Siddiqi, Asma --- "Sexual Harassment at SmithKline Beecham" [2000] HRightsDef 18; (2000) 9(2) Human Rights Defender 14

From the Director's Desk

The announcement by the Australian Government in August this year of `measures to improve the effectiveness of United Nations Committees' provoked mixed reactions. By and large, these reactions were negative and based on the belief that, regardless of their intended purpose, these measures would not improve the effectiveness of United Nations Committees.

These negative reactions were linked to numerous points arising from the announcement. The most cogent of these was the declared intention of the Government not to `sign or ratify' the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women which establishes a new complaints procedure.

Amongst several other reactions to this announcement worth noting was the plea made by Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, on the same evening the measures were announced, that the decision of the Australian government be reconsidered because it went against the principle of the universality of human rights. It is not good for the advancement of international human rights standards for a country like Australia to be known to take such an attitude.

Another element in the measures that elicited much negative comment was the announcement that visits by treaty bodies and special rapporteurs would henceforth not be allowed unless `there is a compelling reason to do so'. Visits to countries are important for the better understanding and appreciation of problems that give rise to alleged violations of international human rights provisions.

It is universally admitted that the procedures of the treaty bodies need an overhaul. These procedures urgently need streamlining and the treaty bodies need more resources to help increase their effectiveness. To invoke this need for reform in order to gain some satisfaction for perceived hostility and presumed lack of objectivity, however, reflects much cynicism on the part of the responsible authorities.

The genesis of the measures announced by the Australian government goes back to the furore which arose over comments on mandatory sentencing made earlier this year and the subsequent consideration by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) of the report on Australia under that Convention. CERD attracted the ire of the Government and was duly promised a `bloody nose'. Subsequent sessions of treaty bodies, including the Human Rights Committee (under the ICCPR), produced similar reactions. A visit by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention which was invited to visit Australia in June, was cancelled by the Government.

In all, the year 2000 has seen a steady - and highly disturbing - drift of Australia away from its traditional role as an important international human rights power.

Why does it have to be so?

A cursory examination of the news releases on this issue, and in particular that of 29 August 2000 announcing these `measures to improve effectiveness' may give us the answer. They all invariably reflect a confused and deep lack of understanding of the nature of international human rights law, its place in international relations and its relevance to the protection of human rights at the national level. This confusion is further compounded by a clear lack of understanding of the complementary role and responsibility of non-governmental organisations in human rights issues.

As a Human Rights Centre, we have a duty to anticipate and respond to the need for educating future leaders and to ensure that Australia will revert to its traditional enlightened attitude to the protection of human rights in the international arena.

John Pace is Director of the Australian Human Rights Centre, UNSW.