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 declare open this 1394^th meeting of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The first item on our agenda this morning is the continued consideration of the 10^th, 11^th and 12^th periodic reports of Australia to be found in document in CERD/C/335/Add.2 with Mrs. McDougall acting as country rapporteur. The first speaker on my list this morning is Mr Valencia-Rodrigez. I call on Mr Valencia to be followed by Mr Banton. Mr Valencia has the floor.

(Mr Valencia Rodriguez)
Thank you Mr Chairman. May I first of all express warm greetings to the distinguished delegation of Australia. By the distinguished Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and I'd like to thank him for his presentation of the report yesterday. And also I'd like to express appreciation to Mrs McDougall for her exhaustive analysis of this document. Mr Chairman we have a bulky, very full report containing a wealth of information as well as much other documentation coming from various sources, particularly from NGOs. We therefore have information covering all matters related to the Convention. Given this situation it is impossible to comment on each and every detail of this vast baggage of information, and I will therefore confine myself to a number of aspects without going into an examination of various details concerning the states and territories. First of all we welcome Australia's commitment to the protection of human rights. Once again we note with satisfaction the implementation of the law on racial discrimination dating back to 1975 which encompasses the various jurisdictions. According to article 9 it's unlawful for a person to commit any offence implying a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference on grounds of race, colour, or national or ethnic origin. We see that this provision is in line with article 1 of the Convention. The law on racial hatred was enacted in 1975 and the thrust of this is that individuals may denounce to the Commission on Racial Discrimination any act which constitutes a violation of those legal provisions. The Commission for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders is the competent body to consider matters related to those communities. In accordance with article 19 of the law on racial discrimination the post of High Commissioner to combat discrimination has been established, the main task of which is to investigate alleged violations of the law. In addition an official process of reconciliation has been embarked upon between the Aboriginal and Island communities and the rest of the national population which is a very positive step forward. In addition, in Australia there are important instruments to fulfil the obligations stemming from the Convention. I would like to know how those instruments have been put into effect and the right results secured or envisaged for the future.

Thirdly, based on information received, and information available to the Committee, we know that in the country there are practices of racial discrimination in various spheres of life, particularly in matters of a social and economic nature. In paragraph 60 there is an acknowledgement that despite the attainment of progress in the educational field, the school attendance rates are lower in comparison with those corresponding to the non-indigenous population. Paragraph 72 says that the indigenous population has a worse state of health and dies at a younger age than the non-indigenous populations. With respect to housing, more than 20% of non-indigenous, or rather indigenous communities live in unhealthy housing. We are told that the employment rate for the indigenous communities is 23%, whereas in the overall population rate, unemployment is 9%. The prison rates for the indigenous population are excessively high compared to the rest of the population. These are a number of indicators, but eloquent indicators, reflecting the circumstances of the indigenous and Islander populations suggesting the need for government to take measures to overcome this state of affairs.

Fourthly, the problem of the separation of children referred to in paragraphs 102 and following in the report is a matter which has been of note for a number of years now. The report presented to parliament in 1997 referred in paragraph 104 clearly states that the investigation conducted into this matter resulted in the conclusion that the laws concerning indigenous children promoting a policy of assimilation and protection were discriminatory on racial grounds. There were 54 recommendations concerning the Australian Government's responsibility as well as those of states and territories and there were major groups of recommendations for compensation or reparation to those affected. Concerning unification, health and other matters were affected by these policies and the need for measures to address the resulting separation.

Paragraph 112 tells us a quest to be made to all Australian Members of Parliament as a political measure to mitigate the state of affairs to present the corresponding excuses [apologies]. However, we know that the government is not in favour of an official excuse [apology] on a national basis. It is also considered that the policy of separating children was not tantamount to genocide, since it was adopted not with a view to exterminating a population but in order to preserve it, as the report states. Which suggests, based on that, that the preservation of a population is achieved through the destruction of their homes or households. It's regrettable that these criteria were adopted since the presentation of excuses [apologies] would be equivalent to recognition of the errors of the past and encouragement to the present generations concerning the force of the principle of equality before the law. It is to be hoped the government will be able to review its position.

Fifthly, as we are told in paragraph 285, the return of lands to indigenous communities has always been an important measure for the survival of these communities. It is argued that the Commonwealth legislation proposes facilitating Islander and Aboriginal peoples' rights and needs with respect to land. The law on Aboriginal Peoples' Land Act (sic) stipulates the granting of inalienable rights to property with exclusive rights to entry into those lands. The report says that these norms are equivalent to firmer legislative provisions with respect to right to land granted to Aboriginal communities in Australia. However, the truth, the problem which has arisen in this respect concerns the contradictory position maintained by the Committee on the one hand, and the Australian Government on the other, concerning the Aboriginal Peoples' Land Rights Act (sic). This has been manifest over recent years and no solution has yet been found to the matter. We know in detail the arguments put forward by the Australian Government as well as those put forward by indigenous and Islander peoples' organisations opposed to that Act and its amendments. Contacts between the parties to the dispute have been made but as yet there is no prospect of a settlement. The Australian Government has informed us that a range of problems, including political problems, resulting from this state of affairs suggests that the insistence on these contradictory and incompatible positions cannot contribute to the solution which we all seek. I believe therefore that in this state of affairs, the most prudent measure, without the Committee altering its earlier positions, would be to establish a pause to allow that within a climate of mutual understanding, the parties, that is to say the indigenous people and the Australian Government, can continue with the process of negotiations with a view to finding a solution to the problem, and requesting the government to keep the Committee permanently abreast of the course of these negotiations. The Committee would of course, in my opinion, be prepared to participate in those negotiations as a third party, offering its good offices with a view to promoting reconciliation, provided such participation were accepted by both parties. Such measure would be part of the Committee's emergency procedures provisions.

Sixthly, a fundamental aspect of the national effort to end racial discrimination is the national policy for the education of the Aboriginal and Torres Island Straits (sic) population. Many measures have been adopted by the government, including, inter alia, the program of strategic initiatives and various direct aid programs. Although it is possible to assess such measures in terms of access to higher education, nevertheless, such communities are insufficiently represented. According to some figures for the period 1994-1997, indigenous populations were disadvantaged in the professional education and training system, despite this importance in securing employment. According to information in paragraph 381, the indigenous rates were 33% whereas the unemployment rate was 8.1% for the rest of the population. Although the 23, correction, 23% figure may be subject to some adjustments, the fact of the matter is that the indigenous peoples find themselves in a very inferior position with respect to employment. The recommendation could be made to the government to step up its efforts and keep us informed with respect to the results achieved.

Seventh, with respect to fulfilment of Article 4 of the Convention, I'd like to express appreciation for the information to be contained in paragraph 409 and following. We appreciate the fact that the Australian Government has considered the question of including criminal and civil provisions with respect to racial hatred and defamation. The Bill presented to Parliament was rejected by the Senate on grounds of freedom of expression, but the machinery for the presentation of complaints to the Human Rights Commission is important, and this is covered by the provisions of the Racial Hatred Act. This procedure leads to civil procedures but not criminal provisions, as required under Article 4 of the Convention. We note with appreciation the information in paragraph 410, that the Act establishes a balance between the freedom of expression and the right to freedom from fear of violence or racial hatred, and the argument of respect for freedom of expression has been duly considered. Indeed, I would go further. In paragraph 546 of the report we are told that following approval of the Racial Hatred Act, the Commission to Combat Discrimination (sic) acted to assure the public that this Act was not a constraint on freedom of opinion or expression. The 1914 legislation specifies that a crime against a federal or territorial law is necessary, consequently the scope of the 1914 Act is restricted. Consequently, there is no punishment for the dissemination of racist ideas, that is to say it fails to meet the provisions of Article 4 of the Convention. I would once again like to recommend to the Australian Government, therefore, that it reconsider its position to fulfil its obligations it assumed pursuant to that Article, which also implies withdrawal of the corresponding reservation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(Chairman)
I thank Mr Luis Valencia Rodriguez for his comments, and I now call upon Mr Michael Banton, to be followed by Mr Nobel. Mr Banton has the floor.

(Mr Banton)
Sir, yesterday afternoon the Minister referred to the mistaken idea that this Committee has a list of states parties which it considers to be delinquent. There is no such list. I would illustrate the position by referring to the news that the Australian Parliament has a committee which is currently considering Australia's compliance with international obligations, due to report next month. Now, we might like to read that report. We might like even to discuss it. We have a power under Article 9(1) to request a state to supply us with further information. If we want to have that report available to us in the future, this is the power that we will have to refer to in order to justify our request. We have used this power in the past, to make requests of states where we thought we needed to take preventive action. And we have a separate agenda item for that purpose. If we were to request submission of a copy of the Parliamentary report, it would to my mind be inappropriate to put that under the same agenda item as that where we take prevention. It would be of a different character. We would have to put it perhaps with other matters concerning Article 9 reports, or even to find a new agenda item. But the point to emphasise is that requests for further information can be made for a variety of reasons, not necessarily the expression of apprehension or of criticism. It would vary, very much.

In the past, when we have used this power in order to consider whether we should give any early warning, or maintain that any urgent action was necessary, we have sometimes, at the end of that consideration, decided that we needed to keep implementation of the Convention in that State under continuing review and to take it up again at the next session. We have done that sometimes. Sometimes we haven't. It has varied. It may be that this practice has given rise to the misapprehension that there is some sort of list, a list for which there is no provision in the Convention, no provision in our rules of procedure, or in the documents we have prepared concerning the practice of the Committee.

Now, I prepared some questions so that I could give advance notice of them, and you and our colleagues have them in a document, Miscellaneous 12. The first of these asks for an update about monitoring conditions in Toomelah and Goondiwindi. Then I quote a passage in a document made available to us last session about health conditions, because it struck me as being very striking. Since that time, I and others have received a mass of information about the serious concerns that Australians and others have about the health conditions of the indigenous population. There is a bit about it in the report, but much more has become available and is still becoming available almost daily, about this. We are told that more and more is being done to address this situation. That is not to say that sufficient is being done. Maybe more will have to be done, but it gave rise to some questions in my mind, which I have on the paper. I ask whether the delegation would agree that a significant proportion of the Aboriginal population is demoralised? Is it not the case that the bulk of the Aboriginal population do not, and can not, identify with Australia in the way that other groups can identify with it? Do not most members of these other groups regard Aborigines as not really belonging to their Australia? Does the evidence not suggest that any demoralisation will not be overcome without a recognition of the right to self-determination or self-management &emdash; for my purposes, I want to make no distinction between the meaning of these alternative phrases &emdash; without a recognition of right, let us say to self-management, that goes beyond the measures so far introduced? That is to say, is there not a political element in the health situation?

I went on to ask about housing and the implementation of the recommendation of the National Inquiry into Racist Violence, about public housing authorities, and to express particular interest in its implementation in Western Australia, in view of the case of Martin vs Homes West. In the article that I read, I thought that this gave grounds for concern.

And then, to conclude my advanced notice questions, I ask is it the case that where Aboriginal Australians live in cities in either privately rented accommodation or in housing owned by public bodies, that they are concentrated in particular localities? And that this affects their access to schools, other public services, and their association with non-indigenous Australians? If so, and if such patterns are to be broken, must not the Commonwealth Government, fulfilling its obligations as a state party, exercise some oversight over these sectors of the housing market?

Ms McDougall posed some very good questions. I would wish to supplement them with another three. I would ask whether the government is giving any thought to the possible insertion in the Constitution of a prohibition of racial discrimination? Whether it has any plans to give internal effect to its acceptance of the Genocide Convention? And whether it accepts that under Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, it is responsible for the way that mandatory sentencing in the Northern Territories constitutes discrimination, in effect, in violation of the Convention's Articles 2(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d).

And then finally, Chairman, I have a criticism to address to you. I have a criticism to address to you and to our colleagues. The fourteenth report is too long. In my view, a comprehensive report should not exceed fifty pages. Lengthy reports pose a considerable burden on states. They pose a burden on conference services. The translation into the working languages of one page of the report, at the last time I heard, was costing some $100 US dollars. And lengthy reports pose a burden upon the Committee. I maintain that we have to change this, and it is the Committee that has to take the lead in refining the issues that it wishes to take up with states parties. In cases before courts, it is the party's legal representatives which refine the issues for the tribunal to decide. We lack that element in our proceedings, and it is we who are going to have to do something about it, although it is going to be very difficult. But I do believe that this case should bring it to our minds. Thank you.

(Chairman)
Mr Banton, I thank you very much. I do not take it as criticism to the Chair. I can assure you, I even find it very helpful to the Chair. But Mr Banton, I must also say this. This is an issue which we as a Committee can discuss, decide upon, and possibly adopt a recommendation which we shall address to all states parties. It so happened that you raised it at this point. But I turn to the distinguished delegation of Australia to say that this is, by no means it should be taken as a criticism on the Australian report. It's not intended to refer to them. It so happens that it is raised during the consideration of their report. We shall, I accept this point of view that we must examine it, but we shall examine that on our own, first as an internal matter. We adopt a recommendation, hopefully, and then we shall address to each and every contracting party. I find it very reasonable, what you said, Mr Banton, but I hasten to say that this by no means should be taken as a criticism of the Australian report.

The next speaker on my list is Mr Nobel, to be followed by Mr Lechuga Hevia. Mr Peter Nobel has the floor.

(Mr Nobel)
Thank you Mr Chairman. For most of a decade, we have had no dialogue with the Australian state party under Article 9, periodic reporting. And when at last it comes, as just pointed out, there is such a mass of information, both from the government and from other parties, so that it really is not possible to chew and swallow it all. I do sincerely hope that the Australia state party will become much more periodic, in its periodical reporting, and I do think that this will facilitate our mutual understanding in our dialogue.

Point two, the country rapporteur and many others, amply have pointed out the tremendous mass of information, very interesting, in the report impressively, about the laws enacted, institutions established, large sums of money allocated in order to improve the conditions and remove racial discrimination. But in spite of this, which is also informed to us in a commendable way in the report through a number of statistic figures, the result is very very meagre. Very meagre indeed. And like others here, you ask yourself how come? Why is this? What is the matter? What is wrong? Federalism has been pointed out, and in agreement with my colleague, Mr. Diaconu, I would like to emphasise that our Convention poses obligations for the state party and it is the state party, the Government, that is responsible for the fulfilment of obligations under all the conventions concerning human rights and the international law. And never, never, never could these responsibilities be delegated to governments of territories or local authorities, or whatsoever. This is a question of leadership as it has been pointed out in some of the reports that we have received from other sources. Aboriginal Torres Strait Islanders Commission etc. And leadership means also to explain to these local authorities, to lower authorities, and to the public in the political life, what is human rights, why are human rights there, what is the functioning of human rights. That human rights are the result of the worst experiences of mankind, of evils and disasters which have occurred. And that the meaning of human rights and the absolute observance of all its obligations is there in order to prevent the repetition of such horrors in the future. And in the disasters, in the genocides, in the crimes, in the sufferings that we do see in the world today, in the contemporary world we can also see absolute major part of these disasters could have been avoided, if all parties responsible had respected fully the obligations under our convention, and the others as well, but above all, our convention. It is, Mr Chairman, that important, and I do think that it is part of the responsibility of the state party. To take this leadership also to develop ideologies and explain the role and the function, the raison d'être, of human rights fully, and loyally.

Much has been said, now changing the subject, about the land title, and the right to negotiate which has been restricted. One of the reasons for this has been said to be that, if it had not been restricted there would be a tremendous caseload - difficult to handle. But the fear for such a caseload can not be an excuse for the denial of justice. There are other methods to deal with this. Particularly there cannot be an excuse for the denial of justice, a denial which restricts the rights of one particular ethnic group or minority. There are as I said, other methods to handle such case loads if they are feared. There are the methods with pilot cases for example, there is a solution of adopting techniques of group action, or class action, as has been successfully tried in the United States particularly in cases of consumer rights etc. I am not going to dwell on these. I am just saying that there are other solutions in such situations than to deny a group their rights.

I sympathise very much with the positive and constructive suggestion made in this context by Mr. Valencia-Rodriguez. On article 3, you can, on page 75 in the report you get the impression that it is the opinion of the Australian Government that this is now a dead Article, since the apartheid system in South Africa has been abolished, but that is not so. This Article is very much alive, and it's alive in every state where there is any danger of practices of segregation and apartheid. And, in connection with the last question, one of the last questions raised by Mr. Banton about the conditions of those Aboriginals who are living in urban areas. It is asked the question whether they are not in many cases precisely eed to such segregation and apartheid which is prohibited under Article 3, and that this is one of the reasons why they are denied the equal opportunities in most important areas of life.

I would like now also to turn to Article 4 as other speakers have spoken about this, I'm just wanting to add a few points of view. As we can see the reservation in relation to Article 4a is motivated by concern for the right to freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, etc., I guess. I am very much … familiar with this way of reasoning because I have it also in my own country, Sweden. Although I must say that Australia has been more honest in as much as they had entered a reservation against the part of the Article that they don't like. But still, I don't agree with this kind of reasoning and I really cannot understand it. Does the Government of Australia, or for that matter the majority of the Parliament of Australia, seriously mean that in all those countries where they have criminalised the acts mentioned in Article 4a, that they are in these countries, all these countries - among whom you find many great democracies - less concerned about the freedom of speech and freedom of opinion than they are in Australia, or for that matter my own country Sweden? No, I think that is not the explanation that they are less concerned with the freedom of speech. I think the explanation is another, and that there is a misunderstanding here. A very serious misunderstanding about the relationship between the prohibition in Article 4a, and the freedom of speech. I don't think there are many countries where it is not a crime to abuse the freedom of speech by distributing threats, or slander, or going to defamation of other people. These are crimes in all decent societies. But why then should it not be a crime to disseminate ideas based on racial superiority or high hatred, and to incite to racial discrimination, or to incite as acts of violence against persons on racial grounds. Why should that not be a crime when other forms of defamation, threat and incitement to criminal actions so obviously are criminalised? So I think this is a misunderstanding, and I would, how do I express myself? I would plead to the representatives of Australia to go home and reconsider why one kind of such acts, where they are directed against ethnic minorities, should not be criminalised, why in the normal cases such acts should be criminalised. I think this is discrimination.

My last point is on refugees, and I listened with appreciation yesterday to the reference to Australia's generous refugee policies and fruitful cooperation with UNHCHR. However there are some alarming reports from other quarters. I got some news here that Mr Ruddock …. the Honourable head of the delegation had stated in London yesterday or the day before yesterday that the Refugee Convention should be toughened administratively or by reviewing the actual treaty document itself, because it was manipulated. Now, I have been working with refugee law myself for so many years I could speak about this for hours, but it is not my subject. But certainly we know that the Refugee Convention does protect individuals or groups who are persecuted or fear persecution for some specific reasons given in that Convention. And we also know that the majority of the people who have to seek safety in the world today because of violent conflicts and other disasters making conditions in their countries of origin dangerous and unbearable. But the majority of those safety seekers are not even covered by this Convention. So that it is outdated since the decades back and it does not need toughening up. On the contrary, I think there would be a better understanding of refugee law if it could be widened, but that is equally unrealistic. And I hear in the same report that the representative of the UNHCHR in Australia is as unhappy as I am about these statements of Mr Ruddock yesterday in London. But there is also a serious note in connection with this in the last 1999 Annual Report of Amnesty International which states in the headline that "asylum seekers continue to be subjected to mandatory detention". And that in May the National Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission had published a report on the mandatory detention of people who arrived without proper documents. And that this Commission found that the extended detention violated international human rights standards. However the Government dismissed the Report's main findings. And reportedly, I'm still quoting the Amnesty International Report. Reportedly accused the Human Rights Commissioner of refusing to reflect the Government's legal advice on its international human rights obligations. Of course one shall have a constantly going on debate and discussion on what human rights is. That's very useful. But deep differences of opinion about how and what human rights are and how they should be interpreted is not such a positive thing. Amnesty International also reports about the specific case about one Somali asylum seeker by name [name withheld] and I am not going into all the dramatic details of this case, but I read the following. The Government warned Amnesty International that there would be serious consequences if the organisation continued to use [name withheld] name publicly. The authorities have sought a court order prohibiting publication of his name or any information that might identify him. The court order was returned in December. I do not know whether this is correct, but this is exactly why I take it up. I think it's fair to do so to give the delegation of Australia an opportunity to answer to this. And with this Mr Chairman, I have finished my remarks. I thank you very much.

(Chairman)
I thank Mr Nobel for his statement. Now, the following colleagues are on my list. Mr Lechuga Hevia, Mr de Gouttes, Mr Pillai, Mr Bryde, Mr Rechetov, Mrs January-Bardill, Mr Shahi, and Mr Yutzis, and I add Mr Aboul-Nasr. I only, I shall give ….. of course to my colleagues the floor, but I must point out that it is a quarter to 11. I know it is a complex and important report, but being as we always are a bit optimistic we have scheduled our work in a manner that we are supposed to finish by 1 o'clock with the responses and all of course could decide differently. The problem is that we have other items for this afternoon, and also for tomorrow. In any case, be that as it may, I shall call on the next speaker on my list. Mr Lechuga Hevia. Mr Lechuga Heviayou have the floor, sir.

(Mr. Lechuga Hevia)
Thank you Mr Chairman. Australia's report covers or contains a great deal of information on legislative and judicial measures intended to combat racial discrimination. In addition the document does not conceal the problems facing the indigenous populations, this sector which finds itself in a great disadvantage within Australian society, in practically all aspects affecting the quality of life, housing for instance, health, employment, and education. And comparing them with the same statistics for the rest of the population, it represents a regrettable state of affairs. The report states this openly. The indigenous population has a worse state of health, dying younger than the non-indigenous Australians. Life expectancy at birth is 15 to 20 years less than that of the non-indigenous population, and with greater likelihood of dying of infectious diseases than the non-indigenous population, as we see from paragraph 62 of the report. In all matters relating to the conditions associated with their existence, the situation is equally grave. There is no need to detail the statistics which reflect this state of affairs since there is no area in which there is equality between the Aboriginal citizens and the non-indigenous Australians. The report refers to recourses and remedies and credits to alleviate some of these problems. The Government has two programs to provide housing and appropriate infrastructure for the indigenous population. We don't know since it doesn't tell us whether this and other funds to finance programs are sufficient to make up for the deficit affecting the indigenous population. Elsewhere in the document we are told that many indigenous people are unable to obtain credits from banks or mortgage companies because they are unable to meet the repayments. This may be the case with some people who seek credits but it's also possible that in some occasions banks fail to provide credit because they are discriminating in racial terms against the applicants. There are cases of countries where banks have reviewed their services as a result of discrimination against applicant seeking credits.

The rates of imprisonment of indigenous peoples is a further example of the discrimination affecting the prison population and other parts of Australian society. They, have the situation in the Northern Territory where 70% of the inmates are Aboriginals, and there are only 2 interpretation services to help those in prison, which is unfair, and is clear that there has, and it doesn't correspond to the provision of interpreters to foreigners who are non-Aboriginal. This applies in, both in courts and in police stations. There was a case of a 15 year old Aboriginal boy died while in police custody. He'd been jailed because he had stolen a pencil. There was a high rate of Aboriginal children before the courts.

The report tells us that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission conducted an investigation into the question of the separation of Aboriginal and Islander communities. Seventy million dollars was allocated by the Government for family reunification, and this makes clear the degree of discrimination affecting Aboriginals.

There's a very contentious matter concerning the relations between the Government, Parliament, and the indigenous communities. And this refers to the possession of land which became a matter of concern for the Committee in earlier sessions. It is, it still applies since the matter's not been resolved in accordance with the interest of the Aboriginal communities. A point argued by organisations defending the indigenous people's rights, and the delegation has referred to the provision of large sums of money to assist the indigenous population. This is referred to in the report. However we have reports from Aboriginal heritage organisations which say that the 1997 budget for the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission has been cut by 40%, and that the staff of the Office of the Procreator General has been cut by, from 21 to 5 staff members. The Torres Strait Commission has, funding has been cut by 14 million dollars. We would appreciate clarification on that score. The country rapporteur and other speakers have referred to all matters which are of concern to the committee and therefore we will not insist on the same issues. In our last analysis of a report by Australia we referred to the reduced rights of the indigenous, Aboriginal population, and the programs had not assisted the land rights of Aboriginals. Some of these rights had been annulled. I wonder whether this is the case. We have the question of the shared history of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal and a desire to achieve a state of harmony. We would like to see this changed and reflected in the next report. Thank you.

(Chairman)
Thank you Mr Lechuga Hevia. Mr de Gouttes has the floor, to be followed by Mr Pillai. Mr de Gouttes has the floor.

(Mr de Gouttes)
Thank you very much sir. I in turn would of course like to welcome the very high level Australian delegation. This certainly does show the importance which the Government attaches to the review of the situation of its country by our committee. And I think that we all understood quite clearly that the question of the situation and of the rights of communities of Aboriginal and indigenous peoples is a question of capital importance. It's really of major national importance to Australia, that's our understanding. I think we can also note with satisfaction the second report, which is very comprehensive. 114 pages. Perhaps too comprehensive. Mr Banton said earlier, maybe, and also the update, earlier, or yesterday, by the head of the delegation. I think, and some people have said this, that never, to date, at any rate since I've been in the committee have we received as much information, as much documentation on the situation in this country. I'd also like to thank Mrs McDougall for her very complete analysis of the report, and I just a have a few additional comments.

My first observation Mr Chairman, the assistance… the provisions for assistance for development of Aboriginal communities in the Torres Strait as described in the second report, and updated by the Minister's oral statement, is beyond dispute, and very impressive. This is a very positive point we should stress. Second observation, there is legislation on racial discrimination, significant legislation. This has already been pointed out, and I noted in particular because as I am a judge, I noted the measures that seemed to me of particular interest which are positive. Specific measures adopted for Aborigines in the field of justice, jurisprudence, and para 426 of the report for example tells us that the Aborigines, this is in the framework of a trial, have the right to a presence of a friend during interrogation. This can be a lawyer, relative, an Aboriginal legal aid worker, and they also have the right to inform a legal aid organisation, an Aboriginal legal aid organisation, in case of arrest. I also noted that there was particular funding for legal services for Aborigines. And in para 430 of the report we are told that before asking a suspect to go through a forensic procedure, a friend, an interview friend must be present when an Aboriginal suspect is requested to undergo such a forensic procedure. And the last interesting point, as far as we're concerned, with again as regards administration of justice. Again in para 430 of the report, when a judge or a policeman is to decide whether an Aboriginal suspect should undergo a forensic procedure, or any other, he must ask about his culture, he must ask the individual what his cultural convictions are and bear these in mind. This is, these are some points I think that are of interest in terms of the rights of Aborigines, in terms of the exercise of justice.

Third observation. The report itself recognises quite frankly actually that socio-economic and cultural indicators as to discrimination, or non-integration of indigenous populations, still exist quite clearly, and the report is quite frank on this point. This is a very serious source of concern. All the previous speakers have said this. Now you know that our committee, I'm sure you know this, our committee does attach particular importance to these socio-economic indicators of non-integration, or discrimination against certain parts of the population. And many people have noted that in the report it is stated, that there is a life expectancy that is far lower for Aborigines. The prison rate is quite out of proportion. In terms of the rest of the population there are socio-economic inequalities which continue to persist. In para 62 it is recognised that Aborigines are, they suffer worse health then the rest of the population, in particular with the risk of infectious diseases. In para 64 we're told that housing is frequently lacking in basic services. The unemployment rate is 23%. This is recognised in para 76, whereas it is 9% of the population as a whole. Now among all these socio-economic indicators which are of concern, I would note two points which I think are of particular importance.

First of all, indeed prison, the Aboriginal prison population which clearly is excessive, even if it's diminished, as the Minister said in his statement. But it is from what I read in the report, 18% of the prison population is Aboriginal where 2, just over 2% of the population as a whole. So, I also had some questions on para 83 of the report which tells us that the ministerial summit on deaths of indigenous peoples issued a communique that was supposed to deal with the problem of over-representation of indigenous people in prison. This states that a strategic plan is supposed to be adopted at various levels, and we're told that the Territory and the communities are contributing to the establishment of this strategic plan. Now my question is, where does this process stand, in terms of its approval by the States and Territories concerned? That's my first question.

The second phenomenon, which again is very worrisome is that of separating Aboriginal children from their families. We got a very interesting report on this subject from an organisation. From the association for the lost Aboriginal population of the Northern Territory. The report is also interesting on this subject, and in particular paragraph 114 of the report which tells us that this question of the separation of indigenous children with problems of adoption, and protection of children in juvenile justice, are all matters for State and Territory Governments under Australia's Constitution. We are told that in August 1997 it was agreed that the recommendation of the Commission, the Human Rights Commission, would be considered on a State by State rather than a national basis. We are also told, in the same paragraph, a certain number of States have officially responded to the report, or issued responses, and that all of the replies should be in by the end of 1998. Now my question is pretty clear. Where do, what is the situation as regards the replies on this very worrisome question of the separation of Aboriginal children from their families? Where do things stand now?

Now another observation Mr Chairman, and this has to do with the amendment made to the law on Native Titles, in 1998. Now the Government told us in its written replies in 1999 which is annexed to the report to the General Assembly of the United Nations for 1999. It explains that it couldn't suspend the application of this new Act of 1998 because it's been produced by Parliament and only its constitutional value - it's only the constitutional value that could be contested in Australian Courts, and they might have to perhaps deal with this question. So my question is: the appeal as to the constitutionality of this Act. Has this already gone before the Court? Have there been actions in Court contesting the constitutionality of these amendments to the Native Title Act of 1998?

Another observation Mr. Chairman, when studying the 9^th report in August of 1994, we stressed the importance of training those people responsible for the application of the law, of human rights training, tolerance training, and training in inter-ethnic, and inter-racial understanding. Now we're talking about all those people responsible for applying the law, the police, the military, also staff, the people in prisons, in the administration of justice etc. Now, this type of human rights training for inter-ethnic understanding is really indispensable in order to ensure that these people do fully respect human dignity. In particular of course in their relationship with the indigenous people, with the Aborigines, and also with immigrant populations. Could the delegation perhaps inform us as to what has been done to further improve this training of those responsible for the application of the law? This is something that we frequently ask states parties.

Finally, my last observation Mr Chairman. In its written replies, after the August 1998 session, this was a reply annexed to the report of the Committee for the General Assembly in 1999. The Australian Government stressed the fact that national reconciliation was its main, among its particular concerns as regards the rights of the indigenous peoples. And the objective it said was to get an official declaration of reconciliation for the year 2001. This was something in the, stated in 1999 in the written reply, and it was stated that the Council for Reconciliation had already published a draft declaration accompanied by a number of proposals, four proposals I believe. Hence my question. What are these proposals? What are the prospects at present for this official declaration on reconciliation? Clearly here this is a symbolic measure of course but quite significant, and substantive, which our Committee will be most interested in and as Mr. Valencia-Rodriguez said earlier might even wish to contribute to this process of reconciliation which is clearly essential for Australia. Thank you very much, Mr Chairman.

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