Australia’s Human Rights Record Scrutinised At UNHRC Universal Periodic Review
Thursday 12 November 2015 @ 11.56 a.m. | Legal Research
Australia’s human rights record has been in the spotlight once again, with more than 100 countries raising concerns about Australia’s treatment of refugees and Indigenous people at the United Nations Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review.
The Universal Periodic Review
According to an article written by PhD candidate Fiona McGaughan for The Conversation, the Universal Periodic Review is important as:
- First, each country is reviewed by the Human Rights Council only once every four-and-a-half years.
- Second, unlike other UN human rights reviews, the member country’s record on all human rights issues is under examination in the UPR.
- Third, while independent experts carry out other UN human rights reviews, the UPR is a peer-review mechanism. Countries hold each other to account on their human rights records. Monday’s review is only Australia’s second review since the UPR was introduced in 2008.
A report from The Guardian Australia noted that “[b]ecause of the large number of countries who wanted to comment on Australia – more than half of the countries of the UN – each nation had only 65 seconds in which to address the broad issue of Australia’s human rights regime.”
Countries including Indonesia, India, the United States and Norway raised concerns about Australia’s treatment of refugees, particularly at offshore facilities, with Sweden noting that Australia was the only country in the world using both offshore processing and mandatory detention.
Response by Australia
According to ABC News, in a response by the Australian delegation, official Steve McGlynn said that Australia’s policies saved lives at sea and enabled the acceptance of more refugees:
“The ensuring substantial and sustained reduction in maritime ventures as a result of Australia's managed approach to migration has resulted in Australia being able to settle more refugees for our humanitarian programs...”
Concerns were also raised about the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous representation, with The Guardian Australia reporting “[c]ountries including Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Canada, Uruguay, Kenya and Paraguay flagged the overrepresentation of Indigenous Australians in the criminal justice system.”
Fiona McGaughan’s article for The Conversation notes that the next step will be the adoption of a report containing all the recommendation made. Australia will then have a few months to decide whether to accept the report.
TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.
