Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
Default title
24 August 2000
Share
AFTERNOON
HR/ESC/00/41
24 August 2000
COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS BEGINS CONSIDERATION
OF THIRD PERIODIC REPORT OF AUSTRALIA
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights this afternoon began its consideration of the third periodic report of Australia on how that country complies with the rights and principles embodied within the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
A Government delegation, led by Leslie Luck, the Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, was asked about the indigenous peoples' right to self-determination, to which it responded that the Government supported indigenous people handling their own affairs with consultations with the Government, because it was the Government which was ultimately responsible.
However, the delegation said, the Government had made it clear that it was unable to accept the inclusion in the draft declaration of a reference to an indigenous right to self-determination, because that could result in a separate nation and separate laws, which would be inappropriate. The Government's position on the definition of self-determination, however, had not impeded indigenous peoples' enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights.
Further, the delegation said the federal government alone was spending 2.3 billion Australian dollars each year on Aboriginal specific services, which was an average of 22,000 Australian dollars per indigenous household. And that was in addition to other social benefits to all Australians like universal health coverage. In the last 20 years, the Aboriginal infant mortality rate had dropped from 20 times over the non-indigenous rate, to three times the non-indigenous rate, although the Government was still not satisfied with that figure. In addition, although the education level of indigenous people was generally lower than non-indigenous people, the rate of indigenous students who finished high school had improved from 1 in 11 in the 1970s to 1 in 3 today.
The delegation said the word "reconciliation" in its report with regard to the relationship between the indigenous population and the Government did not allude to a past conflict. In 1990, a National Reconciliation Council had been founded to bring together the indigenous and non-indigenous populations.
At the heart of the Government's approach was the conviction that the effective implementation and observance of economic, social and cultural rights should be underpinned by the development of an economic environment that maximized opportunities for all individuals to employment and a fair standard of living. Economic growth over the last four years had been among the fastest in the OECD group of countries. This had provided the engine for a dramatic and sustained expansion of the labour market that had led in turn to a steady decline in the unemployment rate. At the same time, the Government recognized that responsive and effective social policy was fundamental to a strong and stable society. Australia had a very well-developed social policy infrastructure covering all areas dealt with by the articles in the Covenant, and Governments had, over a long period, worked to put in place an extensive and comprehensive range of policies and programmes.
The Government recognized that indigenous people were disadvantaged within the Australian community, largely as a result of the effects of European settlement. While it was impossible to turn back the clock, the Government was strongly committed to addressing the unacceptable level of disadvantage suffered by many of the indigenous people. However, it should be recognized that sustainable improvements in indigenous peoples' lives would not happen overnight, and a long-term strategy was in place.
Discussion
Committee experts asked if the word "reconciliation" in the report with regard to Australia's relationship with it indigenous people alluded to some past conflict. The delegation replied that in 1990, a National Reconciliation Council was founded to try to bring together the indigenous and non-indigenous people in Australia. The name of the Council was the reason the word "reconciliation" was used.
Asked about the rights of the treaty, the delegation said the rights were embedded in each level of laws in Australia. They were shared between the federal, state and territory governments. The federal system allowed an extraordinary amount of rights to the states and territories, and many of the human rights issues were realized at the state and territory level. The Government would not sign a treaty until it was satisfied it could comply with its provisions. But it was of the mind that not every position had to be adopted in domestic law, so long as it was in domestic context.
On a question concerning discrepancies between the federal and state level, the delegation said there were certain powers that the federal government could invoke to override state legislation. The Government generally viewed that was not the most effective way to act, and in the past had chosen to use other means of persuasion.
Asked about the indigenous peoples' rights to self-determination, the delegation said the Government supported indigenous people handling of their own affairs in consultation with the Government, because it was the Government which was ultimately responsible. However, the Government had made it clear that it was unable to accept the inclusion of a reference to an indigenous right to self-determination in the draft declaration, because that could result in a separate nation and separate laws, which would be inappropriate. The Government's position on the definition of self-determination, however, had not impeded indigenous peoples' enjoyment on economic, social and cultural rights. Perhaps the most obvious example of this was the Aboriginal and the Torres Straight Island Commission, which enjoyed the equivalent of a Government board. Aboriginal people also called decision-making boards in the mainstream Australian Government, including on Aboriginal housing issues, health issues, employment and legal services.
The federal government alone was spending 2.3 billion Australian dollars each year on Aboriginal specific services, which was an average of 22,000 Australian dollars per indigenous household. And that was in addition to other social benefits to all Australians like universal health coverage. In the last 20 years, the Aboriginal infant mortality rate had dropped from 20 times over the non-indigenous rate, to three times the non-indigenous rate, although the Government was still not satisfied with that figure. In addition, although the education level of indigenous peoples was generally lower than non-indigenous people, the rate of indigenous students who finished high school had improved from 1 in 11 in the 1970s to 1 in 3 today. Further, the Government had given indigenous health issues a top priority, and results were being seen.
HR/ESC/00/41
24 August 2000
COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS BEGINS CONSIDERATION
OF THIRD PERIODIC REPORT OF AUSTRALIA
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights this afternoon began its consideration of the third periodic report of Australia on how that country complies with the rights and principles embodied within the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
A Government delegation, led by Leslie Luck, the Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, was asked about the indigenous peoples' right to self-determination, to which it responded that the Government supported indigenous people handling their own affairs with consultations with the Government, because it was the Government which was ultimately responsible.
However, the delegation said, the Government had made it clear that it was unable to accept the inclusion in the draft declaration of a reference to an indigenous right to self-determination, because that could result in a separate nation and separate laws, which would be inappropriate. The Government's position on the definition of self-determination, however, had not impeded indigenous peoples' enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights.
Further, the delegation said the federal government alone was spending 2.3 billion Australian dollars each year on Aboriginal specific services, which was an average of 22,000 Australian dollars per indigenous household. And that was in addition to other social benefits to all Australians like universal health coverage. In the last 20 years, the Aboriginal infant mortality rate had dropped from 20 times over the non-indigenous rate, to three times the non-indigenous rate, although the Government was still not satisfied with that figure. In addition, although the education level of indigenous people was generally lower than non-indigenous people, the rate of indigenous students who finished high school had improved from 1 in 11 in the 1970s to 1 in 3 today.
The delegation said the word "reconciliation" in its report with regard to the relationship between the indigenous population and the Government did not allude to a past conflict. In 1990, a National Reconciliation Council had been founded to bring together the indigenous and non-indigenous populations.
At the heart of the Government's approach was the conviction that the effective implementation and observance of economic, social and cultural rights should be underpinned by the development of an economic environment that maximized opportunities for all individuals to employment and a fair standard of living. Economic growth over the last four years had been among the fastest in the OECD group of countries. This had provided the engine for a dramatic and sustained expansion of the labour market that had led in turn to a steady decline in the unemployment rate. At the same time, the Government recognized that responsive and effective social policy was fundamental to a strong and stable society. Australia had a very well-developed social policy infrastructure covering all areas dealt with by the articles in the Covenant, and Governments had, over a long period, worked to put in place an extensive and comprehensive range of policies and programmes.
The Government recognized that indigenous people were disadvantaged within the Australian community, largely as a result of the effects of European settlement. While it was impossible to turn back the clock, the Government was strongly committed to addressing the unacceptable level of disadvantage suffered by many of the indigenous people. However, it should be recognized that sustainable improvements in indigenous peoples' lives would not happen overnight, and a long-term strategy was in place.
Discussion
Committee experts asked if the word "reconciliation" in the report with regard to Australia's relationship with it indigenous people alluded to some past conflict. The delegation replied that in 1990, a National Reconciliation Council was founded to try to bring together the indigenous and non-indigenous people in Australia. The name of the Council was the reason the word "reconciliation" was used.
Asked about the rights of the treaty, the delegation said the rights were embedded in each level of laws in Australia. They were shared between the federal, state and territory governments. The federal system allowed an extraordinary amount of rights to the states and territories, and many of the human rights issues were realized at the state and territory level. The Government would not sign a treaty until it was satisfied it could comply with its provisions. But it was of the mind that not every position had to be adopted in domestic law, so long as it was in domestic context.
On a question concerning discrepancies between the federal and state level, the delegation said there were certain powers that the federal government could invoke to override state legislation. The Government generally viewed that was not the most effective way to act, and in the past had chosen to use other means of persuasion.
Asked about the indigenous peoples' rights to self-determination, the delegation said the Government supported indigenous people handling of their own affairs in consultation with the Government, because it was the Government which was ultimately responsible. However, the Government had made it clear that it was unable to accept the inclusion of a reference to an indigenous right to self-determination in the draft declaration, because that could result in a separate nation and separate laws, which would be inappropriate. The Government's position on the definition of self-determination, however, had not impeded indigenous peoples' enjoyment on economic, social and cultural rights. Perhaps the most obvious example of this was the Aboriginal and the Torres Straight Island Commission, which enjoyed the equivalent of a Government board. Aboriginal people also called decision-making boards in the mainstream Australian Government, including on Aboriginal housing issues, health issues, employment and legal services.
The federal government alone was spending 2.3 billion Australian dollars each year on Aboriginal specific services, which was an average of 22,000 Australian dollars per indigenous household. And that was in addition to other social benefits to all Australians like universal health coverage. In the last 20 years, the Aboriginal infant mortality rate had dropped from 20 times over the non-indigenous rate, to three times the non-indigenous rate, although the Government was still not satisfied with that figure. In addition, although the education level of indigenous peoples was generally lower than non-indigenous people, the rate of indigenous students who finished high school had improved from 1 in 11 in the 1970s to 1 in 3 today. Further, the Government had given indigenous health issues a top priority, and results were being seen.