Senator REYNOLDS (7:03 PM) —This evening I want to speak about the appearance in March of Australia before the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, so I am particularly pleased that Minister John Herron is in the chamber. Many senators will not be aware that there is a process which enables the UN committee responsible for the compliance of parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination to seek from countries their particular response when there is criticism of that country's policies, and tonight I want to detail some of these processes.

At the meeting in Geneva in August last year, a draft decision prepared by Mr Banton, Mr Wolfrum and Mr van Boven was introduced stating that there were worrying developments in Australia regarding the situation of Aboriginal people. I cannot go through all of this debate at the United Nations CERD committee because it goes from points 29 to 51—over five pages. There was quite a considerable debate of concern, which I will summarise with this statement by Mr Wolfrum:

. . . the situation in Australia was clearly deteriorating. It was deeply regrettable that institutions such as the post of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, which the Committee had praised so highly in 1994, were disappearing. Aboriginals were being marginalized, their life expectancy was about 10 years less than that of the white population and the illiteracy rate among Aboriginals was approximately five times higher.

Similar concerns were expressed about the native title legislation and whether or not it complied with the convention—a debate which we had regarding the Racial Discrimination Act at the time of the debate in this place.

Tonight, in the spirit of reconciliation, I want to comment on how the government could maximise its appearance before the CERD committee as an opportunity to move forward in regard to the reconciliation process that the Prime Minister has committed himself to. A report has been prepared by the Attorney-General's Department and has been released. I have sought permission from the Government Whip to table the document and that has been granted. I now seek leave to table the Attorney-General's Department report.

Leave granted.

Senator REYNOLDS —For those who would like to look at this document, it is available on the Attorney-General's web site. But I think it is important that honourable senators have the opportunity to read it. I have to say that it is not a comprehensive document; it is not a visionary document.

If Australia is being asked to justify its position in relation to meeting the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, I would have thought the government would go out of its way to spell out its vision for the future, its vision for reconciliation. The Australian government is already about 2½ years overdue with its periodic report on how it is moving to implement policies that overcome racial discrimination, and it would seem that this was the perfect opportunity. Indeed, if you were as cynical as I am on such occasions, you could even argue that the govern ment could have deflected some of the attention about the two issues that the committee raised by focusing on its vision for reconciliation.

I find the document extremely disappointing. But I think there is still time for the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation—Phillip Ruddock—and you, Minister Heron, to retrieve the situation not only in terms of fundamental justice for Aboriginal people in this country but for Australia's international reputation.

On Australia Day this year, in an advertisement headed `It's Time for a Treaty', 57 Aboriginal leaders publicised their demand for `the Australian government to sign a treaty with Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples', stating that it `should be concluded by 26 January 2001 as a symbolic date for negotiated settlement between the nation and the indigenous peoples'. I know that this government has said all along—and in opposition it was also policy—that there would not be a treaty.

But politics is the art of compromise. The Prime Minister could give a public commitment to negotiating policy with indigenous people. For example, we could have negotiation here, out at the front of Parliament House, in relation to the tent embassy, instead of the confrontation that has developed. If, when Australia speaks at the United Nations on 12 March, there could be a statement of absolute commitment for negotiation, even that would be a major step forward.

Also, I believe the government could and should seriously reconsider the abolition of the position of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. It does not mean a lot of dollars; it is not a major step backwards in terms of government policy—and obviously I am looking at it from the government's point of view, not mine. But I am looking for realistic ways in which the government can set a new tone on 12 March in Geneva.

I am realistic; I know that there is no way this government will turn its back on the Wik legislation. So I predict that it will be criticised by the United Nations committee for that particular piece of legislation. So why not balance that criticism by trying to recognise the concerns and giving a commitment to reinstate the position of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner?

In addition, I think an important issue is the selection of the Australian representative for Geneva. We do not yet know whether it will be a public servant—and, with every respect to public servants, I hope it is not. I believe that this is an opportunity, an occasion, for the attendance of a senior minister—the Attorney-General himself, Phillip Ruddock, even the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister were really committed to reconciliation, if he were really concerned about the way in which Australia is being portrayed internationally as to its treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, then he himself would be there. That may seem a bit unrealistic, but I think it would be a very good opportunity.

I think it is appropriate that on that occasion the government make some very strong statements of commitment for the future—commitment to negotiation; for it to recommit to having the position of Social Justice Commissioner, which was seen by the United Nations as very innovative and forward looking; and commitment to genuine reconciliation which, of course, will involve recognition of ATSIC and reinstatement of many of the programs that are now so underfunded.