A number of people have asked me about the further Human Rights reports from Australia due to be considered at the UN this year. What follows is from the AIATSIS Native Title Newsletter early this year (before CERD in March) http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/newlet/ntru1-00.rtf. Note that it is completely silent on the racial discrimination in the 1993 Act, which CERD was told at the time we have given our informed consent to. I think that the best line of attack will be the lodging of individual complaints direct with the different UN committees under the Optional Protocols by people(s) who lost "native title" rights retrospectively in 1993 when the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act was indirectly partially repealed by the original NTA on 24 December 1993. In order to make these complaints, you will need to list clearly what rights to what pieces of land you lost, and that you were not informed, nor was your consent even sought, let alone given in 1993. Most people whom are victims of the 1993 Act would not be able to do this, so wonderfully subtle has the process been, has the oppression become. Also, it is unlikely that you would get much help from such organisations as the NSW Land Council, because one of the State Acts validated by the 1993 Commonwealth NTA was the NSW Land Rights Act!! The Parliamentary inquiry mentioned below will now be reporting in June. It, too, is still receiving submissions apparently. TONY SPIERS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Native Title and Australia's International Reporting Obligations In March last year the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) criticised Australia's Native Title Amendment Act 1998 (Cth), under its Early Warning/Urgent Action procedures. The CERD Committee argued that the Act offended the principles of non-discrimination and equality before the law contained in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (See Report Newsletter 5/99). The Australian Parliament is currently conducting an inquiry into the veracity of the CERD Committees findings and is due to report in April 2000 (The inquiry is being conducted by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund). The Institute prepared a submission and appeared before the Committee on 22 February. The submission argued that the decision of the CERD Committee was justifiable according to international law, in particular when contrasting the different understandings of equality and non-discrimination employed by the Australian government in the Native Title Amendment Act and those required by international standards. Before the Parliamentary Joint Committee reports in April, the CERD Committee will again meet and will consider Australia's Periodic Report on their compliance with the Convention during the period July 1992 to June 1998. This does not specifically include the Native Title Amendment Act (passed in August 1998). It is likely, however, that the CERD Committee will again comment on Australia's response to the Early Warning procedures. In addition to the CERD Committee meeting, there are a number of other United Nations Human Rights Committees that will consider reports from Australia in the coming year. First, in March and April the Commission on Human Rights will meet. Racial Discrimination and Indigenous Issues are specific items on the agenda. In July, the Human Rights Committee will also meet to consider reports from member States on their compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Australia's Third Report under this Convention will be considered and it covers the period March 1987 to December 1995. Issues and developments relating to Indigenous peoples are mentioned throughout the report, for example in relation to health, criminal justice, and political participation, and also, though briefly, in relation to Article 1 concerning the right of all peoples to self-determination. The common law recognition of native title and the Native Title Act 1993 are included in the discussion of Article 27 relating to the cultural rights of minorities. A supplementary Fourth Report covering the period January - December 1996 was also submitted. While making no further reference to Article 1, developments in relation to native title during 1996 are mentioned. The report summarised the amendments but in a very positive manner, avoiding any reference to the opposition by Indigenous peoples and, due to the timing of the reporting period, omitted reference to the amendments specifically directed at the Wik decision (handed down on 23 December of that year). These include the validation provisions, confirmation provisions and primary production activity provisions, which were the subject of criticisms by the CERD Committee last year. Amendments relating to state alternative procedure regimes were also not included. Finally, Australia has also provided a Periodic Report to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), which will meet in April-May 2001. The report does not discuss native title, however, Article 2 of the Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights relates to the right to non-discrimination. In addition, as with the ICCPR, Article 1 concerns the right of all peoples to self-determination (the report to the CESCR refers to the ICCPR Report on this matter). Like the others, the reporting period, in this case 1990-1997, means that Australia did not discuss recent developments concerning Australia's compliance with obligations to eliminate racial discrimination. While the Human Rights Committee is the only one of these committees to receive representations from other than State parties, members of such committees obtain information about issues and developments in member states from a variety of sources which may be raised with Australia's representatives. It is therefore possible that Australia may come under further international criticism in relation to the Native Title Amendment Ac t 1998. Lisa Strelein Native Title Research Unit, AIATSIS ----- Original Message ----- From: TONY SPIERS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, 9 May 2000 9:08 AM Subject: Re: [recoznet2] Re: ABC News: New approach on native title > what happened to inherent rights does a joint venture and an apprenticeship > replace all we have been since the beginning - gratifying for how?.....iw > > The answer to Irene's question is - YES, as far as CERD is concerned at any > rate. > > If you give your informed consent to replace all you were from the beginning > with a joint venture and an apprenticeship, or another blanket queue called > "social justice" , then all you were is gone. If you put your thumbprint on > the bottom of a page, then they can say it was not forcible removal of your > children, that it was not genocide, even if their intention is still the > same -- to wipe you out as a distinct human group. Once you agree, as every > good girl knows, it is no longer rape. > > The process that is now underway in Victoria is simultaneously going on in > all States and Territories. It began almost as soon as CERD moved on to the > next item on its agenda on 22 March. It is important to understand why. > > Back in 1994, Jackie and Mary rushed off to Geneva waving their copy of the > 1993 Native Title Act and saying what a good little girl/boy am I. There > was not a whisper of complaint to be heard. Certainly there was nothing > formal lodged under the Optional Protocol process. In fact, there has NEVER > (definitely shouting this time, Trudy!) been a complaint lodged by any > indigenous person, or group, under this Process since they were first put in > place way back in 1992 - so Elizabeth Evatt informs me. > > Is there nothing to complain about??? Well, of course there is, and it is > certainly not limited to the 10 Point Plan. But back in 1994, CERD itself > agreed with the assertions put by Jackie and Mary on behalf of Her Majesty's > Government that the NTA was a "special measure" under the Race Convention to > protect "native title". > > Even the High Court did not go that far the following year. > > The problem within CERD today for HMG apparently arose when Gai McDougall > was appointed to CERD, and became Special Rapporteur for Australia. While I > see no direct contradiction attributed to her in the documents, she very > clearly does not agree with CERD's fulsome position of 1994. She has now > made her own position very clear. Her position is that it WAS > discriminatory, but the discrimination was acceptable to CERD because > consent was given. > > The full transcript of the March 2000 meetings is available on FAIRA's > site. Here are her concluding remarks. They are on page 6 of 1395th > Meeting Part 1 > > (Chairman) > . So the delegation would prefer to let the Minister give the responses, if > he arrives in time. So in the meantime I give you the floor to conclude the > remarks you started this morning, and I apologise for interrupting you at > that time. So, you have the floor Madam. > (Ms McDougall) > "Thank you Mr Chairman. Well I'm not, certainly don't want to go over > anything I've said this morning, but I would make just a couple of > additional points. First of all, I think its not quite right, if I heard Ms > Horner's statement just a few minutes ago. When this Committee first looked > at the Native Title Act - and I admit that I was not on the Committee then - > it was not my impression from reading the record that the Committee based > its decision on an acceptance of 200 years of white settlement as a sort of > fait accompli that was then the basis for moving forward. I don't think so. > My sense was that the Committee based its decision to accept the > discriminatory aspects of the Native Title Act because there was sufficient > evidence that it was the product of genuine negotiations with the indigenous > population, and it was on that basis, on the basis that it was a product of > genuine negotiations. Not that it wasn't discriminatory, and not from a sort > of arbitrary decision by the Committee that 200 years must be accepted. I > come back to this because it think that this question of negotiating with > the indigenous population is central and it perhaps is not seen as much so > by the delegation. > I note that you have challenged our position that in situations regarding > land rights of indigenous peoples, if there is a deviation from the rights > established under the Convention, it must be by informed consent of the > indigenous people. This is what's said in our General Recommendation. I must > admit to not being able to see that as such an extraordinary standard. You > know, if someone wants to purchase or divest me of land that I own, they > must have my informed consent. You say of course that one cannot right all > of the wrongs of the past, and I'm sure there is quite a bit of merit in > that position, but I don't think that we can move forward without > acknowledgment of the past. And this is a situation where I think of course > we have to be mindful of the progress that's been made in that the > indigenous community now has clear title of 15 % of the land mass of > Australia, and I understand from the comments that were made yesterday how > vast that 15% is. But I keep being reminded that 85% is being held under > some other title, and that perhaps 200 years ago the situation was quite > different. So when you talk about restitution to me, I don't, I think its > giving back someone something that they fully owned originally. And that's > got to be a very important aspect in the negotiations leading to > reconciliation. > And that would bring me to I guess the last point I would make, which sort > of responds to the Minister's comment that no document is going to achieve > reconciliation, and I fully, fully agree with that. And by asking . > reconciliation process, I was not indeed asking for there to be a document > that could be produced. Rather, for me, the real test is whether or not all > of the parties agree that reconciliation has been achieved, and achieved on > the basis of genuine negotiations between the, essentially in this case, two > parties. But I think that one would have no doubt as to when reconciliation > is achieved and its certainly not on the basis of a document, it is a > process. But it's a process that will never be successful unless the > aggrieved parties feel that they have negotiated an outcome that is > satisfactory to them. With that, Mr Chairman, I will close." > > It is important to note from this that CERD sees us as an undifferentiated > mass, as the "indigenous population". It is irrelevant, absurd that CERD > accepts this "15% of the landmass" bullshit. But it will remain. It will > continue to do so until people start standing up for themselves and their > law. Her Majesty's Government will continue to send Jackie and Mary over, > and CERD will continue to recognise Jackie and Mary while ever the > Darkinong, the Wiradjuri, the Bundjalung, etc etc remain prostrate and > silent, forever the whinging victims. > > We need to be up on our back legs and in their face. The Optional Protocol > Process may be the way to go. > > The present process "Early warning procedure" is not good enough. I lodged > critical submissions both last August (1999) and in March (2000) with CERD, > and also with so-called Aboriginal representatives who attended these > meetings in person. I have had not even a formal acknowledgement that they > were ever received, apart from an auto-reply from Gai McDougall this time. > Ms McDougall has not responded to subsequent letters. These > "representatives" have also remained doggedly silent. > > If FAIRA's transcript is accurate, then CERD has chosen to ignore important > issues that I raised with them, although the most important appears to have > been accepted, and is now listed first (and for the first time) in their > list of concerns (see below). Not that it's been even mentioned in the > media. > > Meanwhile, Jackie and Mary and their dupes are now rushing around the > countryside, obediently looking to get thumbprints on Indigenous Land Use > Agreements. But they won't be mentioning that this is to get CERD off Her > Majesty's back. > > If you are interested in getting your people, your land, your law, up in > CERD's face, then feel free to email. Please include a phone number. > > TONY SPIERS > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Concluding Observations on Australia > by CERD > (COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION) > 56th session, 6 -24 March 2000 > Summary List of Concerns and Recommendations > > CONCERNS > ? The absence of any entrenched guarantee in law against racial > discrimination (6) > ? The national responsibility to comply with treaties, including compliance > by States (7) > ? Reduction of rights for Aboriginals in 'State regimes' on Native Title (8) > ? Unsatisfactory response to CERD Decisions 2(54) & 2(55) on Native Title > laws (9) > ? ATSIC capacities to address the issues of Indigenous Peoples (11) > ? HREOC capacities to address the issues of Indigenous Peoples (11) > ? Loss of confidence by the Indigenous community in the process of > reconciliation (12) > ? Government refusal to apologise for separation of Aboriginal families (13) > ? Government refusal to compensate for separation of Aboriginal families > (13) > ? Rates of Aboriginal incarceration (15) > ? Lack of interpreter services (15) > ? Seriously questions whether 'mandatory sentencing' complies with the > convention (16) > ? The extent of inequality still experienced by the Aboriginal population > > > > From: Trudy Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: news-clip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: ABC News: New approach on native title > > Date: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 1:38 PM > > > > ABC News > > Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:23 AEST > > New approach on native title > > > > The Victorian Government is claiming a national > > first with plans to recognise native title through > > mediation rather than via the courts. > > > > The Victorian Attorney-General, Rob Hulls, has > > told the National Native Title Conference in > > Melbourne, the Bracks Government's emphasis > > will be on settlement rather than going through the > > courts. > > > > He says it is a new approach which puts Victoria > > at the forefront in relation to native title matters. > > > > "We believe that no one wins from litigation," he > > said. > > > > Mr Hulls says some applications may be resolved > > with a package of benefits including > > apprenticeships and joint ventures. > > > > A draft strategy will be released shortly. > > > > The new approach has been described as > > gratifying and significant by Bryan Keon-Cohen, > > QC, from the Miriambiak Nations, which organised > > the conference. > > > > But he is urging the Victorian Government to also > > consider law reform as part of its native title policy. > > > > � 1999 Australian Broadcasting Corporation > > > > > > ************************************************************************* > > This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without > > permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, > > scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal > > copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission > of > > the copyright owner, except for "fair use." > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at > http://www.mail-archive.com/ > To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the > body > of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce > This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without > permission from the > copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research > under the "fair > use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed > further without > permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use." > > RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ > http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/ > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/ > To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body > of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce > This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the > copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair > use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without > permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use." > > RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/ > ------------------------------------------------------ RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/ To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use." RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/
