Forwarded from Christine Howes: Launched 13 June, this annual report is put together by Australian human rights ngos. It's similar to the Amnesty International, and USA Congress reports of country situations, but done internally. I think this is the third such report. I don't think Indigenous networks are contributing directly yet. Here's the executive summary, and a press release. One of the three main issues was mandatory sentencing and racial discrimination. The organising NGO is the Catholic Commission for Justice, Development and Peace. The EO, Liz Curran, has been a tremendous support on Indigenous issues over at least 3/4 years I know of. She can be contacted at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Catholic report says human rights is getting worse Source: AAP | Published: Tuesday June 13, 1:28 PM A new report by the Roman Catholic Church has found Australia's human rights' record is getting worse, slamming mandatory sentencing and treatment of boatpeople. The latest human rights register by the Catholic Commission for Justice, Development and Peace, said Australia risked losing credibility worldwide as the human rights position at home slipped backwards. Lauching the report, former High Court judge Sir Ronald Wilson strongly condemned the federal government's treatment of boatpeople, saying it was 'deliberately demonising' recent arrivals. The report, covering May 1999 to May 2000 found a deal between the federal and Northern Territory governments to modify mandatory sentencing laws was in breach of a United Nations charter. THE AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHT'S REGISTER 1 May 1999 - 13 May 2000 Compiled by the Catholic Commission for Justice, Development and Peace, Melbourne Archdiocese The Australian Human Rights Register 2000 is dedicated to the memory of Gillian Braybrook who worked tirelessly on the Registers for 1998 and 1999 and who passed away in March 2000. Having regard to the public interest in both positive and negative developments concerning human rights, the Catholic Commission for Justice, Development and Peace of the Melbourne Archdiocese (CCJD&P) decided to establish a yearly Register to record perceptions of such occurrences after 1 September 1997. Any non-government organisation (NGO) was invited to submit material which it thought appropriate for entry into the Register. Accordingly, while each entry in the Register records a submission from an NGO, it does not necessarily reflect or record the views of the CCJD&P. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE 2000 AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS REGISTER FOR THE LAUNCH ON 13 JUNE 2000 The Melbourne Catholic Commission for Justice, Development and Peace (CCJD&P) aims to help educate and give leadership to the Catholic and wider community in the Gospel message of justice and in the social teachings of the Church in areas of public policy. The CCJD&P Charter requires the CCJD&P work for justice in public local, and national structures. It seeks to achieve these ends through research, analysis, working with parish networks, public forums, in schools and in the media. The CCJD&P's role is also to prepare submissions and make representations to government, politicians, public inquiries and other agencies. It monitors development and implementation of social policy as it affects social justice and performs an advocacy role on a variety of social justice issues. Government and its institutions must make decisions in a manner that respects human rights and the dignity of citizens and must act consistently with the international conventions it has signed and ratified. Otherwise, the act of ratifying becomes merely "window dressing". Governments must also seek to promote, advance and protect human rights for the common good and have a special responsibility to those who are disadvantaged. A. OUTCOME OF THIS YEAR'S REGISTER FOR 2000 In this year's register for the period 1 May 1999 -12 May 2000 there were 259 entries once duplicated entries were taken out. 6.9% were positive and 90.3% were negative human rights developments. 2.3% of entries had a positive and a negative element. The 2000 Register would seem to suggest that there has been a retreat from human rights in comparison with earlier years. In the last Register for the year 1998-1999, there were 255 entries in the Register in total, 34 were positive and 209 were negative human rights developments. There were 12 positive and negative entries. 13.3% of the human rights developments recorded in the Register in 1999 were positive and 82% were negative with 5.3% being either positive or negative. In the 1997-1998 Register, 9% of the human rights developments were positive, 89% were negative and 2% were either positive or negative. Analysis of the responses reveals a very marginal improvement as between the two-year period from 1997-1999 but in 2000 there has been a marked decrease in the number of positive entries and an increase in the number of entries reporting negative human rights developments. Breakdown of statistics on a Commonwealth / State by State/ Territory Basis. Positive Negative Positive and Negative Total Federal 10 99 5 114 Victoria 3 29 0 32 WA 0 32 0 32 Qld 0 3 0 3 Tasmania 2 20 2 24 NSW 2 19 0 21 S.Aust. 0 2 0 2 NT 0 27 0 27 ACT 1 3 0 4 ---------------- 259 Breakdown of statistics in % on a Commonwealth / State by State/ Territory Basis. Positive Negative Positive and Negative Total No. Federal 8.8% 87% 4.3% 114 Victoria 9.4% 90.6% 0 32 WA 0 100% 0 32 Qld 0 100% 0 3 Tasmania 8.3% 83.3% 8.3% 24 NSW 9.5% 90.5% 0 21 S.Aust. 0 100% 0 2 NT 0 100% 0 27 ACT 25% 75% 0 4 ---------------- 259 It is the view of the CCJD&P that governments, statutory bodies, business communities, community organisations, associations and individuals cannot allow the trend revealed in this Register to continue, if we are not to demean ourselves as a nation. The values of fair play and equality of treatment which we hold dear, and which are reflected so often in our national identity must be adhered to. The CCJD&P believes that it is in the interest of the common good to ensure that all those in our community are treated in practice with respect and dignity. B. KEY ISSUES IN THE 2000 REGISTER There were many issues raised in the Register's entries. The key themes are discussed below. These were not only entered in the register but were entries which had high levels of duplication and thus highlight the level of concern NGOs had about the issues. This list is not meant to down play other entries relating to important issues such as mental health, disability, homelessness and living standards which were also received in significant numbers in the register. 1. Mandatory sentencing and Issues Pertaining to Racial Discrimination The issue of mandatory sentencing featured very prominently in the 2000 register. Concern seemed to relate to the disproportionate nature of the penalties as compared to the crimes. The removal of the judicial discretion to make purposeful interventions and to consider the circumstances giving rise to the offence was criticised. The NGOs viewed mandatory sentencing as the treatment of social deprivation through criminal justice mechanisms rather than addressing the underlying causes of many of the crimes including poverty, social isolation, marginalisation and the over-policing of Aboriginal people. The use of prison as a first or earliest response rather than as a last resort was seen as contrary to at least five international human rights conventions and the Royal Commission Into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody recommendations. In the entries, reference was made to a range of international human rights standards which appear to have been overlooked in relation to the mandatory sentencing laws including the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Standard Minimum Guidelines for the Administration of Justice (The Beijing Rules). The concerns raised by the CERD Committee in March 2000 and the government's hostile response were the subject of duplicated entries thus underlining the concern of NGOs. Many entries pertain to offences which received penalties of imprisonment that were excessive (See section on samples of entries at the end of the Executive Summary). There was also a view amongst NGOs that the government announcements about spending $5 million on interpreters and enabling police to divert young offenders did not address the concerns about the laws which remain on the statute books in the Northern Territory and Western Australia and which have been suggested as a possible option in Queensland. It was noted that the money for interpreters would not address the miscarriages of justice under the laws. Some of the alleged offenders in many of the cases relating to Aboriginals are not only unable to communicate in English but are also unable to communicate in their own language. There are significant underlying issues which relate to educational opportunities, literacy, numeracy, remoteness and separation from family and culture. The removal of juveniles by incarceration long distances from the communities and families who cannot afford to visit or remain in contact with them was also raised and contravenes key provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and is inconsistent with the 1991 recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. The Commonwealth government's arrangement with the Northern Territory Government which vests power in police to divert offenders was also a matter for concern as it contravenes Article 14 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by vesting in the police the power to act as investigator, prosecutor court and judge in that they make a determination of appropriate sentence before the young person concerned has had an opportunity to have their case determined by a court. There are serious questions here around the usurping of the role of the judiciary and these may have Constitutional implications at a later stage. 2. The treatment of refugees and asylum seekers New legislation and a continuing reduction of essential services to refugees and migrants are key concerns in the 2000 Register. The ongoing long periods of detention of refugees and their children as well as the lack of transparency and information given to families whilst refugees are held "in communicado" were among entries that were received in duplication. These entries would appear to raise important questions surrounding accountability and the level of transparency of government in relation to immigration matters. The question as to whether the benchmarks and standards set by international law particularly the Convention Regarding the Status of Refugees and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are in fact of central concern to government in their approach to asylum seekers and refugees must be raised. By the end of 1998 Australia had hosted nearly 15,000 refugees and asylum seekers during that year. These included 10,000 persons resettled during the year, 2,000 persons who were granted asylum, and 2,972 applicants in pending asylum cases. Under its refugee and special humanitarian programmes, Australia allocated 12,000 admission places for 1998-1999. This consisted of 10,000 'offshore places' and 2,000 'onshore places." The 'offshore' and 'onshore' places are linked which can create tensions between those awaiting placements and refugees arriving on boats. By comparison with efforts in other countries, Australia takes a relatively small proportion of refugees. To illustrate the point, the UNHCR noted in 1998 that Australia took 61,800 people as "Refugees and Others" whilst the Netherlands took 131,800. Given the relative wealth of Australia, its land-mass and population the comparison with the Netherlands highlights how few refugees Australia takes comparatively. Of the other nations France took 131,800, the United Kingdom 116,000, Germany 949,200 and in our region Thailand took 138,000. Despite the concerns raised about the harshness of detention and the removal of judicial oversight raised in A's Case, a case before the United Nation's Human Rights Committee in 1997 these concerns have been not only ignored, but appear to have been exacerbated by changes in the laws and policies around detention since 1997. On the 30 April 1999, the Senate passed the Migration Legislation Amendment (Temporary Safe Haven Visas) Act, (Commonwealth) 1999 hereafter referred to as "the Amendment Act". This amendment inserted a new section 37A creating a "class of temporary visa to travel to, enter and remain in Australia to be known as a temporary safe haven visa." The problems which arise in connection with the category of safe haven status are not only that government need not consider a "well founded fear of persecution" prior to returning the safe haven recipients to their country of nationality but that political factors unrelated to a change in the "fundamental, durable and stable nature" in the country concerned can be the motivating factors behind a decision to return safe haven recipients. In November 1999, under mounting pressure from lawyers, the Labour Party and the Democrats to lengthen the stay of East Timorese safe haven recipients, the Minister stated he would consider personal pleas on a case-by-case basis. The motivation for the Minister's response appears to have emerged not from concern over possible danger to refugees but in response to political pressure. Such decision making can only increase the levels of uncertainty and trepidation of persons who are safe haven recipients. Although the government determines that the provision of safe haven status will cease, there may still be danger in the country of origin for the refugees. For instance, in the case of the East Timorese, their safe haven status was to conclude on 8 December 1999. There was still some degree of potential danger within their country of origin. In The Australian on 20-21 November 1999 it was reported that militia forces were still attacking convoys of refugees on their way back to East Timor. The arrival of Afghan and Iraqi boat people over the period from November 1999 and into 2000 has seen the establishment of new visa arrangements granting safe haven for a period of three years but unlike the safe haven status for the Kosovars and the East Timorese this temporary protection applies to people who have already arrived on Australian shores and who may be unauthorised. This has avoided the long-term detention of this class of persons (as they will be returned when certain conditions are deemed to be met), but there are limitations on access to permanent residency attached, in addition to limitations in accessing reunification with family and sponsorship provisions and having access to their personal travel documentation. These are issues of concern raised by NGOs in the 2000 Register. Other matters raised by NGOs in the register relate the impediments to these refugees in obtaining access to essential services including health care and housing and the pressure placed on new ethnic communities which don't have the necessary resources. This is of additional concern in light of other register entries, for instance; * the curtailing of legal aid to asylum seekers * the attempted prevention of allowing HREOC to contact detained refugees (which was fortunately disapproved of by the Federal Court) * The proposed infringement of powers of the Ombudsman regarding his powers to help boat people in detention centres. These developments, when combined with other negative developments not mentioned in this summary will make it significantly difficult for the monitoring of appropriate international standards in relation to the treatment of asylum seekers. It will reduce significantly the capacity of these people to provide full information upon which a decision can be made as to whether deportation is likely to be dangerous. 3. People with a Disability This area of the treatment of persons with a disability featured more strongly in this year's Register than in previous years. Concern was raised by NGOs of the methods of assessment of "disability" by government departments, particularly in the area of epilepsy. In addition, there were a number of entries relating to persons with a disability who were also refugees or asylum seekers and the inability for refugees with a disability or their carers to access services for up to ten years in some cases and in fact their exclusion from asylum processes in the event of their disability. It was noted in some cases that in some countries with poor human rights records persons with a disability can be even more at risk than other refugees. The impact on families and carers by virtue of more stringent and punitive requirements for social support were raised. These issues appear to be at odds with Australia's undertakings under the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons, the Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons and the standards set down in the Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. C. Responsibilities Individuals and groups within society have an obligation to pursue not only their own interests but also the interests of all. The Commonwealth Government, State and Territory governments and their governing and administrative bodies are obliged to safeguard and promote the common good, as well as the good of society's component parts. The alternative is for society to become fractured and to splinter into antagonistic segments. The State has a positive and active role to play in society, including in the economy, to promote and ensure that all people are dealt with fairly and have equal opportunities in life. State intervention in the economy is necessary to prevent exploitation of the weak by the strong and unscrupulous and to secure the good of all members of the community in important areas such as education, health, protection under the law, shelter and the provision of basic services. We hope that Governments at all levels will adhere to their obligations and seek to remedy negative human rights initiatives, diminish their damaging impact on members of the community and increase the positive contributions that they can make. D. Structural and Procedural Matters Pertaining to the Register 1. Background to the Register. The idea for the Register emerged in September 1997 after concerns were raised by non-government organisations (NGOs) in Victoria, about the number of changes in government policy and legislation that were affecting persons in Australia. NGOs raised concerns that there was no audit in Australia on the ways in which human rights developments were affecting people on the ground. The CCJD&P decided to fill this void by establishing a Register. NGOs around Australia could forward information sheets to the CCJD&P outlining both positive and negative developments in the human rights arena and raising issues in relation to those developments. The CCJD&P has posted the information sheets into the Register. 2. Contents and layout of the Register The Register has been divided into chapters for each State, Territory and a chapter on matters within a Federal jurisdiction. It is noted that the international conventions that Australia is a party to, require the Commonwealth to ensure compliance with human rights laws across State boundaries, as this is clearly the only way that injustice within our own country can be addressed. The CCJD&P received over 400 Information sheets from NGOs around Australia. In many of these, the issues were duplicated and so the entries were not recorded twice. It is noted that the number of information sheets received although not all were able to be entered in the register due to such duplication increased by 61 entries from the 1999 register. This is possibly because the register is slowly becoming more well known across the non government organisation sector with each year of the Registers production by media coverage or by word of mouth. The Commission hopes to see a continuing increase in the number of entries in future years of the Register's operation if the Register continues beyond the year 2000. The main areas of duplication in this year's Register were in relation to mandatory sentencing laws in the Northern Territory and Western Australia, policies and changes in laws affecting refugees and asylum seekers, access to appropriate housing, deaths in custody and prison standards and social protection of children. If the information sheet provided a discussion of a different area under the same heading or revealed individual case examples it was included. For instance, in the register, the treatment of asylum seekers and concern over processes in the department of Immigration is recorded as a general human rights concern but, where there were individual cases recorded for example the deportation of a Chinese woman who, it was alleged, was forced to abort her baby at eight and a half weeks when returned to China, then that case was included as a human rights development. 3. Australia needed an audit. Why? The need for an audit of Australian human rights developments was made more pressing in 1997 because the Australian government was at least four years overdue in making its report to the United Nations under the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. Even so, these UN reports by government largely deal with commentary on a governmental level and do not address the policies and legislation of governments as they impact on grass roots communities. The Federal government filed its overdue reports to the United Nation's Committee on Human Rights earlier this year. This is the subject of an entry in the Register. NGOs have continuous contact with Australian citizens. It is critical, therefore that people who are often not positioned to speak out and raise community awareness of these issues need to be heard. It is these voices that the register reflects. A number of NGOs expressed concern in the 1997-1998 Register that if they provided information they might lose government funding. This concern was also communicated in relation to the 1999 and 2000 year Registers. We have continued our undertaking that in order to provide a voice for those affected by negative developments and ensure that related public interest matters surrounding Australia's human rights are articulated, NGOs could provide the information without the details of the NGOs being disclosed publicly if they desired. Nevertheless, a number of NGOs will be present at the launch on 13 June, 2000 and will be prepared and given opportunity after the panel session to speak to media. E. SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE TYPES OF ENTRIES NGOS HAVE MADE IN THE REGISTER. The CCJD&P thought it would assist the media to provide a sample of both the positive and negative entries contained in the Register. These are attached to this Executive Summary. We have tried to make the selection an extensive selection to enable media to choose what they wish and avoid overlap with other media outlets. The extracts reflect the negative/positive balance of the register. A quick "grab" list of the issues raised in the entries is contained below: Positive: 1. The Federal government launches an initiative involving a $115 million programme to assist Aboriginal people in gaining employment in the private sector and to tackle unemployment. (Federal, May 1999) 2. New Victorian government announces that it will not close or merge community legal centres and will strengthen access to justice generating more money for legal aid. (Victoria, December 1999) 3. Preliminary meeting of stakeholders to discuss problems and solution in the adult prison system. (Victoria, March 2000) 4. Whistle blower legislation proposed in Tasmania should ensure release of information by public servants who are concerned when standards of care towards the vulnerable are not being met. (Tasmania, May 2000) Negative: 1. It is alleged that a Chinese woman who was eight and a half months pregnant and had sought asylum in Australia was forced to have an abortion within days of her return to China after deportation by Australian authorities. (Federal, May 1999). 2. It is alleged that Australian authorities have used chemical restraint on refugees and other detained by the Australian government at Port Hedland. A call was made to clarify conditions for sedation at the facility. This has not occurred. (Federal, July 2000) 3. Due to poor levels of income distribution Australia has been ranked twelfth out of seventeen industrialised nations in the UN human poverty index. (Federal, July, 1999) 4. Australia's foreign aid contribution it is alleged have fallen to a record low making up 2.5% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) The UN reveals that the average contribution of industrialised nations was 4% of GDP. (Federal, July 1999) 5. Concern about the increasingly punitive approach to social support and the impact on persons with a disability as appropriate measures have not been put in place to overcome disability disadvantage in the work place. (Federal, August 1999) 6. Concern about the Human Rights Bill Number 2 which will give the Attorney General power of veto on intervention by the Human Rights Commission in court cases. Perceived that there may be a political conflict of interest. (Federal, October, 1999) 7. Concerns raised in Parliament about the 147 Aboriginal deaths in custody since the start of the Royal Commission in 1989. (Federal, December 1999) 8. 13,500 people with disabilities in urgent need of accommodation and support services in Australia (Federal, April 2000) 9. The highly specific and detailed eligibility criteria and assessment tools used in judging social security benefits that do not deal with the incapacity of an illness adequately, eg The frequency of an epileptic is calculated in terms of days rather than seizures. A person may have a number of fits in one day but this is counted as one fit. (See entry for more detail) (Federal, April, 2000) 10. Coroner in ACT issues report noting systems failures and lack of duty of care by staff which led to the death of a 17 year old boy found hanging by a sheet in 199. (ACT, June 1999) 11. Concern about the double bunking of prisoners in a cell built for one prisoner and conditions in police cells. (Victorian, August, 2000) 12. Condition in public housing in inner Melbourne with "dangerous" leaks and poor insulation and ventilation. (Victoria, November 1999) 13. Between 1987 and 1997 it is estimated that 93 women died soon after leaving prison a report finds. Concern about levels of pre-release and post release support available to the prisoners. (Victoria, January 2000) 14. 18 year-old girl with acquired brain injury alleged to have been sexually assaulted by a patron of a hotel with the alleged knowledge of a security guard. In addition, it was alleged the same girl's parents misused the girl's money. Despite complaints about the assault to a referral centre and police, it is alleged there was little follow-up. (Victoria, January 2000) 15. Question arises over levels of supervision at the Melbourne Custody Centre after a 19 year-old girl was sexually assaulted and then abused by others in her cell. (Victoria, March 2000). 16. Proportion of people denied access to the Olympic Games due to failure to provide ticket application forms in Braille. (NSW, July 1999) 17. Concern over height of curbing, lack of ramps and access to buses and shops for persons with a disability. (NSW July 1999) 18. Concern over increased powers of civilian security officers in the way they deal with the homeless in Sydney in the lead up to the Olympics. (NSW, March, 2000) 19. Bashing of an Aboriginal man allegedly for racist reasons and subsequent refusal of judge to regard evidence of racism as relevant. (Queensland, September 1999) 20. Prisoners locked in cells for twenty-hours per day for long periods of time. Concern over health risks and overcrowding. (Western Australia, June 1999) 21. Sixth Aboriginal man dies in custody in 11 months in Western Australia as at November 1999 (Western Australia, November1999) 22. Concern about access to housing in South Australia especially for people with mental illness and the homeless. (South Australia, December 1999) 23. Five deaths at Risen prison in Tasmania in a seven-month period. (Tasmania, May 2000) 24. NT has no freedom of information laws and government refuses to disclose crime figures. Relevant to claims about mandatory sentencing. (NT, August 2000) 25. Boy in NT faces fourteen days imprisonment for theft of a $2 bar of chocolate. (NT March 2000) 26. Boy faces a term of fourteen days mandatory imprisonment for theft of a $2 bottle of Stoli. (Northern Territory, March, 2000) 27. A severely brain damaged young person faces a mandatory jail sentence for theft of $2 worth of petrol to sniff. (NT, March, 2000) These are but a sample selected to reflect issues at a State and Commonwealth level. There are many more in the attached selection and obviously many more in the Register itself. Conclusion Henry Louis Mencken, the author, once stated "Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice." The comment seems very pertinent in relation to various reactions by Australia to scrutiny of its performance by the United Nations. The 1998, 1999, 2000 Registers reveal tell tale signs that Australia is slipping in its performance as a nation in the manner in which we deal with our own internal human right's issues. Australia if it is to have any credibility when it speaks to other nations of their human rights standards cannot afford to refuse to have its own standards scrutinised and must, in order to be a credible advocate for human rights on the world stage, make all efforts to work for improvement in its human rights performance in Australia. The trend for Australia when it is criticised, ought not to be to "pick up its bat and ball and refuse to play" but rather to seek to constructively dialogue and remedy errors or processes which may have a negative impact on grass roots communities. Human rights belong to each and every Australian and should be inalienable and central to all good public policy making. In many cases particular members of society can experience impediments to having their human rights and dignity respected. The Register reveals how often minorities such as rural people, persons with a disability, children, asylum seekers and indigenous Australians can be overlooked. The irony is that in times of increasing pressure to globalize in areas of trade, there seems to be no corresponding commitment to global human rights and global cooperation in relation to those rights. When strong frameworks for human rights are offered these can buffer people from of the vagaries that can be caused through unfettered free market forces. It may be such rights that in the end can provide protection for the weak against the powerful. Citizens can demand that our governments, politicians, institutions ensure that the protection and advancement of human rights standards are central to all public policy making, regulation and education on community standards and that they are not just perceived as an optional extra dispensed with when political expediency requires. The English historian Arnold Toynbee stated, "Civilisation is a movement and not a condition. A voyage and not a harbor." For this reason it is critical that we constantly review and monitor the impact and effect of policies in our community. This Commission, other non- government organisations, our Parliamentary representatives, business, the Churches, media, educationalists, associations and individuals around the country should remain ever vigilant and advocate on behalf of others and themselves for the human dignity and rights of all people. Liz Curran, Executive Officer, CCJD&P, 7 June 2000 ------------------------------------------------------ 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/
