Using children as puppets of parental opinion

A very blatant example of this form of exploitation of children was shown in a televised ABC report of a farmers' meeting held in the NSW town of Griffith (15/12/11) to protest against the (then) Labor Government's Murray-Darling Basin Plan. During that meeting children were used to read statements, purporting to be in their own words and to be the expression of their own reasoned judgment, which they could never have thought through for themselves.

Some protests and demonstrations can also become violent putting children's lives at risk. Like the traumatic Patrick Corp wharf dispute in 1998 where, night after night on television, we witnessed large groups of workers, their wives and their terrorised screaming children, gathered outside locked-down wharves, confronted by organised security guards with savage dogs straining on their leashes to attach them.

Unfortunately there is no specific offence in Australia against exposing children to harm in public protests and demonstrations, and only four states/territories (NT, SA, Vic and WA) have general criminal endangerment offences that seem not to be thought applicable in such circumstances.

But we do have a National Children's Commissioner as part of the Australian Human Rights Commission, plus similar commissioners, guardians, advocates, etc, in every state and territory with similar obligations and responsibilities for the protection of children and young people. None has taken an interest in, nor 'spoken up' for, the rights of children in these situations.

Although the Convention on the Rights of the Child does not specifically address this form of exploitation it does have provisions which provide, inter alia, sufficient reason for governments to intervene, not that they need to rely on such provisions in order to do so.

Article 12 provides, inter alia, that governments "shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in matters affecting the child." Article 13 provides that, "The child shall have the right to freedom of expression." Article 14 provides that governments "shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion."

Whilst such rights are expressed as though the child is an entirely free and independent individual, they come with the cautious 'advice' that governments are to "respect the rights and duties of the parents and 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".

Therein lies the problem: how to overcome the inculcated generational ethnic and cultural prejudices that are "carefully taught" in the direction of children during their formative years?

If only children everywhere were allowed to develop their lives from innocence to reality in their own way, guided only by goodwill and human values, what a different World it would be.