Actions louder than words

Aspiration is a great thing, but do those who seek the limelight do it for the right reasons — or achieve the top jobs on merit?

Australia’s push to win its first three-year term on the United Nations Human Rights Council has been successful; it has just been elected unopposed to the inter-governmental body comprising 47 states responsible for the promotion and protection of all human rights around the globe.

Among Australia’s reported priorities are the empowerment of women, indigenous rights and abolition of the death penalty.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop says Australia is a transparent, accountable nation and would bring a "principled, pragmatic approach" to its work on the council.

Stirring words certainly.And yet the appointment cannot help but raise questions about the integrity of our transtasman neighbour — and the UN body itself.Australia, like New Zealand and many other Western countries, considers itself progressive, democratic, fair-minded.

Yet its human rights record is far from unblemished.

It is currently dragging its feet on the issue of gay marriage — something most comparable countries have embraced.

Its treatment of its Aboriginal people has been shameful.Its recent treatment of refugees — including the use of controversial "offshore processing and detention centres" and an awkward deal with the US to sideline the "problem" — has been likewise widely condemned.

Furthermore, tax-paying "Oz Kiwis" (New Zealanders living in Australia, some of them for much of their lives) have been denied many of the basic rights enjoyed by others. Now, as a further indignity, some are being locked up without charge, booted out and shipped back to a "home" they barely know.All this by a wealthy nation, too, not just a supposedly democratic one that should value human rights.

Of course this country does not have a clean slate, either. It too, has been criticised for human rights  infringements, notably in the care and protection and standard of living of our children, disparate outcomes for minority groups and Maori and Pasifika children, and  juvenile justice. Our ongoing child poverty and homelessness issues do not stack up well against our peers.

In the face of one of the worst refugee crises in history, this country raised its quota minutely — and only after sustained public pressure — at the same time as we welcomed a flood of other immigrants and praised our "rock star" economy.

Contradictions abound in the United Nations too, sadly. The  organisation was founded in 1945 after the horrors of a second world war. Its purposes — peacekeeping, diplomacy, development and human rights — are worthy, yet it has come under increased criticism as powerless, cumbersome and inconsistent.

Former NZ prime minister Helen Clark became all too aware of the reality of equality, equal opportunity and women’s rights in her unsuccessful tilt at Secretary-general.

There has been widespread criticism at the organisation’s failure to act in the Syria conflict and subsequent refugee crisis.Is its choice of Australia as a human rights leader so strange then?

The role of the UN is, significantly,  also an aspirational one. Members can be encouraged, supported and shamed into better behaviour. With the international spotlight now on it, this might be the time Australia can make strides in its own backyard.

Certainly it should at least attempt to practise what it preaches if it expects to hold others to task.