PRESS RELEASE, GENEVA 29 July 2000
Michael Anderson, Convener of Sovereign Union of Aboriginal Peoples of
Australia, welcomes the UN Human Rights Committee's recommendations
including that the Australian Government applies the principle of
self-determination for Aboriginal Peoples (article 1)
Q [Transcript] . Michael what is your reaction to the report ?
Michael Anderson : Reservedly happy, I guess, because what it does is
really address some of the key issues in Australia, which concern
Aboriginal People. The international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
is a very important instrument and it certainly affords a greater number of
rights than most others because of that, particularly in relation to
article 27 ... and also article one deals with the right to self-determination.
These are very key factors that impact upon Aboriginal Peoples lives in
Australia. And it is something that is going on here in terms of
Australia's position on the right to self-determination, under the Draft
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Australia is one of the
leading countries objecting to self-determination. Here the Human Rights
Committee's decision is :
The State party shall take the necessary steps in order to secure for the
indigenous inhabitants a stronger r=F4le in decision making over their
traditional lands and natural resources.
That impacts on article 27 as well as the right of self-determination. By
addressing those things they are really creating, for us Aboriginal People
in Australia, a much more defined r=F4le and position in Australian society.
Q: In your assessment do you think the Committee has really understood the
problems of the Aboriginal People.
Michael Anderson : Given the constraints of just dealing with what they get
from written reports and what they hear in terms of NGO complaints, I guess
they've done the best they could under the circumstances given, as they
said, it was 12 years before Australia filed a report. If their findings
are adverse against Australia, then Australia has to take the blame for
themselves for not complying more regularly and being more regular with
their reports.
Q: What impact you think this is going to have on the domestic situation ?
Michael Anderson : I think what it'll do is cause a little bit of concern
within the Australian community because I think a lot of people are not
fully understanding of what the conflict is between Aboriginals and the
mainstream political system. What we have to realise is that it has only
been in the last twenty years that Aboriginal issues have become a major
focus, both nationally, in terms of our domestic politics, as well in the
international arena. It is the efforts of Aboriginal people themselves in
the international arena that has created the interest. I think for a lot on
non-Aboriginals in Australia, the general public, will, I think, be seeking
a lot more answers. They are going to want to know what the hell has been
going on.
Q: For Aboriginals generally would you consider this a pretty favourable
report, and it leads to your own domestic political agenda ?
Michael Anderson : It certainly does. But what we have to do is reassure
the people in Australia that we are only after what we have been denied all
these years. When you consider they took away the missions, the mission
managers, in 1969 in NSW and it was in the late 1970s for Queensland. For
us to get to the position we are in, in terms of advancing our own cause
and advancing our own rights in Australia, I think we have come a long way
and I think we've come faster than the white general Australian population
has been able to understand the issues of history of isolation and we've
done that in isolation. We've made our own efforts to get that far and I
think what's missing in Australia is there's not enough dialogue. There's
not enough knowledge about the true history of Aboriginal People and our
suffering over the years and now all of a sudden everybody's jumping up and
down and international communities and committees are saying : you are in
violation. A lot of people in Australia have no idea.
Q: What's your attitude to ....the stolen generations.
Michael Anderson : My attitude to that is they've got a lot to answer for
about the Stolen generations. There is historical government documentation
that has not yet been made public in Australia, nor internationally, that
clearly shows that the Australian governments were, in fact, following a
policy of eugenics, which was clearly to 'breed them white'. These are in
government documents. There were government considerations in their own
parliamentary hearings. These were also in parliamentary Hansards during
the 1940s and 50s. So what we have in Australia is a situation where
Australia really has to atone for its past in relation to the removal of
children. It was specifically to breed a white community in Australia and
keep a White Australia. That's what its about.
EXTRACTS FROM:ADVANCE UNEDITED VERSION
UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE 69th session
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED UNDER ARTICLE 40 CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS
OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE
AUSTRALIA [CCPR/CO/69/AUS]
1. The Committee examined the third and fourth periodic reports of
Australia (CCPR/C/AUS/99/3 and 4) at its 1955th, 1957th and 1958th
meetings, held on 20 and 21 July 2000. At its 1967th meeting on 28 July
2000, the Committee adopted the following concluding observations.
Introduction
2. The Committee appreciates the quality of the reports of Australia,
which conformed with the Committee's guidelines for the preparation of
State party reports and provided a comprehensive review of such measures as
have been adopted by Australia to implement the Covenant in all parts of
the country. The Committee also appreciated the extensive additional oral
and written information provided by the State party delegation during the
examination of the report. Furthermore, the Committee expresses
appreciation for the answers to its oral and written questions and for the
publication and wide dissemination of the report by the State party.
3. The Committee regrets the long delay in the submission of the third
report, which was received by the Committee ten years after the examination
of the second periodic report of the State party.
4. The Committee expresses its appreciation for the contribution of
non-governmental organisations and statutory agencies to its work in
considering the State party's reports.
Principal subjects of concern and recommendations
9. With respect to article 1 of the covenant, the Committee takes note of
the explanation given by the delegation that rather than the term
"self-determination" the Government of the State party prefers terms such
as "self-management" and "self-empowerment" to express domestically the
principle of indigenous peoples exercising meaningful control over their
affairs. The Committee is concerned that sufficient action has not been
taken in that regard.
The state party should take the necessary steps in order to secure for the
indigenous inhabitants a stronger role in decision making over their
traditional lands and natural resources (article 1, para 2).
10. The Committee is concerned, despite positive developments towards
recognising the land rights of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders
through judicial decisions (Mabo 1992, Wik 1996) and enactment of the
Native Title Act 1993, as well as actual demarcation of considerable areas
of land, that in many areas native title rights and interests remain
unsolved and that the Native Title Amendment Act of 1998 in some respects
limits the rights of indigenous persons and communities, in particular in
the field of effective participation in all matters affecting land
ownership and use, and affects their interest in native title lands,
particularly pastoral lands.
The Committee recommends that the State party take further steps in order
to secure the rights of its indigenous population under article 27 of the
Covenant. The high level of the exclusion and poverty facing indigenous
persons is indicative of the urgent nature of these concerns. In
particular, the Committee recommends that the necessary steps should be
taken to restore and protect the titles and interests of indigenous persons
in their native lands, including by considering anew the Native Title Act,
taking into account these concerns.
11. The Committee expresses its concern that securing continuation and
sustainability of traditional forms of economy of indigenous minorities
(hunting, fishing and gathering), and protection of sites of religious or
cultural significance for such minorities, that must be protected under
article 27, are not always a major factor in determining land use.
The Committee recommends that in the finalisation of the pending Bill
intended to replace the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage
Protection Act (1984), the State party should give sufficient weight to the
above values.
12. While noting the efforts of the State party to address the tragedies
resulting from the previous policy of removing children from their
families, the committee remains concerned about the continuing effects of
this policy.
The Committee recommends that the State party intensify these efforts so
that the victims themselves and their families will consider that they have
been afforded a proper remedy. (articles 2, 17 and 24).
13. The Committee is concerned that in the absence of a constitutional Bill
of Rights, or a constitutional provision giving effect to the Covenant,
there remain lacunae in the protection of Covenant rights in the Australian
legal system. There are still areas in which the domestic legal system does
not provide an effective remedy to persons whose rights under the Covenant
have been violated.
The state party should take measures to give effect to all Covenant rights
and freedoms and to ensure that all persons whose Covenant rights and
freedoms have been violated shall have effective remedy (article 2).
14. While noting the explanation by the delegation that political
negotiations between the Commonwealth Government and the governments of the
states and territories take place in cases in which the latter have adopted
legislation or policies that may involve a violation of Covenant rights,
The Committee stresses that such negotiations cannot relieve the State
party of its obligation that Covenant rights will be respected and ensured
in all parts of its territory without any limitations or exceptions
(article 50).
The Committee considers that political arrangements between the
Commonwealth Government and the governments of states or territories may
not condone restrictions on Covenant rights that are not permitted under
the Covenant.
15. The Committee is concerned by the government bill in which it would be
stated, contrary to a judicial decision, that ratification of human rights
treaties does not create legitimate expectations that government officials
will use their discretion in a manner that is consistent with those treaties.
The Committee considers that enactment of such a bill would be incompatible
with the State party's obligations under article 2 of the Covenant and
urges the government to withdraw the bill.
16. The Committee is concerned over the approach of the State party to the
Committee's views in the communication No. 560/1993 (A. v. Australia).
Rejecting the Committee's interpretation of the Covenant when it does not
correspond with the interpretation presented by the State party in its
submissions to the Committee undermines the State party's recognition of
the Committee's competence under the Optional Protocol to consider
communications.
The Committee recommends that the State party reconsider its interpretation
with a view to achieving full implementation of the Committee's views.
17. Legislation regarding mandatory imprisonment in Western Australia and
the Northern Territory, which leads in many cases to imposition of
punishments that are disproportionate to the seriousness of the crimes
committed and would seem to be inconsistent with the strategies adopted by
the State party to reduce the over-representation of indigenous persons in
the criminal justice system, raises serious issues of compliance with
various articles in the Covenant
The State party is urged to reassess the legislation regarding mandatory
imprisonment so as to ensure that all Covenant rights are respected.
Contact:
Michael Anderson,
Convener
Mobile: +61 408 331239
Sovereign Union of Aboriginal Peoples of Australia
--
Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.alexia.net.au/~www/mhutton/index.html
Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop
Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
