Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition (Social and Community Affairs)) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to contribute to this debate on the urgency motion this afternoon. I start at the point that we are really looking at a draft declaration which is not binding—which has, as we have heard, aspirational goals. We have heard a lot about aspirational goals in the last few days, particularly in relation to climate change: aspirational goals are now something that is very worthy and that we should all be adopting.

But, on the issue of the draft declaration and what it represents, Labor is concerned that we have come to the position where this draft declaration is going to be voted on, definitely by 17 September but probably as early as Thursday, and that after 24 years of negotiation, clear discussions, a lot of work and goodwill and a lot of extended negotiations and deliberations by a range of people, we now have the situation where Senator Payne would suggest there is no urgency around this issue, but in fact the situation for indigenous peoples around the world is getting more and more dramatically desperate by the day.

We only have to look at the situation of indigenous peoples in places like Chad and the Sudan—in Darfur—to understand how important this declaration is for the rights of indigenous peoples. It will affect those people. It is not just about the indigenous peoples of developed countries. In fact, it is much more important to the indigenous peoples of undeveloped countries and the circumstances with which they are presented.

The Australian government’s argument, presented by Her Excellency the Ambassador Rosemary Banks, the New Zealand representative speaking also on behalf of Australia and the United States, said that those countries could not accept the adoption of a text that she described as ‘confusing, unworkable, contradictory and deeply flawed’. She suggested that the declaration’s reference to self-determination:

... could be misrepresented as conferring a unilateral right of self-determination and possible secession ... thus threatening the political unity, territorial integrity and the stability of existing ... Member States.

Senator Bartlett, in his contribution to this debate, has reflected on the most current drafting of the draft declaration. The draft declaration goes to some pains to address that issue in article 45, saying:

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to the Charter of the United Nations.

Labor’s position on this issue is that this is another very shameful moment for Australia. It certainly confirms to the international community what they already think about our human rights record, especially coming so closely after the adverse international media reports about the Northern Territory intervention legislation. Let me tell you: we did not get very much positive reporting about that legislation.

The Prime Minister himself actually worked quite hard to destabilise the negotiations and the important work of consensus building on the rights of indigenous peoples around the world when he persuaded the new Prime Minister of Canada to completely reverse the position of the Canadian people and the Canadian government, when he visited Canada last year. That is a very significant thing. The Prime Minister’s department admitted last year that the Prime Minister lobbied the new Prime Minister of Canada to change that country’s position on the draft declaration. There was Canada, which had played a significant role in the negotiations for more than a decade and had collaborated with indigenous peoples around the world to draft a number of the provisions that were critical in building support among other states, and then, at the 11th hour, there was an about-face, with arm-twisting by Australia’s Prime Minister, to now denounce the position that the country had previously supported.

The declaration has major global implications. It is urgently needed as a major step towards addressing the widespread human rights violations affecting indigenous peoples across the world, and it is certainly a long-overdue step towards limiting the abuse and murder of indigenous peoples around the world. As I said, it has important implications for places like the Sudan.

We know that the declaration, like other UN declarations, is not legally enforceable. It is a non-binding document that certainly has no capacity to override Australian law. As I say, it is an aspirational document. After being adopted by an overwhelming majority of the Human Rights Council last year, we know that despite the opposition by Australia, New Zealand, Russia, Canada and America it will be adopted by the United Nations this week. We will just be the people, the developed countries, that have not supported the rights of indigenous people in developing countries in the world.

The declaration itself sets international standards for how aboriginal peoples, indigenous peoples, are to be treated in countries around the world. It says aboriginal peoples or indigenous peoples should have the right to determine their political status and have the right to all freedoms granted under the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights laws.

Senator Payne raised concerns about self-determination and that reminded me of what I was reading about the development of this draft declaration and the sudden interest by Australia in the issue of self-determination, which has been part of the Australian government’s Indigenous policy since 1972. Even until 1977, Australia was silent in the whole debate about self-determination. But it was in 1998 when the Howard government decided that Australia would seek to persuade Canada, New Zealand and the United States to demand the removal of the term ‘self-determination’ from the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. At the time, the Foreign Minister is reported as saying:

In the case of Australia, we don’t want to see a separate country created for indigenous Australians. We will be arguing that it might be better to use the term self-management rather than leaving an impression that we are prepared to have a separate indigenous state.

Of course, that is alarmist rhetoric. There is no sense that this draft declaration will lead to the establishment of a separate Indigenous state.

Labor is calling on the Howard government to show some moral courage and leadership and support the adoption of the UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is going before the UN this week and, despite the government’s opposition, the UN will adopt it. Labor is very proud of the constructive role that it played in the negotiations during the Hawke-Keating government and is pretty disappointed that the Howard government not only have taken an adversarial attitude to the negotiations but also have successfully lobbied other nation states, like Canada, to reverse their position. It is very clear that their opposition to the declaration is ideological because they continue, as we have heard today, to point out worst-case scenarios rather than interpreting the provisions of the draft declaration in good faith.

There are many people who are concerned about Australia’s opposition. Amnesty International and the National Council of Churches are among dozens of groups seeking a change of heart. We have had demonstrations outside Australia’s UN mission in New York calling on the Howard government to end its opposition to the declaration. More than 25 organisations were there, most representing indigenous peoples from various parts of the world. Right now in Australia, Indigenous Australians have no constitutional acknowledgement, no settlement, no bill of rights, no representative body and no national leadership on reconciliation. Adopting this declaration would give this country a set of aspirations that we can all hold on to.