Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
Default title
21 March 2000
Share
21 March 2000
Afternoon
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this afternoon began its consideration of a report presented by the Government of Australia on its efforts to implement the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Philip Ruddock, a member of Australia’s Parliament, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and head of the delegation, said his country was pursuing many schemes to achieve a harmonious society and to promote to all the benefits of ethnic diversity. The treatment of indigenous people was not always appropriate but the Government had undertaken a long-term effort to improve the lives and conditions of indigenous peoples through special programmes and policies.
Gay McDougall, the Committee expert who served as the country rapporteur to the report of Australia, said that while she appreciated the efforts of the Government of Australia to present a comprehensive report, the document lacked detail on how the situation had improved for the country’s migrant population, and information about the integration of women's rights. She also questioned the allocation of responsibility for indigenous issues and whether these bodies were under funded and had limited decision-making authority. She also expressed her concerns about the Mandatory Sentencing Laws existing in Australia.
As one of the 155 States parties to the Convention, Australia must submit periodic reports to the Committee on the efforts made by the Government to implement the provisions of the treaty.
The Australian delegation also included Leslie Luck, Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations Office at Geneva; Ann Duffield, Chief of Staff for the Office of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Bill Farmer, Secretary for the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Alistair Sherwin, Adviser on Indigenous Affairs in the Office of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Peter Vaughan, First Assistant Secretary, Office of Indigenous Policy in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; Peter Hughes, First Assistant Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship Issues, Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Philippa Horner, First Assistant Secretary, Native Title Division in the Attorney-General's Department; Peter Heyward, Director, Human Rights and Indigenous Issues Section at the Department of Foreign Affairs, and James Choi, Executive Officer, Human Rights and Indigenous Issues Section, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Also participating in the discussion were Committee experts Ion Diaconu and Deci Zou.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 22 March, it will continue its consideration of the Australian report.
The Report of Australia
The twelfth periodic report of Australia (document CERD/C/335/Add.2) reviews the measures the country has adopted and the progress made in achieving the aims of the Convention. The report attempts to identify the key issues arising under each article of the Convention, and provides analysis of relevant policies and programmes undertaken as well as information on outcomes and achievements.
The report covers the legislative measures prohibiting all forms of racial discrimination in all Australian jurisdiction: federal, state and territorial. The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA) allows individuals to choose to pursue racial discrimination complaints under either the federal or relevant state or territory scheme. Since the last report to the Committee, Australia has made significant amendments to the RDA Act, providing civil prohibition on offensive, insulting, humiliating or intimidating behavior based on race, colour and national and ethnic origin. This provides additional grounds for investigation and conciliation under Australia's overall federal scheme of human rights legislation.
Additionally, the report covers Government actions to provide equality before the law, particularly for the ethnic community, and equal access to employment through legislation. Also, the report examines the social, economic and cultural provisions for the indigenous Australian population. This includes sections on the process of reconciliation between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and other Australians.
Presentation of the Australian Report
PHILIP RUDDOCK, Member of Parliament and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs of Australia, said that one of the most important aspects of Australia's racial policy was the process of reconciliation, in which all Australians were involved. On this day in Australia, he said, the country was celebrating National Harmony Day to draw attention to the issue of racial discrimination and what could be done to fight it.
The report underlined these principles to promote a multicultural and inclusive society. Implementing these polices against racial discrimination was pursued actively, Mr. Ruddock stated.
The Australian Minister emphasized that his country had a multicultural society with people from some 130 different countries. Although not all had appreciated cultural diversity through time, successive Governments had developed legal and social systems reflecting the diversity of Australia.
The Government had just introduced mechanisms for a grater appreciation for the economic and cultural benefits of multiculturalism. Such schemes included a Council for Multicultural Australia which promoted harmony and raised awareness. Mr. Ruddock said this was a community-based programme which was well funded by the Government and included many indigenous organizations.
Mr. Ruddock went on to say that the treatment of indigenous people was not always appropriate. The Government was addressing the unacceptable level of suffering among indigenous peoples. This was a long-term effort to improve the lives and conditions of indigenous peoples through special programmes and policies.
Government funding for indigenous people, the Minister said, was increasing and now stood at now 2.2 billion Australian dollars.
It was emphasized that the report also included the views of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which reflected Government recognition that extensive consultation with the broader community was needed to combat racism.
PETER HUGHES, First Assistant Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship Issues, Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs of Australia, outlined more specifically the promotion of ethnic diversity and developing respect for cultural diversity. He went on to discuss the status of the indigenous people in the country, their participation in tertiary education, and indigenous rates of death in custody.
PHILIPPA HORNER, First Assistant Secretary, Native Title Division in the Attorney-General's Department of Australia, gave a summary of the native title situation in the country, responding to the view that there was a lack of effective participation by indigenous communities in the formulation of the amendments to the Native Title Act (1993). This summary was a response to the concerns raised by the Committee from the previous year. Ms. Horner said that the Native Title Act met the standard of substantive equality, and contained provisions recognizing the unique nature of native title rights.
Discussion of the Report of Australia
GAY MCDOUGALL, the Committee expert serving as the country rapporteur to the report of Australia, thanked the delegation for the comprehensive report, especially with regards to the explanation of separation of powers within the country.
She said that the two groups most affected by discrimination were the indigenous community and the immigrants. She noted the report lacked details on how treatment of immigrants had improved. Also, she noted the report lacked information on the status of women.
Relating to the implementation of the Convention in Australia, she asked the delegation if they considered that the treaty imposed obligations that were absolute or did the delegation believe that there was a margin of appreciation with respect to these obligations.
Ms. McDougall also asked if the delegation viewed the Convention as establishing a legal duty to ensure formal equality with respect to the rights of historically disadvantaged racial and ethnic groups that still suffered from inequalities, or was it substantive equality that was the obligation. She was interested therefore in the delegation's definition of the Convention, and where they placed special measures against racial discrimination within that framework.
Ms. McDougall was also concerned about the lack of competence or steps to ensure the harmonious application of the provisions of the Convention at all levels of legislative power. She also held concerns that there was a lack of an entrenched guarantee against racial discrimination. She asked the delegation to comment on patterns of unintended segregation and what efforts were being made to overcome these patterns. Also, she felt there was a lack of competence in the Commonwealth Parliament to take steps to ensure harmonious aspects of the Convention.
Concerns were also expressed by Ms. McDougall on the lack of guarantees against racial discrimination in law, particularly in light of the Commonwealth's power to enact discriminatory laws following a high court decision that allowed this to happen. She said that the overriding of the Racial Discrimination Act would amount to a repudiation of the State's obligations under the Convention.
One important area of concern for the Committee was the Mandatory Sentencing Laws in place in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Ms. McDougall stated the view that these laws discriminated against indigenous people, put the indigenous people in an unequal position, and increased the incarceration rates of indigenous people, which was already at unacceptable levels.
Ms. McDougall stated that she was concerned that indigenous people still suffered appalling conditions. She noted the huge economic and opportunity gap that existed between indigenous people and other groups in the country. Ms. McDougall stated that the Committee remained seriously concerned about the extent of the dramatic inequality still experienced by an indigenous population that represented only around two per cent of the total population of a highly developed industrialized state.
Added to this, Ms. McDougall stated that the Royal Commission on Deaths in Custody blamed inequalities for bringing indigenous people into the criminal justice system. Furthermore, deaths in custody had increased, and an independent report stated that "claims by State and Territory Governments to have implemented recommendations cannot be sustained. Further State/Territory Governments have taken legislative actions, not envisaged by the Royal Commission, which had led to an increase in Aboriginal imprisonment."
While she welcomed the establishment of a number of bodies representing indigenous groups by the Government, there was new concern that recent changes, both carried out and implicit, might have an adverse impact on the effective carrying out of their functions. She also voiced a complaint that the few agencies charged with carrying out Australia's anti-discrimination laws and programmes were not ethically diverse.
In relation to the Native Titles Act, Ms. McDougall felt that there was a combination of devolving responsibility for many native title issues to the states and territories in Australia, meaning that native title issues were not necessarily governed by federal anti-discrimination legislation.
Final questions were raised by Ms. McDougall on why it was that the Government was finding it difficult to take full responsibility for past Government actions when indigenous children were forced away from their homes. And in relation to present attempts at reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous people, how did the delegation define reconciliation, and what were the benchmarks for success ?
Other Committee experts asked for more information about the amendments to the Native Title Act. How had land titles been clarified, and why had areas under claim decreased ? A second question dealt with the mechanisms to negotiate with Aboriginals on land rights. On Mandatory Sentencing, an expert stated that it imposed appalling conditions on the Aboriginals and increased the internment rate of this section of the community. An expert asked why there were no translation services for aboriginals in law courts.
Experts asked why the Northern Territory had disassociated itself from the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Deaths in Custody and if the federal Government would voice concerns over this matter, considering its obligations under the Convention. An expert asked about the construction of new mines and other projects on sites that were sacred to indigenous people. Although Australia had a federal system, meaning there was broad separation of powers, the federal Government could not hide from its obligations to implement the Convention. Another expert stated that the report by Australia did not give enough concrete facts, such as the impact of its legislation to eliminate racism. There was also no reference to certain xenophobic political parties in Australia.
* *** *
Afternoon
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this afternoon began its consideration of a report presented by the Government of Australia on its efforts to implement the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Philip Ruddock, a member of Australia’s Parliament, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and head of the delegation, said his country was pursuing many schemes to achieve a harmonious society and to promote to all the benefits of ethnic diversity. The treatment of indigenous people was not always appropriate but the Government had undertaken a long-term effort to improve the lives and conditions of indigenous peoples through special programmes and policies.
Gay McDougall, the Committee expert who served as the country rapporteur to the report of Australia, said that while she appreciated the efforts of the Government of Australia to present a comprehensive report, the document lacked detail on how the situation had improved for the country’s migrant population, and information about the integration of women's rights. She also questioned the allocation of responsibility for indigenous issues and whether these bodies were under funded and had limited decision-making authority. She also expressed her concerns about the Mandatory Sentencing Laws existing in Australia.
As one of the 155 States parties to the Convention, Australia must submit periodic reports to the Committee on the efforts made by the Government to implement the provisions of the treaty.
The Australian delegation also included Leslie Luck, Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations Office at Geneva; Ann Duffield, Chief of Staff for the Office of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Bill Farmer, Secretary for the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Alistair Sherwin, Adviser on Indigenous Affairs in the Office of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Peter Vaughan, First Assistant Secretary, Office of Indigenous Policy in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; Peter Hughes, First Assistant Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship Issues, Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Philippa Horner, First Assistant Secretary, Native Title Division in the Attorney-General's Department; Peter Heyward, Director, Human Rights and Indigenous Issues Section at the Department of Foreign Affairs, and James Choi, Executive Officer, Human Rights and Indigenous Issues Section, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Also participating in the discussion were Committee experts Ion Diaconu and Deci Zou.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 22 March, it will continue its consideration of the Australian report.
The Report of Australia
The twelfth periodic report of Australia (document CERD/C/335/Add.2) reviews the measures the country has adopted and the progress made in achieving the aims of the Convention. The report attempts to identify the key issues arising under each article of the Convention, and provides analysis of relevant policies and programmes undertaken as well as information on outcomes and achievements.
The report covers the legislative measures prohibiting all forms of racial discrimination in all Australian jurisdiction: federal, state and territorial. The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA) allows individuals to choose to pursue racial discrimination complaints under either the federal or relevant state or territory scheme. Since the last report to the Committee, Australia has made significant amendments to the RDA Act, providing civil prohibition on offensive, insulting, humiliating or intimidating behavior based on race, colour and national and ethnic origin. This provides additional grounds for investigation and conciliation under Australia's overall federal scheme of human rights legislation.
Additionally, the report covers Government actions to provide equality before the law, particularly for the ethnic community, and equal access to employment through legislation. Also, the report examines the social, economic and cultural provisions for the indigenous Australian population. This includes sections on the process of reconciliation between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and other Australians.
Presentation of the Australian Report
PHILIP RUDDOCK, Member of Parliament and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs of Australia, said that one of the most important aspects of Australia's racial policy was the process of reconciliation, in which all Australians were involved. On this day in Australia, he said, the country was celebrating National Harmony Day to draw attention to the issue of racial discrimination and what could be done to fight it.
The report underlined these principles to promote a multicultural and inclusive society. Implementing these polices against racial discrimination was pursued actively, Mr. Ruddock stated.
The Australian Minister emphasized that his country had a multicultural society with people from some 130 different countries. Although not all had appreciated cultural diversity through time, successive Governments had developed legal and social systems reflecting the diversity of Australia.
The Government had just introduced mechanisms for a grater appreciation for the economic and cultural benefits of multiculturalism. Such schemes included a Council for Multicultural Australia which promoted harmony and raised awareness. Mr. Ruddock said this was a community-based programme which was well funded by the Government and included many indigenous organizations.
Mr. Ruddock went on to say that the treatment of indigenous people was not always appropriate. The Government was addressing the unacceptable level of suffering among indigenous peoples. This was a long-term effort to improve the lives and conditions of indigenous peoples through special programmes and policies.
Government funding for indigenous people, the Minister said, was increasing and now stood at now 2.2 billion Australian dollars.
It was emphasized that the report also included the views of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which reflected Government recognition that extensive consultation with the broader community was needed to combat racism.
PETER HUGHES, First Assistant Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship Issues, Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs of Australia, outlined more specifically the promotion of ethnic diversity and developing respect for cultural diversity. He went on to discuss the status of the indigenous people in the country, their participation in tertiary education, and indigenous rates of death in custody.
PHILIPPA HORNER, First Assistant Secretary, Native Title Division in the Attorney-General's Department of Australia, gave a summary of the native title situation in the country, responding to the view that there was a lack of effective participation by indigenous communities in the formulation of the amendments to the Native Title Act (1993). This summary was a response to the concerns raised by the Committee from the previous year. Ms. Horner said that the Native Title Act met the standard of substantive equality, and contained provisions recognizing the unique nature of native title rights.
Discussion of the Report of Australia
GAY MCDOUGALL, the Committee expert serving as the country rapporteur to the report of Australia, thanked the delegation for the comprehensive report, especially with regards to the explanation of separation of powers within the country.
She said that the two groups most affected by discrimination were the indigenous community and the immigrants. She noted the report lacked details on how treatment of immigrants had improved. Also, she noted the report lacked information on the status of women.
Relating to the implementation of the Convention in Australia, she asked the delegation if they considered that the treaty imposed obligations that were absolute or did the delegation believe that there was a margin of appreciation with respect to these obligations.
Ms. McDougall also asked if the delegation viewed the Convention as establishing a legal duty to ensure formal equality with respect to the rights of historically disadvantaged racial and ethnic groups that still suffered from inequalities, or was it substantive equality that was the obligation. She was interested therefore in the delegation's definition of the Convention, and where they placed special measures against racial discrimination within that framework.
Ms. McDougall was also concerned about the lack of competence or steps to ensure the harmonious application of the provisions of the Convention at all levels of legislative power. She also held concerns that there was a lack of an entrenched guarantee against racial discrimination. She asked the delegation to comment on patterns of unintended segregation and what efforts were being made to overcome these patterns. Also, she felt there was a lack of competence in the Commonwealth Parliament to take steps to ensure harmonious aspects of the Convention.
Concerns were also expressed by Ms. McDougall on the lack of guarantees against racial discrimination in law, particularly in light of the Commonwealth's power to enact discriminatory laws following a high court decision that allowed this to happen. She said that the overriding of the Racial Discrimination Act would amount to a repudiation of the State's obligations under the Convention.
One important area of concern for the Committee was the Mandatory Sentencing Laws in place in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Ms. McDougall stated the view that these laws discriminated against indigenous people, put the indigenous people in an unequal position, and increased the incarceration rates of indigenous people, which was already at unacceptable levels.
Ms. McDougall stated that she was concerned that indigenous people still suffered appalling conditions. She noted the huge economic and opportunity gap that existed between indigenous people and other groups in the country. Ms. McDougall stated that the Committee remained seriously concerned about the extent of the dramatic inequality still experienced by an indigenous population that represented only around two per cent of the total population of a highly developed industrialized state.
Added to this, Ms. McDougall stated that the Royal Commission on Deaths in Custody blamed inequalities for bringing indigenous people into the criminal justice system. Furthermore, deaths in custody had increased, and an independent report stated that "claims by State and Territory Governments to have implemented recommendations cannot be sustained. Further State/Territory Governments have taken legislative actions, not envisaged by the Royal Commission, which had led to an increase in Aboriginal imprisonment."
While she welcomed the establishment of a number of bodies representing indigenous groups by the Government, there was new concern that recent changes, both carried out and implicit, might have an adverse impact on the effective carrying out of their functions. She also voiced a complaint that the few agencies charged with carrying out Australia's anti-discrimination laws and programmes were not ethically diverse.
In relation to the Native Titles Act, Ms. McDougall felt that there was a combination of devolving responsibility for many native title issues to the states and territories in Australia, meaning that native title issues were not necessarily governed by federal anti-discrimination legislation.
Final questions were raised by Ms. McDougall on why it was that the Government was finding it difficult to take full responsibility for past Government actions when indigenous children were forced away from their homes. And in relation to present attempts at reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous people, how did the delegation define reconciliation, and what were the benchmarks for success ?
Other Committee experts asked for more information about the amendments to the Native Title Act. How had land titles been clarified, and why had areas under claim decreased ? A second question dealt with the mechanisms to negotiate with Aboriginals on land rights. On Mandatory Sentencing, an expert stated that it imposed appalling conditions on the Aboriginals and increased the internment rate of this section of the community. An expert asked why there were no translation services for aboriginals in law courts.
Experts asked why the Northern Territory had disassociated itself from the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Deaths in Custody and if the federal Government would voice concerns over this matter, considering its obligations under the Convention. An expert asked about the construction of new mines and other projects on sites that were sacred to indigenous people. Although Australia had a federal system, meaning there was broad separation of powers, the federal Government could not hide from its obligations to implement the Convention. Another expert stated that the report by Australia did not give enough concrete facts, such as the impact of its legislation to eliminate racism. There was also no reference to certain xenophobic political parties in Australia.
* *** *