Commentary

Imagine if we could get all of Australia to start a slow hand clap.  And then, over the top of it, comes a plaintive chant ‘Why are we waiting?’. It probably wouldn’t be long before it collapsed into a national Mexican wave (clockwise?), but before the nation, inevitably, turned to mindless entertainment they would have made a point: stop procrastinating and just do it.  Enact a charter of rights.

10 December 2008 is the 60th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN General Assembly, the first general catalogue of the rights of individuals to be made the explicit subject of international standards.  A 60th birthday is usually the moment to celebrate a life well-lived, success in public and private life, and perhaps to anticipate a comfortable retirement.  But these are not apt measures for the UDHR.  It was and remains a controversial document.

Despite the dire humanitarian conditions, on 4 June this year the operations of all aid and development NGOs in Zimbabwe were suspended by the Government. As was widely reported, it is reasonably clear that this action was taken to mimimise witnesses to the acts of intimidation and violence that the Government used to influence the outcome of the election.  Since that time, limited operations have re-commenced; however, the future for NGOs operating in Zimbabwe remains very uncertain.

The Government has started well.  It appears to be taking a more compassionate view of people in detention.  It has abolished Temporary Protection Visas.  It is holding an enquiry into the ‘Citizenship Test’ and will hopefully create a test that makes more sense, does less damage, and is not so heavily biased. But the Government has not said anything of which I am aware about our interrogation laws, about the greatly increased powers, including powers to detain those known to be innocent, given to state and federal police and ASIO in the so-called ‘War on Terror’.

Much recent debate regarding the need in Australia for legislative Charters of Human Rights fails to take into account the value added by such instruments. Charters of Human Rights have great potential to enhance public services and address disadvantage.  They can improve lives.

Twelve years.  Twelve long, dark years.  Over a decade during which Australia’s human rights performance was comprehensively set back.  But at last it’s over.  There is a lot of ground to be made up, things that need to be undone and undone things that need to be done.  We are entitled to have high expectations of the new federal Labor Government but the human rights agenda is a big one.  Where to begin?

New Year’s Day heralded more than just the start of another year; it marked an important milestone in Australian democracy as the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities became fully operational. Based on similar mechanisms which operate successfully in the UK, New Zealand and our own ACT, the Charter is a common sense form of democratic insurance that holds government accountable – one that ensures that those who make decisions make them in accordance with civil and political rights.

We write to you outlining key areas of policy where we believe that Australia can and should do more to promote and protect human rights.  On foreign policy, Australia is a significant political actor and donor in the Asia-Pacific region, so your government is well placed to play a leading role in promoting human rights at a regional and international level.  Over the past decade, the Australian government was notably absent or obstructionist in such efforts.  The significant international attention paid to your signing of the Kyoto Protocol and your statement at the Bali conference on climate change shows the clout Australia has and the ways in which it can be put to good use.

In early November, the Australian Government was scheduled to appear before the UN Committee against Torture to discuss Australia’s compliance with the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment over the last 5 years.  Less than a week before the review, the Australian Government withdrew, citing that an election had been called and the Government entered ‘caretaker mode’.  At best, this is a very weak rationale.  At worst, it is a blatant attempt to avoid human rights scrutiny in the context of an election.