Following Nicola Roxon’s appointment as Attorney-General on 15 December 2011, the Human Rights Law Centre prepared a Briefing Paper for the Attorney on Human Rights Iniatiatives for 2012-14.

The Briefing Paper details seven actions which  the Attorney-General could take to demonstrate principled human rights leadership, promote equality and human dignity, enhance government accountability and do better in guaranteeing fairness for all.

The Joint NGO Statement sets out a range of concrete recommendations to strengthen the individual complaints mechanisms of UN human rights bodies so as to:

• enhance the promotion, protection and fulfilment of human rights;
• assist States to properly understand and discharge their human rights obligations;
• contribute to the accountability of perpetrators of human rights violations; and
• secure access to effective remedies for victims of human rights violations.

The Joint NGO Statement has been prepared as a key input to the process of reform to strengthen the UN human rights treaty bodies initiated by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in 2009. The strengthening process is intended to make the work of treaty bodies more coordinated and effective and to enhance the fulfilment of human rights on the ground. The High Commissioner has invited inputs and proposals from states, NGOs, human rights experts and NHRIs in this regard.

The HRLC’s work coordinating the Joint NGO Statement on Strengthening Individual Communication Procedures builds on our work contributing to the Pretoria Statement of June 2011, another joint NGO paper which contains over 60 concrete and practical recommendations to improve the work of human rights bodies at the international level and the fulfilment of human rights on the ground.

The Pretoria Statement – which was prepared by NGOs including Amnesty International, the International Service for Human Rights, the Centre for Human Rights (South Africa), CELS (Argentina) and the Human Rights Law Centre (Australia) – contains over 60 concrete and practical recommendations to improve the work of human rights bodies at the international level and the fulfilment of human rights on the ground.

The statement is open for endorsement by other NGOs. If your NGO wishes to endorse the Pretoria Statement, please send a notification preferably before 15 August 2011 to melhik.bekele@up.ac.za.

UN human rights bodies are an essential part of the framework for the promotion and protection of human rights, complementing the work of regional and domestic human rights mechanisms, non-government organisations and national human rights institutions.

In 2009, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights commenced a process of reform to strengthen the UN human rights treaty bodies. The strengthening process is intended to make the work of treaty bodies more coordinated and effective and to enhance the fulfilment of human rights on the ground. The High Commissioner has invited inputs and proposals from states, NGOs, human rights experts and NHRIs in this regard.

In response to this call, a civil society consultation was held in Pretoria on 20 and 21 June 2011, hosted by the Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Pretoria. This consultation examined and built on previous statements, including the 2009 Dublin Statement on the Process of Strengthening the UN Human Rights Treaty Body System (and the 2010 NGO response thereto), the 2010 Marrakech Statement, the 2010 Poznan Statement and the 2011 Seoul Statement.

The Pretoria Statement sets out over 60 recommendations, including as to:

• guiding principles of reform;
• the periodic reporting process;
• the review of states which fail to submit periodic reports;
• individual communications and remedies for human rights violations;
• follow up and implementation of human rights recommendations; and
• the protection of human rights defenders.

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).

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 submission to the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department considers each of 145 recommendations made to Australia by the international community during Australia’s Universal Periodic Review before the UN Human Rights Council.

The recommendations ranged from enacting a comprehensive national Human Rights Act, to recognising same-sex marriage, to enshrining Indigenous and racial equality rights in the Constitution, to abolishing mandatory immigration detention.

The Centre’s submission considers each of these recommendations in terms of Australia’s concrete obligations under international human rights law and identifies whether, on that basis, they must be accepted, should be accepted, or should be rejected.

According to a legal analysis of the recommendations conducted by the Human Rights Law Centre, the Australian Government must immediately implement at least 55 of the UPR recommendations in order for Australia to avoid continuing breaches of its legal obligations under international law.  The HRLRC’s media release is available in [PDF] and [word].

Australian NGO Coalition

The Centre has also been involved in the coordination of a major NGO Coalition submission to the Attorney-General’s Department regarding prioritisation and practical implementation of the 145 recommendations.

The Australian Government has committed to fully consider the recommendations “in the coming months” and to formally respond to them at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva in June. Australia’s response presents both a test and an opportunity for the protection of human rights at home and the enhancement of our international standing and reputation abroad.

For further information about Australia’s Universal Periodic Review, see http://www.hrlrc.org.au/content/universal-periodic-review-ngo-delegation-updates/.

The delegation set out its view that the realisation of human rights should be a primary goal and instrument of Australian foreign policy and made over 30 recommendations as to actions for Australia to take as a principled and effective human rights champion, including in the areas of:

• the UN human rights system;
• women’s rights;
• Indigenous peoples’ rights;
• a human rights-based approach to aid and development;
• Australia’s role in Asia and the Pacific; and
• Australia’s role in relation to other countries.

Many of the recommendations build on and complement recommendations made by the Human Rights Law Centre in the following policy briefs:

• Foreign Policy and Human Rights: Australia as a “Principled Advocate of Human Rights for All”
• Human Rights in the Asia-Pacific: Australia’s Role and Responsibilities
• Business and Human Rights: Setting the Agenda
• “Promoting Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms for All”: Australia’s Engagement with the UN Human Rights Council

The NGO delegation will be advocating and following up on implementation of many of the recommendations in the coming months.

As part of the UPR process, states are encouraged to make “voluntary commitments”, which are concrete pledges to take certain action to promote human rights prior to appearing before the UPR.  The letter identifies that making voluntary commitments is an opportunity for Australia to demonstrate international human rights leadership through tangible, concrete means.

The NGO coalition has proposed 19 specific, achievable pledges in the following areas:

• Australia’s general legal framework;
• equality and non-discrimination laws;
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights;
• women’s rights;
• immigration and asylum seeker laws;
• people with disability;
• housing and homelessness; and
• Australia’s international aid and development assistance.

Click here for further information about the UPR process, including reports, NGO materials and background information.

On 9 November 2010, the Australian Government invited stakeholders for input on Australia’s approach to the draft optional protocol.

On 11 November 2010, the Human Rights Law Resource Centre made an Initial Submission to the Australian Government on the Elaboration and Adoption of a Third Optional Protocol to the CRC.

The HRLRC’s submission briefly sets out:

• the operation of the draft optional protocol;
• the need for the optional protocol;
• the benefits of the optional protocol; and
• Australia’s role in the elaboration and adoption of the optional protocol.