Question: for what reasons, then, does Australia and Australia’s States and/or Territories not enforce the ICCPR?

Introduction

In reference to the 'International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)': the statue of the ‘United Nations’ that constitutes part of the 'International Bill of Human Rights' — that is, along with the 'International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)', and the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR))', while the ICCPR provides guidance of legal principle to a number of Australia’s Commonwealth and State and/or Territory basic rights legislation, eg anti-discrimination law, the ICCPR is not seen to be enforced within Australia and any of its States and/or Territories. The ICCPR is the basis of crucial, fundamental human rights, such as ‘personhood’ and to have ‘legal capacity’ to be able to stand before a court and participate with legal proceedings, either with legal representation (eg a lawyer) or as a self-representative litigant (SRL). The ICCPR is not “Americanism” and the American Bill of Rights; the ICCPR is a piece of legislation that is representative of the ‘United Nations’ and for all intensive purposes, the ‘United Nations’ is considered representative of International law and what is deemed to be recognised within the world.  

The explanation (ie the answer) is not as complex as some people care to admit, but the explanation will be met with denial and, therefore, resistance, because the past and current regulations of the Australian Commonwealth government exists largely to ensure that the current “way of life” is conducted to ensure such an explanation is never seen to reach the light of day. That is, except for now: read the issues as below to follow the basis of an argument of indefeasible reasoning that provides ‘a proof’ of the logical answer to the above question.

Issue #1

The 'Commonwealth of Nations (“CoN”)' is rules under the British monarch (ie Queen Elizabeth II — who notably is to abdicate to Charles III during 2021) and under the monarch’s tacit rule, the UK Parliament; it is what would be called the seat of power of CoN (see Diagram I). Now, CoN overall comprises of ‘53 realm members’ and of those realms only a number are deemed to be "Commonwealth realms", and I provide the nickname for these so-called realms: the “Sweet 16” because there are 16 Commonwealth realms, eg as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Cth) causes Australia to have a constitution of a Commonwealth it is deemed a Commonwealth, and all the “lower level” Commonwealths (the "Sweet 16") include:

1. Antigua and Barbuda
2. Australia
3. The Bahamas
4. Barbados
5. Belize
6. Canada
7. Grenada
8. Jamaica
9. New Zealand
10. Papua New Guinea
11. Saint Kitts and Nevis
12. Saint Lucia
13. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
14. Solomon Islands
15. Tuvalu, and
16. the United Kingdom. 

Diagram I: map of Commonwealth of Nations (CoN)

This means, there are 37 other realms within CoN which go without “Commonwealth status”. This further means, there exists a three levelled hierarchy of political representation, because the CoN does not recognise as much representation to do with politics and culture other than that of itself and perhaps some of the Sweet 16, eg Australian culture is recognised but often denigrated by the British as being less refined than their own. Greater political and cultural representation are seen to be afforded to the smaller population of CoN than the Sweet 16 and in reference to the 37 realms almost no representation is made whatsoever.

Issue #2

Enter the ‘United Nations’ — which sees Australia as a “member state” of the 'United Nations', but only inasmuch that Australia exists as a 'de facto state'. This means, that the other members of the 'United Nations' recognise Australia to be part of its Assembly but only on the basis Australia is perceived to be a member, ie perception of membership is all that is taken to be provided so that the appearance of legitimacy to the membership exists; when it comes to the crunch, there is in fact no membership proper. What, then, does this mean? It means, that if perceptions within the 'United Nations' were seen to change (for a number of reasons), such that Australia could be forced out (hypothetically speaking) of the ‘United Nations’, Australia would be considered within such circumstances not to have any written authority to defend against the political pressure that could be applied to coerce exclusion. This is because Australia would need to be 'de jure'; that means, a ‘United Nations’ member that has written (ie legislative) authorization to participate within the ‘United Nations’ in a totally autonomous capacity, such as: France or Japan.

To paraphrase: should any number of the "sweet 16" lower level Commonwealths decide against Australia within International law by way of tacit pressure amongst the Commonwealths, Australia would need to do as the other lower level Commonwealths coerce Australia to do. The slyer thing is though, the higher level Commonwealth, the Commonwealth of Nations, can exert pressure such, that the lower level Commonwealths cover over that pressure as it is seen tacitly applied. The other lower level Commonwealths have to comply with the higher level Commonwealth, because they are in the same situation as Australia, in that such Commonwealths do not have own autonomous governance recognised by the 'United Nations' (ie 'de jure', meaning 'own sovereignty or autonomy').

Issue #3

When Australia and the other lower level Commonwealths (Sweet 16) participate within the ‘United Nations’, and that is under pressure to act, ultimately, for the best interests of the higher Commonwealth (CoN, what then is the case for the 37 nations, deemed as simply 'realms' no less, without any adequately recognised governance known to exist at the world level? These 37 realms include, by grouping of continental area:

AFRICA
Botswana, Cameroon, The Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Kingdom of eSwatini, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia

AMERICAS
Dominica, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago

ASIA
Bangladesh, Brunei, Darussalam, India, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka

EUROPE
Cyprus, Malta

PACIFIC
Fiji Islands, Kiribati, Nauru, Papua, Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu Vanuatu

It would be tempting to provide an answer to such a question, but it is not yet ready to provide. Further ket issues need clarification before return to the 37 realms, which ultimately are not recognised by the 'United Nations'.

Issue #4

The question must be asked in the first instance and not assumed. Does Australia, in fact, have written authority to participate with the ‘United Nations’ independently of the United Kingdom, and, that is, as a state member with our own authority—within the 'de jure' sense—because, we really do have legal authority and capacity to do as such, only that the authority (legislation) is stuffed away somewhere beneath draws and behind desks so that things can go on the way they always have — albeit, now under the dazzle of technological precision?

The answer is: yes; Australia is made independent by the Australia Acts 1985 and 1986; indeed, to the extent, that Australia has no longer been bound to the Royal Assent process in which laws made within Australia need the assent from the UK Monarch, as is stated within the Australia Acts at section 8:

"An Act of the Parliament of a State that has been assented to by the Governor of the State shall not, after the commencement of this Act, be subject to disallowance by Her Majesty, nor shall its operation be suspended pending the signification of Her Majesty’s pleasure thereon."

Issue #5

Issue #4 raises a further issue. What is the reason that Australian politicians continue to send each Australian Commonwealth statute and each Australian State or Territory’s legislation for the Royal Assent, when s 8 Australia Acts say: "nah, you don't have to do that anymore"?

It can only be the case, politicians within Australia are seen to continue to hide the foundations of law which enable autonomy within Australia to exercise lawful relations within the Assembly of the ‘United Nations’, because the Australian parliamentarians cannot be seen to stand up and push for legislative autonomous determination as is decreed by the Australia Acts. This can only be the case because power is still taken to be applied by the British Monarch upon Australia to ensure the domination of CoN.

Issue #6

So then, what about my initial question asked at the start of this post? Now, I have listed the issues #1 - #5 before this last issue #6, because such issues provide context to a highly probable explanation, which is this: that human rights are not being allowed to be enforced in Australia and the other nations of the Sweet 16 (the lower level Commonwealth realms), because human rights violation are permitted to occur within such nations. For what other reason, would the higher level Commonwealth (CoN) be seen not to facilitate the human rights legislation eg the ICCPR? What's the big complication involved for — when it is a simple matter, as to make human rights from the ‘United Nations’ legislation to be enforced, not only within the lower Commonwealths, but the 37 realms as identified at Issue #3? There is no need for complication such as there is, and that can be seen only to be established for the purpose of diffusing human rights laws within the Sweet 16, and often to the point, there is no law instated to regulate against the non-enforcement of human rights. As for the 37 realms: an existence of Statelessness is seen to thrive, such that human rights are diminished so that there is no violation when inhuman conduct is carried out: there are no explicitly enforced laws which stop such behaviour from occurrence.

Sadly, there is the only one possible next logical step to make within this argument and that is, that the same old saga of slavery and trade in slavery is taking place and taking place right under our very noses. This because wherever there are found to be non-existent human rights within a realm or quasi-jurisdiction, the imperialism emerges in such conduct that finds its truest expression within the master-slave relation. There can be no other explanation by way of logic; no aspect of governmental administrative negligence could explain for the sly institution of resistance set against the application of the ‘United Nations' key human rights statutes, which protect people principally from enslavement. Slavery is the core aspect of the imperialistic mindset, such as defines the UK. Without it, it can no longer lord it over the lower realms' populations and get to feel important; and that sensation of importance can now be seen as apparently risked at the cost of complete and under International condemnation that must be seen to unfold in this unveiling of utterly unjust "CoN" relation within its internal systems of governance such that what is not shown makes representation within the greater ‘United Nations’ system. What else could such refusal to apply human rights to, not so much the lower Commonwealths, but the realms as named at Issue #3, but the "old ways" of master over slave? (Note, slave means 'chattel', which means a person is reduced to no more than an "object" , an expendable belonging, and that treatment of a person leads to total dehumanisation, for both so-called master and slave — the master becomes “the machine” that objectifies).

Answer

Now, resistance will be expected from accepting this overwhelmingly clear argument. As such, I will draw attention to the fact, the 37 realms (of Issue #3) are the very same realms which were used for the trade of slaves over a hundred and fifty years ago. The same, and they are still found to be without grounded or developed histories; are still imagined by the so-called first world nations to be places of faceless, worthless persons: born into the world nameless to leave the world just as much “without a trace”. The power is applied to the so-called lesser nations from CoN and to the extent media is censored to prevent such matters being brought to light; indeed, in the same way that Australia’s parliaments can be seen to abide to an ignorance of s 8 of the Australia Acts 1986. Continuance to pursue the Royal Assent process, when it is not only no longer relevant, but impeding to Australia’s own autonomy, cannot be seen as applied within, but from without, by ‘Commonwealth of Nations, CoN, ie the UK.

Furthermore, it is absurd to think, that such poor nations, as are the “37 realms”, are kept within apparent protections of CoN from other world powers (eg China), without some price to be paid.   The expense of governance made by the British monarchy under the impression of generosity of spirit must only be a fallacy, when generosity of spirit would see to it, political authority be seen extended to such impoverished nations, and, at the very least, to enable human rights legislation within such realms to prevent slavery. The resistance to enforce basic human rights is caused out of the motivation to keep such people under total control; as slaves no less.

Diagram II: the smallest population, ie UK, has more rights

Thus, due to the continued practice of slavery and trade in slavery throughout the Commonwealth of Nations (CoN), Australia as a lower Commonwealth to higher offers a middle level of polity within the overall CoN system, to diffuse the perception and “machinery” of laws of the Commonwealth of Nations, so that when the 37 realms are ever considered within human rights legislation, per the ‘United Nations’, it is to a very minimal extent: the Sweet 16 can offer a guise of humane treatment, eg Antigua and Barbuda.   

Where Australia is seen to be extended the scope of non-enforcement of human rights, it offers a point of distraction, as do the other Sweet 16, so that it offers somewhat an appearance that no injustice occurs; human rights appear to be applied by the British monarch and UK government, even though it is clearly the case, the 'International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)' is not enforced within Australia; the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is no more than an illusion; such illusions are expensive to maintain, such that exploitation of the people of the lower levels both the Sweet 16 and 37 realms comes in the forms of slavery and exploitation of the land.