CHAIRMAN —We have received your written submission dated 9 April. DO you have any errors of fact or omissions that you wanted to draw to our attention in relation to that submission?

Mr Jones —Not of which I am aware.

CHAIRMAN —Would you like to make a short opening statement?

Mr Jones —Yes. This is not a core issue for the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. We do have broad concerns as members of the Australian community and specifically as members of the Jewish community. We welcome the opportunity in the review of Australian's compliance with the treaty to state some of our concerns.

I would like to state at the opening that the reason that so many people have chosen to come to live in Australia--I know from the experience of my own community--is that this is a good place to bring up children. The mere fact that there are many people from around the world who want to come to Australia says a fair bit about how parents are perceiving Australia as a place in which to bring up their families.

As members of the Jewish community we see this as a good country to bring up and educate children who can be part of our community and also of the wider community. A key concern of the Australian Jewish community is how people in a small minority can remain part of that community and understand their own personal identity. We also believe that Australians are more likely to be caring than uncaring. Where problems have arisen in the treatment of children or any other member of our community it is much more likely to be because of human error or good intentions guiding bad actions rather than because people are uncaring or malicious.

Consideration of how laws are complied with or how treaties are observed seems to be premised on the idea that there are nasty people, a bad element or even a conspiratorial element out to do harm. Our council does not believe that for a moment. The process followed in putting together this submission was to put it before our committee of management, the body which governs our council between annual meetings, and to ask consultants and other members of the committee of management to make submissions which were eventually put into the final submission to this inquiry.

One of the consultants, Melinda Jones, a human rights consultant to our council, appeared before the committee this morning. I think it is worth while your being informed of that situation.

Senator ABETZ —Any relative?

Mr Jones —She is one of my three older sisters and she sits on that committee. A number of humanitarian issues--indigenous and disability concerns--are of concern to us. They arise sometimes from the special interests of members of our committee and reflect how we see ourselves as Australians. There is also a great deal of diversity in our community and in our committee. When I talk about diversity in our community it is an unfortunate fact that, when there are problems within families generally, there are going to be problems in Jewish families. When there are issues relating to offenders there are going to be Jewish offenders who are affected by the same issues. We do our best to represent that diversity in our submissions.

Our key Jewish concern though is education and how we can educate our children; how these Jewish children can remain part of our community and understand the community. We do this in the light of a general government school system which is not premised generally on the idea of a religiously or culturally diverse society. Many Jewish children--arguably a majority, although there is some dispute exactly how large that might be--are sent to private education by their parents, mainly for the Jewish educational component rather than the concept of removing children from the government system.

An additional concern, I think unique to the Jewish community, is that we pay enormous amounts for physical security of the premises that our children have to attend or to which we send our children, and our places of worship, because of outside threats to our community. As parents and members of the community this is something which faces us uniquely and which we see as a basic duty. Above all, though, with that said, we welcome the opportunity to reassert the importance to us of strengthening the family as a unit in the context of building a better society for our children.

When Professor Jakob Bronowski was asked how he defined Judaism he said, `For him, Judaism was a commitment to making for your children a better world than that in which you yourself live.' Despite the diversity in interpretations of Jewish tradition and broad interpretations within our community, I think that is a broadly held ethic across various religious groups and moral groups within our community. With that, I invite questions.

CHAIRMAN —You have suggested the reservation of article 37(c) should be removed. Would you like to just say a little more about that?

Mr Jones —I was here this morning and heard what was put by Chris Sidoti, the Human Rights Commissioner, and also by Melinda Jones in her personal submission. I do not really have anything additional to say to that. Unless I am mistaken--and I must say the human rights commission is a resource for many community groups who want to investigate these questions--given the presentation of Chris Sidoti, and given that there is enough flexibility in it, there would not seem to be a major problem with this. We do not have an independent source beyond that, so I do not think we have anything specific to submit.

Mr BARTLETT —In your introductory comments you spoke about the need to strengthen the family unit. A number of submissions have referred to the way in which this convention might be used to threaten the family unit, particularly articles 12 to 16--and the emphasis there is on autonomy. Do you not see any credibility in that line of argument?

Mr Jones —With any line of argument, when we are looking at something this broad, there are going to be people with legitimate concerns. We have to ask ourselves: even if there are legitimate concerns are they more important than the general principle or the general rule and how can you address those legitimate concerns? I am troubled by people who often seem to present problems within their own family unit--problems perhaps caused by lack of parenting, training or education of how parents can operate in a family--bringing those as problems with the law or problems with outside forces.

I am not saying that is always the case but certainly I think that is something that we have to consider. It has been mentioned this morning as well as in the written presentation that, if there is going to be some form of advocacy or council for the concerns of the children, a very important concern of children must be the training of parents. Parenting is a concern of children. Children's rights are assisted by resourcing parents to deal with the problems that might come up. In light of the earlier discussions today, I might as well point out now that I am a parent of an eight-year-old precocious child. As a parent, if I am presented with the issue that you raised, I hope that I have the parenting skills to address that situation in terms of the family unit, of which that child is a functioning member.

Mr BARTLETT —You spoke also in your introductory comments about the attraction of Australia as a home for migrants because it is a fair society and because we uphold generally the principles contained in that convention anyway. Evidence we had yesterday from the Law School of the University of Tasmania indicated that, although there are no references to the convention in Tasmanian legislation, almost all of the principles of the convention are contained in this legislation anyway. It said this is not surprising because it is a democratic and relatively free society.

Would you agree that it is a fair comment that the principles are here generally within Australia regardless of the convention; that our social mores and our commitment to standards and principles and the welfare of the family over the generations have created that sort of society that has brought about a state which is consistent with the general principles of the convention, regardless of needing to apply the convention?

Mr Jones —You have raised a number of issues there. First, if we are inquiring into Australia's compliance with a treaty, I think it is not unimportant to look at what that treaty is and what that says as against only the principles related to that treaty. It is also important to know how true that might be in terms of all the broad principles and whether, because a society is running broadly parallel to the intention of the convention--and I think we are running broadly parallel to the intention of the convention--whether that does no mean that the convention could not be used to assist those people who need some form of assistance in terms of society understanding their needs and their concerns, in terms of guiding legislation, in terms of keeping an agenda in front of legislators. I think that is why it is very important that we look at this question just in terms of compliance with the treaty.

I cannot say whether each and every state of Australia or the federal government meets each and every one of those principles. If it does, I would be surprised in one sense and not in the other. I would not be surprised because they are relatively broad. I would be surprised because, unless there is a consciousness that you are working towards a certain goal, unless you are trying to think about what the needs of a section of the community are and what your commitments are internationally and what you have agreed with internationally that you should be trying to reach, I cannot see why people would be meeting those.

Mr BARTLETT —Do you not think we have been working towards those goals over the years anyway because of a commitment to the welfare of our society and a commitment to the welfare of our children?

Mr Jones —I would hope so, but at the same time there are certain features, such as an issue of freedom of religion, and the child being able to feel safe or safely part of a religious community is something which really has had its ups and downs historically. Exploitation of children is something which has had its ups and downs. There have been areas relating to the general treatment of children, servicing the needs of children, where there have been varieties. It has not just been a steady climb up the mountain. There have been areas where it has moved upwards and downwards.

From the point of view of the Jewish community, there was a time not all that long ago when most public occasions, most civic services, would attempt to include the whole of Australia, they would be inclusive. It was a long climb to move away from specifically Anglican to broadly Christian, to a more widely religiously diverse nature of public ceremony, yet in the last few years we have seen a return almost to a situation where there have been public services, and a Jewish child seeing that would feel that they are not really part of Australia.

For instance, the Unknown Soldier was buried as a Christian. The Unknown Soldier was not necessarily a Christian. Jewish children who are trying to learn about the Jewish contribution to Australia learn about General--later Sir--John Monash. If that had been in another set of circumstances, John Monash, a proud member of the Jewish community and a proud Australian, would have been buried in a religiously inappropriate way.

The ceremony at Thredbo last week was based on the assumption that all of the victims of that terrible tragedy were Christians. I would hope that we had not the situation where there was somebody who--based on good intentions but a lack of thinking about what the situation might have been--was not included. But I know from speaking not so much to my own children but to my older nieces and nephews that they were very conscious that when there was a service for all Australians, it was based on the premise that this is a specifically Christian country.

So there are little areas like that. I am not saying they are big issues, I am not saying they get in the way of general progress, but they would tend to indicate that we are not overcoming all the problems of trying to look after the concerns of all children.

Senator COONEY —Can I just follow on from there. What you are saying, as I understand it--and you can correct me--is that this convention can serve as a reminder to keep us on the right track; that although, as you say, these might be little things you are talking about, nevertheless if we had proper objectives in mind we would not start to go astray.

Mr Jones —That is part of it, but there is also a general principle that Australia is a party to a treaty. You would hope that Australia feels that that treaty is something which is of itself going to give the sort of guidance or the sort of future direction for that aspect of Australian society which it addresses.

Senator COONEY —Yes. I think the problem, though, is that people are saying that the answer to that proposition you just put is to denounce the treaty. I take it that your association, from what you have said so far, would not welcome that.

Mr Jones —No.

Senator COONEY —All right. I said before to you in private conversation that you have got consensus here, which is a big statement, given the fact of the diverse groups that you represent.

Mr Jones —Yes.

Senator COONEY —But can I go on from that. Consensus by its very nature tends to be expressed in wide terms, would you say that, and in minimum terms in the sense that you are going for minimum propositions?

Mr Jones —Chris Sidoti, the Human Rights Commissioner, put it this morning that if you look at any treaty like this, it shows on what points the various signatories to that treaty can agree; it is finding points of agreement. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry was established in 1944 specifically to try and give the broadest possible consensus position when the Jewish community was asked or invited or wanted to make representations to the Australian government, and that was the logic behind the organisation, and we are as democratic, I think, as any community organisation can be.

You contest elections to be delegates to your state body; you contest elections from that state body to be on the national body; and you contest elections to hold office within the organisation, with a very broad representation of anybody who belongs to any Jewish organisation anywhere in Australia. Additionally, in New South Wales, we have the facilities of those people who do not otherwise belong to any Jewish organisation to become part of the franchise. That is the way we try to be broad in our discussions and considerations and adopt broad consensus positions. That is why our submission might not address in a great deal of depth some of the issues, because it has to be agreed to by a variety of parties.

Senator COONEY —Would we get a correct result in interpreting your constitution and looking at your submissions to put a very legalistic approach to it, or are your constitution and your statement in various areas broad statements of principle?

Mr Jones —Yes, basic very broad statements of principle, policies determined by an annual general meeting which sets policy and, between annual general meetings, a committee of management which decides on those matters which arise in the meantime. I would say democratic rather than legalistic.

Senator COONEY —From your experience would you run into trouble as an organisation if you tried to take a very legalistic approach to everything that comes up?

Mr Jones —If we were to prescribe a particular wording to a legislation on an issue, I imagine we would have a great deal of problems. However, if we were to say we support the concept of legislation on a subject, we will have fewer difficulties. I will give you two examples. My council strongly supported the idea of Australian law having the ability to deal with any Nazi war criminals found to be resident in Australia. We did not set any idea of what the legislation should be. We had a fair bit of unhappiness with the legislation as it was finally passed, but our council supported the broad principle.

Similarly, with what eventually became the federal Racial Hatred Act in 1995, our community broadly supported anti-racism legislation. We did not look at wording of legislation because, as I said, we have a broad range of people within our community who could come to the position of broadly supporting a legislative approach, but might not have come to a particular viewpoint on details of legislation.

Senator BOURNE —Can I just ask one question. I must say I was very struck by your example of the Unknown Soldier, because that person represents all Australian soldiers who died and who are unacknowledged by a nameplate, so it is a very good point. But to go back to education and the way we do fail to reflect the multicultural and multi-religious nature of our society, can you give us a few examples of where we ought to be changing what we are doing at the moment?

Mr Jones —It is difficult because I do not want to take away from anybody the way they want to celebrate their person and their own religion and being Australian, and in the state system, in the government system, the majority still overwhelmingly are Christian. There are different denominations, obviously, and different practice. Almost as an aside, I play in an indoor soccer competition. A number of the soccer teams are predominantly Greek Orthodox, and they discussed the difficulties they had with their Christmas not being at the time of the rest of Australian's Christmas, and their children being told, `You don't celebrate the real Christmas.' This is another not unrelated issue.

One of the issues we have in the state system is in New South Wales, for instance, non-denominational Christian prayer is regarded as okay, which means Jewish children can be at a school and hear a non-denominational Christian prayer. It could be part of what they are taught, if not secular, it is common to everybody, when obviously it is not common to them, so when there are school communities which are not of a single religion or a single background, there needs to be an awareness of cultural and religious diversity. That is a single example.

to be an awareness of cultural and religious diversity. That is a single example.

I was fortunate last week in Melbourne to attend the Religion and Cultural Diversity Conference where for the first time leaders of many different Australian religions and very senior people from most religions were talking about how they themselves could work towards a society which was aware there were many ways of being a believing person and being a good person and being a moral person, and looking to take some sort of leadership in bringing Australians together, finding what unites us rather than what divides us. If we put that into the school system, there is plenty that unites everybody, or plenty I think which would be generally unobjectionable, which is subsumed by the practice of--if it makes sense--non-denominational Christianity, just because people have not been thinking about what impact that might have on somebody who is not a Christian.

Senator ABETZ —I understood your submission--and it was very well-reasoned--that you were concerned about the rights for a child to--in the words of article 14:

The state party shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion--

You interpreted that as being important, especially for the Jewish community, for children of the Jewish community to have access to Jewish schools. I would not argue with you on that, and you know what my view on that is. It has been published in the Australia-Israel Review.

But having said that, what would you as a Jewish parent say to this, using this article of the convention in another way. Your 10-year-old, knowing how cruel children can be to each other for example out on the street, says to you one day, `Look, dad, I don't want to go the Jewish school any more. I've thought about this long and hard, I want to be like all the other kids down the road.' Do you think it would be acceptable to the Jewish community at large that that child be given the right to express that freedom, not only to express the freedom, but then basically say to you, `You've got to take the child out of the Jewish day school and send her to another non-Jewish school'? That, I suppose, is personalising it to the Jewish community what a lot of the concern is in relation to the Christian community within this country.

Mr Jones —You have raised a number of issues. First, my understanding is the treaty is about the responsibility of governments, and when we look at the responsibility of governments when it comes to the issue of freedom of religion, I see it as almost a problem the other way. At the moment Jewish parents who want to give their children a Jewish education take upon themselves a burden which most Jewish parents are happy to do, but it is nevertheless a burden. So is the state providing equally? I do not know.

Secondly, point 2 of article 14 states:

The state party shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child. I think that does largely address how a parent might be able to deal with the issue you raised without the undue interference of the state. The more important issue though, as I see it, is if you are a member of a small minority the outside influences, the street influences, your television, your sporting encounters or whatever, are going to involve you in coming into contact with a very seductive force of the majority and being like others. If there is not the ability for parents, together with the state, to provide for the education of people in religions, given that every religion, like anything else, has to conform with basic laws and community standards, then the state is the party falling down on the treaty.

Senator ABETZ —Yes, and we have got no argument in relation to the right of the Jewish community or any other community to try to establish a school within appropriate guidelines. What I am exploring with you is, if the child were to make a determination, what rights would that child ultimately have to pursue that to the nth degree? You are saying that you think this convention only applies to government.

Mr Jones —In addition, part 2 of article 14 I think is important.

Senator ABETZ —Yes. But first of all can you see this as having any impact--when I say this--the convention--having any impact on family life that the state could say and determine, `Well, I'm sorry, Mr Jones, but we as the government or as a state have taken on the obligation to allow children to give freedom of expression to their view of religion, and therefore we will intervene in your family situation.' So by that backdoor method it in effect undermines and has an impact on the family, parental care and responsibility.

Mr Jones —I only think that is a plausible hypothesis if section 2 of article 14 was not there, but as long as section 2 is there, I do not think it is a plausible hypothesis you are putting, because there are the rights and duties of parents and legal guardians.

Senator ABETZ —It just says, `shall be respected.'

Mr Jones —Yes.

Senator ABETZ —It does not mean, `shall be followed'.

Mr Jones —And article 14.1 says `shall respect'; it does not say, `shall obey'.

Senator ABETZ —No, it says you `shall respect the rights and duties of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians --' we can leave that bit out `- to provide direction to the child -'. So you would have the right to provide direction to your child and say -- I do not know what his or her name is; let us say little Johnny--`Little Johnny, I'm going to guide you and try to keep you going to the Jewish day school,' but somebody determines that the evolving capacities of little Johnny are such that at the age of 10 he has evolved a capacity to determine in his own mind that he no longer wants to attend the Jewish day school and therefore the state says, `We are fully abiding by the provisions of this. We're respecting your views to guide the child, you've been given that opportunity over the previous 10 years to guide him into going to the Jewish day school, but he has ignored you. He has rejected your guidance. Whilst we respect that guidance, Mr Jones, we are going to allow that child to go to the school of his choice.'

Mr Jones —I simply do not see that happening given the balance between 1 and 2. But I should also point out something you are raising there. If a child is not a Jewish child or is not a child of the Islamic faith or is not a child attending a particular parochial school of some sort, if there is a general provision for that child's education they are not going to be leaving something for `nothing' in terms of their religious affiliation the way a Jewish child would placed in that particular situation.

So the general issue that you are touching on here more is the provision of broad culturally appropriate, religiously appropriate education for children. The second question is that of boiling down again, as I see it, to parenting. Families are going to operate in all sorts of different ways. Parents and children are going to have certain relationships which develop, and I would believe that it would be an extraordinary situation, though not impossible, where a 10-year-old would be at the stage of a particular evolution of its identity where it would be felt that the child could make the best independent decision about his or her education.

Senator ABETZ —All right, but just say that we are both possibly right or both possibly wrong. Do you think it would detract from the convention if we were, through a mechanism, to put down another reservation on the convention to make it absolutely clear that (1) this convention only applies to government, and (2) that article 14 for example refers to the provision of culturally appropriate schools, such as Jewish day schools and does not apply to young kids trying to determine their own religious schooling before the age of 16 or whatever. Would that detract from this at all?

Mr Jones —I presented a submission which comes out from a number of people within my committee management of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, and that was not something we discussed specifically. It would be difficult for me to answer on behalf of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. My broad impression of the discussion was that it is better to sign the treaty with few reservations at the level of signing the treaty and not to have reservations throughout any treaty on a whole range of articles. If there is one priority concern or something within the broad community, maybe a reservation somewhere is not the worst possible thing that can happen. But using that sort of argument that you have just presented, I can imagine on virtually every article somebody saying, `Let's put a reservation here or there until we agree that we care about children and nothing more.'

Senator ABETZ —Yes, but is that not more honest and has a greater degree of integrity about it than, for example, some of the Islamic states that say, `Yes, we have signed that, but subject to where this convention is in conflict with Islamic law, Islamic law will prevail.' That means virtually every single article. You would say that is okay because they have only put down the one general reservation, whereas what I am suggesting is declaratory reservations in relation to specific things to make it absolutely clear, and still uphold the spirit of the convention. I find it strange that you would agree to a general reservation but not to specific reservations which are limited--

Mr Jones —I am not agreeing to a general reservation. I was just saying that I doubt whether this would be the most serious reservation, and if the government were going to put a series of reservations throughout the treaty, I think that would be a problem. On the first issue you raised, though, there are states who were going to sign all sorts of treaties they had no intention of honouring. It is very sad, and it is something that I do not think anybody particularly thinks is a good thing, but it does not mean that a country like Australia with our Western democratic tradition should use that as a model. Hopefully, other states will use Australia as a model, not the other way around.

CHAIRMAN —Thank you very much.

[2.07 p.m.]