While I continue to feel like a political outlier when I am in parliament, it's my engagement with workers and staff here that makes me feel more at home. I also thank all Greens senators and Adam Bandt, our lone voice in the House of Representatives. I look forward to when Adam has some Greens company in the House, and I'm sure it's coming. My appreciation of Greens members and supporters has no bounds. Through good times and the not so good, you have been a rock and one of the joys is working with you and enjoying how you burst the insular Canberra bubble.
I thank all my staff and those I have worked with in the past. I leave this job after years of working with the wonderful Helen Bergen, Brigitte Garozzo, Rebecca Semaan, Bjorn Wallin, Alana West and Linda Wilhelm. I've appreciated your hard work and support and sharing the political achievements and setbacks of this job. My biggest thanks go to my family. 'Support' is an inadequate word to encompass the loving, entertaining, irreverent solidarity, plus the dose of helpful critical feedback I've received from them. To my children and grandchildren, Jaya, Mimi, Rocco, Kirra and Jack, we're always there for each other and always will be. As we know so well, politics can turn nasty. Yes, for us as MPs, it can be tough, but for families and loved ones it can be particularly hard. They feel the pain and see through the lies, but they do not have the ready means to make their views public. I want to acknowledge what my family has been through.
My first visit to federal parliament was 50 years ago. It was 1968. The Vietnam War was raging and the Paris peace talks had stalled. With a group of high school friends, we organised a protest under the slogan 'Paris must mean peace'. We collected names on our petition, lobbied for support from prominent individuals and organisations and decided to demonstrate outside the US embassy and meet leading opponents of the war, Dr Jim Cairns and Tom Uren. The Hansard for 16 May 1968 shows that some conservative MPs speaking in the House of Representatives misrepresented our motives as 'communist inspired'. This was despite the broad support from Reverend Ted Noffs; Reverend Alan Walker; Ken Thomas, the founder of the Liberal Reform Group; and a number of unions. Yes, the parents of a few of us were in the Communist Party, but so what? The attacks then are not dissimilar to what I and sections of the Greens experience today. As a 16 year old, the lessons I learnt in 1968 have stuck with me: organise, involve people in the campaign, build allies and don't be put off by bullying, insults, and McCarthyist tactics of right-wing politicians and the media.
The Cold War-type casting of my recent work has confused some politicians, who have said to me that I don't fit what they expected. This has resulted in some interesting comments. I participate in the AFL and NRL parliamentary tipping competitions, and have even won. A Liberal senator inquired once about my success, adding that he had discussed this with his colleagues as they could not understand it. The clear subtext was: 'We don't get it. You are a Green, you are a woman and you are Lee Rhiannon. How did you win a footy tipping competition?' If a valedictory speech is supposed to be about one's successes, I would include in that list taking some small steps to break down the stereotyping of me and other Greens.
I spoke earlier of feeling like an outlier. For me, parliament had been a place where we went to protest, not to get a job. Parliament has been an institution of the state and big business and too often responsible for inequality, discrimination and environmental destruction. But, at the same time, parliament is meant to be democratic, and democracy is something I am deeply committed to.
So what was I supposed to do in this job? My actions started on day one in the New South Wales upper house. I am the first New South Wales state MP not to take the title 'honourable', and I am proud to be the first Greens New South Wales female MP. For me, becoming an MP was an opportunity to help expose the excessive privileges that go with this job and shake up the comfort zone that cross-party deals had delivered for too long.
The Greens' commitment was to stand with the people, not put ourselves above them. This meant exposing two-party deals over entitlements. The abuse I copped in the chamber over this was intense but it was our work on corporate political donations that really pushed the anger of MPs of both major parties off the Richter scale. This was in the 2000s, when, in some years, developer donations to Labor exceeded the money they received from unions. Reading out the amounts of developer contributions to parties and MPs resulted in colourful exchanges, although the more accurate descriptor is 'extreme abuse'.
The Greens' 'Democracy for Sale' campaign, based on a user-friendly searchable website, gave the public and journalists the tools they needed. The scandals cascaded into the media, and I am proud of the role my office and the Greens played in exposing the massive conflict of interest that parties create when they accept large corporate donations. In 2002, to much ridicule from major party MPs, I introduced the end developer donations bill. By 2009 Labor buckled and introduced the ban. Other electoral funding reforms that the Greens had championed followed.
I do not detract from the seriousness of the recent misogynist remarks made in this chamber but, for me, the behaviour in this parliament has been mild compared to my time in the New South Wales parliament. The abuse was directed not just at me but also at my parents, and two offensive speeches were made about the valuable political campaigning of one of my children.
It is disappointing that, at a federal level, we still do not have a national corruption watchdog. I know my federal Greens colleagues are passionate to continue the campaigns for a national ICAC and for lobbying and political donation reform.
Another consistent theme of the Greens' work, and one that I have endeavoured to build into my work in parliament and with communities across the country, is active opposition to the sell-off of public assets. The interest in our publication, Sold Off, Sold Out, reflects growing public support to renationalise and revitalise public services that have been privatised. I will continue to be involved in these endeavours when I leave this job.
This work highlights why we need a party to the left of Labor. First off, a comment on the coalition: I don't think there'd be anyone here who would doubt my hostility to the ideology of the coalition, even though I have enjoyed working with some individual coalition members on committees. But dealing with the Labor Party has presented a dilemma for the Left in this country for over a century. Here we have a social democratic party that has too often embraced neoliberalism and acted in the interests of big capital. Labor has played a major role in the privatisation of precious public assets. Yet history shows us that Labor in opposition is a different beast from the party that forms government. This is an enormous tactical challenge for the Greens and the broader left. That's a subject for another time, but for now I did want to share with you a comment from a chatty New South Wales Labor right MP. He said: 'We need Labor left. How else could we mobilise socialists and the left to vote for Labor and elect right-wingers?'
Naturally, as an advocate for the public sector, I am deeply committed to public education. In the 1999 New South Wales state election, when I was elected to the New South Wales upper house, the Greens ran our first public education election campaign. We called for the redirection of funding away from the rich private schools to public schools. I know the Greens' campaign helped revitalise this demand across the public education sector. Our commitment to righting the wrong decisions of successive coalition and Labor governments on public schools, TAFEs and universities is a constant of our work and of our election campaigns. In recent months the level of deception that the Turnbull government engaged in during the debate over their 2017 school funding bill has become more apparent. The Greens were right to vote against the government's plans—the so-called Gonski 2.0—that benefited private schools and will mean nearly nine in 10 public schools will not receive enough funding to meet the needs of each student by 2023.
I pay tribute to John Kaye, who died in 2016. He was a great Greens New South Wales state MP. John was a public intellectual whose insights and campaign initiatives built broad support for the Greens and for our stance on public education and our pioneering work on climate change for 100 per cent renewables. John's death has been a huge loss. He was not just a colleague; he was a very valued friend.
I picked up the housing portfolio after the 2016 election, and I feel very fortunate that that happened. At the moment we're putting the finishing touches to the Greens' universal social housing initiative. This plan is much more than an attempt to make the housing market less brutal; it radically redefines what it means for housing to be a human right.
My heart goes out to the many communities affected by the PFAS contamination. It is a huge, unresolved issue. We have been successful in setting up inquiries, but what the impacted locals and workers need is compensation to help rebuild their lives.
Building strong relationships with the Palestinian community has been a significant aspect of my work. My visits to Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan and my work in parliament have provided the opportunity to challenge the dominant narrative and shed some light on the reality facing the people and the region. I look forward to continuing this work.
What I have loved about my parliamentary work is the opportunity to work with so many people. That is the essence of my politics—to engage with people with the hope that they will become active for the public good. It is a key part of our democracy. We have tabled private members' bills to end the live export trade and the testing of cosmetics on animals. While I'm proud of this work in parliament, it is the strength of public opinion and public actions that will end the cruel treatment of animals.
The 2014 Abbott-Hockey budget provoked resistance amongst so many communities. Our website whatwillmydegreecost highlighted that the result would have been $100,000 degrees. Working with the National Tertiary Education Union, the National Union of Students, Labor and a number of crossbenchers, we defeated the higher education cuts. Twice in this chamber, that shocking bill was voted down.
My work with union members has been a delight, and I highly recommend this to help an MP stay grounded. From the solid support of the Meat Workers Union for our end live export bill, backing MUA actions to save jobs, campaigning with the CFMEU against the Australian Building and Construction Commission, working with education unions on funding issues and backing the ACTU's Change the Rules! campaign, the Greens recognise the vital progressive role that unions play. Sometimes our solidarity with unions raises issues with our allies. A few years back I joined striking coalminers at an Xstrata mine in the Hunter. I was quizzed later on how we could do that if we back an end to the coal industry. Easily. Mine workers and the environment are both exploited, and we need to campaign with coalminers when they fight for decent wages and conditions. At the same time, we work for a just transition to ensure mine workers and mining-dependent communities are not left stranded as the world turns its back on coal.
One of the highlights of my time here has been committee and estimates work, and being a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. In 2015, all parties agreed to the JSCEM report recommending amendments to the Electoral Act that would end undemocratic Senate group voting tickets and leave it up to the voters to determine their own preferences. However, when the legislation came on for debate, Labor backflipped and ran a dirty campaign to make out that we were working with the Liberals out of self-interest. The many Labor voices in this debate conveniently forgot that they had previously backed the reforms at a federal level and in the New South Wales parliament. If Labor believed the lies they peddled about Senate voting reform, they would have promised to reverse the changes we voted in. No such commitment has been given. Those reforms stand, and they're important.
What is the future of the Greens? I believe it can be long and fruitful, but the challenges that all progressive parliamentary parties face are upon us. We need to remain a progressive, democratic party of the left. That means resisting careerism, hierarchical control, bullying behaviour and the associated leaking and backgrounding. If we fail to stand up to that sort of behaviour, not only will the Greens suffer setbacks but our contributions to building social movements will be reduced, we will lose members and individual members will be hurt. We need to engage constructively with the great progressive causes of our time. The future of a liveable planet depends on it. It is inspiring to see that, around the world, social movements for transformative, emancipatory change are on the rise. Thanks to a poll taken by the Centre for Independent Studies, we can quantify this interest in Australia. The poll found 58 per cent of surveyed Australian millennials are favourable to socialism, and 59 per cent agreed with the statement that 'Capitalism has failed, and government should exercise more control of the economy.' The Greens can take heart from these trends.
There are two people I wish to pay tribute to. In 1990, Geoff Ash asked me to join the Greens. I remember he put a good case, but what won me over were our four pillars—our principles that guide our policies and actions. A few years later, in 1993, we started going out, and this year is our 25th anniversary. I wish to thank him for his support, love and acceptance. Geoff has been active in the Greens for longer than I have. Some might say it was a bad move for him being my partner; the abuse and misrepresentation that has come my way for no good reason has sometimes rained down on him. His years of volunteer work for a progressive, democratic Greens have made a huge difference.
I also wish to thank Jack Mundey. The green bans movement, which Jack led, helped give the Greens our name. The green bans style of radical work, supporting grassroots initiatives, building broad alliances and taking direct action, continues to serve as a great model for the mass campaigns we now need to build and win. It was thanks to a CFMEU green ban and a massive community campaign that we saved the iconic Bondi Pavilion from a Liberal-planned privatisation. We had a similar battle in 1987 and a repeat in 2017, and we won on both occasions. To Jack and all the BLs, although our workplaces are worlds apart, your political style and approach has been with me every day as a Greens MP.
I would like to thank all my friends and colleagues who have joined us today. I know it's a long way to travel. Particular thanks to Kerry Nettle, a former senator of this place, and David Shoebridge, a Greens MP in the New South Wales parliament.
Before I came into parliament, I believed that people working together are the drivers of progressive change. Our history illustrates this truth. Winning the right to vote for Indigenous people and for women, withdrawing our troops from Vietnam, ending apartheid in South Africa, securing decent employment conditions, saving the Franklin River and, most recently, the marriage equality victory and so much more testify to this truth. The streets are where the action is. I've been privileged to be a member of two parliaments. I'm leaving parliament, but I'm not leaving politics. I look forward to returning to the streets. Thank you very much to all my colleagues in this place.
]]>We have a lot of catching up to do in the area of social housing. In this country I think the whole conglomeration of what's delivered in that area at the moment is about 4.59 per cent. It's just disgraceful. There are so many inspiring examples from across Europe, where 20 to 30 per cent of their housing mix is social housing—and it's not relegated, it's not regarded as being for losers and all the insulting terms that you hear here in this country; it's got a fine tradition behind it. That's what we need to restore, and it's again why we need to go so much further than what we have before us here. Let's remember that shocking decision of the former Abbott government to abolish the National Housing Supply Council. Certainly one of the Greens positions is supporting the re-establishment of that council. It's something that is certainly overdue.
The Greens note the second reading amendment from Labor. We're ready to support it. We'll continue to do our work in the housing sector, because bringing in more social and public housing is a way we can help ensure that everybody has a home. In any country, that should be a fundamental right; and in a rich country like Australia that's achievable.
]]>People can now be captured by these laws. My colleague Senator Nick McKim has said—as have many others; I acknowledge that—that it has a 'chilling effect'. That 'chilling effect' means that people will think, 'I've got to be really careful about what I do'; 'Maybe I shouldn't write that article'; or, 'Maybe I shouldn't go and give that speech to that group of people who are concerned about the direction of Australian foreign policy or the direction of what's happening to our lack of interest in overseas aid and how it's misconstrued.' Look at the rubbish on the front page of The Daily Telegraph today. That chilling effect means that people back off from having an active and open engagement with public life. That is what this legislation will do. Maybe not many people will go to jail, but the government will have achieved what they're trying to do here: advance corporate interests and stifle civil society. The criticism that the government sometimes cops will be reduced, but so will the very rich fabric of what it means to live in a truly democratic society.
It is really alarming sitting in this senate tonight, 28 June. I think we should get it in the Hansard. There are three Labor people here. There are three coalition people here. There are three Greens here. There is one Centre Alliance here. I know people are busy—I'm often not here myself—but, seriously, what the coalition is getting away with is scandalous. What Labor's engaged in, what they've signed off on, will be remembered. We are talking about people going to jail for the rest of their lives, and a minister won't even get up and speak about it—disgraceful.
]]>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Minister? Senator Rhiannon?
Seriously, Minister? We're talking about people being jailed for the rest of their natural life. Imprisonment for life is what we're talking about here. You don't answer. Seriously? It's not surprising that people are starting to call it a police state and say it's out of control and there's a degree of authoritarianism. You don't even answer questions about things that have been done in haste. It has a huge penalty on it.
I will try an example. If a journalist were writing about trade agreements with another country and those trade agreements bring us in dispute with the World Trade Organization and if their reporting were seen to be more favourable and benefiting the trading partner, how would it be judged in terms of the dissemination of information and if prejudices came into the way the journalist or academic had undertaken the work? I'm really just asking you to explain how that section of the bill will work.
]]>You talk about prejudice. I'd like you to explain how the word 'prejudice' is used. It's set out that it's not embarrassment alone; it goes further than that. I think it's about where there is an advantage to the foreign powers. Could you explain in more detail the meaning of that word, because it obviously has great significance with regard to how national security measures are being judged in this legislation?
]]>There was a period when Australia actually supported apartheid. Australian government figures supported apartheid in South Africa and supported the Vietnam War. Now, in time, we—all politicians of all persuasions—came to realise that those were very wrong aspects of our foreign policy. First I will make a comment, and then I'll ask a question. I think this will give context to the question. Let's think about reporting when there were dominant forces in the Australian government who were sympathetic to and supportive, in various ways, of the apartheid regime in South Africa, and, as we know, actually were directly involved in the Vietnam War. Say this bill had been in legislation at that time, and there had been reporting of criticisms—for instance, of the My Lai massacre. At the time when it was first reported, it was as just part of the war effort, with Australia supposedly doing the right thing by stopping the invasion of communist hordes coming down to invade this country, so we had to send troops there. In time, we came to find out about the My Lai massacre—and I'm not suggesting Australians were involved in that, but it's one of the standout examples. It was deeply shocking, with children, women and elderly men killed, and many rapes, and the village burnt. But the initial reporting on it was that it was part of the war effort. It was courageous journalists who pushed through, and some courageous soldiers who gave the story. But considering we were supporting that war effort, if this legislation had been in place wouldn't it have been necessary to prosecute reporters who were writing to expose what actually happened there and who weren't directly supporting the government interest, which so often is interpreted as the public interest, considering at that time the government was presenting the public interest as stopping communist hordes coming down from Vietnam, China and elsewhere into this country and that our soldiers had to be sent there? So if this espionage legislation was in place at the time, journalists who were writing about what actually happened could have been charged for receiving and obtaining, collecting, communicating, publishing or making information available that was contrary to the government interest and public interest of the time?
]]>… the country's political, military or economic negotiations with another country or other countries.
Again, an investigative journalist's work explores so many issues. We have a great many of them at the moment, with the issues around the relationship with China, with our whole region, with how DFAT works, et cetera. Going back to the definition I gave, in terms of 'obtain, collect, communicate, publish'—and maybe there are other sections where there are more boundaries on this—the way it's structured, with the definition of 'dealing with information' and the definition of 'national security', the conclusion that I came to from reading this material is that it could have a very broad reach, in terms of people who are analysing relations between Australia and other countries, considering the definition of 'national security'. What I'm really asking you to do is bring the definition of 'national security' in and explain how it will be interpreted in assessing this information about 'dealing with information'.
]]>(a) receives or obtains it;
(b) collects it;
… … …
(h) communicates it;
(i) publishes it;
(j) makes it available.
Minister, isn't this what journalists do? I'm just checking, therefore—because I have further questions—that this is the section under which people who are communicating, like journalists, could be captured.
]]>So you're ruling out the international human rights example, but what about with regard to climate issues? Climate issues take into account the coal industry. Your government could interpret that coal is an essential service and so any criticism or protest or blockade could be seen as proof that it's intended to jeopardise national security. I'm sure you understand the examples that I'm referring to. I do think we need to dig into it a bit deeper considering there is a dispute about 'national security'.
Even accepting your definition, let's look at the climate example. Where people engage in activities of climate action—whether it's knitting nannas who sit outside the gates of a coalmine or people who actually go into the coalmine area to erect a banner—are they in breach? Considering it's the coal industry, and the coal industry means a lot to the government, you may classify it as an essential service; therefore, if anything is deemed to jeopardise it, could those people then be prosecuted? I'd like to go into the issue of what the nature of the prosecution would be, but, firstly, is that a scenario that could be captured by how your bill is structured?
]]>That's one example. Another big one that's ongoing and that we've seen in the past is around the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Again, it becomes a global network of organisations from different countries that are then bringing their concerns to a range of countries just wanting to highlight, by using the global stage and using media and social media, that the Australian government could end up breaching the law if it engaged in certain practices, or refused to engage in certain practices, when it comes to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Would there be intent there to prejudice Australia's national security? I do feel that we need to understand thoroughly what it means, and how it will play out. If you could elaborate on that, I think it would be very helpful.
]]>To go to my colleague Senator Nick McKim: he asked very clear questions; they weren't confusing questions at all. I would like to repeat those questions and put them in the context of some significant comments that have come from the dean of the University of New South Wales Law School and constitutional law expert, George Williams: This is what he said about the bill:
Even with the changes of the parliamentary joint committee, the bill will remain incomplete and dangerous. It will contain overbroad and uncertain definitions of critical concepts such as national security. The law also will undermine freedom of speech and of the press. As in past inquiries, the committee has given low weight to these values. It has failed to put forward amendments to prevent journalists being imprisoned. The possibility also remains that people who publish information about Australia's economic and political relations with other countries will face jail under new espionage offences.
I want to take you back to that comment from Mr Williams, where he says:
It—
referring to the bill—
will contain overbroad and uncertain definitions of critical concepts such as national security.
I ask: (1) are you aware of these views of Mr Williams, and (2) can you respond to these views, particularly in the context of the debate that we are having here about the bill and those sections of it relevant to the definition of 'national security'?
]]>A series of corruption scandals have wracked Malaysia for many years. One scandal involved suspicious asset purchases and fund deposits funnelled through Australia, and they may be linked to large-scale corruption in Malaysia that reaches to the highest level of authority in that country. This scandal involves 1Malaysia Development Berhad, known as 1MDB, a government-owned sovereign wealth fund. In 2009, shortly after Mr Razak became the Prime Minister of Malaysia, he became the chair of the 1MDB advisory board. He was also the country's finance minister. The fund was intended to support projects of national significance to boost Malaysia's economic growth and attract international investment. The fund performed disastrously. From 2009 onwards, many of 1MDB's investments failed, and, by the end of 2014, the fund had more than $12 billion in debt and was struggling to repay its loans.
I've been informed that, in the period from 2009 to at least 2014, multiple individuals, including public officials and their associates, conspired to fraudulently divert billions of dollars from 1MDB through various means. According to the US Department of Justice, which has been investigating, more than US$4.5 billion was diverted from 1MDB and laundered through a web of shell companies and bank accounts located in the United States and other countries, one of them being Australia. Several major financial institutions were caught up in the scandal, with reports of big kickbacks. These institutions include AmBank—24 per cent owned by ANZ—Goldman Sachs, Swiss UBS and BSI SA.
According to the US Department of Justice investigation, the funds diverted from 1MDB were used for the personal benefit of the co-conspirators and their relatives and associates, including to purchase luxury real estate in the United States, pay gambling expenses at Las Vegas casinos, acquire more than US$200 million in artwork, invest in a major New York real estate development project and fund the production of major Hollywood films. Last year the US Department of Justice seized $1.3 billion in assets held by close associates and relatives of the Prime Minister, allegedly siphoned from 1MDB. Singapore has jailed three bankers for money laundering connected to the fund. Australia has yet to begin its own probe on alleged money laundering transactions and other links with the corruption scandal in Malaysia. Najib's government has left a huge debt burden for Malaysia. Its public debt has exceeded A$334 billion. Much of this has been inflated by borrowing to bail out the state investment company 1MDB, which is at the centre of a multibillion-dollar scandal.
Members of the Malaysian community committed to restoring democracy in their country have asked me questions that the Turnbull government must answer. They've asked why the government isn't freezing assets acquired in Australia that have been linked to corrupt activities in Malaysia with the aim of returning them to Malaysia, much like what is being carried out by the US Department of Justice's Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative. They've also asked why the Turnbull government isn't instructing AUSTRAC and the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry to investigate money laundering activities and financial transactions in Australia that are connected to corruption in Malaysia. The comment has certainly been made: if Australia doesn't act, it starts to reflect on Australia and not just on the former Prime Minister and his associates in Malaysia.
]]>That the following matter be referred to the Procedure Committee for inquiry and report by 22 August 2018:
(a) the following proposed amendments to standing order 50:
(i) omit the heading, substitute, "50 Prayer or reflection and acknowledgement of country", and
(ii) in the first paragraph, omit all words after "following", substitute: "invitation to prayer or reflection: Senators, let us, in silence, pray or reflect upon our responsibilities to all people of Australia, and to future generations", and
(b) in undertaking the inquiry, the committee:
(i) consult with all senators,
(ii) have the power to send for persons and documents, to move from place to place, and to meet and transact business in public or private sessions, and
(iii) invite submissions and take evidence in public session.
]]>That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) over 260 million people across the globe, including around 210 million Dalits in South Asia, face Discrimination based on Work and Descent including caste and untouchability (DWD),
(ii) as well as South Asia, significant communities also live in Japan (Burakumin), Africa, Latin America (Quilombo) and Europe (Romani),
(iii) these communities, considered as 'lower' in status or 'impure', are isolated physically, socially and politically from other communities and are structurally excluded, discriminated against and are victims of violence,
(iv) Dalit women face particularly severe forms of violence including sexual harassment, rape and murder,
(v) Dalit children and young people face discrimination in education and employment and opportunities,
(vi) the International Labor Organization (ILO) estimates bonded labour victims in South Asia includes Dalits and is particularly widespread in the mining, agriculture and garment production industries, and
(vii) even though some of these countries have constitutional provisions, they lack strong legal and legislative measures to address these concerns of exclusion and violence Dalit, and particularly Dalit Women, face;
(b) acknowledges:
(i) the draft UN Principles and Guidelines for the Effective Elimination of Discrimination based on Work and Descent, by the UN Human Rights Council, and General Recommendation XXIX of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, addressing DWD, and
(ii) that the Sustainable Development Goals agenda recognises the need to reduce inequalities based on or aggravated by DWD as a crucial and measurable goal; and
(c) calls on the Australian Government to:
(i) develop and apply sensitive approaches in times of humanitarian crisis and ensure that humanitarian aid is delivered to all marginalised groups, including people suffering from DWD,
(ii) encourage Australian business partners to promote more inclusive recruitment and management practices in countries where caste discrimination is prevalent,
(iii) strengthen the policy and human rights dialogues and promote joint initiatives to eliminate DWD with the governments of states, such as Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and
(iv) through Australia's international development program, provide support for projects combating DWD as a serious human rights violation that exacerbates poverty.
]]>