In Australia, the Attorney-General’s Department (AGD) and the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) have been designated the joint focal point within the Federal Government regarding the implementation of the CRPD. This satisfies, in part, the obligation under Article 33 to establish a coordination mechanism within government facilitating the actions of different government agencies and civil society.
However, it is not yet clear how adequate and effective AGD and FaHCSIA will be in coordinating all actions across the broad range of government and non-government agencies. It is unclear if there is a coordination strategy between these two Departments and across other agencies. AGD and FaHCSIA have no authority to direct the work of these agencies or civil society. There has also been no consultation with people with disability, their representative and advocacy organisations and civil society about the nature of mechanisms that need to be put in place to ensure that there is appropriate and independent monitoring of implementation of the CRPD including the designation of the focal points.
The National Disability Strategy (NDS) sets out a very clear position in relation to working collaboratively with people with disability, their representative and advocacy organisations and civil society in implementing the Strategy.658 The planning and implementation process for the NDS is already underway with at very best, only tokenistic consultation and involvement of people with disability, their representative and advocacy organisations.
The NDS does not meet the obligations under Article 33 as the ten year implementation plans are currently under development with a proposed endorsement date of 2012.
The Attorney-General has also made a declaration under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (AHRC Act) to include the CRPD rights in the definition of human rights. This gives the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)659 power to perform certain roles to ensure Australia performs its obligations under the CPRD and allows for realisation of CRPD rights by people with disability. However, this does not constitute comprehensive implementation of Article 33 given AHRC functions are limited to acts or practices of the Commonwealth, and given all elements of Article 4 are not included in the AHRC Act. In addition, the AHRC does not have the necessary level of financial and information resources to effectively monitor CRPD violations.
Disability representative, advocacy, legal and human rights organisations are concerned that the initial report under CRPD provided by Australia to the CRPD Committee does not provide the necessary data and analysis for a comprehensive assessment and ongoing effective monitoring of CRPD implementation and compliance.
Whilst the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and Disability Services Act 1986 (Cth) and their state and territory counterparts incorporate some elements of the CRPD, it remains the fact that CRPD rights are not comprehensively protected under Australian law. (See also Article 4)
