The UN committee on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination (the committee) has given Australia another serve in its latest report on Australia’s progress in implementing the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). States who ratify this treaty agree to abide by its articles. Regular reporting to the CERD Committee, a body of 18 independent (honorary) experts drawn from states that have ratified the convention is part of the deal. So too is abiding by the recommendations of the committee. Australia’s past behaviour in the latter respect could only be called recalcitrant.
In reaching its conclusions, the committee affords the reporting state the opportunity to respond to questions about matters of concern. These are developed from consideration of reports from bodies such as the Australian Human Rights Commission, NGOs concerned with human rights and international law, reports from UN expert mechanisms such as the Special Rapporteurs on Housing and Indigenous Rights respectively — both of whom visited Australia during the reporting period — and the substance of individual complaints that the committee has investigated.
It was to be expected that Australia would attract the committee’s criticism because despite having been intimately involved in setting up the UN and developing the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, this land of the “fair go” has not cast aside the racist relics of its origins. They are embedded in the Constitution. They are evidenced in the law, policy and practice of state and federal governments. They are part of the national psyche and emerge as popular pejoratives for members of ethnic or religious minorities, or as violence.
The committee has urged the Australian government to:
“take measures to ensure that the Racial Discrimination Act prevails over all other legislation which may be discriminatory on the grounds set out in the Convention [and] draft and adopt comprehensive legislation providing entrenched protection against racial discrimination.”
These are the committee’s single most important recommendations. It’s not a small thing to amend the Constitution and provide entrenched protection against discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin — but it’s something that should be done.
Why? Because:
- Pacta sunt servanda — we’ve ratified the treaty and should abide by it.
- There’s no excuse, ever, for treating people with less respect and dignity than we would want for ourselves, our children and our friends because of unjustifiable beliefs in racial superiority or cultural chauvinism.
- Discrimination undermines the feeling of shared humanity that any society needs build up trust and to ensure that all members can have their essential interests, in other words, their human rights, met.
- A legal framework for giving effect to the Convention would provide individuals with a mechanism for challenging discriminatory law and for seeking redress for past wrongs — this is a matter of justice.
- A fair and inclusive society is the best protection against political drift that can end in crimes against humanity.
Of course, the Committee has asked the Australian government to particular reform law and policy that contravenes the Convention, such as the Northern Territory intervention, which is still not compliant, still misinterprets “special measures” and still restricts access to the protections of the Racial Discrimination Act. Of course, the committee has criticised, inter alia, the system of lesser administrative justice for asylum seekers entering the excised zone and the policy that can result in their arbitrary detention.
Stopping the harm done by particular violations of the Convention is important, but the committee’s recommendations for structural reform, particularly constitutional reform and entrenchment of the prohibition against discrimination, are fundamental. They need to be on the to-do list for the new parliament, along with the committee’s recommendations that Australia move to Constitutional recognition of its first peoples, and consider development of a treaty with them.
Under the new system of Universal Periodic Review, Australia will be reviewed by the UN Human Rights Council — in effect by its peers — for its compliance with CERD and other human rights treaties to which it is party. Its first review under this system will happen early next year. Let’s hope that by then there’ll be a program for implementing all the committee’s recommendations.
Robyn Seth-Purdie, public policy and governance consultant, who has worked for a human rights organisation.
It would be one thing to covince the public to support an amendment to the Australian Constitution which made ALL discrimination on the basis of race illegal, but another to convince voters to endorse a change which forbade some acts of racial discrimination, but enshrined others.
Currently certain acts of discrimination are allowed by our anti-discrimination legislation. Most Australians aren’t aware of this. It may be that such legislatively condoned discrimination is a good thing, it may not. That’s not the issue, however. It’s a question of what sorts of reactions might one expect from Australian voters, were they asked to vote for a change which enshrined racial discrimination simply because it was deemed good by whoever drafted the proposal?
That may be why there’s been a reluctance on the part of those who one day might have to run the country, to carry out the noble dream of Referendum? Perhaps that’s why Parties which will never win a House of Reps majority in the forseeable future, are the only ones demanding action immediately?
Journalists, of course, being even less responsible than minor Parties can be expected to rally to a cause which may provide headaches for major Parties, but column inches for those who comment on political events.
As per Julian Templer’s letter in today’s Crikey –
“The CERD Committee’s charter emphasises the enjoyment of fundamental freedoms and human rights. Upstanding exponents of these values among the 17 members of the committee are (with their rankings in the World Liberty Index): Algeria (135), Russia (124), China (146), Guatemala (92), Burkina Faso (111), Romania (63), Brazil (59),Togo (139), China (146), Pakistan (121), India (78), Turkey (84), Colombia (98), Tanzania (94), and Niger (101). .”
Yes, the report makes valid criticisms. But with this bunch running the show you have to ask what credibility the Committee has in this area.
Malcolm… playing the man. The facts are not disputed, so why attack the jury?
Come off it John. Would anyone believe a jury like that warranted the effort of making an attack? In any case, understanding facts (or even ‘facts’?) is more important than trying to use (or misuse?) them.
The fact that the Northern Territory Intervention is still going on, and that the Racial Discrimination Act is still suspended, absolutely astounds me!
Child Abuse and poverty in Indigenous communities is a serious problem which needs to be dealt with; however, the Government is dealing with the situation in all of the wrong ways. They are denying indigenous of their independence and culture by introducing methods of implementing welfare payments and services that require indigenous to move away from the land they hold spiritual connections with and moving into foreign cities and rural towns. It appears as though the government’s idea of fixing the problem is by assimilating them into white culture. Now this sounds familiar doesn’t it!?
If the fact that Indigenous Australian’s are having their independence and culture ripped away isn’t enough to make you think that the approach the government is taking is a bad idea; then maybe we should consider how much of a failure the intervention has been! The Governments own progress report reveals that since the implementation of the intervention, child malnutrition has increased by 13%, violence has increased by 61% and substance abuse by a whopping 77%! The government seems to be doing more harm than good!
I think that the ‘emergency intervention’ was put together without enough thought. The Government appears to be moving back towards the stolen generation approach, governing Indigenous in a controlling manner. They need to take a different approach, and include Indigenous leaders and communities in the process of building stronger communities. The government also needs to invest their money in more effective programs and initiatives while sustaining sensitivity and respect towards the age old indigenous culture.
Indigenous communities appear to be deteriorating and losing their culture and something does need to be done immediately! However, violating human rights and denying Indigenous of their independence is not going to fix the problem anytime soon! A change desperately needs to be made!