Page 2675 - Week 12 - Thursday, 16 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
do not look after the best interests of their children. I notice that Mr Stevenson in his letter asks whether the convention can be used to take away certain rights and responsibilities of Canberra parents. I think the convention does do that - where those rights and responsibilities of Canberra parents, or parents generally, are clearly at odds with the best interests of the child or children involved.
In respect of the handouts that we received yesterday from Mr Stevenson, once again I am fascinated as to where this material comes from, the purpose of Mr Stevenson's interest in this matter, and what pressure group is leading Mr Stevenson on this path. He has handed out, quite rightfully, a kit, which I imagine he thinks is helpful, about the UN convention on the rights of the child. In some of these items Mr Stevenson quotes, as he is wont to do, from obscure articles which raise questions in a peculiar sort of fashion. For example, he has quoted from an article in the Weekend Australian which says, in relation to conventions generally, that Justice Sir Ronald Wilson of the High Court said that the use of the external affairs power posed a serious threat to the constitution. Well, that is Justice Wilson's opinion. It does not necessarily have to be mine. Also referred to was an article in the Canberra Times of 14 June concerning the UN convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. It said that all States will have to pass complementary laws to conform to Federal law on the subject even if they have differences because the foreign affairs capacity will override State objections.
Once again this quote is out of an obscure article, and on the basis of these articles in a newspaper we are supposed to say that this convention on the rights of children should not be adopted. He quoted at length from articles by the Australian Family Association. Frankly, I am not familiar with that organisation but, having read some of the ideas put forth by the Australian Family Association, I think I am going to have to start taking a bit of notice of it in terms of where it is coming from and who its members are. Listen to this. In terms of the implications for Australian families of the UN convention on the rights of the child, we are told that various measures have been "calculated to undermine parental authority, such as introduction of a junior dole, and provision of elaborate welfare support networks for teenagers".
Well, I welcome those provisions. There is no way known that those provisions are leading to the breakdown of traditional family values. We are told further that the undermining of the traditional family in Australia has not been the result of inadvertence on the part of governments; it has been largely produced by feminists, leftists, humanists, libertarians and other sectional interest groups.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .