home | news l

Damning UN verdict on race relations

By Larry Schwartz

22 March 2005 - The United Nations has raised serious concerns about race relations in Australia and has called on the Federal Government to work towards a "meaningful" reconciliation.

In observations after meeting Australian delegates in Geneva this month, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination said the abolition of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, creation of a board of experts to advise the Government and transfer of most programs to government departments "will reduce participation of indigenous peoples in decision-making" and limit the capacity to deal with related issues.

It said 1998 amendments to the Native Title Act "wind back" some of the protections once offered. It said the 1993 act and the Mabo case had "constituted a significant development in the recognition of indigenous people's rights ..."

"The committee remains concerned about the striking over- representation of indigenous peoples in prisons as well as the percentage of indigenous deaths in custody," it said.

It said prejudice against Arabic and Muslim Australians had increased and that counter-terrorism legislation "may have an indirect discriminatory effect against" them.

It has called on the Federal Government to report back within a year to show how it has followed up on its recommendations and submit the next in a series of "periodic reports" by the end of October 2008.

The committee noted several "positive aspects", including that serious acts of racial hatred or incitement to racial hatred were criminal offences in most Australian states and territories. But it said it was concerned "over the wide gap that still exists between indigenous peoples and others", particularly in employment, housing, health, education and income.

Australia should ensure a meaningful reconciliation is achieved and also consider the need to "address appropriately the harm inflicted by the forced removal of indigenous children".

It called for a review of a high standard of proof required under the Native Title Act it said had resulted in indigenous people being "unable to obtain recognition of their relationship with traditional lands".

It welcomed the adoption of a national strategy on indigenous family violence. It noted programs aimed at reducing the number of indigenous juveniles entering the criminal justice system and the development of culturally sensitive procedures and practices among the police and the judiciary.

But its concerns included the issue of mandatory detention of "illegal migrants, including asylum seekers ... in particular when such detention affects women, children, unaccompanied minors and those who are considered stateless ..."

It said it was particularly concerned about people in detention for more than three years and requested data on nationality and length of detention in Australia and offshore.

Source: Sydney Morning Herald

UN Concerned about Racism in Australia International Day to Eliminate Racial Discrimination

21 March 2005 -Australian Non-governmental Organisations' Submission to CERD - International Day to Eliminate Racial Discrimination, is a timely point to publicise the United Nation's concerns about the Australian Government's efforts to remove racism.

On 1-2 March 2005, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination met with the Australian Government in Geneva to assess the Government's performance of obligations under the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD).

In its concluding comments released on 11 March 2005, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, raised serious concerns about a number of issues in Australia.

In particular, the Committee expressed concern about the abolishment of ATSIC; the practical barriers Indigenous peoples face in succeeding in claims for native title; the continuing over-representation of Indigenous peoples in prisons; and the extreme inequities between Indigenous peoples and others in the areas of employment, housing, health education and income. The UN Committee called on the Australian Government to work towards a meaningful reconciliation and to properly address the issues of the Stolen Generation.

The Committee expressed further concerns about the prejudice against Arabic and Muslim communities in Australia's laws and the media. The Committee also expressed concerns about the mandatory detention of illegal migrants and asylum seekers, including women and children, and called for the Australian Government to review its differential treatment of persons on temporary protection visas, who are denied access to pubic services.

The Committee commended the important work of Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) but warned about the importance of ensuring that HREOC's integrity, independence and efficiency are preserved and respected.

The Committee noted some of the positive initiatives being made in Australia, particularly at the State level, such as the introduction of racial vilification legislation, abrogation of mandatory sentencing provisions in the Northern Territory and the new diversionary and preventive programmes for Indigenous juveniles. The committee also commended the human rights education programs developed by HREOC. However, overwhelmingly, the Committee was concerned by recent developments in Australia that had reversed many advancements for Indigenous peoples and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

In reaching its conclusions, the UN Committee considered, and welcomed, NGO Reports submitted by over thirty non-governmental organisations from across Australia who regularly work with people who face racial discrimination and associated disadvantage. The National Network of Indigenous Women Legal Services Inc., FAIRA and ANTaR attended the Committee's sessions and made submissions. The NGO submissions cite extensive research and other evidence to demonstrate significant areas where the Australian Government has failed to sufficiently meet its obligations under CERD.

In several areas the Committee had received inadequate information from the Australian Government. It called for additional information on the potential reforms of HREOC, the abolishment of ATSIC, amendments to the Native Title Act and the practical barriers to successfully making native title claims. The Committee has requested that it be provided with this information within a year.

Australian NGOs call on the Australian Government to actively publicise the CERD Committee's concluding comments, to meet with us regarding the issues raised and to identify what steps will be taken within the next year torespond to the Committee's requests for further information. We also call on the Australian Governmentto prioritise active consultation and participation of affected communities in developing its policy responses to the UN Committee's concerns. Australian NGOs will continue to monitor the Australian Government's performance and are willing to engage and work constructively with the government to ensure that the UN Committee's concerns are addressed.

Copies of the NGO reports are available at:
http://www.rightsaustralia.org.au/papers.php

Information about the UN CERD Committee and Australia's government reports is available on the HREOC website at:
http://www.humanrights.gov.au/cerd/InformationNoteCERD.html

A copy of the UN CERD Committee's concluding Observations on Australia is available on the HREOC website at:
http://www.humanrights.gov.au/cerd/report.html

The delicate diplomacy of being 'nice' human rights violators

By Howard Glenn

21 March2005 - Mike Smith is a nice bloke - an experienced diplomat who heads Australia’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Geneva, and through his work here over the years has won widespread respect. I’ve not met him, but have heard him speak and seen his work, and even my hard-line human rights activist friends here in Geneva admire him for his work last year as Chair of the Commission on Human Rights.

So the diplomats here were relieved when Canberra agreed that Ambassador Smith could have the difficult job of fronting for Australia, when it was our turn to be discussed by the Expert Committee set up under the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). Last time, in 2000, Australia was represented by Philip Ruddock, and there’s been a lot of work needed since to fix Australia’s reputation.

The traditional wisdom about how little regard the Australian Government has for the United Nations is belied on a daily basis by the millions spent participating in its forums. But on these special occasions - when you see such a bevy of bureaucrats flown in from Australia to be able to create a response to any conceivable question about our race relations - you see clearly how serious the work here is.

The ultimate sanction for breaches of the Convention on Elimination of Racial Discrimination is, basically, international shame. Being talked about, being included on lists, having unpleasant statistics circulated, speeches made in international seminars: it’s about as bad as it gets.

So on a cycle supposed to be every two years, but for practical reasons every four or five years, the Expert Committee a) invites reports from government and non-government organisations, b) gets a briefing from NGOs, c) hears an Opening Statement from the signatory Government, d) poses questions to that Government, based on its research and the NGO information, e) hears responses from the Government after an overnight break and f) publishes commentary on the situation in that country. (The key documents for all these stages are in the “research and papers” section of our website).

So when Mr Smith read Australia’s Opening Statement to the Expert Committee on March 1, there’d already been a lot of work done. Including on his speech, by all reports, with several departments, two Ministers and the Prime Minister clearing it first. (Mr Ruddock really did make a bad impression last time).

I’m afraid that jet lag, and incipient flu, made my normal posture of silent embarrassment when listening to Australian officials speak quite impossible on this occasion. But let’s get the context understood.

We’re hearing a report about the five year period during which we’ve had the demonisation of asylum seekers; mandatory detention of thousands of adults and children fleeing three nations at war or in conflict; Tampa; children overboard; the corruption of Nauru and Papua New Guinea to take holding camps outside the reach of Australian or international law; the abolition of most specialist Indigenous run programs; increase in most Indigenous indicators of disadvantage; the disruption and dismantlement of ATSIC; the gutting of the Human Rights Commission, including the proposed abolition of the Race Discrimination Commissioner’s role; creation of an inferior class of temporary refugee protection for mainly Afghans and Iraqis; a High Court that rules that there are no protections from the indefinite detention of people under the “aliens” powers - currently being applied to detain more than 130 people in Australia for more than three years, and still worse, 48 adults and 6 kids still detained on Nauru.

The Australian opening statement owed much to the teaching of 1984 in Australian schools during the 70s. Just as many Australian bureaucrats see Yes Minister as a training video, it’s clear that the Orwell’s novel has become a source of inspiration.

Read the speech to see what I mean. It’s dotted with “Harmony Day”, “Living in Diversity”, “shared responsibility”, “quiet revolution”, “community capacity building”, “the charter of public service in a culturally diverse society”, the “national framework for human rights”, “diversity works”, “native title is now a settled, accepted and effective dimension of Australian society and economic life”. Not to mention a whole lot of highlighting of exceptions and glosses over reality. It was too much for the Chinese member of the Expert Committee - who through the simultaneous translator, was heard to remark - “all these wonderful programs, yet Indigenous people seem dissatisfied, why is that?”

But then it turned from banal niceness to a pointed attack on the Committee for its last report, particularly that its observations:

Largely ignored the significant progress made in Australia across the spectrum of Indigenous issues, while reflecting an unquestioning acceptance of arguments raised in NGO submissions.

And:

We believe it was unreasonable for the CERD Committee to make recommendations on the reconciliation process, to suggest that Australia use external affairs powers to override Australian State laws in certain instances, or to propose how we should allocate resources to address Indigenous issues. The CERD Committee's comment about our obligations under the UN Refugee Convention, which is an issue outside its mandate, underlined the disappointing approach that the Committee adopted during its examination of our report.

Finally, in blustery intimidation, Australia spoke of its commitment to reform of the human rights treaty process, and tried to verbal the UN Secretary General to give support to the idea that the Committee should keep its observations to itself, or face “reform”:

Mr Chairperson, as a result of the efforts of the Secretary-General, the Committees themselves, and concerned States such as Australia, such reforms are becoming accepted practice across all the Committees. I am confident problems such as I have described as having occurred in the past will not be apparent on this occasion.

Of course this sort of approach provoked members of the Committee to respond angrily - some couched in diplomatic niceness, others directly, or most memorably, with a combination. The Brazilian member of the Committee recalled how much he, as a veteran diplomat, had enjoyed serving with Australians on UN Committees, and how when hearing such a speech attacking the role of NGOs and using such grand titles for programs, in days past Australia would have joined in criticism of the speaker, usually being from a Latin American dictatorship or a Communist bloc nation.

The Committee’s “concluding observations” are published now, and seek clarification of lots of issues, further information, more reports and basically will make sure that Australia stays clearly on the list of countries whose human rights violations are subject of international concern. In a matter of fact way, the Committee repeats as its first recommendation that:

The Committee recommends to the State party that it work towards the inclusion of an entrenched guarantee against racial discrimination in its domestic law.

The reality is that we don’t have any effective protection against racial discrimination in Australia, so much evidence of the results of this absence, and no amount of high level diplomacy can hide that fact.

What is refreshing about seeing all this process in action, is that outside the fair-go fog which befuddles Australian political life, you can put the facts to intelligent people and you get a clear response. This Expert Committee has people from France, United Kingdom, India, Russia, Argentina, China, United States, Denmark, Brazil, Egypt and elsewhere - and they can all clearly recognise Australian bullshit. They respect Mr Smith, love Sydney, but will not let us pretend that our treatment of Indigenous people and asylum seekers is anything other than clear violations of international law.

We said in the key NGO submission to the Committee, that “we present this critique of Australia's progress since (our ratification of CERD in 1975), not to suggest that Australia has failed comprehensively in its implementation of CERD, but to demonstrate the areas where Australia, as a democratic and pluralist society, could make further advances in meeting its obligations under CERD.”

Here in the cold light of a Geneva day and outside the fair-go fog, it’s clear that we need to be sharper in our criticism, like other people concerned with human rights around the world.

Source: Online Opinion

Further information: human rights issues page - includes news index and external links

|| click to go to the top of this page