|
August 31, 2009
James Anaya, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, visited Australia between 17 to 28 August. A rapporteur is a person appointed by a deliberative body to investigate an issue or a situation, and report back to that body. Aboriginal groups, church leaders and social justice groups have invited the United Nations to investigate whether the intervention in the Northern Territory is a violation of human rights.
Anaya's judgement was forthright. He points his finger on indigenous people having endured tremendous suffering at the hands of historical forces and entrenched racism and the way that these historical forces continue to make their presence known today, manifesting themselves in serious disparities between indigenous and non-indigenous parts of society, including in terms of life expectancy, basic health, education, unemployment, incarceration, children placed under care and protection orders, and access to basic services.
He acknowledged that the Government has developed and implemented a number of important initiatives in order to “close the gap” of indigenous disadvantage within a wide range of social and economic areas, with a stated emphasis on women and children.
Anaya added:
After several days in Australia listening and learning... I have observed a need to develop new initiatives and reform existing ones in consultation and real partnership with Indigenous peoples to conform with international standards requiring genuine respect for cultural integrity and self determination...Of particular concern is the Northern Territory Emergency Response. These measures overtly discriminate against Aboriginal peoples, infringe their right of self-determination and stigmatise already stigmatised communities
He says that affirmative measures by the Government to address the extreme disadvantage faced by indigenous peoples and issues of safety for children and women are not only justified, but they are in fact required under Australia’s international human rights obligations. He adds:
However, any such measure must be devised and carried out with due regard of the rights of indigenous peoples to self-determination and to be free from racial discrimination and indignity. In this connection, any special measure that infringes on the basic rights of indigenous peoples must be narrowly tailored, proportional, and necessary to achieve the legitimate objectives being pursued.
Is this the case in Australia?
In my view, the Northern Territory Emergency Response is not. In my view, the Northern Territory Emergency Response is not. In my opinion, as currently configured and carried out, the Emergency Response is incompatible with Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, treaties to which Australia is a party, as well as incompatible with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to which Australia has affirmed its support.
He adds that the objectives of the closing the gap campaign, the Emergency Response, and other current initiatives and proposed efforts of the Government will be best achieved in partnership with indigenous peoples’ own institutions and decision-making bodies, which are those that are most familiar with the local situations. Such initiatives need to affirmatively guarantee the right of indigenous peoples to participate fully at all levels of decision-making in matters which may affect their rights, lives and destinies, as well as to maintain and develop their own decision-making institutions and programmes.
Well we knew that. So did the Howard Government. They use the utilitarian calculus to argue that the intervention would improve the lives of indigenous people--the benefits would outweight the costs. Has the grog stopped? The child abuse? The pornography? How successfully is the compulsory income management? How many houses hav ebeen built by the emergency housing program?
|
It might not have been so bad if there was something to show for the intervention. In the few cases where programmes have had good outcomes there's no guarantee they'll be continued. So much for evidence based policy.
Macklin should be sacked.