Mr BRERETON (3:41 PM) —Seven days ago we witnessed the spectacle of three cabinet ministers, including the minister at the table, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, assembled in a committee room of this parliament for a joint press conference—a conference which marked a new and shameful low in this government's human rights policies. Those three ministers—the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs—did not gather to announce any new commitment of resources to promote respect for international human rights, they did not gather to announce new initiatives or enhanced programs on human rights; instead, they gathered to squeal about international scrutiny of the government's human rights record. They sledged the UN Human Rights Committee system and announced the first steps in what may prove to be a comprehensive downgrading of Australia's involvement in multilateral human rights protection. For good measure, they announced that the government will not sign or ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. This is the very protocol that Australia played a central role in negotiating and which we effectively endorsed when it was unanimously adopted by the UN General Assembly last year.

Last week's was a disgraceful performance and one most damaging to our international standing. I have seen speculation in the press as to the motivation behind what was truly a wretched exercise. The government, for its part, claims to have been interested in the committee reform issue for some time. No-one on either side of the House doubts that a measure of reform is required. But what is of course needed is an enhanced effectiveness and authority for that committee system, not the calculated undermining that we are seeing from the government at the moment. Let there be no doubt that the government's response has been prompted by its desire to strike back, to retaliate against the UN criticism of the abysmal record of this government on indigenous issues and reconciliation.

Along the way, the government has looked to hit some of the hot buttons. It has looked to evoke a predictable response from the Hansonite fringe. When Foreign Minister Downer declared at the end of March that the government would give the United Nations a bloody nose, it certainly was not the international audience he had principally in mind. The cheers he sought were those of the hard-core One Nation voters. But the international audience is still there and the response, not only from the likes of Mary Robinson and other senior UN officials but across the length and the breadth of the international community, has overwhelmingly been one of profound regret at the spectre of Australia—once a human rights leader—turning and attacking the core international institutions, the very institutions responsible for defending universal human rights and political freedoms. The only applause likely to be forthcoming from this tragic exercise will be from the despots and the likes of Burma's military rulers—indeed, from all of those seeking to stymie international scrutiny of their human rights violations.

What a change from the early rhetoric of this government, the rhetoric of the 1996 campaign for Australia to win a seat on the UN Security Council. Back then, John Howard and Alexander Downer could not have been more supportive of all that the United Nations stands for. We were parading our credentials as a good international citizen, comprehensively engaged with and committed to all that the United Nations stands for, including through all its forums, particularly those engaged in the defence of universal human rights. But that was four years ago. What do we have this week? Last Thursday, we had the member for Wentworth for one, the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and now chairman of this parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, in a contemptible performance, dismissing the UN Human Rights Committee system as `just a theme park for indulging the fantasies of the global non-government organisation guilt movement'.

Yesterday in this House, we had the revelation of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs with his advocacy of withdrawal from the individual complaints process of the CAT—the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This House learnt that last December the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade warned Mr Ruddock's department that withdrawal from the complaints process of the CAT would damage Australia's credibility and undermine our UN reform efforts. It might also be perceived, said DFAT, both domestically and internationally, as demonstrating a lack of commitment to human rights and subject Australia to criticism from non-governmental organisations and the wider community. Despite this, Minister Ruddock yesterday refused to rule out Australian withdrawal from the CAT complaints processes. Indeed, he foreshadowed the deportation of refugees who would otherwise be able to appeal to the Committee Against Torture as victims likely to face violation of their human rights in their home country.

The debate over the last week has been characterised by repeated and persistent government misrepresentations. Time and again the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister have sought to fuel prejudice and xenophobic tendencies. Again and again they have spoken in terms of unelected and unrepresentative UN committees, of violations of Australian sovereignty and of international interference in the domestic affairs of Australia. They have claimed that Australia has been singled out unfairly, that serious human rights abuses by other countries are ignored, that criticisms of Australia are trivial and that non-government organisations enjoy a favoured position ahead of national governments.

Let me take the opportunity to invoke the arguments of Justice Elizabeth Evatt in repudiating those falsehoods. Justice Evatt served with distinction on the UN Human Rights Committee from 1993 until this year. She was one of only four female members of the committee. She also served as Chairperson of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women from 1989 to 1992 and as a member of that committee from 1984. Her work for human rights has been internationally applauded, but she was never consulted in the course of the government's so--called `review' of the United Nations treaty system. This House should recognise a few simple facts. They are well expressed in the statement issued by Elizabeth Evatt yesterday.

The UN treaty committee systems do not consist of unelected, faceless UN bureaucrats. In fact, committee members are nominated and elected by the governments, including Australia's, which have agreed to respect each human rights treaty. Australia influences the composition of the committees by its vote and otherwise. Indeed, most members of the UN Human Rights Committee are judges or law professors who take time out of their professional lives to serve in an honorary capacity on the committee. The UN Human Rights Committee has certainly not unfairly singled out Australia for criticism. All countries that have agreed to be bound by the UN human rights treaties fall under the committee's spotlight in turn. Last year, the Human Rights Committee examined reports from Cambodia, Canada, Ireland, Morocco, South Korea, Kuwait and Kyrgysztan. Australia's reports were considered by three UN treaty bodies only this year because of late reporting by this government. And certainly the UN treaty committees do not ignore major violations of human rights by other countries. On the contrary, the Human Rights Committee calls on countries facing grave situations, countries like Bosnia and Rwanda, to provide special reports, and they do so. Many countries, including Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Cambodia, have been severely criticised for their violations. They have been criticised for arbitrary killings, brutal treatment of prisoners or trafficking of women and children. These are the stock-in-trade of the vital work that is done by the United Nations in this area.

It is appropriate to point out that the UN Committee Against Torture, the very one that has been in the spotlight this week, has challenged China in respect of the many allegations of torture and deaths. They are allegations which were brought to that committee's attention by non-government organisations. The committee has also done some very valuable work in respect of China's failure to ensure effective legal protection against torture. These are the sorts of protections that this government would place at risk by having Australia step away from our vital commitments in this area.

The government has repeatedly referred to Australia's generally high standard of human rights—no-one doubts that. This has been readily recognised by each and every one of the UN committees. They go out of their way to do so. But of course it is their duty to identify the protection of rights in the countries they examine and to focus on that. That is what they are set up for. After all, that is what scrutiny is all about. It is hardly surprising in those circumstances that most of the treaty committees have drawn attention to the inequalities experienced by indigenous men, women and children in Australia and indeed to the circumstances of the detention of asylum seekers in this country at the moment. These are and must be issues of concern to all of us, but they are issues which this government seeks to run away from, seeks to hide from and seeks to avoid scrutiny of.

As to the claim that the UN treaty committee process wrongly intrudes into domestic affairs, this again is an absolute falsehood. These committees have been established under international conventions, to which in each case Australia is a party. We have voluntarily accepted these obligations and this scrutiny. The committees are mandated to assess whether the laws and practices in each country meet its treaty obligations. Their recommendations are not legally binding, but they do carry moral weight. Nor is it correct to say that human rights issues can only be dealt with domestically. The fulfilment of the obligations under human rights treaties is a legitimate matter of international concern. It certainly is for all of us sitting on this side of the House.

Let me repeat: Australia has a responsibility to pursue concerns about human rights violations in other parts of the world. In order to do so, we must be prepared to welcome international scrutiny of all aspects of our own human rights performance. We cannot hide from it; we have to be open about it. That is something that this government repeatedly avoids. As to the claim that the committees give undue weight to the information provided to them by NGOs such as Amnesty International, members should be aware that the basis of the committee's human rights work is the written report of the government of each country, supplemented by the country's oral statements and responses to questions. No-one else has the right to speak or to take part in the formal proceedings of the committee. Information from NGOs is provided informally and may result in questions being put to the government on issues that are not explained in its report. Today, the countries around the globe which do not want their human rights performance to be queried by NGOs are warmly welcoming the Australian government's position that NGO input should be downgraded in importance.

Everyone is agreed that the UN human rights system is in need of reform and additional resources but, in acting to put limits on Australia's future cooperation with the treaty committees, the Howard government is undermining the authority and the effectiveness of those same committees. Its approach, borne out of pique and domestic political calculation, could not be more counterproductive. The government is saying that it will be the arbiter of human rights in Australia; at the same time, it reserves its right to criticise other countries for their human rights performances. It is a hypocrisy which leaves Australia without a shred of international credibility, which is something, as has been witnessed in this House, that has been conspicuously lacking in the government's approach to one of the most intractable human rights issues—namely, the appalling violation of human rights and political freedoms in Burma.

Yesterday the Minister for Foreign Affairs stood in this House and again defended the government's decision to snuggle up to Burma's military regime. As he did so, he might well have recalled his statement on 23 May 1996, when he heaped praise on Aung San Suu Kyi on the occasion of her appointment to the Companion of the Order of Australia. Back then, he said that the award was conferred in recognition of her outstanding leadership and the great personal courage of her struggle to bring democracy to Burma. He added that she was a remarkable woman—an international symbol of the Burmese people's desire for democracy. Now, four years on, the government's criticism of human rights in Burma is muted indeed. Last week it was Australia that refused to join the US and Britain in seeking access to Aung San Suu Kyi as she was blockaded by the Burmese military. Minister Downer made no statement until well after those of Kofi Annan, Mary Robertson, Madeleine Albright and Robin Cook—and, even then, it was a minimalist response. The fact is that this government has quietly walked away from Aung San Suu Kyi. It has walked away from the National League for Democracy. Later on this month, the government will maintain its human rights seminars with officers hand-picked by Burma's military leaders.

You can guarantee one thing: those military leaders will take great comfort from the veneer of respectability afforded to them by Alexander Downer and this government. No doubt today those military leaders are quietly applauding the government's assault on the UN human rights system. They do so because they know that it is only that spotlight that will force them to reform themselves as South Africa had to all those years ago. (Time expired)