The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) risks being stripped of its accreditation as an 'A-status' institution, with the global standards body raising concerns about its independence.
Following a review of whether the commission meets standards set by the United Nations, the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRI) decided not to reissue the AHRC with the top-tier status.
The review found two appointments over the past decade, that of Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finlay in 2021 and Disability Discrimination Commissioner Dr Ben Gauntlett in 2019, "did not meet the accreditation requirements".
Ms Finlay was hand-picked for one of the eight commissioner roles at the AHRC by Attorney-General Michaelia Cash, a move the government was criticised for.
A former High Court associate, prosecutor and academic, Ms Finlay had a long association with the Liberal party in Western Australia, including as president of its Women's Council.
The commission faces being downgraded to a lower status if the concerns raised are not rectified, which could impact Australia's ability to take part in debates on human rights issues within the UN.
"The Australian Human Rights Commission was not re-accredited as an A-status national human rights institution," the AHRC said in a statement.
"It's re-accreditation was deferred.
A spokesperson for the Attorney-General said the government would consider the report and that there had been no change to the accreditation status.
"The government's merit and transparency policy, in place since 2008, allows for direct appointments of candidates when an eminent person is available. Dr Bn Gauntlett and Ms Lorraine Finlay, both direct appointments, are eminently qualified for their roles as Disability Discrimination and Human Rights Commissioner given their knowledge, experience and qualifications."
The federal government has faced significant criticism over its three terms in office for stacking government agencies and boards with Coalition supporters.
The Australian government now has 15 months to address the concerns raised before a final decision is made in October 2023.
The review raised concerns with the Attorney-General's ability to bypass the requirement for an open and merit-based selection process.
It said such appointments would "have the potential to bring into questions the legitimacy of the appointees and the independence" of the commission.
"It is critically important to ensure the formalisation of a clear, transparent and participatory selection and appointment process for an National Human Rights Institution's decision-making body, and the application of established process in all cases," the review said.
The AHRC said it would continue to push for changes to strengthen the selection process for appointees.
"The commission continues to advocate for the necessary policy and legislative changes to ensure commissioner appointments are publicly advertised and subject to an open, transparent and merit-based process, in line with our international commitments," the AHRC said.
"The commission will continue to work with the government, the parliament and civil society to secure a successful re-accreditation as an A-status NHRI in 2023."
Inadequate funding also raised
The review also said that while it was not a ground for a deferral of accreditation, it had also considered the fact the commission raised issues around its funding levels.
The commission said despite two new commissioners and an increased workload, in part because of the COVID-19 pandemic, it had not received any extra funding.
""To function effectively, the [HRC] must be provided with an appropriate level of funding in order to guarantee its ability to freely determine its priorities and activities," the review said.
Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus said the Coalition had a track record of undermining the commission's independence.
"The threatened downgrade of Australia's Human Right Commission as one of the world's most respected human rights bodies is a damning indictment on the Morrison government," he said in a statement.
"The key concern that led to the threatened downgrade was the refusal of the Morrison government to adopt a transparent and independent process for appointing commissioners, similar to its undermining of the AAT with its constant stacking of Liberal mates.
"It's clear evidence that this government has undermined Australia's reputation with its decade-long attacks on the Human Rights Commission's independence."
Fury from human rights lawyers
"The Australian Human Rights Commission's current 'A status' means it has full participation rights at the UN Human Rights Council, the right to attend and speak up at UN meetings," said Justine Nolan from the Australian Human Rights Institute.
"Partially compliant human rights commissions are given 'B status' and may only participate as observers. They are essentially works in progress.
"Among the countries in this class are Myanmar, Venezuela, Chad, Libya and Bahrain."
Professor Nolan said Australia's standing on the world stage had been jeopardised by the federal government "hand-picking" commissioners.
"The government should agree to and mandate a legislated appointment process for all senior leadership roles," she said.
"This is not a radical approach. If we cannot ensure the process to appoint a human rights commissioner is fair, what does this say about the fate of human rights in this country?"
The Human Rights Law Centre and Amnesty International shared the sentiments.
