The power to require production of a document may not need to be used because again its mere existence is sufficient to ensure that the document is produced. Strong powers are essential for the effective conduct of a national inquiry, even if those powers are never used. Because NHRIs, unlike NGOs and academic bodies, possess these powers, they are well placed to conduct a national inquiry into a systemic pattern of human rights violation. 2.2. WHY HOLD A NATIONAL INQUIRY? Professor Brian Burdekin, who pioneered the national inquiry process when he was Human Rights Commissioner in Australia, lists nine reasons to conduct a national inquiry. 10 1. First, through a national inquiry, a large number of individual complaints can be dealt with in a proactive and cost-effective way – including cases of individuals who for various reasons, including disability, isolation or ignorance of the Human Rights Commission’s mandate or even its existence, would not have been able to approach the institution for assistance. 2. Second, the process of preparing terms of reference for the inquiry should be conducted in consultation with NGOs and others representing, or advocating on behalf of, affected individuals. This process has a dual benefit – in enhancing NGOs’ understanding of the NHRI’s role and in enabling the institution to better inform itself by consultations with those in the community directly involved in the relevant issues. 3. Third, conducting public hearings open to the media is an extremely cost-effective way of educating both the general public about the institution and its responsibilities and also informing particular groups within the community who have specific responsibilities for the issues being investigated and their human rights implications. These “groups” include politicians responsible for framing legislation and programmes and bureaucrats responsible for policy advice. 4. Fourth, a national inquiry can most effectively address systemic violations of human rights – based on the evidence from individual cases, but also embracing an examination of the laws, policies and programmes (or lack of them) which have given rise to the violations in question. It is important to understand that many of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged groups, who most need the assistance of NHRIs, have been victims of widespread, systematic and sometimes systemic discrimination. 5. Fifth, as the national inquiries concerning homeless young people, indigenous peoples and those affected by mental illness clearly demonstrate, information assembled on a national basis, through hearings, submissions and research, enables the institution to effectively discharge its advisory functions in respect of legislation and government policies and programmes. 6. Sixth, since such inquiries afford opportunities to politicians, bureaucrats and other independent agencies, to present their views in submissions or at hearings, this strategy enables the NHRI to strengthen its cooperation with other important “institutions”. 7. Seventh, based on experience, the scope of the national inquiry illustrates and educates, better than any other strategy, the indivisibility and interdependence of civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights. This is important for achieving practical results – particularly in jurisdictions where civil and political rights are regarded as being justiciable – but economic, social and cultural rights are not. 8. Eighth, as the national inquiries on homeless children and the human rights of those affected by mental illness demonstrate, these inquiries are premised on the principles prescribed in relevant international human rights treaties and other instruments. This is an extremely effective way of actually “implementing” these standards – by using them as benchmarks against which national laws, policies and programmes can be assessed. 9. Finally, the community awareness and political pressure generated by a well-publicised national inquiry maximises the likelihood that the NHRI’s recommendations to the parliament and/or Government will produce practical results. In the world of human rights institutions, integrity and good intentions are important – but credibility in the community comes only with the capacity to demonstrate that the institution is effective – and produces significant results.10 “National Inquiries” in National Human Rights Institutions in the Asia Pacific Region; Brian Burdekin, with Jason Naum; 2007. Chapter 2: The concept of a national inquiry | 7