Dear Friends,

I bring a matter to you for earnest reflection. In May, the Federal ALP initiated a child protection Bill for Parliament's consideration. This Bill, similar to that enacted by Queensland Parliament in 2000, concerns the establishment of a Children's Commission for the above purpose. As Bill Muehlenberg points out in his assessment below, it is like the Vicar's egg: good in parts. However, the bad parts are such that we will be wise to oppose the whole, for reasons which Bill discusses.

The basic philosophy moving the legislation is the "best interests of the child". I have already encountered this phrase in the recent Qld Adoption Legislation Review. If the recommendations of the Department of Families Consultation Paper are accepted, the best interests of the child will have little bearing on the resultant legislation. I worry that the federal bill will be used similarly, to further undermine parental control over their children.

I will be happy to receive your thoughts and suggestions for action. If you require any further information, please contact me.

Your brother in Christ, Geoffrey Bullock

An Assessment of A Better Future for our Kids Bill Muehlenberg

In late May the Federal Labor spokeswoman on children and youth, Nicola Roxon, introduced a child protection Bill into Parliament. The Bill, entitled A Better Future for our Kids, proposes the establishment of a Children's Commission and a Children's Commissioner. The 23-page document outlines the need for the proposal, and details the role and functions of the proposed Commission and Commissioner.

On the surface it sounds like a helpful proposal. Indeed, it even has pro-family rhetoric sprinkled throughout. For example, in the "Principles underlying this Act" we read, "the family has the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of its children and should be supported in that role". And one of the functions of the Commissioner is "to promote and support the role of the family and parents in the development and well being of children".

But we must bear in mind that during the 1994 International Year of the Family the Labor government in power then could not even bring itself to define what a family is. Indeed, it has on many occasions given support to various feminist and homosexual measures and bills which are not in the best interests of marriage and family. So one has to be cautions when reading such words.

But other parts of the Bill are much more clear in their negative potential. In fact, immediately following the principle on family care, there are three principles which may well undermine parental authority. The three principles are:

-"every child is entitled to be protected from abuse, exploitation and discrimination";

-"every child is entitled to form and express views and have those views taken into account in a way that has regard to the child's age and maturity";

-"in decisions involving children the child's best interest are of primary concern".

Now these three principles are at best vague, nebulous and open to a wide range of interpretation, and at worst are a direct threat to the role of parents and their authority in the home.

For example, if a ten-year-old child in a devout religious home declares himself or herself to be an atheist, and the parents insist on taking the child to religious observances, will the child have the right to sue or take legal action against the parents? If a twelve-year-old decides to bring a friend home for a sexual encounter, is the parent expected to stand by mute, for fear of a visit from the Children's Commissioner?

Later on child abuse is defined as "exposing or subjecting a child to behaviour that psychologically harms the child". If a child gets emotionally bent out of shape because a parent says his or her room looks like a rubbish tip, is that child abuse? If a child takes umbrage at being told that he or she has poor penmanship or could do better at dressing neatly for school, is that abuse? If a child becomes embarrassed or resentful when told that his or her drug-taking friends are not allowed in the home, is that child abuse?

Of major concern is another function of the Commissioner: "to monitor programs and initiatives for compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child" (CROC). It will be recalled that the 1989 CROC was ratified by Australia soon thereafter. The Australian Family Association and other concerned family groups strongly lobbied against CROC, as it has some very worrying anti-family and anti-parent provisions. Indeed, Articles 12-16 of CROC were (and still are) a major problem.

For example Article 14 declares the "right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" while Article 16 includes protection of the child's right not to be "subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy".

The negative implications of these and other Articles in CROC for parents are of great concern. If a parent suspects that drugs, pornography or other improper materials are stashed away in a child's room, it seems like they cannot do anything about it, at least according to CROC. And if Australia establishes an official body to monitor and enforce the provisions of CROC, the family unit will come under further stress and disintegration.

As I said in the accompanying article, if we really care about children and there protection, we should be doing all we can to promote families and parental authority, not undermining them as this Bill seems to do.

Action

This Bill is not in the best interests of children. Therefore we need to take a strong stand against it. The Bill can be viewed at this web site:

http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/Repository/Legis/Bills/Linked/30050301.p df

Have a read then write to your local Federal MPs and point out its shortcomings, using the information found in these two articles. You may have older AFA literature that highlighted the dangers of CROC. If so, dig it out, read up on it, and use the information as part of your overall argument.

Geoffrey Bullock

Festival of Light in Queensland.