Page 2828 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 22 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That all words after "That" be omitted and the following substituted: "the Assembly notes that the Federal Government will not ratify the draft UN convention on the rights of the child until the terms of the convention are settled and further consultation with all State and territory governments takes place.
MR HUMPHRIES (11.35): This is a return to that contentious issue of the UN convention on the rights of the child, and I hope that we can conclude this today. It is not a matter in which I feel much comfort or confidence in speaking in this place because I have not been able to find a great deal of information and detail about this convention. This is a matter on which there is some controversy and it is not particularly clear to me or to my party in which way that ought to be resolved. I am well aware of the comments that Mr Stevenson has made and of the arguments that he has put forward. I have to say that there are some even within my own party who share at least some of the concerns that he has raised.
There is one particular aspect that I want to deal with, and that is the question of the power of the Federal Government to impose the terms of this convention on the Australian States. In the course of debate on this matter last week the Chief Minister made an assertion that it is not the normal practice for the Australian Federal Government to impose the terms of international conventions on the States, except with the States' agreement. Now that is, I am sure and I would hope, generally true, but it is not universally true. It has not universally been true, and there have certainly been celebrated cases in the past where the Federal Government has used the power conferred by the signing of an international convention to impose its view or the view expressed in that convention onto an unwilling State.
Mr Berry: But usually conservative ones.
MR HUMPHRIES: They were indeed, Mr Berry; they were conservative States. One such example was the Fraser Government imposing environmental safeguards on the Government of Queensland over the mining of sand on Fraser Island. I must say I am very proud of the fact that my Federal colleague, the then Prime Minister, was prepared to exercise those powers to deal decisively with an important environmental issue.
The second example that comes to mind - and there may be others - was where the Federal Labor Government prevented the damming of the Franklin and Gordon Rivers. In both those cases there were certainly arguments that the Federal Government ought to have exercised some power, but it is quite wrong to suggest, as the Chief Minister suggested, that those things were done with the agreement of the States concerned. They certainly were not done in that fashion.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .