Mr TANNER(1.44 p.m.) —This legislation has its origins in views that became particularly prominent within coalition ranks in the early 1990s. Largely in response to some of the issues that the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) has raised in his contribution, I wish to comment on the origins of this position and also on some of the statements that the honourable member for O'Connor has made during the course of that contribution. The real origin of the coalition's views on these issues is in, essentially, the paranoid obsession of the lunar right with things like the one world government, the conspiracies of the Fabian Society, the black helicopters of the United Nations, the new world order and those sorts of things, which are particularly virulent in the United States but which also have a significant reflection here and appear to have had some influence on the thinking of the coalition, particularly in certain parts of the country. It is unfortunate that these views have actually reached a level of influence that has ultimately impacted on legislation being brought into this House.

I would just like to make some observations with respect to some of the issues that are being dealt with, including the matters that were raised by the honourable member for O'Connor. He focused early in his contribution on the Franklin Dam case. In 1983 a decision was made by the High Court to allow the national heritage act—I think that is the title of the legislation—based on section 51 (xxix) of the constitution, the external affairs power. What he failed to mention was that the critical feature of this decision reaffirmed an earlier decision of the High Court which was probably equally significant—the Koowarta decision—which determined that the Racial Discrimination Act was constitutionally valid on similar grounds. So, although the Franklin Dam case was indeed a landmark decision, the member for O'Connor neglected to mention that there was an earlier decision which was of equal significance in this development of the external affairs power.

He is also somewhat off the mark in his contribution with respect to the Teoh case and the implications that that case has had for the law in Australia and also for the powers of this parliament—the role of the parliament relative to government, the executive and its relationship with international institutions.

In fact, in the Teoh case—and I will get to the facts of the case in a minute to just illustrate how off beam the honourable member for O'Connor was in terms of the scary attributes that he was floating—the legal position was that a very common principle of British common law was applied by the High Court, and that relates to obligations that apply to decision makers in administrative circumstances with respect to matters that they are required to take into consideration.

What the High Court found was that the decision makers in the Teoh case in the immigration department had failed to take into consideration Australia's signing of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—they had failed to examine those issues. So the impact of the convention was not, as the honourable member for O'Connor suggested, to override Australian law or, indeed, to impose any direct obligation on Australian decision makers. All that the High Court found was that the decision makers had erred by failing to give consideration. In other words, it was still open to the decision makers, in Mr Teoh's case, to decide to deport him validly, having considered the implications of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and then deciding ultimately that those factors were not sufficient to outweigh the other factors in the case which led them to a decision to deport Mr Teoh.

It is worth noting the circumstances of this case. I think, from memory, there were a considerable number of children of Mr Teoh and his wife involved. It may have even been seven, but it was certainly a considerable number of children. My understanding of the facts is that Mr Teoh was found guilty of importing heroin, but that this was solely for the purposes of supplying the addiction of his wife. In a sense, the decision makers had a real paradox—a real conundrum—to deal with here because they had a situation where one of the children's parents was obviously in some difficulties because of heroin addiction. What was being proposed was that the other parent, who had been convicted of supplying her addiction—of importing drugs in order to supply that addiction—should be deported.

Clearly, there were obvious considerations on both sides of this argument. The obviously substantial negative impact on the future of the various children involved of having one parent in considerable difficulties as a result of heroin addiction and the other parent deported as a result of criminal convictions associated with supplying that addiction clearly weighed heavily in the minds of the decision makers. But, on the other hand, the principle of deporting people convicted of serious crimes was also a significant factor.

We did not simply have a straight cowboys and indians, good guys sort of configuration, as many in the coalition have sought to make out since the Teoh case was determined by the High Court. In fact, it was quite a complex situation where, ultimately, the question of the future of the children weighed very heavily in the overall decision.

Mr Tony Smith —The mother was in gaol.

Mr TANNER —I thank the honourable member for Dickson for pointing that out. I was not aware of what the outcome was with respect to her proceedings. That made the situation even more difficult and complex.

Whatever view we take on the question of the external affairs power and international conventions, it is important that we understand the facts of this case and how difficult they were to deal with for any decision makers in government. Clearly, there were competing imperatives there. People were concerned to look after the children but, at the same time, to see that crimes were appropriately punished and that wrongdoers who were not Australian citizens but who had committed serious crimes were deported.

When you look at the law associated with the Teoh case, the facts of the case and the scaremongering that eventuated as a result of that—and I had a bit of an exchange of letters in the Age with the Deputy Leader of the National Party on the issue—the whole issue was inflated out of all proportion by the coalition and, in my view, given fuel by some of the paranoid conspiracy theories of the lunar right, who have a degree of influence in Australian politics that, frankly, I find quite frightening.

The general issue which the honourable member for O'Connor did allude to was the question of how Australian governments should handle international conventions. I would agree with him that, if a government is not serious about a commitment to an international convention, it should not sign it. Whether we have live examples of previous governments signing conventions that they were absolutely uncommitted to or were not serious about living up to in the forms that are required, I am unable to say, but I doubt whether the honourable member for O'Connor could cite too many examples. I am happy to accept the proposition that when governments sign international conventions they should be committed to them.

It is also worth remembering that we are not the only government in the world that has a parliament. We are not the only administration in the world that is subject to the deci sions of a legislative body. This government must make pronouncements based on its expectations with respect to any legislative requirements that may flow from decisions that it makes. Many, if not most, governments are in a similar position and, indeed, there are coalition governments even more fragile than the current one that we have in this country—coalitions sometimes with four or five parties in them, particularly in Europe—that have to make those decisions on a daily basis, estimating precisely what the likely outcome will be in their parliamentary arrangements. That is nothing unusual. It is always going to be the case that there will be a relationship between executive and legislature on these issues.

The final comment I would make—in order to ensure that I can wind up by question time—relates to what the real issue is beneath the coalition's viewpoint on these things. The real issue is that the former government was using international conventions and obligations that it had signed up to as a basis for legislating. The real complaint of the coalition on these issues is not that the former government was signing conventions and not legislating; the real complaint of this government—the then opposition—was that the Hawke and Keating governments were signing international conventions and acting upon them. And why do they complain? They complain because they did not like the substance of the actions, because they did not want the Franklin Dam legislation.

What the coalition is on about, ultimately, are the core issues. They do not want a situation where issues are dealt with by this national parliament—issues of national and international significance based on international conventions which allow legislation to be put through this parliament—when they do not like the substance of the legislation.

That is the real issue in this debate. It is not an arcane, technical debate about constitutionality and the like. It is that the coalition does not like the substance of legislation based on international conventions that former governments have put through this parliament. What they have failed to acknowledge, of course, is that all an international convention does in reality, in spite of their attempts to blur the issue on the Teoh case, is provide a basis upon which this elected national parliament can legislate on certain matters.

It is interesting to have a look at some of the recent statements by various quite senior figures in the coalition parties. Their real level of commitment to notions such as the rule of law is very thin indeed. These are the people who gave us the Barwick High Court in the 1970s which produced such extraordinary gymnastics of intellect as the notion that you could not have an industrial dispute based around an unfair dismissal because there was no longer a relationship between an employer and an employee involved: it was an ex-employer and an ex-employee, therefore that could not be the subject of an industrial dispute.

They did not have any problems with that sort of stuff. Yet when we have a High Court which decides that previous decisions—the terra nullius decision and the Blackburn decision—are in fact no longer applicable, and they are overturned by the Mabo and Wik decisions, it is not correct; and, in the second instance, that the High Court was making law and this was inappropriate. Of course, when they made the original decisions there was not a squeak, not a sound.

Once again, this is all about the core politics of the coalition position on issues. They are attacking the High Court now because they do not like the decisions. They do not like the umpire's decision so, all of a sudden, the High Court is being attacked as somehow making law, as somehow being illegitimate, and as somehow doing the wrong thing—which shows just how fragile, flimsy and shallow their commitment to the rule of law is. These people who say they are conservatives, who say that they stand for the rule of law, who say that they are committed to Australia's institutions, the independence of the judiciary and the supremacy of the High Court—are all the time prepared to attack those institutions when they come forward with decisions that they do not like. That is what that issue is about.

The issue in this House today is about legislation that relates to the same sort of attitude. What it really is all about is that the coalition does not like the decisions which are put forward by governments based on international conventions that Australia has signed. That is the real issue which has given rise to this legislation. I think their stance in terms of the constitutional niceties is pure hypocrisy, as is their stance with respect to the High Court. All they are on about is seeking every possible avenue to attack governments that do progressive things in the interests of the Australian people.