Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 672 ..

MRS CROSS (continuing):

countries that have become party to the optional protocol. The inquiry procedure is modelled on an existing human rights treaty: article 20 of the International Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The United Nations General Assembly adopted the optional protocol in October 1999. It came into force about a year later. To date, 73 nations have signed the optional protocol, out of 168 that have signed CEDAW. The list of those that have and have not signed the optional protocol is interesting. For instance, New Zealand and most European Union nations have signed. However, amongst like-minded countries, Britain, Canada and Japan have not yet signed. The United States is not even a party to CEDAW. On the other hand, several nations with extremely poor records on women's rights have signed.

At 5.00 pm, in accordance with standing order 34, the debate was interrupted. The motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.

MRS CROSS: Australia participated actively in the development of the optional protocol but, as Ms Dundas has pointed out today, Australia has not yet become a signatory to it. In seeking an explanation of this disparity last night from a federal colleague, one of the ministers named in this motion, I discovered that Australia's as yet non-participation is neither a conspiracy nor a mystery. I was informed that in March 2000 the federal government announced that it would review Australia's interaction with a United Nations human right treaties committee system. The review duly confirmed Australia's commitment to the principles of human rights but found that there were substantial problems with the operation of treaty committees, problems such as mounting backlogs in committee workloads and committees working outside their mandates.

On 29 August 2000 the federal government announced a series of measures designed to improve this committee system. One of the measures announced was that the government would not sign or ratify the optional protocol while its concern with the system remained. I was also informed that those concerns have yet to be fully put to rest. Once they have been, I understand that it is intended for the protocol to be signed.

I think this has been a sensible approach. I further believe that those who have been handling this matter up until now, our federal government, are the ones best qualified to make decisions on when the protocols should be signed.

I think it is important to add that Australia has a comprehensive legislative base on discrimination issues. We have a world-class regime of legislation and institutional mechanisms to protect women against discrimination. The federal government has made it clear that it supports the principles of universal human rights on which the United Nations is based. However, reforms are still needed to UN treaty committee processes to generally achieve this. Our federal colleagues are working with other reform-minded countries towards this goal. On our behalf, they are committed to effective reform to genuinely advance the enjoyment of human rights throughout the world.

It is not appropriate to become party to another complaints mechanism while the current problems with the UN system remain unaddressed, especially given our strong domestic protections. Accordingly, the Liberal Party cannot support this motion in its current

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .