Australia’s ‘A’ rating on human rights is under threat with a handpicked, politically engineered commissioner

The hand-picked appointment by the Morrison administration of a new human rights commissioner, Lorraine Finlay, threatens to undermine the independence and legitimacy of the Australian Commission on Human Rights itself.

It could also damage Australia’s international credibility and result in our commission being downgraded by the body that serves as a watchdog for human rights commissions around the world.

National human rights institutions are independent judicial bodies created by parliaments that use the powers of the state to promote and protect human rights.

Maintaining this independence is vital. Human rights commissions often walk a fine line when it comes to ensuring that they are supported and adequately funded by governments, while at the same time having the freedom to criticize them freely.

If these bodies are to do their job well, their leaders must be willing and independent to insult their governments.

This is less likely if executive appointments are politically planned within the institution and are not the result of an open and competitive process. The coalition government has had a bad record on this, and Finlay’s appointment is just the latest example.

Guiding principles for human rights bodies

The first independent human rights organizations were founded in New Zealand, Canada and Australia in the late 1970s and early 1980s. In the early 1990s, there were around 20 of them worldwide claiming to be independent.

The United Nations sponsored the first meeting of these institutions in Paris in October 1991. They drafted and adopted the so-called Paris Principles, which set minimum standards for national human rights institutions.

Read more: Do we need a new human rights officer? Yes, but it’s complicated …

The principles require these bodies to be independent from government. They also underline the importance of a clear, transparent and participatory process for appointments that enables representation from the broader society.

As such, the principles became a test of the credibility and legitimacy of national human rights institutions around the world.

One of the greatest challenges for international human rights is not the legislative process, but the implementation. That is why the principles are so important – they help these bodies work independently to hold governments accountable.

Australia’s ‘A’ rating is now in jeopardy

Today there are numerous national human rights institutions around the world, including in countries with dubious human rights such as Russia and Iran.

Not all are accredited by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI). This organization was created to regularly review and analyze these national human rights bodies to ensure that they are upholding the Paris Principles.

The Australian Human Rights Commission is currently classified as an “A-Status” institution, d right to vote).

Partially compliant human rights commissions are given “B status” and are only allowed to participate as observers. They are essentially in the works. Countries in this class include Myanmar, Venezuela, Chad, Libya and Bahrain.

In 2015, the Thai Human Rights Commission was downgraded to “B” status due to its persistent shortcomings, including the selection and appointment process of commissioners and serious independence and neutrality issues.

Australia is due for its accreditation review in early 2022 and its “A” status is now in jeopardy thanks to its hand-picked new human rights officer.

A downgrade can seriously damage the legitimacy of the Australian Commission on Human Rights and people’s confidence in their long-term ability to effectively protect human rights.

A pattern of political appointments

This is not the first time an Australian human rights officer has been selected by the government. In 2013, the Abbott administration sparked tremendous controversy when it appointed Tim Wilson – a vocal critic of the Human Rights Commission and its work – as commissioner.

Following this move, GANHRI’s 2016 review criticized the Australian Commission on Human Rights for “failing to follow the merit-based selection process”. It said such a thing

Appointment has the potential, the legitimacy of the appointee and the independence of the [Human Rights Commission].

The next three appointments for senior positions in 2016 then took place in a competitive process, including Ed Santow as human rights commissioner.

However, the appointment of Finlay as the new human rights officer and the appointment of Ben Gauntlett as the disability officer in 2019 were not carried out transparently. None of the processes were open or competitive.

Why is it important?

Australia has long been a leader in promoting the Paris Principles and underscores the importance of strong, independent human rights institutions around the world.

The government should approve and mandate a statutory appointment process for all senior management positions. This is not a radical approach.

When GANHRI criticized Australia in 2016, it explicitly called for future selection processes to be made transparent and competitive. This process should include posting vacancies to maximize the number of potential candidates and encourage broad consultation of the external community and subject matter experts.

Read more: UN criticizes Australia’s human rights record

Applicants should also be assessed on the basis of predetermined, objective and publicly available criteria. And newly appointed commissioners should not represent other organizations.

In order to maintain the independence of the Human Rights Commission, an open process that encourages performance-based selection is required. It is also crucial that the commission can do its work at home and abroad.

If we cannot ensure that the process for appointing a human rights officer is fair, what does this say about the fate of human rights in this country?