Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to note that in a few weeks time, on 17 December 2010, Australia will mark the 20-year anniversary of its ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is a convention that sets out the obligations of nation-states to protect the rights and wellbeing of children as detailed in articles which go to such fundamental matters as health, education, freedom of expression, protection from violence and neglect, and access to representation and redress. In April this year, when the government announced the new Australian Human Rights Framework, it reaffirmed its commitment to human rights obligations contained within the seven core United Nations human rights treaties to which Australia is a party, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I am sure that everyone in this place can easily understand the necessity and the value of taking a focused and specific approach when it comes to the rights of children. Children as a group are inherently dependent, especially when very young, on the direct care of adults for their very survival, and they are especially vulnerable to neglect and abuse. Monitoring the extent to which the convention is observed and the extent of progress made by nations towards meeting its objectives is the responsibility of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. In addition to the committee’s general supervisory brief, there is also a reporting obligation on all signatory nations, and it is worth noting that the Australian government submitted its fourth report in July last year.

It is also important to recognise that there continues to be scope for Australia to improve its performance when it comes to the rights of children. Indeed, following the receipt of the second and third reports, which were lodged in combination in March 2003, the UN committee, in its 2005 concluding observations, did note that, in addition to Australia’s significant progress towards realising children’s rights, there were nevertheless several areas of concern with regard to the position of Indigenous children and the issues of corporal punishment, youth homelessness, juvenile justice and children in immigration detention. Some of those areas remain a concern now. I note the comments made earlier this month by Norman Gillespie, the Chief Executive of UNICEF Australia, where he said:

We have seen improvements in the welfare and rights of children over the last two decades but we still have serious concerns including the growing disparity of opportunity for children in the bottom 20 per cent and the widening gaps between indigenous and non-indigenous children in relation to educational opportunities.

The overarching insufficiency in Australia’s case has been identified as the lack of an effective national children’s policy and accompanying assessment apparatus. As with other areas of national policy, a number of which this government has tackled and is tackling, there is a need to resolve the inconsistencies that currently exist between Australian states and territories when it comes to the rights and wellbeing of children. Having said that, this government has created, through the Council of Australian Governments meeting in 2009, two critical and far-reaching national strategies: the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-2020 and the National Early Childhood Development Strategy. Both make reference to and draw impetus from the principles contained in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Work is also currently proceeding on a national action plan to reduce violence against women and their children. All of these initiatives are hugely welcome and they are examples of work undertaken by this government to coordinate policy matters of national importance.

I share the view of many in the children’s rights advocacy community that the creation of a national children’s commissioner would be a worthwhile addition to the existing framework. In fact, one key aspect of a commissioner’s role would be the independent and effective monitoring of the national policy framework. Other potential features of the role include a national community based education function and a role in coordinating the collection of data on the wellbeing of children and young people. As it stands, comparable national and international data is in a relatively poor state, with a number of significant gaps. The Australian Human Rights Commission, which has called for the creation of an Australian children’s commissioner, issued a discussion paper in October on the subject, which I recommend to interested members. It notes the support of UNICEF, Save the Children and the National Children’s and Youth Law Centre for this initiative.

I also want to mention the prospect of Australia’s participation in the development of an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, CRC. This draft optional protocol would provide a defined and specific international mechanism for complaints about breaches of the CRC and, among other benefits, an inquiry procedure.

It is in the nature of international agreements whose objects spring from a recognition of basic and common human rights that we consider their achievement as a global community, notwithstanding the fact that the primary obligation is for individual states to make the agreements true for their own people. Article 24 of the convention states that nations must:

… recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health.

And, in extending the obligations on states when it comes to health beyond their own children, article 24.4 says that states must:

… undertake to promote and encourage international co-operation with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the right recognized in the present article.

The Millennium Development Goals, adopted in 2000, logically draw on the specific areas of healthcare provision, listed in article 24.2, (a) to (f), which include the imperatives: to diminish infant and child mortality; to combat disease and malnutrition, including through the adequate provision of nutritious foods and clean drinking water; to ensure appropriate prenatal and postnatal health care for mothers; and todevelop preventative health care and appropriate family planning education.

I welcome the commitment this Labor government has made to increase our development aid contribution to 0.5 per cent of GNI by 2015-16. I commend the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the substantial work he has already done in this area, as well as on his clear and strong call on all nations to renew efforts in meeting the Millennium Development Goals. On this point I also want to mention the incredible work that UNICEF does, particularly the work by UNICEF Australia. I have spoken before in this place on the literally lifesaving and life-changing work that UNICEF undertakes with women and children in the developing world, whether it be in Papua New Guinea, India, Pakistan, Africa or elsewhere. When you see, as I have, initiatives that educate and support women in ways that will immediately impact on child health and when you see toddlers who are now likely to reach their fifth birthday, when previously a number of them almost certainly would not have, it restores one’s sense that we can achieve good things and we can make progress.

Last week, on 16 November, we marked the one-year anniversary of the national apology to the forgotten Australians. For me, it is natural to draw a link between that important occasion and the anniversary of the adoption of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child because the forgotten Australians were children who were not protected as they should have been. Article 19.1 of the convention states:

States … shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.

More particularly, article 20.1 states:

A child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment, or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment, shall be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the State.

Yet the children who were and who are the forgotten Australians did not receive that special protection. Our acceptance of responsibility, our sorrow and our sincere apology for the suffering of the forgotten Australians has a sobering resonance in the context of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That episode in our history is a tragic demonstration of the vulnerabilities of children and of the susceptibility of government agencies to systemic failures when it comes to even the most basic protections. The two anniversaries, a month apart, should remind us of the terrible harm that can occur when the rights of children are not protected and should strengthen us in the ongoing imperative of recognising and protecting those rights. The third anniversary, in a few months time, of the national apology to the stolen generations will be another point of reflection. It is of course an anniversary which tolls a heavy warning on the unacceptable consequences of neglecting the rights of children. The stolen generations and the forgotten Australians are not people who exist in some sepia-coloured, less enlightened Australian past. They are with us now, with their pain and also their courage and resilience.

As we look forward to the celebration next month of the 20th anniversary of Australia’s ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, we should remember that this is not an ornamental document. It is not something we have signed up to, comfortable in the sense that such rights are a given in a country like ours, for we know that such complacency is the first step towards failing in our observation of those rights. The Convention on the Rights of the Child is instead a document to which we must renew our adherence year in, year out, and a document from which we derive a path forward to the better protection and wellbeing of children in Australia and for children everywhere.

Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Despite the fact that 192 countries have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, more than any other human rights treaty in history, the protection of children and their advancement is not universal. Statistics from UNICEF show that, for every 100 children born today, 30 will suffer malnutrition in the first five years of life, 26 will never be immunised against disease, 19 will have no access to clean drinking water and 17 will never go to school—and, of those 83 that do, 20 will not reach the fifth grade. It is also estimated that over one million children are trafficked each year and forced into work. This was graphically illustrated last night on a program on the ABC called Compass. It looked at the issue of the estimated 23 million children who are slaves in various countries around the world, and I have to say that it was a very moving program.

But, however bleak the situation, there are many positive developments which have occurred since the adoption of the convention in 1989. Globally, about 84 per cent of primary school age children are in class and the gender gap is narrowing each year. Increased international cooperation has resulted in organised networks exploiting children being brought down. And, each year, UNICEF responds to over 200 international crises, assisting children in need.

I join with the member for Fremantle in acknowledging the tremendous work that UNICEF does internationally. Clean water and improved health services are reaching the most impoverished children and, as the motion notes, UNICEF figures reveal that, since the convention was agreed to, 10,000 fewer children die every day, in large part due to the work of UNICEF and other non-government organisations. I would like to take a moment to thank the member for Fremantle for bringing this motion to the House, and I endorse the sentiments expressed, particularly acknowledging the work carried out for the benefit of children both internationally and in Australia by many government and non-government agencies. I mention the government because I am aware that under successive governments outstanding work has been initiated through AusAID which has assisted children and through our Federal Police at a national level, where they have battled to deal with sex crimes, particularly those overseas. And then there are the many agencies at state level in mostly badly under-resourced departments of child protection battling the tide of abuse and neglect of children. I know they get a bad rap by the press, but a lot of the people working in those agencies have a very, very difficult job, and I think they attempt to discharge it under the most difficult of conditions, so I would like to acknowledge that.

I suppose the only part of the motion that I have some concern about—and I am happy to have further discussion with the member for Fremantle—is about appointing a national children’s commissioner. I have some concern about whether or not we can achieve anything by appointing a children’s commissioner nationally because the protection of children is a matter for state governments. When I was minister, I had a portfolio which included abuse and neglect of children, but in practical terms the Commonwealth actually does not deal with the day-to-day issues, so I think we need to be very clear, if we are going to put money into establishing a children’s commissioner, about what the role of that commissioner is and whether it is actually going to make any progress in how we manage the terrible abuse and neglect of children that goes on in this country. I keep an open mind on that matter. Although the situation for Australian children is not as dire as for those living in many developing countries, the motion does note that Australian children face significant challenges, including homelessness, abuse and neglect, and we know that in many Indigenous communities children do not have the same opportunities that other Australian children enjoy.

Next week, after the House has risen, I shall be returning to Canberra to attend a workshop on the National Action Plan for Young Australians, and I thank Dr Lance Emerson for briefing me and sending me an invitation to this important event. The event is being organised by the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth, and its aim, as Dr Emerson, the chief executive officer, tells me, is: ‘a long-term, comprehensive, overarching social marketing strategy like beyondblue or Quit to empower parents in optimising the emotional development and wellbeing of children and young people and a national action plan for naught-to-24-year-olds rather than the current, ad-hoc approach to planning for children and young people. Within this plan there will be a national charter for interorganisational collaboration to maximise effort and ensure that we are working together to meet the needs of children and young people.’

The Chairperson of the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth is Professor Fiona Stanley, a Western Australian who has had a long and distinguished career in caring for the health and wellbeing of children and young people. The workshop builds on the work of the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth at a conference they held in 2009, where 590 delegates examined the theme ‘Transforming Australia for our children’s future: making prevention work’. I am hopeful that this workshop in Canberra will also progress the work undertaken in the previous parliament’s House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family, Community, Housing and Youth, of which I was deputy chair. This committee completed Housing the homeless: report on the inquiry into homelessness legislation, and I think some of us would be very surprised to see how many young people—and I mean very young people—end up living under bridges and on our city streets. They are very vulnerable. That report and the inquiry highlighted just how young some of these people are who are living on the streets. The other report was Avoid the harm—stay calm: report on the inquiry into the impact of violence on young Australians, which specifically investigated the issue of youth violence.

The Housing the homeless report found that between 2001 and 2006 there was a decrease in the homeless youth rate for those aged 12 to 18, which was good news. The principal two factors for this decrease were early intervention for at-risk families and youth and the improved labour market for young people. As part of the continuing efforts to improve early intervention strategies, the committee investigated a broader strategy of social inclusion, which is also one of the pillars of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. To combat youth homelessness especially, the Regional Youth Development Officers Network submitted that inclusion strategies must aim to provide:

… fundamentals of a decent life within their own community: opportunities to engage in the economic and social life of the community with dignity; increasing their capabilities and functioning; connecting people to the networks of local community; supporting health, housing, education, skills training, employment and caring responsibilities.

Each of these areas is specifically mentioned in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, illuminating a unity of purpose between our international obligations and our domestic goals.

In the Avoid the harm report a number of risk factors were identified that were more likely to lead young people to commit violent acts. These were categorised as individual, relationship, community or society. We discovered that there is clearly a link between early bullying, which is often learned from violent behaviour in the home, and later violence and, often, incarceration of young people in institutions because of that violent behaviour. I believe we need to work much harder on those early intervention programs so that we can deal with this particular matter.

To finish up, Carol Bellamy, a former executive director of UNICEF, said:

History will judge us harshly if we refuse to use our knowledge, our resources and our will to ensure that each new member of the human family arrives into a world that honours and protects the invaluable, irreplaceable years of childhood.

To that I say: hear, hear!

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of the member for Fremantle’s motion on the rights of children. As a former principal and a teacher at the time, I welcomed the Hawke government’s ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in December 1990. In fact, I remember teaching a unit of work on the topic to some very interested children. And I welcome the member for Fremantle’s efforts to protect and foster the rights of children.

Since the convention was ratified we have made significant progress, both in Australia and internationally, in our efforts to protect the rights of children. Ten thousand fewer children now die each day than they did when the convention was ratified. It does not sound many but when you take into account 20 years of population growth it is pleasing.

This reduction in the number of children dying each day has in part been achieved through the aid program of Australian governments and the development programs of Australian aid organisations. This is an achievement of which all Australians should be proud, and one which we hope to expand upon. Internationally, over eight million children continue to die each year. That is a significant figure. It is equivalent to the death of the entire population of Australia every three years. A preventable disease like malaria, for example, kills a child every 30 seconds and greatly contributes to anaemia among children, stunting their growth and hindering their development.

At the millennium summit in 2000 the Australian government pledged, among other things, to work in cooperation with other developed nations to halt and to begin to reverse the incidence of malaria and other major diseases through the provision of insecticide treated bed nets and antimalarial drugs. We also promised to reduce infant mortality rates by two-thirds and to ensure that children everywhere were able to access primary schooling. That is why we are contributing $1.6 billion over the next five years as part of the United Nations Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health, to reduce complications during childbirth and to improve the health of children under the age of five.

We are also investing in education initiatives in Asia and the Pacific in the order of $744 million in the 2010-11 financial year to bring our official development assistance spending to $4.3 billion in 2010-11, increasing to between $8 billion and $9 billion per annum by 2015.

In addition to the work of the non-government organisations mentioned in the motion, I would also like to applaud the work of PLAN, whose child-centred community development programs foster the rights of children, improve access to education and reduce child poverty. The Coalition for Adolescent Girls and Girl Effect, likewise, should be commended for their innovative work directed towards young women as the means through which to change people’s lives, their communities and nations. In the words of Girl Effect:

If we can release girls living in poverty, they will do the rest.

Girl Effect in particular has a very innovative approach. It uses a lot of social media to inspire other young people to assist and to take action.

In Australia there remain significant issues of child abuse, neglect and youth homelessness. The most recent report of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare indicates that in Australia during 2008-09 there were 339,454 reports of suspected child abuse and neglect made to state and territory authorities concerning 207,462 children. Of the 162,385 reports that were investigated, 54,621 were substantiated, of which over 34,000 were in my home state of New South Wales.

Particularly concerning is the disadvantage experienced by Indigenous children. An Aboriginal child is 7½ times more likely to be abused than a non-Indigenous child, and is more than nine times as likely to be placed in care. This is not acceptable and we do need to close that gap and ensure that Aboriginal children receive the same opportunities and caring and loving environments that many other children receive.

I would like to dwell on the issue of the national commissioner for children. I also agree that we should appoint a national commissioner for children as the Australian Human Rights Commission has recommended. I heard the member for Pearce say that that would have to be very strictly defined. I think it would be an important voice for children and for fostering the protection and promotion of children’s rights in Australia.

In the short time that I have spoken, 75 children will have died somewhere in the world from preventable causes. The answer, according to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Kevin Rudd, is to honour our commitments even when the global economic environment is harsh, because for the poorest of the poor it is even harder. Domestically, as a government, we must be proactive in our policy making and foster a rights based culture for all Australians, particularly our children, who are at particular disadvantage. I therefore commend the motion.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Services and Indigenous Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is one thing to join hands in this chamber and support a motion reflecting on the 20th anniversary of the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, but no opposition can stand by and allow us to debate in a very banal and anodyne way on elements of that UN convention without identifying the complete failure of successive governments to provide shelter and protection to Indigenous Australian children. I am glad the previous speaker, the member for Newcastle, made a passing reference to that important area.

Over the last three years we have seen a shift under the current administration, from inadequate effort to resolve Indigenous housing to inadequate Indigenous housing, with huge amounts of good money going after bad, while, in many cases, poorly run administrative programs have seen this government criticised—with which I absolutely agree. But I have even greater sympathy for the Indigenous children who do not receive housing because it is not being administered appropriately.

We all know the history: it was a Territory government responsibility to provide shelter to Indigenous children, and they relied quite often on federal top-ups. But it was in 2007 when the game-shift occurred and the emergency intervention saw around $547 million committed over four years to Indigenous housing.

That was meant to change things. It was meant to work towards providing Indigenous housing in those overcrowded communities where young children go to bed at night—let us not forget this—in crowded bedrooms, sleeping with extended family members or, sometimes, strangers, because of the lack of housing stock. And to gloss over that, in point (3) of this motion, by saying that, ‘on the whole children in Australia fare better than’ children overseas, is to completely miss the point that nothing has been achieved in these last two years. We hold up the SIHIP program as an example of that, where we had the promise, originally, of $547 million, increased by $456 million to $1.1 billion, but then we had all that money going down the drain into houses that are not being improved with value for money.

If we are concerned with, as we are in our debate on this motion today, the protection of children and the provision of adequate shelter, then we need go no further than the Bath report in the Northern Territory, which found that, for over 800 children, child abuse cases have not even been examined by the Northern Territory government. I do not care what their excuses are.

In reality, what have we had? We had the year 2008, were nothing occurred except consultation on colour schemes for homes, massive administration, and bureaucracy moving through. By February 2009, not a single house had been built. By mid-2009, just two homes had been built. That was completely inadequate. Then, when we started investigating what was happening with SIHIP, the truth was revealed: there was no chance that 750 new homes could be built; no chance that 230 derelict homes could be flattened and replaced; and no chance at all that, under those current budget allocations, 2,500 improvements could be made. When we all held our breath, hoping that there would be improvements for children living in these squalid and overcrowded conditions, what happened? We started getting what were called ‘functional upgrades’ where they checked the plumbing, the electrics and then walked away—sometimes collecting $75,000 per home. Constructing dwellings in Indigenous Australia for $875,000 apiece, in communities where there are up to 20 or sometimes 30 people sharing a home—this is inadequate.

I call for a minister who is prepared to go and sleep in those conditions and see what it is like firsthand. We need someone who will say, ‘$1.1 billion of wasted money is simply not good enough.’ We see money being dished out to contractors, as we see the alliance breaking apart. It is an appalling situation for children—appalling. It is one thing to be debating a fairly banal piece of private member’s business here, but quite another to stand by while the following things are happening. The improvements to homes have been little more than functional. We have seen a complete stalling in some communities. We have seen a huge bureaucratic overlay—$45 million spent even before the first house was constructed. And then we have seen examples like those in Ali Curung, where they paint around a hole in the wall, where they provide nothing more than a bench. This is not a jail—this is a home for Indigenous Australian children. What are we left with? We are left with massive gouging by a program that has failed to deliver for Indigenous Australian kids.

What we need is independent scrutiny—to step away from this current minister and the Northern Territory government—maybe through a judicial inquiry. But we cannot afford to look back on $1.1 billion in the rear-vision mirror and say, ‘Gee that could’ve been spent better,’ because there are thousands of kids out there who do not sleep or who, when they do sleep, are sleeping with strangers or extended family, listening to parties and seeing, as I have said, that dreadful combination of piss, petrol, potato chips and poker. They lead their lives unable to go to school, and unable to have a chance at employment or a healthy life because of the quality of their housing.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.