|
|
|
Presented by
Les Malezer
Thank you, Madam Chair. I make this intervention on behalf of the National Indigenous Working Group on Native Title (NIWG), the Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action (FAIRA), and the Gunjehmi Aboriginal Corporation. Our organisations support your call for the imminent passage of the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and we stress that it is most important that the new millennium, from Year 2001, must commence with this appropriate universal commitment to the human rights of Indigenous Peoples. We also ask that the Australian Government make all necessary efforts for the implementation of this prepared declaration, as we ask that the CANZUS partners to the Australian Government to show leadership to this same purpose. Madam Chair, we refer specifically to the role of standard setting by the United Nations, and we note and agree with an important message from the UN Secretary General. His message, delivered in Geneva on the occasion recognising the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (21 March 1999), said that the United Nations must not endeavour from Year 2000 to develop more standards relating to racial discrimination, but proceed with positive measures and programs of action for the purpose of eliminating racial discrimination. Madam Chair, we welcome your Report, prepared as Special Rapporteur, on Indigenous Peoples and their relationship to land. In particular we note and support paragraphs 144 to 149 which identify an important role for international experts and bodies to facilitate land and resource rights for the Indigenous Peoples. However, given our support, let us raise two concerns which correspond to your recommendations. Firstly, we would be wary of establishing processes and structures which might has the effect of diverting attention from the roles of the human rights treaty bodies such as CERD. On some occasions, and in Australia we are experiencing such an occasion, it is necessary for the United Nations to be firm in upholding clear standards. Any breaches of important treaties, such as the treaty on the elimination of racial discrimination, should be confronted, and not sent to mediation or study by a lesser instrumentality, particularly where the government which may be in breach of the standards maintains an unacceptable position. Hence, I refer to the Australian Government's misguided statement yesterday that: 'Australia's recent experience with the (CERD) committee has highlighted specific concerns about the way the UN treaty bodies consider sensitive and complex policy issues, many of which have required a delicate balancing of interests by the government concerned [sic].' We all know that it is important the United Nations remain committed to the protection of human rights of all peoples and not be seen as an apologist for nations-states and multinational companies. Secondly, Madam Chair, we point out that the 'early warning' provisions, as adopted by the CERD committee, may be a useful stratagem for a fact-finding body or ombudsman, as your report has recommended, to promote implementation of the human rights standards. However again we refer the actions of the Australian Government which has refused permission for the CERD Committee to visit Australia following the Committees findings that Australian laws affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples breach the 'race discrimination' Convention. Madam Chair I remind this Working Group, that in a situation involving Iraq, the international community saw justification to drop bombs on a country because it refused to cooperate with a UN resolution and committee relevant to the elimination of chemical and nuclear weapons. Of course we do not condone violent actions such as these, but we do believe the principles to be the same, and we argue that the elimination of racial discrimination to be of no lesser priority for the United Nations to express its dissatisfaction with any government. Madam Chair, also in this brief statement let us strongly urge the Human Rights Commission to fund the urgently needed international workshop on 'Indigenous Peoples and the protection of Cultural Heritage'. We have a predicament in Australia because the Australian Government is now proposing, without our free and informed consent, to hand responsibility for Indigenous heritage back to the State and Territory governments. Standards are urgently needed at the international level to provide guidelines to which we can refer and which may help to ensure that the cultural heritage of Indigenous Australia's are fully protected. Although we are making progress at local levels in gaining recognition of our right to own and protect our cultural heritage and cultural property, we remain at a distinct disadvantage. This disadvantage exists because of the difficulty we have in presenting standards which may have universal application. Madam Chair, only two weeks ago the UNESCO World Heritage Committee met in Paris for an extraordinary meeting to debate placing the Kakadu National Park World Heritage site on the"in-dangered" list. This meeting followed the recent decision by the Australian Government to approve a new uranium mine at Jabiluka. The World Heritage Committee is seriously concerned about the threat to the cultural values of the park and in particular to the living traditions of the Mirrar Peoples on whose land the mine is currently being developed. The rights of the Mirrar Peoples to prevent mining on their land have been ignored, and the Australian Government has failed to meet its own laws and international standards which require appropriate cultural and Aboriginal socio-economic impact assessments. Such conditions were attached to the mining company's approval, ie ERA's approval, but they are not being enforced. A key condition was that ERA must develop a cultural heritage management plan in consultation with traditional owners, Environment Australia (the Australian department responsible for protection of the environment) and the relevant Northern Territory authorities prior to the commencement of the project. ERA itself made a commitment to conduct a thorough site-investigation of the proposed area to attain a sites clearance prior to development and during construction and operation. ERA also made a number of special commitments to develop a sacred site management plan with the traditional owners. The intention was to recognise contemporary, traditional and cultural needs. However, approval for construction was granted before the conditions and standards were met, and it therefore became no longer an incentive for the mining company to comply with local, national and international standards. Madam Chair, this situation persists today. The Australia Government has allowed construction of the mine, even when cultural damage at the site became absolutely apparent. The Government directly defied resolution of the World Heritage Committee calling for a temporary halt to the construction. The Indigenous Peoples who are the traditional owners of the land have repeatedly expressed their right to oppose the mine. They emphasise that the issue is not whether all uranium mining should be banned per se, although they do have opinions on that issue, but rather it is an assertion that the traditional owners of the land have the right to control and prevent the mining of their land. Are they asked to give their free and informed consent? No, they are not! The Australian Government refused outrightly to enter into any negotiations or consultation with the Mirrar People until only week before the UNESCO World Heritage Committee meeting. The Australian government is funding a $2.0 million dollar international campaign to stop the World Heritage Kakadu National Park from being placed on the "in-dangered" list. The government has been successful because the World Heritage Committee ignored the advice of its three 'expert committees' and ultimately decided to not place the park on the "in-danger" list. The Mirrar Peoples have now invoked the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act to protect the Boyweg-Almudi sacred site on which the mine is being constructed, however their main concern is that the government will make a purely political decision rather than an ethical one. Madam Chair, we are the oldest living culture in the world. Scientific evidence verifies that our people survived as a civilisation and as Indigenous Peoples at least 60,000 year ago, perhaps even 100,000 years ago. We survive today. But today the main threat to our survival comes from mining and multinational companies. Government's are prone to influences and pressures from these multinationals. Our defence to this type of threat lay in the international standards and, for this reason, the immediate attention to complete the standard setting process, and concentrate upon the implementation of standards - should be our focus from 2001. Madam Chair, I hope that the Working Group finds this information to be of benefit in its considerations of this Item. Thank you, Madam Chair. |
|
|
|
|
|
FAIRA
Aboriginal Corporation |
