Senator GREIG (12:57 PM) —In the few remaining minutes, I would like to compliment the Labor Party and Senator Faulkner in particular. Roughly three weeks ago, Senator Lees, Leader of the Democrats, and I met with Senator Faulkner and Mr Kim Beazley and put our proposal to them, explaining that we felt very strongly about the derisory way in which this bill was dealt with in the House of Representatives. We felt that some sort of formal protest ought to be made via the Senate, and I am very thankful that today the Labor Party has effectively conceded that and embraced what was a Democrats initiative. The approach the non-government parties have taken all along in working cooperatively on this cosponsored bill has been an interesting and constructive exercise. I would also like to pick up on the point that Senator Hill made. He pointed out, quite rightly, that some years ago former Prime Minister Paul Keating referred to the Senate as `unrepresentative swill'. I do not know that it is a comment that Labor senators would today agree with—

Senator Faulkner —Read my speech at the time.

Senator GREIG —I shall look forward to that, Senator. If this motion were to succeed today, many Australians would enjoy a representative thrill, because today we have a Senate which is constituted by the will of the people. It represents the voting patterns of the people at the last election. We must also recall that the coalition recorded one of its lowest—if not its lowest ever—Senate vote at the last election. And yet, at the same time, we have a parliamentary democracy which is flawed. For example, in the election for the House of Representatives more than one million Australians voted for the Australian Democrats, and yet we are not represented in the so-called House of Representatives. But the voting patterns of Australian citizens are represented here in the Senate, so ironically the Senate is, in my view, the more representative house.

There are many who vote for the coalition and they are represented here. There are many who vote for Labor and they are represented here. A significant chunk vote for the Democrats and a smaller slice vote for the Greens. That is adequately reflected here in the Senate. So there is nothing inappropriate in arguing that the Senate has equal powers with the House of Representatives.

Having been over the issues time and time again, we know that both Western Australia and the Northern Territory are in breach of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. We know that both Western Australia and the Northern Territory breached the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights because of the arbitrary nature of sentencing. While I note that mandatory sentencing in WA applies after three strikes and only after break and enter offences, this can range from stealing a biscuit to bashing the occupants, and there is no judicial review. The argument that mandatory sentencing in Western Australia and in the Northern Territory assists victims of crime—a very popular argument in support of mandatory sentencing—is false because it obscures the fact that those who go to jail simply end up in what is effectively the university of crime and often go on to become repeat offenders after their first or second jailing. The use of section 122 of our Constitution makes it very clear that the Commonwealth can legislate for the territories, and this bill takes that into account. Most recently, that was demonstrated with the voluntary euthanasia bill. There is a clear legal application of the external affairs powers over Western Australia on this issue. This was best demonstrated in 1982 with the Koowarta v. Queensland case dealing with the Racial Discrimination Act.

In summary, we know that Western Australia and the Northern Territory both breach international human rights treaty obligations. We know that this co-sponsored bill, the Human Rights (Mandatory Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders) Bill 1999, is constitutionally valid and that there is no solid legal, moral or social argument to separate the issues within Western Australia and the Northern Territory. So the upshot of all this is that the Senate, having debated at length a bill of critical importance to Australian citizens and, most importantly, many indigenous citizens, has been passed by the support of this Senate. Yet, on its introduction to the House of Representatives, it was dismissed summarily in a most unrepresentative way. As other speakers have said here today, the Senate cannot and should not tell the House of Representatives how it must vote on any particular issue, but at the very least, the issue must be debated and explored. I am not aware of the Senate treating or gagging any bill received from the House of Representatives in the arrogant way that we have seen this Senate bill dealt with in the House of Representatives. (Time expired)

Question resolved in the affirmative.