Check against delivery
Thank you to the Australian Human Rights Commission president, Professor Triggs, Ms Mitchell and Tracey Adams from BoysTown for welcoming me here today.
It is my pleasure to join you here today to represent the Attorney-General and Government at the launch of the Children’s Rights Report 2014.
George Brandis sends his apologies that he could not be here today.
On behalf of the Government, I would like to thank the National Children’s Commissioner, Ms Meagan Mitchell, for her work.
The National Children’s Commissioner and the National Children’s Report provide a chance for young peoples’ issues to be heard, and to gain some national prominence.
The Commissioner’s major project for this year focused on intentional self-harm in children and young people under 18 years of age.
While I haven’t yet had the opportunity to read the report myself, I’m aware that it evaluates new and existing data and draws together information received from a comprehensive consultation process, and that it actually received some media attention yesterday.
The Commissioner is to be commended for this important work.
It adds to our understanding of self-harm and suicide amongst our young people.
The report makes for very sobering reading.
It is challenging to accept that intentional self-harm is the leading cause of death amongst Australian children and young people aged 15 to 24.
As the report demonstrates, this is also an issue affecting younger Australian children.
The report makes recommendations regarding further research on reducing barriers to seeking help, including the perceived stigma around seeking help, the awareness of available support services and self-identification of the need to seek support in the first place.
The report also suggests that more research is needed into the impact of risk factors for self-harm by children. The Government will consider these recommendations.
While there is still more work to be done, successive Australian Governments have been at the forefront of work to prevent intentional self-harm and suicidal behaviour over many years.
Over the past two decades, Commonwealth Governments have played a significant role in suicide prevention, particularly through the introduction of the National Youth Suicide Prevention Strategy in 1995 and the National Suicide Prevention Strategy in 2000.
This 2000 Strategy not only expanded the focus of suicide prevention activities across the entire lifespan, but also specifically focused on at-risk groups including children and youth.
The National Suicide Prevention Strategy focuses on promotion, prevention and early intervention.
This year, the Australian Government is providing approximately $30 million under the Strategy.
This funds services that aim to strengthen the ability of individuals and communities to support those who are at risk of suicide, provide support to people at imminent risk, and assists people who have lost loved ones to suicide.
The Government also funds research.
Importantly, the projects funded under the Strategy also provide direct support to children.
I’m sure many of you will know that the Government also funds the headspace National Youth Mental Health Foundation.
It ensures a national focus on mental health and related drug and alcohol problems, and funds a network of primary health centres around the country.
Headspace also provides information and is an entry point to a broader range of services for our young people.
The Government also invests in school-based mental health promotion, prevention and early intervention initiatives such as KidsMatter Primary for primary schools and MindMatters for secondary schools.
These programmes promote positive mental health, and help teachers and school staff to identify and support those students at risk of, or experiencing, mental health difficulties.
Participating schools have access to support and resources for children affected by self-harm and suicidal behaviours.
Additionally, the headspace School Support service responds to, and works with schools in the event of a tragic suicide.
This service has a strong focus on identifying at-risk students following an incident. It ensures students receive the support that they need.
I’m also pleased to say that that Government is progressing work on its policy commitment to enhance online safety for children. For all the wonder that our connected world has created, we also know that the online environment carries with it risks, particularly in relation to bullying, and particularly in relation to young people.
The home was once a sanctuary for most from a world that might have had bullying, or difficulties at school or in the community. Yet it is now a place where some of the worst bullying can happen – often alone and in private.
We are working to establish a Children’s e-Safety Commissioner to take a national leadership role in online safety for children.
We are also implementing an effective complaints system, backed by legislation that will quickly remove material that is harmful to a child from social media sites.
A Bill to give effect to these commitments has been introduced into Parliament in the last fortnight.
It will establish the National Children’s e-Safety Commissioner as an independent statutory office, which will provide a single point of contact for online safety issues for industry, Australian children and those charged with their welfare.
The Government welcomes the opportunity to further consider these important issues, and I thank the Commissioner for drawing them to our attention.
If I can turn to the issue of human rights more generally – as a Liberal I consider myself a proud champion of human rights.
Given my perspective, you might not be surprised to hear that I consider the last two centuries to be a time of achievement, nor than I consider this achievement to be one driven by limiting the power of the state and freeing individuals from shackles imposed by others, whether that be in the name of tradition, religion or an alleged common class interest.
A few weeks ago, we celebrated a quarter-century of the anniversary of the fall of Marxism-Leninism, and I thought it was a moment to pause and reflect on the collapse of the legitimacy of totalitarianism, at least in the West.
So without saying they were the easy days of human rights debates, for there were a few too many admirers of totalitarianism in our own ranks, I think we can accept that the debate is now somewhat more complex.
Yet sadly I fear, since then, the human rights debate has moved from one of seeking common ground with the implicit decency of the great majority to one that fails to acknowledge it.
Human rights now occasionally seem a little selective with the abrogation of some rights, such as speech and property, being seen as entirely reasonable for certain purposes, but that the criteria for these decisions are not made clear.
I have seen some in the Australian human rights lobby over my time in Parliament propose and accept regulations on speech, and what was tantamount to the effective state licensing of speech on media opinion and comment. A proposal that was unimaginable not that long ago.
I have seen the work of artists rightly defended, but the freedom of journalists disregarded.
It doesn’t matter whether I care for Bill Henson’s photos, or Andres Serrano’s submerged crucifix, but to some, the fact that some were more concerned with those than they were about journalists like Andrew Bolt being dragged through the Federal Court for an opinion, or the prospect of anyone else being treated similarly, does raise a concern, and in my view, weakens the case for human rights.
Sometimes, it seems, making a claim of human rights reflects the desire by some, not all, to close down debate or to limit particular policies from debate.
The real human rights debate takes place within our democracy, not around it. If the human rights debate is seen as a vehicle for one side of politics, or indeed, even one philosophical perspective, then I believe it gets weakened, and it loses its political potency as much it can lose its legitimacy.
Once the accusation ‘racist’ was thrown around too often as an insult or as a political jibe in an attempt to denigrate opinions on certain issues – and I recall debates over native title, or indeed in my own experience, ongoing debates regarding immigration policy. It was used as an attempt to close down debate.
I think it would be a tragedy if the term ‘human rights’ was similarly tarnished in that it lost its currency because it was used inappropriately.
But back to today’s report.
I’d like to thank again today Ms Mitchell for her work and for welcoming me here, and I am pleased on behalf of the Government to officially launch the Children’s Rights Report 2014.
(Ends)