🚀 go-pugleaf

Getting serious about human 
By Bruce Haigh and Kellie Tranter - posted Wednesday, 3 June 2009 	

Source: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8996&page=0

Recent international criticism and local political shenanigans
demonstrate that Australians need - and need now - constitutionally
enshrined human rights, covering economic, social and cultural rights.
And if the Rudd Government won't give us protection at that level -
and undoubtedly it won't - it should at least begin taking human
rights seriously.

The National Human Rights Consultation is being conducted now, during
the first half of 2009, so every Australian should wake from their
human rights slumber, take heed of the concluding observations raised
by the United Nations� Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights in its May 22, 2009 report and provide input to the independent
committee.

The Australian Human Rights Commission has already pointed out that:

    Many people believe that the Australian Constitution contains
human rights protections, such as the right to free speech. This is
not true. The Australian Constitution offers very limited protections
for human rights.

    The Constitution includes the right to vote, the right to trial by
jury for certain offences, some protection of freedom of religion, an
implied right to freedom of political communication, and the right to
be paid a fair price if the government compulsorily acquires your
property.

    However, the Australian Constitution does not guarantee rights and
freedoms such as the right to be represented by a lawyer at trial, the
right to free speech (generally, as opposed to merely on political
issues), the right to equality before the law, or the right of
peaceful assembly.

As well as criticising the Rudd Government's half-hearted terms of
reference for the National Human Rights Consultation, the UN report
contains a scathing assessment of Australia's treatment of Indigenous
Australians, asylum seekers, migrants, people with disabilities,
women, the mentally ill, the disenfranchised and the marginalised.

On May 7, 2009 the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Stephen
Smith, issued a press release which stated:�The Australian Government
welcomes the opportunity to engage in discussion of Australia�s human
rights performance. The Government looks forward to receiving the
Committee�s concluding observations at the end of the Committee�s
session on 22 May ...�

Well, the report�s been published so it will be interesting to see the
government�s response.

Did the government anticipate that it would come under fire? Was it
just coincidence or was it a pre-emptive strike before the committee�s
recommendations became more well known, that the federal
Attorney-General announced on May 22, 2009, that Australia has signed
the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment?

The irony is that even as Australia signed the Optional Protocol it
was breaking it. The continued excision of northern Australian Islands
from the migration zone and incarceration on Christmas Island without
access to legal advice are measures designed to make it harder for
rightsasylum seekers to gain refugee status. Besides being petty,
fearful and mean, these measures are cruel and deny asylum seekers the
human rights they are entitled to under the UN Refugee Convention.

Australia has put the management of part of its refugee
responsibilities in the hands of the Indonesian Police and Army.
Australia has outsourced, for a fee, the apprehension and detention of
asylum seekers, destined for Australia, to instruments under the
control of the Indonesian government. The Indonesian government is not
a signatory to the UN Convention on Refugees. However as agents of the
Australian government presumably these Indonesian instrumentalities
are covered by Australian accession to the Convention. In which case
Australia is in breach of the Convention and the Optional Protocol
just signed.

Indonesia claims to have apprehended 887 asylum seekers bound for
Australia since September last year. Who verifies or monitors these
claims? Is a bounty paid by the Australian government to the
Indonesian authorities on each person detained and incarcerated? Who
inspects the conditions under which asylum seekers live after being
detained? Are they representatives of the Australian government or
other organisations acting as agents of the Australian government?
Most asylum seekers who have arrived by boat have been found to be
refugees. What responsibility does Australia have under the Optional
Protocol for seeking to thwart and obstruct genuine refugees from
resettlement in a safe environment?

Tuesday was the commemoration of National Sorry Day and still the Rudd
Government - like its predecessors - continues to ignore international
law. This time it's a housing solution on Alice Springs town camps.
Doesn't this fly in the face of the UN Committee's observations that:

    The Committee remains concerned that some of the Northern
Territory Intervention measures adopted by the State party in response
to the 2007 report, are inconsistent with the Covenant rights, in
particular with the principle of non-discrimination, and have a
negative impact on the realisation of the rights of indigenous
peoples. The Committee notes with regret that the Northern Territory
Intervention measures were adopted without sufficient and adequate
consultation with the indigenous peoples concerned. (art.2.2)

    The Committee recommends that the State party: a) address the
human rights violations identified in the 2007 Little Children are
sacred report bearing in mind the recommendations of the 2008 report
of the Northern Territory Intervention Response Review board in this
regard; b) conduct formal consultations with the indigenous peoples
concerned regarding the operation and impact of the Northern Territory
Intervention; c) establish a national indigenous representative body
with adequate resources; and d) ratify ILO Convention No. 169
concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries
(1989).

The UN Committee also expressed concern about �the negative impact of
climate change on the right to an adequate standard of living,
including on the right to food and the right to water, affecting in
particular indigenous peoples, in spite of the State Party�s
recognition of the challenges imposed by climate change�. If Australia
really is a good international citizen is the Rudd Government going to
step in to prevent State Governments from further privatising the
country�s water supplies in order to protect such rights?

Until Kevin and Penny Wong grasp that access to an adequate potable
water supply is a basic human right they will not be able to bring
about policy which addresses the needs of Australia. Within the
framework of addressing the supply of potable water, there falls the
requirements of industry and agriculture. Private enterprise will not
distribute water equitably. It needs to be recognised that, sooner or
later, federal government will need to (or will be forced to) take on
the role of conservator and distributor of water without fear or
favour. Corrupt and parochial state and local governments can have no
part in such undertakings and neither can cashed up private companies
which have shown an inclination to feed government corruption for
their own ends.

And while the Rudd Government is busy praising the arrest of people
for alleged people smuggling, and making sure it gets plenty of
coverage, is it also busy reflecting on the UN Committee�s
recommendations to it that �... it implement without delay its new
�seven values� in policy, and carry out the Australian Human Rights
Commission�s recommendations adopted in its 2008 Immigration Detention
Report, including the repeal of the mandatory immigration detention
system and the closure of the Christmas Island detention Centre ...�

If the Rudd Government is really serious about its citizens and about
�building on� its human rights record then at the very least it should
first, immediately respond to and implement all recommendations
clearly laid out by the Committee and second, reconsider its narrow
terms of reference for the National Human Rights Consultation.

-- 
Clean Feed, it "cleans" the Internet in the same way that Ethnic
Cleansing "cleanses" the population.

http://filtermenot.googlepages.com/home