Commentary

It is almost two years since the Rudd Government issued its historic Apology to the Stolen Generations.  Polling immediately prior to the Apology indicated that it remained a contentious and potentially divisive issue, with 55 per cent of Australians supporting the Government’s decision to say sorry and 36 per cent opposed.  Polling conducted in the days after the Apology, however, told a different story; one of the unifying power of bold leadership and of the deep resonance of Australian values such as dignity, respect and fairness. 

‘It’s not our role to tell countries what to do.  These are internal affairs of the state.’ These sound like the words of a Chinese official, yet this is what an Australian diplomat told me on a recent visit to Southeast Asia.  Geographically on the fringes of Asia and with a different culture and history, Australia is sensitive to being perceived as a big-mouthed bully in the Asia-Pacific region.

‘After 10 months of listening to the people of Australia, the Committee was left in no doubt that the protection and promotion of human rights is a matter of national importance.’ The National Human Rights Consultation Committee delivered its report to the Attorney-General on 30 September.  The report was publicly released on 8 October.

The Committee recommended that Australia adopt a federal Human Rights Act.

The discussion around the reform of UN human rights mechanisms in recent years has focused overwhelmingly on the creation of the UN Human Rights Council.  In this shadow, the UN human rights treaty bodies also enhanced their efforts to review disparate working methods following a 2006 proposal by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights for a unified single standing treaty body.  Then High Commissioner, Louise Arbour, identified many challenges, including that ‘limited coordination and collaboration among treaty bodies, and different approaches, in particular with respect to the role of NGOs, NHRIs and the wider United Nations system, increase duplication and impede interaction with stakeholders, who find the system obscure.’  

About 4 years ago, I was involved in consultations with more than 100 homeless or formerly homeless people across Melbourne about whether a Charter of Rights could make Victoria a more inclusive and rights-respecting community.  The terms of reference for that consultation were limited to considering civil and political rights and not economic and social rights.  While this may have made some (limited) sense to me as a lawyer, I was struck by how little sense it made to the homeless, to the rights-holders. 

Australia has an opportunity and obligation to regain its reputation as a ‘AAA’ country when it comes to human rights, a high level government delegation from Australia has been told by the United Nations Human Rights Committee. The delegation appeared before the UN Committee in New York on 23 and 24 MarchThe Committee, which comprises 18 independent human rights experts from across the world, commended Australia on a range of human rights advances, including the historic apology to the Stolen Generations, the abolition of the Pacific Solution and the current national human rights consultation.

Who is most frightening to the average citizen of Papua New Guinea: sorcerers, the people who murder accused sorcerers, or the police who are supposed to protect the public from the other two? The sad fact is that police in PNG, who should be part of the solution to a recent wave of sorcery-related attacks, are in fact a part of the problem.  A violent and abusive police force cannot fight crime effectively.  Australia, as the major international donor to the PNG police, should use its influence to help clean up the force.

While we celebrated the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights on 10 December 2008, another important milestone passed a day earlier with little fanfare: the 10th anniversary of the UN Human Rights Defenders Declaration.  After ten years, it is an appropriate time to review the interesting history of the Declaration, as well as its shortcomings and vulnerabilities to attack from unsympathetic governments.

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. 

The government’s dismissive response to a recent UN report which investigates the state of housing in Australia offers little promise that we will start to see a new commitment to making housing more accessible and affordable for all Australians.