HREOC - Annual Report 2001 - 2002: Chapter 6: Human Rights

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

Annual Report 2001-2002

• Back to contents

Chapter 6: Human Rights

Human Rights Commissioner

Dr Sev Ozdowski was appointed Human Rights Commissioner in December 2000 for a five year term. He is also the acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner.

Statement from the Commissioner

The year under review has been dominated from a human rights perspective by the issue of asylum seekers. As a result and because of my work with the National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention I have given much thought to the multitude of issues involved. From this process some fundamental principles have evolved which I would like to present, as a way of furthering informed discussion on the topic. In this way I would hope that, in time, sufficient Australians will think about this subject deeply enough to encourage a significant policy shift.

To recapitulate, Australia maintains a mandatory detention policy which requires that all those who come to our shores without authorisation are detained in immigration centres on arrival. This is until they are either granted visas or returned to their country of origin or in the case of people who land on the excised territories of any of the Christmas, Cocos or Cartier Islands or Ashmore Reef, removed to Papua New Guinea or Nauru under the colloquially named "Pacific Solution". Most of these people see themselves as refugees and are seeking asylum in Australia.

A substantial proportion of them will subsequently satisfy Australia's refugee assessment criteria thereby engaging our protection obligations as behoves a signatory to the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees.

The first point to be made about this situation is that asylum seekers who arrive in this unauthorised fashion have not committed any crime under Australian domestic law. The second point is that under our Migration Act, asylum seekers who arrive "unauthorised" must be detained pending resolution of their refugee status.

An initial period of mandatory detention, thereby enabling rudimentary health, identity/security and refugee status backgrounding to occur, is reasonable. In this respect the Swedish model - which similarly imposes mandatory detention on all unauthorised arrivals, but completes first phase processing in a matter of weeks if not days, followed by supervised release into the general community pending final determination of refugee status - is acceptable, in my view.

In contrast, the current Australian law requires verification and adjudication finalisation of all aspects of an asylum seeker's application within detention. This is a process that takes months on average and in some cases years.

The next sticking point is the virtual elimination of judicial oversight by Australian judges, from this massive exercise in administrative decision making. Again the Swedish model seems to have developed a more realistic appreciation of the perils of unrestrained administrative activity, by scheduling windows of compulsory judicial review into their refugee determination system. In other words, at periodic intervals the authorities must present the applicant refugee before a judge if they wish to continue with an assessment regime that is outside the previously mandated parameters.

Again, by way of contrast, Australia, with the exception of the constitutional protections of the High Court of Australia, has now successfully enacted a suite of laws which ensures that just about every aspect of a refugee determination decision is immune from judicial oversight as the applicant travels along the assessment line. The lessons from history teach us that administrative decision making on a large scale, without the normal rights of judicial appeal, is an explosive cocktail. It may also undermine our civil liberties which underpin our democracy.

Of parallel concern is the fact that this unprecedented (in Australian terms anyway) diminution of an individual's 'rights' was conducted by the legislature without any reference to a statutory Bill of Rights, thereby obscuring the extent to which the forfeiture was occurring. It is very difficult to make a judgement on what is being given up, if you have nothing by which to measure it.

Much of the current rhetoric justifying this assessment regime is coupled with the catch cry of 'border protection'. Australia's sovereign right to decide who will enter and ultimately reside in this country is not disputed; but what has that issue got to do with the need for long term mandatory detention? If the answer is deterrence of other aspiring asylum seekers, egged on by unscrupulous 'people smugglers', then clearly there should be doubts about the long term sustainability of the policy and its high moral cost.

Camp style detention effectively began in the early 90's and one would expect the cumulative affect of its operation to have resulted in a dramatic reduction of boat people towards the end of the decade. This did not happen. Admittedly there is a current lull in numbers, but it would be a brave person who predicts this heralds the end of the storm, especially in light of the many complex social interactions at work here. Certainly the Government's decision to construct a $230 million, 1 200 person permanent detention camp, in addition to the existing facilities on Christmas Island, implies that someone else shares this scepticism.

In any event, an issue of proportionality arises here. Contemporary western philosophical thought has long accepted that the means of deterrence must be proportional to the moral price it exacts. Thus it would be unacceptable to punish habitual pickpockets by cutting off their right hand, as was the case in medieval Christian times, because the deterrence value is outweighed by the moral repugnance of the act.

Similarly, the proclaimed efficacy of the immigration detention policy must be measured against its high moral cost.

Finally, we come to the vexing subject of adherence to United Nations inspired human rights treaties and conventions. Due to the necessarily legalistic nature of these commitments, proponents of any particular point of view can make a strong legal argument in support of their case. Accordingly, where the Commission might find that the Government has breached a particular human rights convention, a battalion of lawyers can produce arguments to the contrary.

The fact is Australia has much to gain from adhering to not just the "black letter law" of our international treaty commitments, but also the spirit that underpins them. The apologists for Australia's current, hard line asylum seeker stance, make much of the fact that the Government's actions are 'lawful' by reference to our domestic laws. Leaving aside the fact that South Africa's abhorrent apartheid laws were domestically lawful while simultaneously offending a plethora of international human rights conventions, one would hope that for the sake of Australia's long term future a little common sense prevails here.

Consider this: in international terms Australia is a very small player indeed and so our economic lifeblood is almost totally regulated by the extent to which our trading partners adhere to the letter and 'spirit' of a whole raft of international trade agreements. Therefore we can't afford to 'cherry pick' between those treaties we want observed and those we would rather ignore. Treaties implying moral obligations towards refugees, using this criterion, become just as important for our long term future as those which help secure our economic and trading interests.

As Human Rights Commissioner, I have previously called for the total closure of Australia's remote site detention centres. My detailed inspections of them have, over time, convinced me that they are 'un-Australian'. I happen to believe that operationally they also breach many human rights conventions, but as previously indicated, this can be something of a dry argument.

Australia prides itself, justifiably, on being the land of the 'fair go', where a spirit of mateship enabled us to flourish in a difficult and unforgiving physical environment. It is nonsense to pretend that the integrity of our borders is threatened by the small, sad, flotilla of leaky boats with their desperately fragile cargo of asylum seekers. We can maintain a system of visas and identity, security and health checks without stomping all over our 'fair go' heritage.

The current policy of long term mandatory detention in containment camps is exacting an extremely high moral toll; future generations of Australians will undoubtedly question whether that price was worth paying. Therefore let us, as a community, harness all the money, ingenuity and effort expended on the current detention system into a new way, a way which will achieve the appropriate policy objectives while simultaneously drawing on the rich Australian heritage of compassion and decency.

If we can achieve this we will, almost subconsciously, be fulfilling both the letter and the 'spirit' of our human rights commitments.

In order to reach this goal it will be necessary to convince a majority of our fellow Australians, who overwhelmingly support the current Government policy, that change is essential. In the year ahead I will be working assiduously to achieve that outcome.

National Inquiries

National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention

This Inquiry was announced by the Commissioner on 28 November 2001, and arose in part from the Commissioner's visits to immigration detention centres and from concerns raised by a number of individuals and organisations about the conditions of centres, the length of detention, and changes in legislation which appeared to discriminate against refugees on the basis of religious and racial background. The main objectives are to determine if there have been breaches of international conventions, particularly the Convention on the Rights of the Child arising from legislation, policies and practices relating to immigration detention.

It is hoped that a major outcome will be an increase in the broader community's awareness that human rights issues are an integral part of everyday life, and are of relevance to everyone.

The Commissioner is assisted in this Inquiry by two Assistant Commissioners, Mrs Robin Sullivan, Commissioner for Children and Young People, Queensland, and Professor Trang Thomas, Professor of Psychology, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.

Directions

The Commissioner issued directions concerning anonymity and confidentiality in respect of written submissions, information given in public hearings and the identity of individuals. The main objectives of these directions were to protect individuals who gave evidence, especially children, and those who might otherwise have been named in submissions or public evidence as having acted against refugees.

Methodology

The Inquiry adopted a multi-pronged methodology to secure access to, and test, relevant information. As well as advertisements in the major papers and ethnic press, information about the Inquiry was sent to community based organisations and Migrant Resource Centres, and special posters were sent to Immigration Detention Centres and Immigration Reception and Processing Centres. The original closing date for receipt of submissions was 15 March 2002, which was extended to 3 May 2002. As at the end of June 2002, 249 submissions had been received. The Inquiry also intends to carry out a thorough examination of relevant DIMIA/ACM documents.

Submissions

Submissions were provided in several formats, including tapes, drawings, poetry as well as detailed commentary by organisations representing detainees, human rights and legal bodies, members of the public, religious organisations, and a range of non-government policy and service providing groups. Phone calls and letters from detention centres were also accepted, and information provided in these was tested during the Commission's public and in camera hearings.

Most submissions will be placed on the Commission's website at www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/submissions/ . Some have been amended to delete identifying names or situations, and others will need to remain confidential to protect individuals and families.

Hearings

Public hearings were held in Melbourne and Perth on 30-31 May and 10 June 2002 respectively. Further public hearings were planned for Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, on 1-2 July, 15-17 July, and 5 August 2002, with additional hearing dates to take evidence from the Department of Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) and Australasian Correctional Management (ACM), the immigration detention centre service provider.

Transcripts of hearings are placed on the Commission's website at www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/dates.html to facilitate access to this information.

In camera hearings are also being held to take information from a range of individuals and organisations.

Visits to Immigration Detention Centres and Immigration Reception and Processing Centres

In most cases, such hearings preceded or were followed by visits to Immigration Detention Centres and Immigration Reception and Processing Centres, where the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners had the opportunity to discuss issues and concerns with detainees and ACM and DIMIA staff, and to inspect premises. Where possible, discussions with children, including young adults, featured in these visits, given both the nature of the Inquiry and particular concerns about mental health care and education services for children in detention.

In the case of Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre, the Inquiry visited that location in both January and June 2002. The material collected over a five day period in January which was the subject of a press release at that time will be incorporated into the report along with data from the June visit.

Focus groups and other meetings in the community

Many former detainees wished to provide information to the Inquiry but were hesitant to do so. Some concerns related to a belief that future visas would be compromised if adverse statements were made. Other people were concerned about the severe stress and trauma experienced by many detainees which prevented them from being able to discuss issues in a more formal setting.

A large number of structured meetings and discussions were held with children of all ages and adults, the majority of whom had been in detention in remote centres. A range of questions was asked of participants, with the same questions being included in all discussions to obtain coverage of key issues. These meetings were held in several venues, including private homes. The Commissioner believes that children should be free to speak, to provide their impressions and to talk through issues. At the same time, he was aware that children should not be exposed to unnecessary publicity and that discussions in a public and more formal setting could result in additional trauma. Consequently, discussions with children were both informal and confidential.

Of particular concern was the need to communicate with unaccompanied minors as these lacked parental protection and were often placed in inappropriate accommodation in detention centres; in addition, they had been reported to experience problems when living in the community. Several focus groups were also held with families, the majority of which had been living as a family group within detention centres, and were now living in the community on Temporary Protection Visas.

De-identified summaries of information provided from all meetings will be placed on the Commission's website. Information collected, and allegations made, in discussions will also be tested in hearings and in case studies.

A total of 25 meetings were held during 2001-02.

Report

A draft report is expected to be completed in late 2002.

Monitoring and adhering to human rights

Visits to Immigration Detention Facilities

The Commissioner has undertaken to inspect periodically immigration detention facilities and to evaluate the conditions and treatment of detainees. This builds on the Commission's work on immigration detention over many years.

The visits conducted during 2001-02 continued to reveal a number of significant human rights concerns. Following the visits the Commissioner raised particular issues concerning each facility directly with DIMIA and in some cases corresponded directly with the Minister for Immigration. Additionally pursuant to sections 11(1)(j) and (k) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act, the Commissioner transmitted a report on these visits to the Attorney-General for parliamentary tabling. In that report not all of the issues raised in each of the individual facilities over this period were discussed. Rather, major recurring themes which require more systematic federal government action have been highlighted. Outlined below is a brief summary of those themes.

During 2001-02 the Commissioner visited the following facilities:

Major issues of concern

During the visits detainees raised a number of concerns ranging from minor complaints about daily conditions through to perceived serious injustices, including mental health issues. Some of the issues raised were specific to a particular facility. However, many of the issues are common, in greater or lesser degree, to all the immigration detention facilities managed by ACM and reflect systemic problems which need to be addressed.

It has become clear during the course of the visits that many of the more serious issues are closely interrelated. In particular, the effect of inferior conditions or perceived ill treatment of detainees in detention facilities is significantly compounded by prolonged periods in detention. Similarly, lack of information about the processing of visa applications becomes more and more intolerable as periods in detention lengthen. Not surprisingly, this has a marked effect on the mental well being of detainees.

Lengths of time in detention

Prolonged periods of time in detention are one of the key problems identified in the immigration detention facilities visited. From discussions with detainees and ACM staff, it is clear that while any detention creates strain, prolonged detention increases exponentially the stress and mental health difficulties experienced by detainees. Prolonged detention may also breach international law standards.

During the visits, DIMIA provides the Commissioner with statistics as to the individual detainee population at the time, in addition to the length of time in detention of each detainee. In 2001-02, DIMIA advised that the average duration of detention had reduced considerably from the previous year. According to DIMIA, during 2001-02 the average length of time spent in detention by people who arrived by boat was 155 days (approximately five and a half months).

Judicial review of detention

In Australia, judicial review of immigration detention is very limited as the detention of unauthorised arrivals is lawful under the Migration Act 1958 . Asylum seekers are not able to challenge their detention on the basis that there has been a violation of their human rights under any international instrument to which Australia is a party including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the Convention on the Rights of the Child . Without this possibility, there is little to pressure government to speed up processing times, to allow for either the release of a detainee or safe removal to a third country.

Access to legal assistance

During the Commissioner's visits to detention facilities, a number of detainees complained that they had not been fully informed of their status and the progress of their asylum applications, including their right to access legal assistance. Many detainees interviewed indicated they had never been informed of the reason why they were in detention.

Access to general information and contact with the outside world

The lack of access to information concerning application processing is mirrored in a general lack of access to information from the outside world for many of those in immigration detention facilities. Nothing in their detention should prevent detainees from exercising rights to communicate with their families, communities, legal representatives or relevant refugee and human rights organisations. In particular, detainees should be allowed to inform family members, whether in Australia or overseas, of their safe arrival in Australia, within a short period of arrival. Nor should detention prevent access to newspapers, magazines and television news reports.

Education and recreation

The provision of materials and facilities for educational and recreational purposes is not only consistent with international human rights standards for detainees, but is also a sensible approach to the management of detention facilities. Meaningful activities may alleviate stress particularly for long term detainees. Considering that a large number of detainees on the mainland, at least, would be likely to be released into the community on Temporary Protection Visas, it is essential that they be facilitated to use their time as constructively as possible.

The Commissioner noted during the visits that there were minimal educational activities available to adults, consisting mostly of English lessons. Only in some facilities could detainees use a computer room and attend computer lessons.

Accommodation

The Commissioner noted that immigration detention facilities are, in general, not equipped for long term detention. This is reflected in dormitory and demountable style accommodation arrangements, paucity of educational and recreational programs and a general atmosphere of uncertainty and insecurity. The "contingency" nature of these facilities becomes even more apparent when the numbers of detainees increase at particular facilities.

Health care

All facilities visited had certain basic health care services available. All services had on site nursing staff. All services on the mainland facilities, except Perth, had General Practitioners on staff, although in some facilities this was on a part-time or rotational basis. Reports about the accessibility and quality of health care in the facilities were mixed. Some detainees praised the service they received, especially for the more serious cases which required transfer to hospital. On the other hand, a common and persistent complaint among many detainees was the feeling that their illnesses were not being treated seriously.

Mental health issues

One of the most important and disturbing issues in all detention facilities is the prevalence of depression and stress among detainees. In all facilities visited, detainees had experienced or were experiencing mental distress themselves or observed mental distress among others.

Children's needs in detention

The effects of detention on children are of major concern. The situation in detention is particularly inappropriate for children because of the lack of schooling and exposure to violence and psychological stress.

Security and discipline

Security and discipline in detention facilities is another major area of concern. A recent phenomenon appears to be the use of isolation detention for "behaviour management" in several detention facilities.

Conclusion

Australia is under an obligation to ensure the basic human rights of all those who come within its jurisdiction. This includes all people who arrive on our shores, whether unauthorised or authorised, adult or child.

We have a particular responsibility to ensure that the human rights of people who have been deprived of their liberty are safeguarded. They are especially vulnerable as they are almost completely dependent on the care and protection of DIMIA and ACM. Hence authorities responsible for detention must ensure minimum human rights standards and humane detention.

Some of the most essential of these include the right not to be arbitrarily detained, to have access to information and legal assistance, the right to humane treatment and the rights of children to special protection. If detainees are deprived of their basic rights, a situation of distress, anxiety and grievance is created, which all too often results in the protests and violence we have seen over the previous year.

Education and promotion

An Australian Bill of Rights

In the course of the last year the Commissioner has presented the case for the introduction of a legislated Bill of Rights to three major forums. One of these forums was a nationally televised address to the National Press Club. Also, the Commissioner has used general speech opportunities to broaden community understanding on the issue.

Firstly, the Commissioner believes an Australian Citizens' Charter (or Bill of Rights) would assist Australians by replacing some of the institutional protections that previously existed but have now arguably diminished. Governments of all persuasions are mainly interested in basic service provision such as health, education, defence and law and order; trade union membership is low and struggling to remain relevant; parliament is inhibited by the discipline of voting along 'party lines'; courts cannot imply individual rights out of the common law without stretching the legal framework almost to breaking point; and the media's defence of the individual, while it does occur, is too idiosyncratic to be of ongoing assistance. A Bill of Rights would encourage us to react more proactively to the global changes that are engulfing us all.

Secondly, if that was not a strong enough reason prior to September 11, then the proposed curtailing of personal freedoms explicit in the Government's "war on terrorism" and the consequential package of laws enacted by it, makes it essential.

It is difficult to measure what we are being asked to give up when the Government proposes legislation, that either explicitly or implicitly advocates change to the way we are allowed, as individuals or groups, to conduct ourselves, when there is currently no checklist of mandated civil rights (other than the very limited ones present in the Australian Constitution).

And thirdly, the Commissioner believes the maximum degree of public support for a Bill of Rights must be achieved; modern democratic governments of all political persuasions are very 'focus group' driven. This is now the sine qua non of any successful public campaign, no matter how overwhelming the logic, if it requires federal legislation for its implementation. In line with this, the Commissioner will therefore continue to use all appropriate opportunities to present the case for a Bill of Rights.

So, what kind of Charter should be developed? In the Commissioner's view it must not be too ambitious. It should be limited to basic freedoms (freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention, right to a fair trial or due process, the freedom of association, equality of all persons before the law) and should be statutory not constitutional. It must reflect Australian values and traditions.

However, before this can happen there must be a national debate. There must be discussion on what rights to protect and how it should be done; in other words development of a sufficient groundswell of public opinion to encourage the Australian Parliament to establish those guidelines, or Citizens' Charter, for the courts to interpret. In a democracy like Australia's, with its Westminster traditions, and the chequered history of this subject, it is undoubtedly the only model likely to achieve success.

International activities

United Nations Special Session on Children

The principal purpose of the Commissioner's visit to the USA was his attendance at the United Nations Special Session on Children in New York. In preparation for this attendance, the Commissioner consulted children and youth non-government organisations and Children's Commissioners in advance of the Special Session.

He held consultations on the Special Session in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide and Canberra. He also had discussions in Broome about children with disabilities and met with members of UNICEF Australia's Taskforce on Child Rights.

The Commissioner attended the Special Session as a member of the Australian Government delegation and participated in its work, including representing the leader of the delegation, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs at the Gates Foundation Concert "Turn This World Around - Leadership for Children" on 9 May 2002.

The Minister's statement delivered on behalf of Australia to the 27th Special Session of the General Assembly on Children mentioned the work of the Commission.

In addition, during the visit to New York, the Commissioner conducted a number of consultations with Australian and other non-government organisations present at the Session and with UNICEF officials.

First Global Meeting of Independent Human Rights Institutions for Children

The Commissioner attended the First Global Meeting of Independent Human Rights Institutions for Children on 7 May 2002, prior to the United Nations Special Session.

Seventeen countries were represented including Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Columbia, Denmark, France, Iceland, Macedonia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Northern Ireland, Norway, Poland, South Africa, Spain and Sweden. Three observers and relevant UNICEF office holders participated in the meeting. Australia was represented by the Human Rights Commissioner. The Tasmanian Commissioner for Children participated as an invited guest of UNICEF.

During the meeting, the institutions shared information on their strategies, activities and challenges to their work. The Commissioner was invited to give a report on Australia's achievements regarding the rights of children and to outline the functions and structure of the Commission. He also spoke about the role of the Asia Pacific Forum.

The Meeting agreed to:

• urge Governments and the United Nations system to mainstream and give a priority to children's rights and to develop appropriate mechanisms, including legislation to advance children's rights
• support development of children's independent human rights institutions in every State
• call on the United Nations system to give formal recognition to independent human rights institutions to enable them to be active participants in all UN proceedings
• develop a list of long term follow-up and commitments, including a commitment to establish a global network of Independent Human Rights Institutions for Children and the organisation of regular meetings and exchanges of information.

Inspections of the INS detention centres

In Los Angeles the Commissioner was briefed by US Immigration and Naturalisation Service (INS) officials and inspected the San Pedro Service Processing Center and the Los Pardinos Juvenile Hall and Juvenile Court on 26 April 2002.

The San Pedro Processing Center holds about 500 criminal deportees and asylum seekers. The Commissioner was briefed on US asylum law and procedures and inspected female and male dormitories, medical unit, recreation yards, reading rooms, law library, immigration court rooms and other facilities.

The Los Pardinos Juvenile Hall holds some 400-600 juvenile offenders over 12 years old and a limited number of children in immigration detention. During the visit there were only 12 unaccompanied minors in immigration detention. Children are usually held for one to two weeks in detention, although there was recently one case where a child spent three months in detention. Immigration detainees are held in separate accommodation and attend school seven hours per day. Both facilities were inspected by the Commissioner.

Meetings with US Government Officials in Washington DC

During the Commissioner's visit to Washington DC a number of meetings were held with officials from the Departments of State and of Justice. The meetings in the Department of Justice involved separate meetings with Immigration and Naturalisation Service officials and with Civil Rights Division officials.

Discussions included issues such as a new immigration bill, including provisions for unaccompanied minors (the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act), current immigration practices and procedures, UNHCR regular inspections of the INS detention centres, settlement services available for refugees, affirmative action, the new Presidential Freedom Initiative, ecommerce for people with visual impairment and application of new technologies for voting by vision impaired and others.

The meetings in the Department of State involved discussions with the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration and the Assistant Secretary for Human Rights. This discussion focussed on US policies toward off shore refugees and the fact that the program is being revised to become more global and give more focus to Africa. Last year the US took in some 70 000 refugees (key groups included Vietnamese and Jews from the former Soviet Union).

Meeting with the US Commission on Civil Rights

The Commissioner met with the Staff Director of the US Commission on Civil Rights. Issues discussed included the mandate and structure of the Commission, current investigations, including their Inquiry into "pollution associated with location of industrial plants in poorer areas", aspects of civil liberties in connection with US anti-terrorist measures, and handling of asylum seekers by the INS, amongst other things.

Speeches

A selection of speeches, seminars and presentations made by, or on behalf of, Commissioner Ozdowski during 2001-02 are listed below. Further speeches are available on the Commission's website at www.humanrights.gov.au/speeches/human_rights/ .

Economic, social and cultural rights in Australia - the roles of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the corporate sector , Asia Pacific Forum meeting, Panel presentation, Hong Kong, 11 July 2001.

Building an Australia Fit for Children , Keynote presentation, Eighth National Conference of the Association for the Welfare of Child Health 'Children on the margin: addressing the health care needs of marginalised children and young people', 11 October 2001.

Issues around racism in Australia , National Ethnic and Multicultural Broadcasters Council Conference, Melbourne, 9 November 2001.

Addressing Age Discrimination: The Need for Legislation , Council on the Ageing National Congress, Canberra, 13 November 2001.

Human Rights in Contemporary Australia , United Nations Association of Australia - Human Rights Seminar: 'Human Rights from the Perspective of Individual, Collective and Corporate Responsibilities', Tasmania, 17 November 2001.

Discrimination, a Stocktake and Quo Vadis? , Equal Opportunity Practitioners in Higher Education Australasia Conference, Canberra, 30 November 2001.

Protection of Human Rights in Australia , Second National Conference on Reconciliation, Multiculturalism, Immigration and Human Rights, Geelong, 1 December 2001.

Detention of Asylum Seekers: Key Themes , International Conference on the Refugee Convention, Sydney.7 December 2001.

Human Rights - A Challenge for Australia , National Press Club, Canberra, 6 February 2002.

Asylum Seekers - Human Rights Issues , Governor's Leadership Foundation Seminar, Keynote presentation, Adelaide, 9 April 2002.

Monitoring Implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child: challenges for Australia , PLAN International Australia conference, Keynote presentation, Melbourne, 17 April 2002.

The Content of an Australian Bill of Rights , 2002 Bill of Rights Conference, Sydney, 21 June 2002.