In the past 10 years Australia has been a poor international citizen. Since 1996 Australia has thumbed its nose at any criticism of its human rights practices from abroad.
It has arrogantly paraded the view that human rights in Australia are second to none and everything is perfect.
This week it reaffirmed its commitment to detention without trial and with dodgy court procedures when it said, again, that it would do nothing to protest against the detention without trial of David Hicks. The reaffirmation came after the British Government said it was a matter for Australia because Hicks was an Australian when arrested (kidnapped?) by the Americans in Afghanistan five years ago, even though the British Courts have affirmed his right to take up British citizenship.
Leaving Hicks aside, it is worth looking at how Australia has responded to its international critics. It must be said that Australia by and large has a good human rights record.
But when it comes to human rights being by and large good is still not enough. This is because it only takes one slip up and the rights of at least one human rights are transgressed which is unacceptable and should be attended to.
Obviously, a dozen or more African, Arab and sundry Third World hellholes have appalling human rights records and deserve greater attention. But that should not be used as an excuse. We should not say we are pretty good therefore we can ignore the findings of United Nations committees on human rights. To the contrary, unless we can show we are beyond any reproach we run the risk of being declared hypocrites and ignored when we rightly point out human rights breaches in other countries.
We have lost credibility. We have endangered our capacity to promote human rights and democracy.
Australia is a party to all the major human-rights treaties, but has been reluctant to make them work domestically.
By signing these treaties, Australia has agreed that individuals in Australia can complain to UN committees (on human rights, race discrimination and against torture)
At an Australian Lawyers’ Alliance conference last week Professor Hilary Charlesworth of the ANU compared the sorry history since 1996 and noted the different reaction to the case immediately before the change in Government.
In 1994 the Human Rights Committee of the UN handed down its “views”, as they call them, on a complaint brought by Nicholas Toonen alleging his rights had been affected by the Tasmanian Criminal Code’s making homosexual acts between consenting adults a criminal offence.
The committee condemned the law. The Keating Government supported by the then Opposition enacted a law to override the Tasmanian provision, relying on the external-affairs power. It was giving effect to Australia’s voluntarily agreed-to obligations.
Since then Australia under Prime Minister John Howard has failed to comply with almost every decision of the Human Rights Committee.
The second decision against Australia was issued on 3 April 1997. Mr A, a Cambodian detained at the Port Hedland Detention Centre for more than four years without access to legal advice or a court review.
The committee said it was a breach of the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights.
The Howard Government said: “The Government does not accept that the detention of Mr A was in contravention of the Covenant, nor that the provision for review of the lawfulness of that detention by Australian courts was inadequate. Consequently, the Government does not accept the view of the Committee that compensation should be paid to Mr A.
There have been 42 other claims against Australia – 11 found Australia had violated human rights:
They include:
Mistreatment of children by holding them in immigration detention for two years and eight months.
Mistreatment of prisoners by holding them in a triangular cage the size of a telephone booth.
Denial of family life by ordering the deportation of the parents of a 13-year-old who was born in Australia and grew up here.
Undue delay in a trial the Northern Territory Court of Appeals took more than two years to deliver its decision on a criminal contempt charge.
Discrimination because a war veteran’s dependant was refused a pension because his partner of 38 years was a man.
And inhumane treatment of a young Aboriginal held in solitary confinement and deprived of clothing and blankets in a NSW adult prison.
Australia’s response has been that the Human Rights Committee is not a court and its views are not binding.
It was similar with racial discrimination. In 2000 the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination criticised the failure to consult representatives of the Aboriginal community adequately in drafting amendments to the Native Title Act; the high rate of Aboriginal incarceration; the continuing discrimination experienced by the indigenous population in economic, social and cultural rights; and the failure to apologise to the members of the Stolen Generation.
Sounding like any number of Government whose human rights records are on the line, the Government said it was an unreasonable intrusion in Australia’s domestic affairs.
Howard said, “In the end we are not told what to do by anybody . . . Australia’s human rights reputation compared to the rest of the world is quite magnificent.”
But human rights are not some sort of league table of comparative virtue and vice. They are measured on objective standards to which Australia has agreed.
Sure, the committees are not perfect. Some adjudicating members do come from countries with poor records, but they serve as individuals and countries with poor rights records often give rise to outstanding individuals: Nelson Mandela and Aung San Suu Kyi come to mind.
More recently, the Government’s response has been more sinister.
Since 2000, as Charlesworth points out, the Government’s response has changed to one of not engaging publicly, therefore undermining one of the main weapons to counter human-rights breaches in a voluntary regime – publicity.
Presumably, there will be a complaint about Australia’s anti-terror laws before long. If so, expect the usual relativist self-congratulation and clap-trap about Australian sovereignty at best, or at worst, silence.
But remember we are all human and next breach of human rights might be yours, or those of a member of your family.