Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is a great privilege to be able to participate in this debate this afternoon. I want to express, as my colleague Senator Payne has done, some of the concerns that the government has about the declaration. In listening to the opposition and the minor parties on this matter, I have been rather curious. There has been much reference to moral courage, to good faith and to supporting the alleged body of opinion that exists within the international community in favour of this declaration. There was a reference to the fact that we would be forever condemned if we were not to support the declaration which is to come before the United Nations in perhaps a few days time.

This is quite an extraordinary argument because it seems to suggest that Australia is not permitted to have its own view on these matters, that it is not permitted to assess an instrument that is proposed to become a declaration of the United Nations and that it is not permitted to assess whether or not that particular declaration is in Australia’s interests and in the interests of Indigenous Australians. I would have thought that every member of this chamber would assert and accept the proposition that, in relation to every matter that comes before any international body, any international organisation or any non-governmental organisation, Australia has the right to reflect on whether or not the particular proposal which is before the organisation is in its interests. The Australian government has taken the view that this declaration, as it now stands, is not in the interests of Australia and not in the interests, more widely and more generally, of indigenous peoples around the world. That is the important proposition. This document will not advance the cause of indigenous people anywhere on the planet.

In many ways, the Australian government would like to support this document. It has some merit, as Senator Payne pointed out. It is a document of some 46 articles and contains some articles which I think most of us could quite strongly support, such as ‘the right to a nationality’ and ‘the rights to life, physical and mental integrity, liberty and security of person’. Article 8 contains ‘the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture’, and so it goes. The Australian government’s position is to strongly support numerous elements of this document, but the view it takes of the document overall is that it is flawed.

The Australian government has worked constructively with other countries, over a long period of time, trying to secure a document which would have consensus within the international community. It has done that because it believes that that is the only kind of document that will be of value to indigenous people around the world. There is no point in the General Assembly approving a declaration from which a large number of significant countries are likely to dissent. We would be far better off if we could secure a document which had widespread international approval, and this document, as it currently stands, does not command that widespread international approval.

It ought to be a document which we can all look to with some pride and say, ‘This document sets a standard by which we wish governments to show concern for their indigenous people.’ This document, as it presently stands, does not reach that standard. It is an aspirational document. It is not intended to be law and, curiously, I think it was Senator Stephens who said that the fact that it was not going to be law was a reason why the concerns that we have should be set to one side. It is almost as though we should support rhetorical expressions of concern and, if they are not binding in law, add our name to a long list of countries which are apparently entirely happy with this document. The Australian government has worked constructively over a long period of time and, as Senator Payne pointed out in her contribution to the debate, we had hoped that there would be further time to assess the progress of the document.

It is flawed in various kinds of ways, and Senator Payne alluded to those shortcomings. One that she did not mention but I think deserves some recognition in the context of this debate is the fact that the document as it stands does not contain a definition of ‘indigenous peoples’. This seems to be an extraordinary omission. Here is a document proposed to be an international declaration about indigenous peoples and there is no attempt, within the document, to make any kind of effort to define what an indigenous person might actually be. The absence of a definition leaves the document open to abuse. It provides the opportunity for separatist groups and minority groups—anybody who might wish to claim indigenous status—to abuse the forthright intent of the document. I would have thought that that was something which, on further discussion, might easily be eliminated. That opportunity for exploitation could easily be removed, and we could move to something which would have, at least in that respect, a wider degree of consensus.

Senator Payne alluded to some of the other shortcomings of the document. She alluded to the problem of self-determination. She alluded to the problem in relation to intellectual property. She did not allude to the concern expressed by Australia and several other countries in relation to the repatriation of human remains. It seems that, rather than being seen as an opportunity for indigenous people to repatriate remains taken from their country of origin, the document is being interpreted and construed by some states as allowing them to maintain their holdings of indigenous remains and artefacts. There may be some countries in which that would be an acceptable course of action, but it is hardly a state of mind or position that Indigenous Australians would encourage the Australian government to take on their behalf in relation to this declaration before the United Nations.

The general position of the government on this matter is that this is a document which we would very much like to support. It is a document which we have constructively contributed to over a long time. It is a document which we believe ought to be a sign of the international community’s position. (Time expired)