Australia's appointment to the UN Human Rights Council means it must deliver on Indigenous engagement in alcohol control

In October 2017, Australia was elected for the first time to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to serve a three‐year term that will span from 2018 to 2020. In its new role, Australia will be tasked with promoting international human rights, acting on human rights violations by UN Membe...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Australian and New Zealand journal of public health 2018-08, Vol.42 (4), p.327-328
Main Authors: Muhunthan, Janani, Angell, Blake, Wilson, Andrew, Hackett, Maree L., Latimer, Jane, Eades, Anne‐Marie, Jan, Stephen
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aboriginal Australians
Academic achievement
Alcohol
Alcohol use
Alcohols
Australia
Bill drafting
Consultation
Deprivation
Disorders
Employment
Health care policy
Health education
Health Services, Indigenous
Homeless people
Homelessness
Human Rights
Humans
Imprisonment
Indigenous peoples
Law
Legislation
Native peoples
Objectives
Police
Political appointments
Population policy
Public health
Regulation
Rehabilitation
Residential communities
Safety
Tobacco
Traffic accidents & safety
Trauma
Unemployment
United Nations
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In October 2017, Australia was elected for the first time to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to serve a three‐year term that will span from 2018 to 2020. In its new role, Australia will be tasked with promoting international human rights, acting on human rights violations by UN Member States and developing international human rights standards.However, given recent criticisms and global scrutiny of its treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (hereafter Indigenous) Australians, the timing of Australia's promotion to the intergovernmental body has attracted controversy. For example, the Northern Territory's now repealed Mandatory Treatment Act (MTA) 2013 facilitated the legally sanctioned, involuntary commitment of individuals who are apprehended by the police three times for public intoxication. The MTA was introduced despite international guidelines and the UN declaring that such interventions should only be used short‐term and in specific circumstances, such as where the individual is at risk of harming themselves.
ISSN:1326-0200
1753-6405
1753-6405
DOI:10.1111/1753-6405.12799