Report by Janet Hunt
On 20-21 March 2025, we were fortunate to have the opportunity to meet the new UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Dr Albert Barume, in Canberra where he gave a public lecture at ANU and met with local Aboriginal community members and organisations and ANU staff and Indigenous students.
For more information on the Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, see: https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-indigenous-peoples.
Dr Barume is from the Democratic Republic of Congo, but his life’s work has taken him around the world to understand the situation of Indigenous peoples. He was among the first lawyers to work on Indigenous Peoples’ rights in the 1990s in Africa and went on to play key roles in UN bodies concerned with Indigenous peoples’ rights. His visit to Australia came after meeting with Indigenous groups in Africa and Asia at the invitation of the Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action (FAIRA: https://www.faira.org.au/). FAIRA is an Aboriginal organisation in Brisbane, headed by Mr Les Malezer, a Butchulla/Gubbi Gubbi man from Brisbane, recognised in Australia and internationally for his work to promote and defend the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Les played a key role in the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the UN General Assembly in 2007.
Dr Barume explained that his role was one of three mechanisms to promote Indigenous human rights at the UN. There is the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, based in New York which deals largely with social and economic development issues; then in Geneva, and feeding into the Human Rights Council, there is an Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which has seven representatives from the different parts of the world, and his role of Special Rapporteur. This visit was unofficial – meaning he didn’t have to wait for an invitation from the UN member state.
He stated that humanity is going through a ‘particular time’. We have taken peace, security and stability for granted for two decades. But we need to remember that before 1945 the world was a very messy place with unfinished wars. Out of that came the UN, which was built on principles to make humanity like a family, despite the many differences in power and wealth. These principles were equality of persons, non-discrimination, self-determination of peoples and friendly international relations.
He emphasised that equality is not being the same. It means no-one should pay a price for what they are by nature; and the converse – no one should enjoy privileges due to who they are by nature. But today he feels most people don’t know what those principles mean. Equality means we need to uplift those people who are not on the same footing, they must have equality before the law and enjoy equal access to education and employment. The concept of positive discrimination, such as in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (monitored by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women – CEDAW: https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/cedaw), is to uplift certain categories of people who need to be brought up to an equal level, not to put them above others. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) is perniciously portrayed as giving some people more rights than others, but this is not true. It may be due to ignorance or ill-intention. As an example of how equality does not mean same treatment, he described a situation where two children are given equal sized bowls of rice to eat – but one had arms and the other didn’t. That is not equality. To make equality, the one without arms would need help to eat. In fact, rather than using the term ‘positive discrimination’, he prefers the technically correct UN term, ‘special measures’, which have an end point when equality is reached.
Similarly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP: https://social.desa.un.org/issues/indigenous-peoples/united-nations-declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples) is not to put Indigenous peoples in a privileged position, it’s like CEDAW, no new rights, but the rights are just reformulated to address specific issues. For example, the right to self-determination, Indigenous peoples’ right to decide for themselves, is to correct something that they’ve profoundly suffered from since colonisation. It’s very sad, pernicious and destructive. Something needs to be done to overcome the intergenerational trauma, the high rates of suicide, and the lost pride of Indigenous peoples. How can they restore that? Give them responsibility to decide for themselves! This is why self determination is so central – it is a fountain from which other rights flow. If there is no self-determination the state will not be able to deliver on other rights.
Sadly, no-one will be safe if these basic principles are not there. The four principles are being pushed aside for the rule of the powerful and rich. We need to bring the principles back.
There is also confusion between politics and the rule of law. States exist in a legal framework, the law. You can’t question the legitimacy of the judiciary! Now politics is taking over the rule of law! This creates an unsafe environment for everyone, including the private sector. It’s not in their interest.
He said that states must face their history, they can’t hide it for ever. UNDRIP is an instrument to assist states, it was written to enable them to reconcile with Indigenous peoples and face their history – but they are fearful.