Geoffrey Robertson KC is one of those annoying lawyers who cannot be pigeon-holed.
In May last year when he appeared at Sydney’s State Theatre there was much eye-rolling among conservatives in the audience when some of his funniest jokes came at the expense of Peter Dutton.
And just a few months later, he was demolishing the human rights record of the Albanese government in a document that has only just come to light.
That document contains legal assessments that undermine Labor’s efforts to position itself not just as a champion of human rights, but as a good global citizen that ensures this country abides by its treaty obligations.
The government’s credibility as a trusted party to international treaties was already in trouble after it refused to enforce provisions of the free trade agreement with the United States that are designed to prevent the expropriation of American assets.
As outlined in this column last week, federal Labor has declined to address a long-standing grievance by American investors in NuCoal Resources who were stripped of assets worth $120 million without just cause, were denied compensation and refused due process.
Labor has not abrogated the treaty with America, it has simply ignored a provision it finds inconvenient – just like it has decided to ignore inconvenient obligations under two human rights treaties.
According to Robertson, the Albanese government “is eager to pretend to be a supporter of human rights but is in fact an enemy when it comes to criminal justice: it wants the power to defame and demonise its citizens without accountability or responsibility”.
Coming from anyone else, that might be dismissed as partisan sniping in the run-up to the election. But Robertson has spent a lifetime championing human rights causes that straddle the political divide.
And while his bleak assessment of federal Labor’s human rights record has become public in the middle of the election campaign, it was not drawn up with politics in mind. It was written on September 19 and was filed with the United Nations Human Rights Committee on behalf of a client.
It is the assessment of a lawyer when confronted with the startling reality that the government of this country has refused to comply with a human rights ruling in favour of Robertson’s client, Sydney businessman Charif Kazal.
“So what happens now?” Robertson writes.
“Must Australians simply live with the fact that the present government, for all its protestations of compliance with human rights norms, is actually dishonest on this question and ratifies human rights treaties without any intention to comply with them or with the decisions of their adjudicative bodies?”
The full significance of Robertson’s submission to that UN committee is only apparent when it is considered in context.
For much of the past three years, federal Labor and the Australian Human Rights Commission have spent a great deal of time pushing for a national charter of rights while arguing this would bring Australia into line with international standards.
A parliamentary inquiry led by Labor’s Josh Burns held six public hearings, considered 335 public submissions, took evidence from a range of community groups and eventually produced a 486-page report calling for a national charter to protect human rights in ways that are “consistent with international human rights law”.
All that activity must now be weighed against what the Albanese government actually did when confronted with a clear breach of its much admired “international human rights law”.
The Kazal case has shown quite clearly that the Albanese government has no intention of complying with some of the key obligations under two international human rights treaties that have been acceded to by Australia – the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the First Optional Protocol to that treaty.
Almost two years ago the UN Human Rights Committee found that the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption had breached Kazal’s rights under Article 17 of the International Covenant which covers the right to privacy, honour and reputation. Australia was asked to compensate Kazal and prevent future violations.
This is not a case in which some UN body is barging in to Australia’s internal affairs.
By acceding to the First Optional Protocol, Australia asked the Human Rights Committee to hear complaints from Australian citizens. And under the Covenant, Australia agreed to provide effective remedies for breaches of the rights listed in that document.
But when confronted with the reality that ICAC had violated Kazal’s rights to privacy, honour and reputation, the government’s commitment to “international law” and human rights appears to have vanished.
The government told the UN committee it “respectfully disagrees” with its decision. It would not compensate Kazal nor would it prevent any future violations of Article 17 by ICAC.
That diplomatic language was dismissed by Robertson who told the UN Committee Australia needed to learn “the truth about this government’s disdain for human rights and the UN Committee”.
“It has not entered into these proceedings in good faith and the ‘respect’ it purports to show the UN mechanism is bogus,” he wrote.
Robertson has a point. If the government only intends to respect decisions with which it agrees, the entire UN complaint process is window dressing – a useless facade that achieves nothing.
If Labor won’t honour its treaty obligations on human rights, it needs to come clean. The right thing to do is withdraw from both treaties and stop pretending this mechanism works and is available to all Australians.
Robertson is right: the government’s approach to this human rights mechanism is bogus.
