INTRODUCTION

Australia’s most recent report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child (hereinafter ‘the Committee’), which was submitted in December 2018, confidently proclaimed that:

Indeed, the report identified no weaknesses or deficiencies in the efforts of the Australian Government to implement the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child (hereinafter CRC or ‘the Convention’). On every indicator, Australia was said to be meeting or exceeding its obligations under the Convention.

However, these ambitious claims are at odds with the view expressed by a young person who was consulted in preparation for the submission of an alternative report to the Committee which was prepared by the Australian Child Rights Taskforce:

A closer reading of the alternative report reveals not only that the views of this young person are shared by many of his/her peers, but also that an analysis of the data and the legislative and policy frameworks concerning children confirms their assessments.

Australia is what is known as a dualist country, which is typical of most members of the Commonwealth. This means that a treaty ratified by Australia will not be enforceable unless measures are taken to incorporate the treaty into domestic law. Australia was eager to ratify the Convention on 17 December 1990, but since that time it has failed to adopt legislation that would fully incorporate it into domestic law. This does not mean that the Convention has no impact in Australia, and the aim of this chapter is to identify and assess the ways in which it has influenced the development of legislation, policies and the resolution of disputes in matters concerning children.

This reveals a patchwork system of legislative measures that reflect differing levels of commitment to and opportunities for engagement with the Convention.