr Foskey, I understand what you are saying. I am certainly not going to misrepresent you. I certainly respect what you say; I understand it and the angle you are coming from. In relation to comments made by the Chief Minister and Mr Corbell, I point out to them that this amendment is what is in the law in New South Wales, in other states and territories and in the commonwealth. It is also referred to in the scrutiny of bills report on page 64, where the report deals with the issue of the age of a detainee. The explanatory statement to the government bill explains that their clause is consistent with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which provides in article 37 as follows:
States Parties shall ensure that: … (b) No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time;
The scrutiny report goes on to say as follows:
It must also be noted that by Article 1, “a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier”.
The point here is that, in the scrutiny report, it states after that:
The Explanatory Statement does not explain why the detention of a child under—
the government’s bill—
cannot not be characterised as “a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time”. Nor does it explain why “the detention of children is a disproportionate limitation on the rights of the child”.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .