From the Frontline: Paul Mason, Commissioner for Children, Tasmania

Paul Mason, 57, is a lawyer and worked in family law for 30 years. He is now the Commissioner for Children in Tasmania. He is a member of Australia's Children's Commissioners and Guardians (ACCG) – a network of all the children's commissioners and guardians in Australian states and territories.

 

In 1975 I read a book by John Holt called “Escape from Childhood” and John asked the question: what would happen if we abolished all legal age limits – on driving licenses, voting ages, and so on – and based decision-making on capacity rather than chronological age? Combined with 30 years of working in family law, Holt's off-the-wall analysis made a lot of sense to me. It is now clear that a child rights perspective - as opposed to a best interests perspective, which is basically about what adults think is good for a child - makes it a lot easier to develop coherent policies.

I live in an island State with a population of 500,000, 150,000 of whom are under-18. My job is advisory. I advise government on matters relating to the health, welfare and protection of children. The day-to-day role is responsive. I write submissions to state and federal enquiries and help to develop state policy, particularly in the areas of child protection and youth justice. I don't have a complaints function. I dealt with individual complaints in family law, but one of the great benefits of this job is the ability to achieve systemic change.

One of the main child rights issues here in Tasmania is the fact that children cannot be hit in schools, in detention centres, and other places, but they can be hit at home. The problem is that our population is so small that our politicians are unusually frightened of their electorate.

Corporal punishment illustrates one of the reasons a rights approach is so important – if you take a best interests approach, you can justify almost anything – hitting a child for instance - on the basis of culture, belief or faith, but if you take a rights perspective, the arguments are a lot clearer.

I also have a particular interest in why the genital mutilation of boys is not outlawed in the same way as it is for girls. I persuaded the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute to inquire into the legality of male circumcision and their Report due this year recommending options will be the highest level Report on this subject in the world.

Another area I have recently been involved in is developing rights based policies for children in state care. From the CRC we have identified nine sets of rights to embed in the practice of foster carers and others involved in state care.

The best thing abut the CRC is that it has made a difference to adults seeing children as people. The conversation had to start somewhere. I'm a great believer in the Germaine Greer* view of history – two-steps forward, one-step back. The CRC is where the conversation starts and while there are always set-backs, it’s all up from there.

The worst thing about the CRC is that there is no Optional Protocol that provides for a complaints mechanisms (yet!).

Another challenge is the failure of the Convention to bind states to implement its provisions in domestic law. In Australia, although the government ratified the Convention, the states make most of the laws and policies that affect children. This has created a situation in which states say they are responsible, but that they did not ratify the Convention.

I particularly admire the work of Against Child Abuse in Hong Kong and a new organisation also based in Hong Kong called Kids' Dream. Po Yan Cheng, who works for Kids' Dream, wants to be Hong Kong's first Children's Commissioner. If Hong Kong can get a Children's Commissioner, I firmly believe that it will be the foot in the door for children’s rights in China and provide leverage for the rest of the planet.

The best thing about my job is watching the faces of bureaucrats when they grasp child rights concepts. The worst is watching the blank look when they don't!

I would say the best achievement of my career has been dropping two thirds of my income to move interstate from New South Wales so my son could have a better life.

If I was not answering these questions right now, I would be checking my emails.

I have two pieces of advice for child rights advocates. One: always argue from a rights perspective, not a welfare perspective. And two: keep the issues on the agenda – never give up!

If I had to sum up children's rights in one word, I would say ’people’.

* Germaine Greer is an Australian academic and journalist