Ms Ezeilo is an independent expert mandated by the UN Human Rights Council to advocate for the prevention of trafficking in persons in all its forms and to encourage measures to uphold and protect the human rights of victims.

In her preliminary report, released on 30 November 2011, Ms Ezeilo said that “Australia has demonstrated strong leadership in combating trafficking in persons regionally and domestically, however it needs to devote greater attention to the rights and needs of victims.”

Ms Ezeilo highlighted the need to improve support services, including accommodation, legal assistance and counselling services, to suspected victims of trafficking and de-link government support from participation in criminal justice processes. She also praised the recent release of an exposure Bill to expand the definition of trafficking to better address labour exploitation and forced marriage.

During Ms Ezilo’s country mission, the Human Rights Law Centre provided a briefing paper on the application of people smuggling laws to persons who may have been trafficked. The briefing paper makes the point that where a person has been recruited by means of deception for the purpose of exploitation – as may be the case for many of those charged with people smuggling offences – they meet the definition of a trafficked person under the Protocol and should be provided with adequate assistance and protection, not criminalised and subjected to lengthy jail terms in Australian prisons.

On this topic, Ms Ezilo expressed her concern about “the possibility of trafficked persons including children being arrested, detained for long periods and deported for breach of migration regulations without proper identification especially given the strong migration control policy of Australian government.”

A full report of the Special Rapporteur’s mission will be submitted to the UN Human Rights Council in June 2012.

HRLC outlines further issues for Australia to include in report to UN Committee against Torture (3 Nov 2011)

On 3 November 2011, the HRLC made a submission to the Australian Government outlining the issues of torture and ill-treatment that Australia should address in its forthcoming periodic report to the UN Committee against Torture, in addition to those already identified by the Committee in the List of Issues Prior to Reporting. The submission identifies five key issues which were not addressed in the LOIPR, but which the HRLC considers engage Australia’s legal responsibilities in relation to torture and ill-treatment, being:

• criminalisation and prevention of torture;
• non-refoulement and bilateral and regional arrangements to address people smuggling;
• treatment of prisoners and conditions of detention;
• involuntary psychiatric treatment; and
• violence against women.

UN Committee gives “Please Explain” list to Australia (21 Dec 2010)

HRLC submission to UN Committee against Torture on Australia for preparation of List of Issues Prior to Reporting (24 Aug 2010)

• the role and functions of the Race Discrimination Commissioner and the powers of the Australian Human Rights Commission;
• developments related to the Northern Territory Emergency Response; and
• racially motivated violence, particularly against international students.

The HRLC has provided an update to the Australian Government and to the Committee on Australia’s response to the Concluding Observations. 

At its 102nd session in Geneva, the UN Human Rights Committee held a dialogue with NGOs and NHRIs as to how to enhance engagement between the Committee and civil society organisations and, through such coordination, to enhance the fulfilment of human rights on the ground.

The Human Rights Law Centre was pleased to contribute to and support an NGO Paper to the Committee, coordinated by the Centre for Civil and Political Rights and Amnesty International, which sets out a range of concrete and practical recommendations to enhance the complementary relationship between the Human Rights Committee, NGOs and NHRIs, including as to:

• the periodic reporting process;
• the review of states which fail to submit periodic reports; and
• follow up and implementation of human rights recommendations.

Australia’s delegation delivered its formal response to 145 recommendations made as part of the UN’s Universal Periodic Review process, which reviews the human rights records of all 192 United Nations Member States.

The Human Rights Law Centre’s Ben Schokman said Australia faced close scrutiny when it explained why it has rejected key recommendations from the international community to review its policies relating to the treatment of asylum seekers, the disadvantage and discrimination experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and the lack of a Human Rights Act or Charter.

“A number of states, including our closest neighbour East Timor, took the floor to express concern about Australia’s refusal to accept recommendations about the mandatory and prolonged detention of asylum seekers, including children,” Mr Schokman said.

Although critical about the recommendations rejected by Australia, in its own statement to the Human Rights Council, the Human Rights Law Centre also said that there are a number of welcome commitments from the Australian Government, including a commitment to “enhance” anti-discrimination laws and to consider increasing aid and development assistance to the internationally accepted target of 0.7% of GNI.

“To its credit, the government has accepted, at least in part, more than 90 percent of the recommendations made during the review. However, it is regrettable that some of the key issues that topped the international community’s list of concerns were rejected,” Mr Schokman said.

The Australian Government has said it will include the UPR recommendations that it accepts into its National Human Rights Action Plan, which is currently being developed, and will also deliver an “interim” report on implementation of the recommendations to the UN Human Rights Council in two years.

“There are a lot of positives to build on, but the real test will be whether Australia’s positive engagement with the UPR process translates into action on the ground. If the Government takes its human rights obligations seriously, it needs to set a concrete implementation plan with clear responsibilities, timeframes and targets,” Mr Schokman said.

The Human Rights Law Centre believes the National Human Rights Action Plan should be used to advance a number of important human rights initiatives such as: ensuring Australian jurisdictions have independent investigations of police-related deaths; expanding and enhancing federal equality laws; reducing violence against women; and ensuring proper and meaningful empowerment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

The Attorney-General Robert McClelland said the UPR was a good opportunity to “showcase” Australia’s strong human rights record. Mr Schokman said a true showcase would involve committing to tangible human rights improvements on the ground through practical legal reforms, including the introduction of a national Human Rights Act or Charter.

“We are a stable, democratic and highly developed state with a government that espouses a commitment to human rights leadership. Yet we are the only modern democracy without a Human Rights Act or Charter,” Mr Schokman said.

The HRLC has prepared a list of Australia’s Response to All UPR Recommendations and a Summary of the Key UPR Recommendations that were rejected or only partially accepted by Australia which can be found online here.

Further background information on Australia’s Universal Periodic Review appearance, including the Australian Government’s report, NGO materials and media coverage, is also available online.

The Australian Human Rights Commission’s response and statement on the UPR of Australia is here.

Oral statements on the UPR of Australia from other NGOs, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Save the Children and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services, will be posted here (Login: hrc extranet; Password: 1session).

The mission focused on the human rights impacts and implications of Australia’s aid, development, trade and investment policies.  The report contains 10 concrete recommendations for the Australian Government to better promote and protect human rights, including the right to development, through aid and trade.

The Human Rights Law Centre was pleased to make an oral statement to the Council in response to the report and to recommend that the Australian Government adopt a human rights-based approach to foreign policy, poverty and development.

17^th Session of the UN Human Rights Council – Agenda Item 3 – 1 June 2011

Statement by Human Rights Law Centre and National Association of Community Legal Centres

Thank you Mr President.

The National Association of Community Legal Centres and the Human Rights Law Centre warmly welcome the report of the Independent Expert on Foreign Debt and Human Rights. 

The Independent Expert undertook a mission to Australia in February.  We were pleased to convene a number of NGO consultations during this visit.

Mr President, the promotion, protection and realisation of human rights should be a primary goal and instrument of Australian foreign policy.  The IE’s report makes a range of concrete and practical recommendations to achieve this.  We deeply regret that Australia’s statement yesterday in response focused on alleged inaccuracies in the report rather than substantively and seriously engaging with its recommendations.

In line with the Independent Expert’s recommendations, we urge the Australian Government to develop a comprehensive strategy on human rights and foreign policy. 

We particularly urge the Australian Government to explicitly adopt a human rights-based approach to aid and development and to increase ODA to the internationally agreed target of 0.7% of GNI.  Australia should also increase funding to programs explicitly directed towards the promotion and protection of human rights, such as AusAID’s Human Rights Grants Scheme and funding for the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Mr President, human rights should be central to Australia’s trade policy.  We urge the Australian Government to include human rights safeguards in trade and investment agreements.  Australia should also undertake Human Rights Impact Assessments as a core part of doing business abroad, including in the areas of trade, investment and military cooperation.

While in Australia, the Independent Expert considered the operation of vulture funds.  His report refers to a November 2010 case in which an Australian court found in favour of a vulture fund operator, ordering the Democratic Republic of Congo to pay in excess of $30 million.  This undermines debt relief initiatives and development.  We call on the Australian Government to enact legislation to prevent profiteering by vulture funds in Australia.

Mr President, the National Association of Community Legal Centres and the Human Rights Law Centre also welcome the report of the Independent Expert on Human Rights and Extreme Poverty.

In particular, we commend the Independent Expert on her important work regarding the criminalisation of homelessness and poverty. 

Many Australian jurisdictions continue to criminalise the effects of homelessness and poverty.  In Victoria, for example, begging is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment.  Across Australia, discrimination on the grounds of homelessness and poverty remains lawful and widespread. 

We strongly support the Independent Expert in her continuation of this work and call on all states to strengthen economic, social and cultural rights so as to address the causes of homelessness and poverty rather than criminalise their consequences. 

Thank you Mr President.

ENDS

Following the HRLC statement, the Independent Expert made a statement in response to Australia.  In that statement he set out that:

1. Despite differences of opinion with the Australian Government over aspects of his report, he is committed to an ongoing and constructive dialogue about human rights, aid and development.

2. A human rights-based approach to development does not merely comprise of funding programs which may promote and protect human rights.  Rather, it is an approach to development which is participatory, empowering, non-discriminatory and focuses first and foremost on the most marginalised and disadvantaged.

3. It is not only the Independent Expert who recommends that Australia adopt a comprehensive human rights-based approach to development.  Such an approach is also urged by many submissions to the recent Australian aid effectiveness review, including those of the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Law Centre.

On 8 June 2011, Australia provided its formal response to 145 recommendations made through the UPR.  In total, the Government accepted approximately 90 percent of the recommendations in whole or in part.

These pages contain the following information:

• Universal Periodic Review Materials, including NGO materials and reports by the Australian Government, the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Australian NGO Coalition
• Updates from the NGO Coalition, including coverage of Australia’s UPR appearance and updates from the NGO delegation that travelled to Geneva in January and February 2011
• Outcomes of Australia’s UPR Appearance in January 2011, including the UN’s Draft Report on Australia
• Follow Up and Implementation, including opportunities for NGO involvement and collaboration between the adoption of the Draft Report and the delivery of Australia’s Formal Response
• Australia’s Formal Response to Recommendations of the UPR in June 2011, including statements from the Australian Ambassador and NGOs to the UN Human Rights Council
• Media Coverage and Press Releases about Australia’s UPR

The purpose of this List is to outline those issues which the Committee would like Australia to address and respond to in its next periodic report to the Committee, due in 2012. 

The issues on which the Committee specifically seeks information and responses from Australia include:

• information regarding the legal entrenchment of human rights in Australia, including through a Human Rights Act and constitutional recognition of Indigenous people;
• the human rights compatibility and impacts of counter-terrorism legislation, including in relation to the powers of ASIO and the AFP;
• mechanisms for monitoring and oversight of places of detention, including prisons;
• the right to health and access to adequate health care for detainees, including prisoners and persons detained in immigration facilities;
• trafficking of women and children;
• violence against women;
• the operation and impact of laws that criminalise homelessness and poverty;
• complementary protection and the prohibition against refoulement;
• the operation and impact of Australia’s refugee and asylum seeker policies, including in relation to mandatory detention, offshore processing, and the detention of families and children;
• the over-representation of Indigenous people and people with mental illness in the criminal justice and prison systems;
• Australia’s extradition law, policy and practice; and
• police use of force, the investigation of police-related deaths and police monitoring and accountability mechanisms. 

The List of Issues Prior to Reporting is available at www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/followup/AdvanceVersion/Australia_AV_en.pdf. 

The Centre’s submission to the Committee, which significantly informed the Committee’s List of Issues, is at www.hrlrc.org.au/content/topics/counter-terrorism/torture-and-ill-treatment-submission-to-un-committee-against-torture-on-australia-24-august-2010/

In July 2010, a coalition of non-government organisations (NGOs) from across Australia prepared a joint NGO submission to the Universal Periodic Review of Australia.  The submission was prepared with substantial input and guidance from a high-level NGO Working Group and was endorsed, in whole or part, by 68 organisations. 

To assist States, NHRIs and NGOs to participate in the Universal Periodic Review of Australia, the NGO coalition has prepared a range of thematic fact sheets.

• Cover Page
• Fact Sheet 1 – Constitutional and legislative framework
• Fact Sheet 2 – Equality and non-discrimination laws
• Fact Sheet 3 – Women’s rights
• Fact Sheet 4 – People with disability
• Fact Sheet 5 – Children’s rights
• Fact Sheet 6 – Sexual and gender identity
• Fact Sheet 7 – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
• Fact Sheet 8 – Refugees and asylum seekers
• Fact Sheet 9 – Culturally and linguistically diverse communities
• Fact Sheet 10 – Administration of justice
• Fact Sheet 11 – Housing and homelessness
• Fact Sheet 12 – Poverty
• Fact Sheet 13 – Mental health care
• Fact Sheet 14 – Counter-terrorism
• Fact Sheet 15 – Police
• Fact Sheet 16 – Prisoner and prison conditions
• Fact Sheet 17 – Extraterritorial obligations

A consolidated version of all of the Fact Sheets is also available.

UPR Process

Further information on Australia’s review under the UPR process is available at www.hrlrc.org.au/content/topics/international-human-rights-mechanisms/universal-periodic-review-of-australia-in-february-2011/.

The brief is based on desktop research and provides preliminary or background information on human rights structures, initiatives and issues in the Pacific region.  National and regional non-government organisations will fully brief the Special Rapporteur on the substantive issues facing human rights defenders prior to or during her visit to Fiji.

The brief contains the following parts:

• An outline of regional initiatives in relation to the protection of human rights in the Pacific region.
• A table of the status of international human rights treaty signature, ratification and accession for Pacific Island nations as at 31 August 2010.
• A table providing the dates for consideration of Pacific Island nations under the Universal Periodic Review mechanism of the Human Rights Council.
• A table setting out the extent of constitutional protection of human rights in Pacific Island nations, with commentary from treaty monitoring bodies and from UPR reports on relevant gaps in human rights protection.  This table includes references to the situation of human rights defenders, women’s rights, freedom of association, rule of law and governance issues and independence of the judiciary that have been made by those bodies.
• A summary of reports made by regional and international NGOs on the situation of human rights defenders in the Pacific, or on issues that relate to those concerns.