Page 2829 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 22 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The question arises of whether or not the ACT should agree, if it is given the opportunity to agree, to circumstances where laws in respect of children are made by the Federal Government when hitherto such laws have been made by State or territorial governments. That is the question that springs to my mind, and I do not have a satisfactory answer to that question at this stage. It may be that the convention contains entirely laudable provisions dealing with children's rights - - -
Mrs Grassby: Well, why don't you read it, then?
MR HUMPHRIES: I have read it, Minister Grassby.
Mr Duby: Why say "may"? It does.
MR HUMPHRIES: All right, let us assume for the sake of argument that it does contain those provisions and that the Federal Government seeks to impose laws on the Australian States and territories dealing with those rights. I would have to say I would be in some doubt as to whether the Federal Government ought to do that, because the Federal Government traditionally does not regulate the rights of children. State governments and territorial governments do.
Mr Berry will be quick to defend the right of the Federal Government to do whatever it wants, but the fact of the matter is that there are circumstances where State governments ought to be making laws and there are circumstances where the Federal Government ought to be making new laws. I believe that we should not blur that distinction, and that is why I believe we ought to have a second and closer look at conventions of this kind.
I am in some difficulty because, as it happens, this very morning, my Federal colleagues at the meeting of the Federal shadow Cabinet are considering this very question, the UN convention on the rights of the child. I am as yet not aware what decision is being made by the Federal shadow Cabinet and I, for one, would like our ACT parliamentary Liberal Party to be in accord with our Federal colleagues. Therefore, I am not enthusiastic about supporting or opposing this motion of Mr Stevenson. However, I can indicate, as Mr Stefaniak indicated the other day, that the Liberal Party will be pleased to support Mr Collaery's amendment to this motion. If it emerges later that there are serious problems arising from this convention, then I believe that we should give fresh consideration to the motion that Mr Stevenson has put forward.
MR STEVENSON (11.40): In a media release on 15 November, the Chief Minister said that it was a matter of regret that Mr Stevenson was causing confusion and concern with his remarks about the draft United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Firstly, there is concern. I merely echo the concern. As for the confusion, the confusion
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .