Commentary

Human rights education and parliamentary engagement with human rights will be enhanced under a new ‘Human Rights Framework’ for Australia, announced by the Attorney-General on 21 April 2010 in response to the recommendations of the National Human Rights Consultation. However, the Rudd Government’s failure to commit to a comprehensive, national Human Rights Act — a key recommendation of the Consultation which was supported by over 87% of a record 35,000 public submissions — is a missed opportunity to strengthen Australia’s democracy and build a fairer, more inclusive community.

Next February, Australia’s human rights performance will be under the spotlight at the United Nations Human Rights Council.  The Australian delegation, likely led by the Attorney-General, will be questioned about what Australia does and why it does it.  The Government will receive bouquets and brickbats – and a long list of recommendations about what it should do better and how.

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.