Australian Human Rights Commission's UN accreditation withheld due to unease over federal government process of installing 'captain's pick' commissioners, as well as doubts about the commitment of the current Australian Attorney-General

 

Australian Human Rights Commission, general release, 7 April 2022:

Statement on international accreditation of the Australian Human Rights Commission

The Australian Human Rights Commission’s status as a National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) has been reviewed by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) – the international standards body.

This review, conducted every five years, considers whether the Commission continues to meet the UN Principles on National Institutions (commonly known as the Paris Principles), which establish whether national human rights commissions operate with the necessary level of institutional independence to ensure the effective promotion and protection of human rights.

The Commission faced three possible outcomes through this review: reaccreditation as an A-status institution; downgrade to a B-status institution; or deferral of reaccreditation for a period of time in order for serious matters of compliance to be addressed.

The Australian Human Rights Commission was not reaccredited as an A-status national human rights institution. Its reaccreditation was deferred.

The key concern of the Committee that led to the deferral was the selection and appointment process for Commissioners. This latest report of 29 March 2022 reflects feedback from the Committee over a 10-year period about Australia’s appointment processes, with three appointments in this timeframe that did not meet the accreditation requirements.

Click to read the accreditation statement from GANHRI

The Australian Government now has approximately 15 months to address this matter before a final decision on the Commission’s status is taken by the Committee in October 2023. The Committee has indicated that the Commission is at risk of being downgraded to a B-status NHRI if this issue is not sufficiently addressed within this timeframe.

For 30 years the Australian Government has played a key role in promoting the establishment of national human rights institutions across the globe, including by leading resolutions in the UN General Assembly and UN Human Rights Council on the importance of such institutions. This is the first time the Commission has been at risk of losing its A-status as an NHRI since the establishment of international standards for National Human Rights Institutions in 1993.

The Commission’s President, Emeritus Professor Rosalind Croucher AM, has shared with the Government the Commission’s concerns over the implications of the deferral and potential risks to the promotion and protection of human rights in Australia, as well as Australia’s reputation internationally.

The Commission continues to advocate for the necessary policy and legislative changes to ensure Commissioner appointments are publicly advertised and subject to an open, transparent and merit-based process, in line with our international commitments. The Commission will continue to work with the Government, the Parliament and civil society to secure a successful re-accreditation as an A-status NHRI in 2023.

Cartoons of the Week

 

Cathy Wilcox

John Shakespeare

David Rowe

 

Tweet of the Week

 

Just days away COP26: Billboards appear mocking Australia's climate record appear in Glasgow. pic.twitter.com/kW6mjSEnwD

— Lismore CBD Magazine (@NthCoastMedia) October 27, 2021

With an unabated rise in the health impacts and environmental risks of global climate change UN member nations meet in Glasgow UK for 13 days starting 31 October 2021

https://www.lancetcountdown.org/data-platform/climate-change-impacts-exposures-and-vulnerability

The COP 26 UN Climate Change Conference, hosted by the United Kingdom in partnership with Italy, will take place from 31 October to 12 November 2021 in the Scottish Event Campus (SEC) in Glasgow.

Australian Prime Minister & Liberal MP for Cook Scott Morrison has stated his intention to attend – at this point without a clear, documented and funded national climate change net zero CO₂-e emissions policy.

A little light reading while the nation waits…...

The Lancet, 23 October 2021:

Published annually, the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change is an international, multidisciplinary collaboration, dedicated to monitoring the evolving health profile of climate change, and providing an independent assessment of the delivery of commitments made by governments worldwide under the Paris Agreement. All content on this page is either Open Access or has been made free to read with registration.

The 44 indicators of this latest report, published in October 2021, expose an unabated rise in the health impacts of climate change, and a delayed and inconsistent response of countries around the world. The imperative is clear for accelerated action putting the health of people and planet above all else.

Read the latest Countdown report

Extracts

While the world's attention has been diverted towards the ongoing acute health crisis, the health effects of human-induced climate change continue to increase. Climate change contributed to the unusually high temperatures seen during 2020 in the UK and Siberia; the record-breaking heatwave that affected populations across the Pacific Northwest areas of the USA and Canada in June, 2021, which caused more than 1000 deaths (a number expected to increase); accelerated glacier retreat that is putting the Huaraz (Peru) under imminent flooding risk; and Australia's devastating 2019–20 bushfire season…..

National and regional reports were published for Australia (in partnership with the Medical Journal of Australia), China, and SIDS. For the third year, the data underpinning each of the Lancet Countdown's indicators have been shared through an online data visualisation platform, where they can be explored at finer spatial and temporal scales…..

It is estimated that smoke from the 2019–20 Australian fires affected 80% of Australia's population and resulted in hundreds of deaths and thousands of people admitted to hospital. 

The world is losing patience with the Australian Liberal-Nationals Coalition Government - Part 2

THEN

The face that the Morrison Government was showing the world....

Australian Government, Dept. of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Australia's World Heritage, excerpt:

Australia is a member of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, securing a seat from 2017 to 2021. The Committee consists of 21 members, elected every two years from the 193 countries that are a party to the World Heritage Convention.

The Committee makes decisions on World Heritage property nominations and state of conservation matters worldwide. It plays a vital role in the protection and celebration of natural and cultural sites around the world that hold Outstanding Universal Value. Some sites on the World Heritage List include the Great Wall of China, the Lascaux Caves of France, Machu Pichu, the Galapagos Islands, the Pyramids of Giza and the Tropical Rainforests of Borneo.

Australia has 19 sites inscribed on the World Heritage List, including ico nic sites such as Sydney Opera House, Uluru-Kata Tjuta, Kakadu, the Royal Exhibition Building in Melbourne, our mammal fossil sites at Riversleigh and Naracoorte, and the Great Barrier Reef – places that are vital to the cultural, social and economic fabric of our nation. Australia has more natural World Heritage sites than any other country. [my yellow highlighting]

Australia was a founding member of the World Heritage Convention and was last on the World Heritage Committee from 2007-2011. During this Committee term Australia led the development of the Convention’s Strategic Action Plan.

Our membership of the Committee allows us to share our extensive experience in managing our natural and cultural heritage, including by assisting other countries to prepare World Heritage nominations and build their capacity to manage sites.

During our 2017 – 2021 term, Australia will work to strengthen the operation of the Committee, placing emphasis on the effective management of existing properties, and encouraging greater geographic balance in the list and more focus on listing natural places of Outstanding Universal Value.......

The face the Berejiklian Government was showing the world.... 

NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, Greater Blue Mountains Area, 3 September 2019:

The Greater Blue Mountains Area was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2000 in recognition of its significant natural values. It possesses unique plants and animals that relate an extraordinary story of the evolution of Australia's distinctive eucalypt vegetation and its associated communities.....

The Greater Blue Mountains Area World Heritage Advisory Committee advises on matters relating to the protection, conservation, presentation and management of the Greater Blue Mountains Area, helping to fulfil Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention.

The NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service manages the 8 reserves that make up the Greater Blue Mountains Area" 

What UNESCO and the media were telling the world......

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), World Heritage Council, Greater Blue Mountains Area, Description, excerpts:

Greater Blue Mountains Area

The Greater Blue Mountains Area consists of 1.03 million ha of sandstone plateaux, escarpments and gorges dominated by temperate eucalypt forest. The site, comprised of eight protected areas, is noted for its representation of the evolutionary adaptation and diversification of the eucalypts in post-Gondwana isolation on the Australian continent. Ninety-one eucalypt taxa occur within the Greater Blue Mountains Area which is also outstanding for its exceptional expression of the structural and ecological diversity of the eucalypts associated with its wide range of habitats. The site provides significant representation of Australia's biodiversity with ten percent of the vascular flora as well as significant numbers of rare or threatened species, including endemic and evolutionary relict species, such as the Wollemi pine, which have persisted in highly-restricted microsites….

Protection and Management Requirements

The GBMA is protected and managed under legislation of both the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of New South Wales. All World Heritage properties in Australia are ‘matters of national environmental significance’ protected and managed under national legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. This Act is the statutory instrument for implementing Australia’s obligations under a number of multilateral environmental agreements including the World Heritage Convention. By law, any action that has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the World Heritage values of a World Heritage property must be referred to the responsible Minister for consideration. Substantial penalties apply for taking such an action without approval. Once a heritage place is listed, the Act provides for the preparation of management plans which set out the significant heritage aspects of the place and how the values of the site will be managed. [my yellow highlighting]

Importantly, this Act also aims to protect matters of national environmental significance, such as World Heritage properties, from impacts even if they originate outside the property or if the values of the property are mobile (as in fauna). It thus forms an additional layer of protection designed to protect values of World Heritage properties from external impacts. In 2007, the GBMA was added to the National Heritage List, in recognition of its national heritage significance under the Act.

A single State government agency, the New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage, manages the area. All the reserves that comprise the GBMA are subject to the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and the Wilderness Act 1987. Other relevant legislation includes the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act 1998 and the Heritage Act 1977.

At the time of nomination statutory management plans for the constituent reserves of the GBMA were in place or in preparation, and these are reviewed every 7-10 years. Currently all management plans have been gazetted, and those for three component reserves (Wollemi, Blue Mountains, and Kanangra-Boyd National Parks, which constitute 80% of the property) are under revision for greater emphasis on the protection of identified values. An over-arching Strategic Plan for the property provides a framework for its integrated management, protection, interpretation and monitoring. ....

The Guardian, 8 March 2019:

The New South Wales government has been accused of not following due process when it passed legislation to allow flooding in the heritage-listed Blue Mountains.

The Greater Blue Mountains area is already recognised globally for its environmental significance but now some sections are being assessed by the federal government for inclusion on the national heritage list for Aboriginal cultural values.

A Unesco advisory body has warned NSW legislation passed in 2018, as part of the Coalition’s plan to raise Warragamba Dam wall by 14m, could endanger the area’s cultural values.

The International Council on Monuments and Sites wrote to the Unesco world heritage centre in February 2019 arguing the legislation shouldn’t have been proposed before the commonwealth’s cultural values assessment was finalised.

“It is inappropriate ... for the NSW parliament to be enabling legislation that would impact upon established world or national heritage values or potential national heritage values,” the letter, seen by AAP, states.

The ICOMOS Australia president, Ian Travers, said it would be unacceptable for the Blue Mountains to be flooded before the presumed cultural values of the area were fully known.

“If the areas being assessed are inundated in the interim, it’s not acceptable,” he said.

“The correct process hasn’t been followed. They’re enabling legislation, which is directly contrary to what should be happening.”

Thousands of cultural sites were flooded when Warragamba Dam was built in the 1960s, and Aboriginal elders are concerned the plan to raise the wall will destroy those that are left.

“Traditional owners feel very strongly that their cultural heritage, that’s already been decimated, is about to eradicated,” Travers said.

Gundungurra elder Sharyn Halls urged the heritage centre to investigate the threat to thousands of cultural areas including burial sites, waterholes and artefacts.....

UNESCO, 43rd Session of World Heritage Committee, July 2019:

Decision: 43 COM 7B.2

Greater Blue Mountains Area (Australia) (N 917)

The World Heritage Committee,

 

1. Having examined Document WHC/19/43.COM/7B.Add

2. Recalling Decision 28 COM 15B.15, adopted at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004),

3. Notes with concern that the State Party recognizes that the proposed raising of the Warragamba Dam wall is expected to increase the frequency and extent of temporary inundation of the property upstream of the dam; 


4. Considers that the inundation of areas within the property resulting from the raising of the dam wall are likely to have an impact on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property, recalls Decision 40 COM 7, in which it considered that the construction of dams with large reservoirs within the boundaries of World Heritage properties is incompatible with their World Heritage status, and urged States Parties to “ensure that the impacts from dams that could affect properties located upstream or downstream within the same river basin are rigorously assessed in order to avoid impacts on the OUV”, and requests the State Party to ensure, in line with its commitment, that the current process to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposal fully assesses all potential impacts on the OUV of the property and its other values, including Aboriginal cultural heritage, and to submit a copy of the EIS to the World Heritage Centre for review by IUCN, prior to taking any final decisions regarding the project; 


5. Also notes with concern that several mining projects exist in the vicinity of or adjacent to the property, and that some mining activities have resulted in impacts on the property, as evidenced by the incident at the Clarence Colliery, and also requests the State Party to undertake an assessment of potential cumulative impacts of all existing and planned mining projects in the vicinity of the property through a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) or a similar mechanism; 

6. Reiterates its position that mineral exploration or exploitation is incompatible with World Heritage status, which is supported by the International Council of Mining and Metals (ICMM) Position Statement to not undertake such activities within World Heritage properties; 


7. Notes the information provided by the State Party regarding the Western Sydney Airport proposal and further requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre a copy of the EIS for the anticipated airspace and flight path operations, once available, for review by IUCN; 


8. Welcomes the development of a Strategic Management Framework for the property as a new integrated management instrument and requests furthermore the State Party to ensure that potential threats to the property from activities outside its boundaries, particularly mining, are fully considered in the development of this management framework and that the EIS required are carried out in conformity with IUCN’s World Heritage Advice Note on Environmental Assessment, with a specific section focusing on the potential impact of the project(s) on the property’s OUV; 


9. Finally requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 December 2020, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 45th session in 2021.

NOW

The Sydney Morning Herald, 22 June 2021:

The Berejiklian government has been asked by UNESCO to submit the environmental impact study on its plan to raise the Warragamba Dam wall for review before final approval out of concern about the damage the project will have on wildlife and Indigenous culture in the World Heritage area.

The request, made overnight by a committee of the UN body, fell short of matching a separate recommendation that another World Heritage-listed region in Australia, the Great Barrier Reef, be assessed as “in danger” because of climate change.

The Berejiklian government’s plan to raise the Warragamba Dam wall has been discussed at a UNESCO World Heritage meeting overnight. CREDIT:JAMES BRICKWOOD

 

Still, the government has been put on notice that the $1 billion-plus plan to lift the height of the dam wall by at least 14 metres will be closely watched by the World Heritage Committee because of the expected damage caused by even temporary inundation of parts of the Greater Blue Mountains.

In its statement, the committee repeated its request that the “State Party” ensures the environmental impact study “assesses all potential impacts on the Outstanding Universal Values of the property and its other values, including Aboriginal cultural heritage”.

The request also includes the government “thoroughly” assesses how raising the wall would exacerbate bushfire impacts and affect the longer-term recovery of “key species and habitats” burnt during the 2019-20 season…..

Read the full article here. 

It should be noted that the "State Party" is the Commonwealth of Australia and it is the Australian Government which receives and replies to all requests and correspondence from UNESCO and the World Heritage Committee.

It was the Australian Government which assured UNESCO & the World Heritage Committee in April 2019 that it "reaffirms Australia's commitment to protecting the Outstanding Universal Value of this globally significant area".

So it is somewhat puzzling that a Nine Entertainment Co (Chair - former Australian Treasurer & Liberal MP for Higgins Peter Costello) masthead The Sydney Morning Herald runs an article which redirects primary responsibility onto the New South Wales Government rather than noting it is the Morrison Government which is being held to account by UNESCO and it will be the Morrison Government responsible for any and all environmental, biodiversity and cultural losses in the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area if section/s of this area is flooded.

Australia quite rightly boasts that it was there at the genesis of the United Nations , but it is not a member in good standing

Australia quite rightly boasts that it was there at the genesis of the United Nations.

However, Australian government and society never quite evolved apace with this peak international intergovernmental body and our relationship has been strained for some time. Most notably during the years Australia was led by the Howard, Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison federal governments. 

The strain probably reached its zenith when Australian Prime Minister & Liberal MP for Cook, Scott John Morrison, blinded by his bromance with then US President Donald John Trump, decided to follow Trump's lead and characterise the United Nations as dysfunctional, in need of reform and further, referred to it as a body which "allowed anti-Semitism to seep into its deliberations – all under the language of human rights".

Since 2017 Australia has been the subject of numerous UN agency reports concerning its treatment of asylum seekers and refugees, the over-incarceration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people by the judicial system, failure to meet its obligations under the Convention of the Rights of the Child including those towards children in crisis or in detention and, its failure to meet its obligations under the Convention of the Rights of People With Disabilities including lack of full access to the justice system, lack of access to housing, forced institutionalisation and forced medical medical treatment.

This is not an exhaustive list of matters that have concerned the United Nations when it comes to Australian society.

These are the opening paragraphs of what Australia’s hard-right federal government told the latest United Nations General Assembly, Human Rights Council, Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Thirty-seventh session, held on 18–29 January 2021 :

1. Australia’s enduring commitment to protecting and promoting human rights is reflected in our strong domestic laws, policies and institutions and in our active international engagement and advocacy. Australia is proud of its contribution to the founding of the United Nations (UN) and the international human rights framework. Australia’s inaugural membership of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) in 2018–20 reflects its continued commitment to this framework. Australia’s laws and institutions function to protect human rights and support robust public debate of human rights issues.

2. Since our second cycle Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in 2015, Australia has made significant achievements in the realisation of human rights. These include significant investments addressing family and domestic violence, human trafficking and modern slavery and the legalisation of same-sex marriage.

3. COVID-19 is presenting new challenges in the protection of human rights across Australia. However, our strong democratic institutions have ensured that our response carefully balances the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health with other rights, such as liberty of movement, which may need to be temporarily curtailed. Particular regard has been paid to the rights of people with unique vulnerabilities……

The Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Summary of Stakeholders’ submissions on Australia told a rather different story. 

Of special interest are the following observations and recommendations:

4. AHRC [Australian Human Rights Commission] recommended ensuring that Australia’s international human rights obligations are comprehensively incorporated into law.

5. AHRC stated that the Government should reform federal anti-discrimination laws to ensure comprehensive protection and improve effectiveness. The Government should also set a timetable for achieving reform of the Constitution to remove capacity for racial discrimination.

6. Racial discrimination was present in society, particularly for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. AHRC was concerned about the increase in severe Islamophobic attacks, far-right extremism, and increased racism experienced by people of Asian background during the COVID-19 pandemic and cyber racism.

7. Age discrimination was a major barrier to the participation of old persons in the labour force. Older women were the fastest growing cohort of homeless in 2011–2016.

8. AHRC was concerned about involuntary surgery on people born with variations in sex characteristics, especially infants.

9. The Governments should abolish mandatory sentencing laws and expand the use of non-custodial measures where appropriate.

10. The Governments should raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility to at least 14 years, and prohibit the use of isolation and force as punishment in juvenile justice facilities.

11. National security laws and law enforcement powers on metadata retention and encryption, unjustifiably limited freedom of expression and privacy, especially for journalists and whistleblowers. Government should amend national security laws so that they do not unduly limit human rights, particularly freedom of expression and the right to privacy.

12. Some state and territory laws unduly restricted the right of peaceful assembly. Governments should ensure that all laws that regulate protest activity are consistent with the right of peaceful assembly.

13. AHRC recommended ensuring that restrictions enacted to combat the COVID-19 pandemic are proportionate and are removed as soon as the public emergency is over.

14. The main income support payment for unemployed Australians ‘JobSeeker Allowance’ was inadequate. AHRC expressed concerns at punitive welfare programs, notably the ‘ParentsNext’ ‘pre-employment’ program and compulsory income management schemes that disproportionately affected indigenous peoples. Government should ensure that JobSeeker Allowance payments provide recipients with an adequate standard of living, that Welfare support programs be reformed so they are not punitive, and that current models of income management be discontinued or redesigned as voluntary, opt-in schemes that are used as a ‘last resort’.

15. The Government should expand human rights education in all areas of the public sector, particularly for those working with children and in the administration of justice and places of detention, and incorporate human rights more fully in the national school curriculum.

16. The gender pay gap was 14 percent, contributing to the significant gap in retirement savings for women. Government should implement targeted strategies to close the gender pay gap and ensure women’s economic security later in life.

17. AHCR noted that domestic and family violence against women remained endemic. The Government should increase prevention and early intervention initiatives on domestic and family violence.

18. Rates of children in out-of-home care increased, with Indigenous children significantly over-represented. Governments should prioritise early intervention programs to prevent children entering child protection systems.

19. The National Disability Strategy 2010–2020 remained underfunded, with key commitments not achieved. There was limited progress in addressing the sterilisation of persons with disabilities without consent, and implementing a nationally consistent supported decision-making framework. Rates of labour force participation of persons with disabilities had not improved. Little progress were made in addressing the indefinite detention of persons with disabilities who were assessed as unfit to stand trial or not guilty by reason of mental impairment.

20. The Closing the Gap strategy aimed to ‘close the gap’ between Indigenous and nonIndigenous Australians across a range of life outcomes. In 2020, two of the seven targets-early childhood education and Year 12 attainment - were on track to be met by 2031. Other areas such as employment and school attendance had not seen improvements, and the life expectancy gap persisted.

21. AHRC recommended ensuring that immigration detention is justified, time limited, and subject to prompt and regular judicial oversight. Government should reduce numbers of people held in immigration detention to maintain safety during COVID-19 pandemic. Government should amend the Migration Act 1958 to prohibit placing children in immigration detention.

22. AHCR recommended conducting refugee status determination consistently with international obligations, and providing permanent protection for refugees and family sponsorship. Government should provide sufficient support to asylum seekers to ensure an adequate standard of living.

The Summary of Stakeholders' Submissions on Australia also noted:

63. JS1 explained that cashless debit and income management schemes expanded in recent years despite their discriminatory impact on indigenous peoples and single mothers, their restriction on individual decision making, and weak evidence of effectiveness. SHRL explained that the Community Development Program required welfare recipients in remote communities to undertake work or training in order to access social security payments, with indigenous peoples heavily overrepresented in the program and in financial penalties resulting from non-compliance, further plunging them into poverty. JS1 stated that Australia must replace compulsory cashless debit and income management schemes with voluntary models which are non-discriminatory in design and implementation.

The final United Nations Human Rights Council review report is yet to be published. Its findings are unlikely to overly complimentary, given on 20 January 2021 so many other member nations voiced their concerns about Australia's human rights record.

News report on U.N. climate summit to which the Bobbsey Twins, Scott Morrison and Donald Trump, were not invited

 

Australian PM Morrison (left) & US President Trump (right)
IMAGE: The Conversation

The Guardian, 13 December 2020:

Governments around the world should all declare a state of climate emergency until the world has reached net zero CO2 emissions, the UN secretary general, António Guterres, has told a summit of world leaders.

At least 38 countries have already declared such a state of emergency, often owing to their vulnerability to the impacts of climate breakdown, which are already being felt.

“Can anybody still deny that we are facing a dramatic emergency?” Guterres said on Saturday. “I urge all others to follow.”

Declaring an emergency would require countries to step up their actions on greenhouse gas emissions urgently. An increasing number of governments have a target to reach net zero emissions by around the mid-century, but few have detailed plans on how to get there.

Many countries are also pouring money into high-CO2 activities as they strive to recover from the coronavirus crisis and recession. Guterres noted that G20 countries were spending 50% more in their stimulus packages on fossil fuels and CO2-intensive sectors than they were on low-CO2 energy.

“This is unacceptable,” he told the online Climate Ambition Summit, co-hosted by the UN, the UK and France. “The trillions of dollars needed for Covid recovery is money that we are borrowing from future generations. This is a moral test. We cannot use these resources to lock in policies that burden future generations with a mountain of debt on a broken planet.”

More than 70 world leaders, civil society activists, business chiefs and city mayors are attending the Climate Ambition Summit, which marks five years since the landmark Paris climate agreement.

Under the Paris agreement, countries are bound to keep global temperature rises well below the 2C above pre-industrial levels that scientists regard as the outer limit of safety, with an aspiration to limit global heating to 1.5C, which should avoid the worst of the ravages of climate breakdown.

However, the commitments to reduce emissions that countries made at Paris were insufficient, and would result in catastrophic heating of more than3C. The agreement contains a ratchet mechanism by which nations must update their commitments every five years. The first deadline is now looming, on 31 December, and at Saturday’s summit world leaders are supposed to come forward with strengthened plans, called nationallydetermined contributions (NDCs), to cut emissions by 2030.

The UK has come forward with a goal of cutting emissions by 68% by 2030 compared with 1990 levels. The EU on Friday confirmed its pledge of a 55% cut by 2030.

Many other countries, including China, Japan and South Korea, have come forward with longer-term goals of reaching net zero emissions by 2050 or 2060…..

The Morrison Government position on climate change mitigation, as explained by Juice Media:

https://youtu.be/92t8np88fEI

The Turnbull Government’s anti-democratic slide has been noted by UN

Human Rights Law Centre, 1 March 2018:

The Turnbull Government’s anti-democratic slide has been criticised at the United Nations Human Rights Council tonight, with the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders delivering a major report on Australian democracy.

In an at times scathing report, the Special Rapporteur told the Human Rights Council that:

* he is “astonished” to observe “mounting evidence of regressive measures” being pursued by the Government;

* he was “astounded to observe frequent public vilification by senior public officials” of charities, community groups and democratic institutions who hold the Government to account “in what appears to be an attempt to discredit, intimidate and discourage them from their legitimate work”; and

* that there is an “increasing discrepancy and incoherence” between the Turnbull  Government’s statements on the world stage and its actions at home.

Dr Aruna Sathanapally, a Director of Legal Advocacy at the Human Rights Law Centre, said it was deeply disappointing that the pressure being placed on Australia’s democratic institutions and freedoms had reached this point.

“The Special Rapporteur’s report is careful, but unflinching, in his scrutiny of our democracy in recent years. The picture is one of sustained pressure on the people and institutions that hold our government accountable here, in Australia.”

“To get a seat on the UN Human Rights Council the Turnbull Government promised the world to “promote good governance and stronger democratic institutions” and “protect freedom of expression”.  But scrutiny and criticism of government are vital to a healthy democracy, even if governments find it inconvenient or annoying” said Dr Sathanapally.

“Right now, our government is pushing for new laws that would make it much harder for community groups, charities, academics if they want to speak publicly about government policies, let alone criticise government.  The Prime Minister is doing so even though these laws may well be struck down as unconstitutional on the grounds of the freedom of political communication,” said Dr Sathanapally.

“At the same time, the government is proposing sweeping new laws to keep government information secret, and punish whistle-blowers, that have been widely recognised as going too far in a democratic country. The government must move quickly to withdraw or fix these Bills if it is genuinely committed to democracy, and being accountable to the people,” said Dr Sathanapally.

Daniel Webb, a Director of Legal Advocacy at the Human Rights Law Centre, who is in Geneva for the Council session, will deliver a statement to the Council in response to the Special Rapporteur's report. Mr Webb will advise the Council that the regressive and undemocratic trend was continuing and urge the Turnbull Government to accept the UN’s recommendations in full.

Mr Webb said that the report showed that the Turnbull Government needed to dramatically improve its own human rights performance if it wanted to have strong influence on the Council, especially on democratic freedoms and its treatment of refugees and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

“Victims of cruelty and injustice all over the world desperately need Governments like ours to be part of the UN’s principled spine, not to gnaw away at the foundations of human rights with hollow words and unprincipled actions,” said Mr Webb.

“But while our Government can blow its own trumpet on the world stage all it likes, its credibility and moral authority on human rights will be limited until it stops violating them,” said Mr Webb.

The Special Rapporteur’s full report can be downloaded here.

As a new member of the UN Human Rights Council is Australia continuing to act the hypocrite?

For the second time in three months the UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights has written to the Turnbull Coalition Government concerning its welfare policies.

Australian-born Professor Alston has been Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights since June 2014.

The Commonwealth of Australia was elected on 16 October 2017 as a member of the UN Human Rights Council 2018-2020.

So the following news item is more than a little embarrassing with what it reveals about government policies.

ABC Radio RN Breakfast, 1 February 2018:

A top UN official has delivered a scathing assessment of Australia's welfare policies describing them as 'punitive' and harmful to women.

Australian Philip Alston is the UN's Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty. He accuses the government of pursuing policies that 'stigmatise' and 'marginalise' poorer sections of society.

In a letter sent to the government this week, Philip raised concerns about the planned expansion of cashless welfare cards, and their impact on indigenous communities.

The first letter dated 17 October 2017 addressed the Social Services Legislation Amendment Act 2017 (Cth) (No. 33 of 2017) and concerns that it may have a negative impact on the human rights of persons living in poverty, particularly single parents and their children, as well as expressing concerns about proposed drug testing of young people on unemployment benefits.

It would appear that the Turnbull Government’s welfare reforms make nonsense of Australia’s voluntary undertakings lodged with the United Nations on 14 July 2014 as part of its candidature for a vacancy on the UN Human Rights Council.