Transcript of the 1393rd, 1394th and 1395th Meetings held during the Fifty-Sixth Session of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination during its consideration of Australia's Tenth, Eleventh and Twelfth Periodic Reports and its continuing consideration of the matters considered by the Committee at its 54th and 55th Sessions in 1999.

(Chairman)
I am grateful to Ms Philippa Horner, with her comments. I take it Mr Minister that the introduction of the Australia report has thus been completed. I thank you, it was eloquent, it was detailed fairly, and it will definitely contribute to the dialogue that we aspire to having in this Committee. In accordance with our procedures, I shall now call on the first speaker on my list, who is the country rapporteur, a name I imagine you know, Mrs Gay McDougall. Mrs McDougall has now the floor. Mrs McDougall has the floor. Well, the Australians know her but the technician in the Committee doesn't evidently. Mrs McDougall has the floor, she is the last colleague on my left. I do wish that the technician could get accustomed to the seating arrangements. All right, you have the floor now. Congratulations madam, it's a good start.

(McDougall)
Thank you Mr Chairman. I just want to start by saying that I very much appreciate the Australian Government's efforts in presenting such a comprehensive report, particularly with regard to the information on state/territory compliance. I am from a country that has a federal system so I know the joys and the problems of federalism rather well. I also want to thank you for, thank the state party for sending this really distinguished and very high level delegation to present the report. It is quite an impressive delegation and I think it shows the level of seriousness that the government connects with its obligations under this treaty, and certainly under other aspects of international human rights laws. And I would say that the effort that the state party has made to visit each of the members in our hometown was also an extraordinary expression of interest in the work of this Committee.

Now the report covers Australia's compliance with the Convention from 1992 &emdash; 1998 and it operates as Australia's tenth, eleventh reports and twelfth report. I am very happy to hear the updated information, I think that the facts and figures in the twelfth report were at least a year or so behind, so it's very good to hear the updated information, although it was a little bit too fast for us to digest it and we would be happy to get copies of your oral submissions so that we can take a look at them as we proceed with our deliberations.

(Minister)
… very happy to provide them

(McDougall)
Thank you. Now the two groups most affected by racial discrimination in Australia are first the indigenous community, and then secondly the migrant community who suffer for a number of reasons, including ethnic background, national origin, and skin colour. I note that the report really lacks, I think, enough detail on how outcomes have improved for the migrant population, despite our previous request for information, detailed information, in this regard. I'm also concerned about the full integration of women's rights in the context of the Convention and would very much welcome &emdash; you may know that yesterday this Committee passed a General Recommendation on Race and Gender &emdash; so we would very much welcome any information that you might have on how racial discrimination impacts on, for example, the situation of indigenous women in Australia or indeed, women refugees, migrants, et cetera.

Now I have distributed a list of sources that assisted me in the exercise of and examination of the state party report. All of the members should have it and I hope the delegation has it as well. I'd also like to acknowledge the submissions of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, and a number of Australian NGOs which have given us all helpful information. It must be noted that in deciding to consider Australia's periodic report at this session, the Committee does not intend to minimise the gravity of its consideration of Australia under the early warning procedures that we initiated and were the basis of our decision in March 1999. We affirmed our position in August 1999 and decided that we would continue considering those issues under early warning procedures while we at the same time take up a review of the state party report today. So the issues discussed at those two meetings remain of utmost concern. You've already spoken to some of them and I think that they will be on the Committee's mind as we move forward with our deliberations.

As to Article 2, the Australian Commonwealth and the government of the states and territories have enacted, I think, an impressive array of laws at the federal, state and territorial level, of laws, have established many agencies and programs to combat racial discrimination. I think it's actually an impressive array, and your report, you know, displays that, as well as the information we've heard this afternoon. You have the Racial Discrimination Act, which is in large degree an enactment of our Convention into domestic law, the Racial Hatred Act, which we'll talk about a little bit later, you've got special bodies like the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, you have the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, and one of those key officers of that Commission includes the Race Discrimination Commissioner and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. You have the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, there's been a national inquiry into separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and their families so I think that it's … one has to welcome this multiplicity of attempts in law and in terms of institutional structures to address these issues. I just have a couple of questions that I want to raise about those issues.

First of all, is it the view of the state party that the Convention establishes a legal duty to ensure formal equality with respect to the rights of historically disadvantaged racial and ethnic groups that still suffer from those inequalities, or is it substantive equality that is the obligation, and what are your definitions and where do you place special measures within that framework? I know that the state party has had a lot of discussions along that line but I'd like to hear your views directly.

Secondly, does the state party consider the Convention to impose obligations that are absolute, or does the state party believe that there is a quote 'margin of appreciation' with respect to the obligations, the state party's obligation to enforce the provisions of our Convention?

You know, one of the issues that is of concern to me is that there is a lack of an entrenched guarantee against racial discrimination in Australian law, (…) that simply by passing subsequent inconsistent legislation. We've seen that problem and discussed that problem with respect to the Native Title amendment, Native Title Act as amended. I notice, however, that on the other hand there is a power to pass legislation such as the Social Security Legislation Amendment Act, which has a special provision in it that is sort of an explicit savings clause that new legislation will, must be interpreted subject to the provisions of your Racial Discrimination Act, in other words CERD. I just want to hear whether it's the view of the state party that the overriding of the Racial Discrimination Act in any subsequent legislation amounts to a repudiation of the state party's obligations under CERD or whether you think it is as consistent as one can have it, so I'd be interested in your comments about that.

You see, and this also flows from it, that the other concern is that there seems to be a lack of, or I sense that there is a lack of competence in the Commonwealth Parliament, or perhaps it's a reluctance, to take steps to ensure the harmonious application of the provisions of the Convention, not only at the federal level, but also at the state and territorial level. Now the Committee raised this issue, I believe, when Australia's last periodic report was reviewed, the issue being that discriminatory impact of state and territory levels, laws, in matters which, at that level they have almost, you know, primary jurisdiction, like for social programs et cetera, is I think a matter of concern so I would invite your comments. When your last report, periodic report, was before this Committee we welcomed the establishment of bodies like ATSIC and the Human Relations Committee, but now we see that there are some changes taking place, either already implemented or discussed, to the functioning of both institutions, that might have an adverse impact on the, you know, their ability to effectively carry out their programs. ATSIC is federally funded, indigenous organisation, very unique structure. It has at least by I guess charter, one would say a statute, responsibility for a wide array of issues relating to the Aboriginal community, presumably health, housing, education, et cetera, and it has been sort of established as the, a representative voice of the Aboriginal community, particularly I think with respect to ability to enter into negotiations, et cetera. So when you were before us before, it seemed that the state party was putting an emphasis on moving the responsibilities and creating in ATSIC a sort of body to represent the issues and interests of the Aboriginal community. Now I understand and actually think it is quite an important thing to do mainstreaming of these responsibilities, and I think it's very important that you know all the other departments in the government have such responsibility also, but inasmuch as it's clear that there is a need for and, if you will, a legitimate or authoritative voice from the Aboriginal community to enter into consultations and negotiations with the government, I just wonder whether or not they are now being disempowered, so that they are not as able to play effectively that role. Because we do have a short amount of time, I'm going to leave questions related to Article 3 to one of my colleagues, Mr Banton. I will also leave issues related to Article 4 to another one of my colleagues. I think that the situation with respect to Article 4 compliance, in other words the domestic legislation with respect to hate crimes and incitement to hatred, is perhaps where it was when you last were before this Committee, but I would want to hear whether or not and how far and to what extent you feel that the Racial Hatred Act fulfils the state party's obligations under 4 (a), (b) and (c), and whether or not you know, when you have organisations in the country, some of them in and out of the government, which openly espouse racial hatred, what, how the state party has plans to go about dealing with that under Article 4 obligations? And I do realise that there is a reservation under Article 4. I come from a country that has placed a reservation under Article 4 also.

Issues relating to health, housing, employment, education, et cetera, again some of my other colleagues are going to raise questions on that, I won't belabour the points that they will make. I think we all have to welcome the increase in government resources going into what seem to be a multiplicity of programs and activities to address the social and economic disadvantage within the Aboriginal community, and I think that in some respects, in many respects, the report is very candid about the track record. But, and I must note that these are old figures because I took it from the report, you know the report is that indigenous Australians are still 15 to 18 times more likely to die from infectious diseases than the rest of the population, with a life expectancy of 15 to 20 years lower. That over 20% live in dwellings that are in need of repair, don't have basic amenities such as toilets, bathrooms, running water, et cetera. Only 31% of indigenous students continue past the secondary school level, et cetera. Now I note that you said today that there's been great improvement over a short period of time, and I'm sure there has been, but you know it's interesting to me, and again I will say this because I come from a country myself where there is a disadvantaged community and a lot of government programs et cetera, it's of serious concern the extent of the dramatic inequalities that are still being experienced by these population groups when they represent only, you know, no more than 2% of the population of a highly developed, industrialised state, and I just, it makes me wonder about things like the effectiveness of the programs, monitoring, benchmarking, what are the standards, is anybody watching this to see whether or not they really are designed to meet the disadvantages that are real in the communities, you know the real history of systemic discrimination, institutional racism? In other words how is it even with the increased level of expenditures and the many programs that you've described that I think are all quite laudable, so how is it that a country like Australia with the resources it has, has not yet been able to bring what's less than 2% of the population up to reasonable levels in terms of standards of living? So I would welcome hearing from you on that.

If I can go to Article 5 and questions relating to equality before the law. As you all know, the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody found that the problem was not really that Aborigines were dying at a higher rate, and I noticed this morning, today you say that actually the rate has dropped lower than when it was studied by the Commission, so that is really quite important. But the problem they said is the degree of over-representation in custody, was 29 times that of non-Aboriginals. The Royal Commission also concluded that the most significant factor in bringing indigenous community people into contact with the criminal justice system was their disadvantage and unequal position in the wider society. And they made subsequent recommendations and I note that the government has accepted 338 of the 339, and has allocated over 4 million dollars to seek to implement those recommendations. But despite that formal commitment to those recommendations and the programs put in place I think that it is still true, correct me if this is wrong, that the total number of Aboriginals in custody has increased, according to a study prepared for ATSIC by a criminologist. He says: 'claims by state and territory governments to have implemented recommendations cannot be sustained. Further state/territory governments have taken legislative actions not to envisage the Royal Commission of Inquiry, not envisaged by it, which has led to an increase in Aboriginal imprisonment.' Now the Commission recommended strategies of diversion, diversion from incarceration, but I think since that time, particularly for juveniles the level of incarceration has remained at unacceptably high and disproportionate levels. And many have pointed to the mandatory sentencing laws that are now in place in at least one state and one territory as well as the limited diversionary options that are available. These mandatory sentencing laws have been the focus of much attention. I just got from the paper today a piece saying that the Victorian Attorney-General Mr Rob Hulls said that he has planned to raise the issue at the State/Commonwealth Attorneys-General meeting because, in his view, and I quote 'mandatory sentencing is racist, it is unethical, it is immoral, and it is deliberately targeted at a particular group within our community', those are his words. I think we're talking particularly about the legislation in place in the Northern Territory and in Western Australia. In the Northern Territory Aboriginal people make up 25% of the overall population, and 32% of the population 12-25 years old, yet 76% of all adults in prison in custody in the Northern Territory are Aboriginal, and 73% of all those held in juvenile detention are indigenous. And the most common offences are those that draw the mandatory sentence. Same sort of situation in Western Australia. Now I know that this issue has been raised in the Senate, there was a bill put forward, it didn't get passed, obviously there are people in the government like Mr Hulls who have great concern about it. My question is this, that first of all does the state party share the view that these mandatory sentencing regimes are inconsistent with its obligations under our Convention and perhaps under others? And I also wonder, I understand that there has been a legal committee of the government that has studied and concluded that quote, 'that the weight of the evidence of the committee was that the mandatory sentencing laws have a discriminatory impact on indigenous peoples and that is contrary to the provisions of CERD', and they named Articles 2 and 5 particularly. So I would want to know whether or not the state party fully agrees with that and if so, and if there is the competence in the Federal, in the Commonwealth Parliament and the Federal Government to override laws passed in states and territories, and I do think you have that power in certain instances, then I would be interested in hearing why that power is not being used to override the, and I understand the political difficulties in federal systems of overriding state and local jurisdiction, but in situations relating to human rights, I think it is actually an obligation to do so.

I'd also like to hear you talk, we've talked about equal access to law, a little bit about interpreter services. That's been raised with me that in courts, while there is a program to guarantee interpretation services to non-English speakers, that the service is not extended to, in general, to the Aboriginal community, or that it's not available or it's not able to be used successfully, and so I would like to hear your comments there.

I do have some points about Native Title Act as amended. As I said earlier you know of our decision 2(54) in March, where we called on the government to suspend operations of the amendments and re-open negotiations with the affected population, the Aboriginal population, and to come to some agreed upon solution that also meets the obligations under our Convention, and we reaffirmed this in August and decided to continue to monitor the situation under our early warning and preventative procedures, while also reviewing your twelfth periodic report at this 56^th session. Now the information that Ms Horner has given us very quickly is of great interest, I'd like to see it in more detail, it's very hard to incorporate it hearing it that quickly, but to my knowledge there has been no action on our decision 2(54). And I think that it's certainly the case that at this juncture it may be too early to determine the full impact of the Native Title Act as amended. I think it is the case that most of the states and territories have introduced legislation that contains provisions which restrict the ability of native title holders to negotiate over non-indigenous land uses in the future. Many replace the right to negotiate about future land uses with a lesser right of notification and consultation. I also note that in the Northern Territory and Queensland, two of the states that are most heavily populated by the indigenous community, both enacted such legislation that potentially affects approximately 50% of the land in these, in the territories. I know that the Northern Territory legislation was disallowed by a motion of the Senate, but if I'm right, the situation is that the Northern Territory can now go back and make whatever amendments it wishes to the legislation without having to revert again for a vetting before the Parliament, which is quite a significant loophole I would say.

I also understand, and correct me if this is not accurate, moving back to the first points I made, that the state and territorial legislation that is being put in place now is not subject to the anti-discrimination provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act. So what we have is a combination of the devolution of responsibilities for many native title issues to the states and territories with what may be an exemption of the Native Title Act as amended from the federal anti-discrimination legislation, the RDA. Now I note what Ms Horner has said to us today about the question of registration and right to negotiate. My understanding was that these cumbersome registration processes that were put in place, that the counter-balance to having to go through those extra procedures, if you will, was that indigenous title holders would be able to be guaranteed the right to negotiate and again, if I'm right Ms Horner I stand corrected, I'd be very interested in hearing your comments. What we have now is that the registration, the more complex registration processes are there but they can be denied the right to negotiate by the state and territory regimes. There have been complaints about the complex and burdensome process for registration. I'm interested that you say such a high percentage have passed these hurdles. I understand that very few have legal representation or assistance in moving their claims forward. I'd like to ask if it is correct that the Western Australia's new legislation, that under it native title on at least 1,300 grants has been extinguished under the confirmation of extinguishment regime, and this has also now been expanded in scope to cover land affected by public works projects and adjacent lands, so it expands the area. So I would like your assessment of whether these points are correct and doesn't the scheme that is being implemented under the Act as amended allow governments to do what they could not have done under the Act simple, without requiring the informed consent of the native title holder? We have noted that there is a Parliamentary Joint Commission holding hearings into our decision and we will be following those proceedings with interest.

Finally from me, Mr Chairman, Article 7 obliges the states parties to undertake measures to combat prejudices which lead to racial discrimination and to promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among racial and ethnic groups and I think that that's where we started with the discussion that the honourable Minister gave us of the reconciliation process and its varied programs that are being put in place, the way in which it is trying to be innovative, et cetera. When I think about the reconciliation process I sort of go back to the issue of what's called the stolen generation. One in ten indigenous persons in Australia over the age of 25 was forcibly removed from his or her family when a child. The national inquiry into the separation of these families made seven or so recommendations for government response to these abuses and I'd be interested in hearing how many of those recommendations have indeed been acted on. You know, the difficulties of any people in coming to terms with racial discrimination in the past just cannot be underestimated. However, I would ask whether or not you feel that your government is showing sufficient leadership in this regard and why, and I read this in your report but I'd like to hear from this distinguished delegation why it is so difficult as a government, not as an individual but as a government, to take full responsibility for past government actions? There's been no constitutional break in this process, so the question is why would it be so difficult to fully admit and apologise for past wrongs by your government? You know, and I'm also interested in how you see this process of reconciliation. I've heard about the programs as you've described earlier, but what are the benchmarks? What actually is taking place in addition to a public education program, how will you know when reconciliation has been achieved, what are the criteria? And is it not going to have to have the full consent and agreement of the other side of the table in a negotiation with the indigenous community, because it seems to me that at the very least, you know, one of the criteria for reconciliation is that both sides, or all sides, agree that yes, we have reached that point now. And I just wonder if there's not going to be, not consultation &emdash; I think that's something else &emdash; but real negotiation with the indigenous community about what reconciliation means, and how to get from here to there.

I'd also like to hear you talk just in closing about the Elizabeth Evatt report and whether or not all of the recommendations in that report have been accepted and will be acted on.

Just in closing I would say that, again a comment on your introduction Mr Minister, that part of the success of your programs is the,you know, that the Aboriginal, the indigenous community, is so well represented here and has done such an incredibly professional job in putting its views forward. I think that is right, that's very important, I would just ask you why they're not up there? So with that Mr Chairman I'll close. Thank you.

(Chairman)
I wish to thank the country rapporteur Mrs McDougall for analysing the Australian report before the Committee, and I shall give the floor to …

(Minister)
Do you want me to respond to any of this?

(Chairman)
No Mr Minister, it will be responded at the appropriate time, you will have ample time. The next speaker on my list is Mr Diaconu, to be followed by Mr Valencia Rodriguez. Mr Diaconu has the floor.

(Diaconu)
Thank you very much Mr Chairman. I'll try to be brief but this is a very thorough report and we have in front of us a delegation of the high level which submitted very interesting information and we will have to comment upon them. It is true that Australia developed a network of institutions and activities dealing with racial discrimination policies and programs, mainly dealing with issues of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. We are encouraged to note that the growth of the Aboriginal population and the estimates according to which it may reach 400,000 in 2006, from 280,000 in 1991. But this I would have to say this creates more obligations for the government of Australia, beyond the historic responsibilities of all Australian society towards the indigenous Australia. This concerns the overall treatment, but mainly land issues, the judicial process, the employment and related rights, and the education.

As for the land issues and the amendments to Native Title Act adopted in 1998, the Committee requested some information and decided to connect their examination with the consideration of the periodic report. We understand some of the reasons behind the amendments brought to the Native Title Act, but I think we need additional information and we will need periodically additional information with a view to see in what direction is going the process. What are the trends? What are the consequences of the adoption of these amendments on the Aboriginal community? I would like to ask now only two questions about this. The regime of confirmation, it is said that the idea was to clarify where native titles have in the past been extinguished. Now what is the result of such a procedure? How many titles were confirmed as extinguished? And Mrs McDougall mentioned some figures, what do they represent? The government is evaluating that the extinguishment provision may apply only to 21% of Australia, 21%. But the Aboriginal community has titles now only on about 15 % of Australia. 15% is less than 21%. Of course they may claim 79% but this is just a claim. So I would like to have more clarifications about these issues. And the second question on the Native Title Act, the provision on negotiation or agreement between native title holders and others, what is the result of such a provision? Are there agreements concluded, and what happens if pastoralists don't want to negotiate and they are in a favourable position? It is also said that alternative regimes may be put in place by state and territory parliaments, and that they must meet specified criteria which recognise the particular interests of native title holders. Okay, are there such alternative regimes established? What is their result? And as a global question, were there any global discussions with representatives of indigenous Australians on these issues, on land issues, with the view to reach a new arrangement, a new balance, which is acceptable to everybody?

About the mandatory sentencing, in particular in the Northern Territory and Western Australia, which is presented in many reports as having a disproportionate impact on indigenous Australians, and we took note of the case of a boy called Johnno sentenced for 28 days for a property offence, who hanged himself in a prison. And figures were presented by Mrs McDougall according to which 27% of the population in that area is Aboriginal but 70% of the prison population is also Aboriginal. There are reports that no interpreter service in Aboriginal language is provided to the people in this area, while but similar services are provided to non-Aboriginal other people in the area speaking other languages. This, if it is so, this would be a clear discrimination and it would give no access to legal process and to defence to these people. We read in paragraph 431 of the report that there is an obligation to provide, there are safeguards for non-English suspects, the obligation to provide for an interpreter. But in paragraph 438 we read that only in some states there are legislative provisions to this effect, but not in Northern Territory. So what, how do we solve this issue? The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody made some recommendations, according to the report, as to how to address the high rates of incarceration and deaths of indigenous people, and strategic plans were to be developed. But again it seems that the Northern Territory decided not to commit to a strategic plan and has taken steps to distance itself from such a process. My question is what does the Federal Government intend to do, if this is the case?

As for the system of mandatory sentencing as a whole, if we understand the reports submitted to us, according to that system an infringement notice may be issued, specifying a penalty to be paid. Then a person is given 28 days to pay for that fine. And then a clerk may register an infringement penalty after another 28 days, issuing a warrant of commitment, and on that basis the person may be imprisoned. This affects mainly Aboriginals and children of Aboriginals. I think if this is so the Committee should recommend the Federal Government to review, as soon as possible, criminal laws of that state and take the necessary measures to bring them in accordance with international treaties on human rights. Mr Chairman, according to some reports the Federal Government would have introduced legislation to enable building the Hindmarsh Island Bridge, giving the go-ahead for the destruction of Aboriginal women's sacred sites on Hindmarsh Island. I would like to have more information about this. And also there are reports that the Cabinet has given green lights to more uranium mines in areas of significance to Aboriginal people like Beverly, in South Australia. And these would be mines using the mining method polluting soil with uranium and sulfuric acid. This is also some report on which I have to have clarifications.

Mr Chairman we note that our Convention does not contain a federal clause, but we know what is a federal system - in the United States, in Germany, in Australia, in Austria, in Switzerland &emdash; and for us all these governments are responsible. They cannot stay behind sharing of competencies with local authorities. Whenever delegating competencies they should maintain the power to interfere and take measures to guarantee the implementation of the Convention. As Mrs McDougall noted, there is a flouting in the legislation in different Australian states. Some of them have legislation, some others do not have, some are dealing with some issues and not with the others. The minimum for us is our Convention, and this should be implemented and the Australian Government is responsible. In paragraph 20 of the report we are told that the individual, the Australian individual may choose to pursue his or her complaints under either the federal or the relevant state or territory scheme. Is that the reality in the legal process? Are people using the federal law in that process? Is the federal law overriding the local legislation? Or another question, is the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 the minimum for Australia? As to the Article 4 of our Convention we notice that the Parliament did not accept amendments to the criminal code under 4(a) and the government recognises that the provision of civil remedies falls short of satisfying the requirements of this Act in paragraphs 409, 416, so we have to maintain our recommendation on this issue.

I would like to ask one last question on the education. Is education provided in foreign languages to people from different non-Australian origins coming into Australia like - I leave aside the UK and New Zealand - but Italians, Yugoslavs, Vietnam, Chinese, because there are hundreds of thousands of them in Australia? Thank you very much Mr Chairman.

(Chairman)
I thank Mr Diaconu for his comments. The next and I believe the last speaker for this evening is Mrs Zou, on whom I now call. Madam Zou you have the floor.

(Zou)
[The first part of Ms Zou's statement was given in French only. Following is the remainder, as translated into English]

… working process et cetera. And the information contained is not only at the level of federal but also at the regional levels. I think this report, that is the longest report I have seen since I came here. However that also leaves me with the impression that there are areas where the report is overly meticulous. For instance the report says that for those who do not understand English, when the person is brought to court or under police investigation or in the case of other needs, the government of Australia would provide interpretation or translation services. On that single issue 12 paragraphs, a whole three pages, were devoted to it. However, no mention is made as to whether all those who do not understand English would benefit from such services. As has just been pointed out by our country rapporteur Mrs McDougall that some Aboriginals who do not understand English fail to benefit from the translation service. Therefore, the report leaves me with the impression that it's short on concrete facts. For instance this legislation, these organs, in the views of eliminating racial discrimination what impact have they had and what are the problems that still exist? Indeed, lots of progress has been achieved by the government of Australia in moving from the White Australia policy towards a multicultural Australia policy. Progress is recognised, in particular in the area of immigration policies. In the past, highly discriminatory policy was adopted against the people of Asian origin and people of other colour. Indeed we have witnessed tremendous progress. Here I'd like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to the Australian embassy in China for having provided me with material and information. Of course once in a while I can still hear stories of discrimination suffered by immigrants of Asian origin in areas of employment and housing, but progress is recognised.

Now I would like to come to the question of the One Nation party. Having read through the whole report, I fail to detect a single reference to that party. In Beijing I expressed the hope to the Australian embassy in China that I would be provided with some information about that party. For instance the charter of that party, its platform et cetera. However I was told that One Nation party did not have such material or information. I'm not entirely clear about domestic laws in Australia, but when a political party registers itself, doesn't it need to provide information on the purpose and principles of that party? Moreover, it is not a party of mere words with no action. Its leader participated in the national elections and was elected as a member of the Parliament. Didn't she have some kind of an election platform when she was campaigning? A junior official told me that he had a speech delivered by Ms Hanson at the Parliament but up until now I haven't got a copy of that speech. I was further advised that that political party is in the process of self-destructing. I would only hope that this is the view of some individual officials rather than that of the government of Australia, because it's clear though the leader of the party Ms Hanson suffered defeat in the recent election and did not get elected, but the party still exists, it didn't get disbanded. And also, I have also read from the press that One Nation party is extremist, racist, and a xenophobia party, and it advocates white supremacy, and is opposed to the Aboriginal people and opposed to immigration by the people of yellow colour and the black people and all other coloured people immigrating to Australia. In today's world we have witnessed a tendency of rising racism and xenophobia and hence the reason for the convening of the World Conference Against Racism, Xenophobia and Other Intolerances. Such a tendency and actions have profound economic and social basis. The fact that Ms Hanson did not get elected as a member of parliament should not be understood to mean that the party and such tendencies are in the process of disappearing, and as such the government of Australia should or could just forget about it, and the actual situation in Australia cannot bear that out either.

The amendment to the National (sic) Title Act of 1998 represents a regression of the Native Title Act of 1993. Moreover, after I came here to Geneva I've been provided with material provided by ARIS, in that the leader of the Ku Klux Klan of the United States is now visiting Australia. I do not think he went to Australia purely for tourism purposes so I would hope the government of Australia will closely monitor all forms of racial discrimination, this racism and xenophobia indeed do exist in Australia. I would hope that strong countermeasures will be taken by the government of Australia rather than taking an evasive attitude. Thank you.

(Chairman)
Thank Mr Nobel. I thank Madam Zou for her comments, she was the last member to speak this evening. It is 6 o'clock which means it's time for adjournment as is usually the case. But I have been requested by the Ambassador of Australia to give for one minute the floor to the head of the delegation of Australia, the distinguished Minister, if he so wishes. Usually this is not the procedure but we can make an exception if he wishes us to do that exception. Well, the distinguished leader of the Australian delegation has the floor. Mr Minister.

(Minister)
Mr Chairman can I just say that we very much appreciate the Committee's comments, and positive comments in many respects in relation to the report and presentation and I look forward to dealing in detail with some of those issues tomorrow along with my colleagues. But I do wish to say to Madam Zou that no Ku Klux Klan representatives have been given a visa by me to enter Australia. I want to make that very clear. No Ku Klux Klan representatives have been given a visa by me to enter Australia.

(inaudible)

Everybody needs a visa to get into Australia. Yes, we have, I'll go through with you later about the detail of it … including Brits… it's a universal requirement, the manner in which it's met can vary, but I'll go through that with you, but the Ku Klux Klan people were put on our alert list to make sure they couldn't come in. But thank you for the reference to that matter. Can I just say that some members of the Committee appear to believe that the early warning procedures vis a vis Australia are still active, now it was our understanding that those procedures were incorporated into the normal reporting procedures, in the statement that was issued I think on the 16^th of August. And while we'd be, certainly Australia has been happy for it to proceed upon that basis, it is perhaps a semantic issue that it's been raised again, but as far as we are concerned we will continue to report in a timely way before the Committee in the normal rounds and our belief was that the further urgent action matters were not being pressed when the decision was taken in the form that it was. The other issues I will pick up tomorrow, because I'm looking forward to having some comments to make to our rapporteur, who seems to be very well informed and well briefed.

(Chairman)
Well, thank you very much Mr Minister. You stated your point of view of your delegation and of course you will be given ample opportunity for a detailed response tomorrow morning to the various points which will be raised by my colleagues, and with that I believe I shall adjourn this meeting with apologies to the interpreters, and we shall reconvene with the Australian report tomorrow morning at 10:00 o'clock. And by that Mr Minister I clarify for you, as I usually do, that by 10:00 o'clock we mean exactly that - not the United Nations time. So, I look forward to seeing you tomorrow at 10:00 o'clock. Thank you very much. This meeting is adjourned.

FAIRA Aboriginal Corporation
Phone +61 7 3391 4677 • Fax +61 7 3391 4551 • email letterbox@faira.org.au
Post Office Box 8402 Woolloongabba Q 4102 Australia
37 Balaclava Street Woolloongabba