▋場次：CRPD 第二次國家報告國際審查會議：委員會與非政府組織會議（三）

▋時間：2022 年 8 月 3 日 09:00

▋地點：南港展覽館二館 7 樓 701 AB

▋發言：黃嵩立｜人權公約施行監督聯盟召集人、台灣國際學聯盟秘書長

▋聯合團體：人權公約施行監督聯盟、台灣國際醫學聯盟、台灣廢除死刑推動聯盟

1. 政府應建立機制，持續向國際專家就CRPD進行諮商
   1. 沒有人對CRPD有完美的理解，但我認為審查委員會可以同意我的觀點，即政府官員，包括那些負責執行《公約》的官員，他們的理解是不完整，有時是有偏見的。 我們昨天聽到政府的答覆與直接違反公約第12、14、15和21條。
   2. 我們感謝委員會成員在這幾天的審查過程中提供的意見，但我認為政府需要建立一種機制，使官員能夠定期諮詢國際專業知識，以便他們有能力對相關條文進行更符合原旨的解釋。

2. 國家人權委員會（NHRC）應致力於符合第33條第2款的獨立機制
   1. 台灣國家人權委員會設立在監察院。國家人權委員會成員的主要職責是人權專員，但他們也擁有監察員的權力。
   2. 由於台灣官員參與關於CRPD的國際討論非常有限，因此NHRC有可能發揮重要作用。例如，當立法和政策不符合CRPD時，國家人權委員會成員可以糾正官員，或者可以就個人申訴決定國家是否疏於履行國家義務。
   3. 為了能夠正確地完成這些工作，國家人權委員會需要比該國其他任何人都更能掌握CRPD的方方面面。這意味著國家人權委員會需要研究相關的聯合國文件和國際判例。只有當國家人權委員會致力於學習，才能做到這一點。
   4. 國家人權委員會還應制定關於從政府統計和調查中，以及直接與身心障礙者諮商中收集資料的程序和工作方法，以便能夠監測CRPD的執行情況。為此，國家人權委員會應該參考聯合國已經驗證的各種方法，例如聯合國的CRPD人權指標。
   5. 如果全國人權委員會成員都忙著當監察委員，這些期望就不會實現。這是對人權職責的背叛。

3. 稅制改革
   1. CRPD委員會第6號一般性意見談到了包容性平等的四個向度，第一個是「公平的重分配」，以扭轉社會經濟劣勢。
   2. 為了實現這一目標，需要一個公平和累進的稅收制度來實現有效的再分配。
   3. 在這方面，我們必須檢查國家的總稅收，以租稅負擔率（總稅收佔GDP的百分比）來代表。 臺灣的租稅負擔率在過去幾年介於5%到13.3%之間。如果我們加上社會安全捐，這一比例約為18%，遠低於 日本（約30%）和英國（約33%）。在如此低的稅收收入下，臺灣只能為有需要的人提供不足的社會服務和支援。
   4. 建議政府評估是否應改革稅收制度，特別是增加資本利得稅，以維持 對身心障礙者基本權利的必要支援。

4. 就與障礙者有關的事項進行廣泛協商和直接參與
   1. 我們在過去幾天裡聽到的一個問題，每當問題涉及身新障礙者的參與時，政府都會提到一個委員會。 根據身心障礙者權益保障法第10條，中央政府部級機關和地方政府都必須設立一個委員會，通常稱為身心障礙者權利促進和保護小組。
   2. 這是不夠的，原因有幾個：第一，障礙者最多佔這些會議與會者的三分之一，因此他們在會議中沒有最終決定權；第二，這些會議的議程不是由障礙者決定的，許多重要問題沒有列入該小組討論範圍；第三，在這些會議時往往沒有考慮到障礙者的特殊需要。
   3. 政府機構應努力瞭解並找到減少獲取政府資訊和參與決策的障礙的方法，並嘗試以直接和多樣化的方式收集投入，而不是依靠這些委員會有限的成員。
   4. 如果委員會要建議政府起草實施CRPD的國家行動計劃，直接諮詢障礙者的過程尤其重要。

For an English Joint Statement, please see below.

Covenants Watch, Taiwan International Medical Alliance, Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty

Please excuse me for being frank in the following comments.

1. The government should establish a mechanism for continuous consultation on CRPD by international experts
   1. No one has perfect understanding of the CRPD, but I think the review committee can agree with me that the understanding by government officials, including those who are responsible for implementing the Convention, is incomplete and sometimes biased.
   2. We heard yesterday government replies that are in direct contradiction to Articles 12, 14, 15, and 21.
   3. We appreciate the inputs from committee members during the review process in these few days, but I think the government needs to establish a mechanism by which officials can consult international expertise on a regular basis, so that they acquire the capacity for more authentic interpretation of relevant articles.
2. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) should fulfill the expectations of an independent mechanism compliant with paragraph 2 of Article 33.
   1. Taiwan’s NHRC was established within the Control Yuan, the ombudsman institution. NHRC members have the major duty of human rights commissioners, but they also have the power of ombudsman.
   2. Because Taiwan’s officials have very limited participation in international discussions on CRPD, the NHRC is potentially positioned to play important roles. For example, NHRC members can correct officials when legislations and policies are not compliant with the CRPD, or they may decide on personal complaints whether the state has failed its obligations.
   3. To be able to perform these jobs properly, the NHRC needs to master the ins and outs of CRPD more than anyone else in the country. This means that the NHRC needs to study relevant UN documents and international jurisprudence. This can only be done when the NHRC is committed to learning.
   4. The NHRC should also establish protocols and working methods on the collection of data, both from government statistics and surveys, and directly from consultation with persons with disabilities, so that it can monitor the implementation of the CRPD. For this purpose it should take as reference various methods already validified by the UN, such as the UN Human rights Indicators on the CRPD.
   5. None of these expectations would be realized if NHRC members are all busy playing the roles of ombudsman. It is a betrayal of duties.
3. Evaluate and consider tax reform
   1. In general comment No 6 the CRPD committee speaks about four dimensions of inclusive equality, and the first one is “fair redistributive dimension” to address socioeconomic disadvantages.
   2. To achieve that goal, a fair and progressive tax system is required to achieve effective redistribution.
   3. In this regard, we have to examine the tax revenue, represented by tax-to-GDP ratio. The ratio in Taiwan ranges from 12.5 to 13.3% in recent years. If we add social security contributions, the ratio is about 18%, much lower than Japan (around 30%) and the UK (around 33%). With such low tax revenue, Taiwan can only provide inadequate social services and support to persons in need.
   4. We recommend that the government evaluate whether the tax system should be reformed, particularly an increase in capital gain tax, to sustain necessary support for the fundamental rights of persons with disabilities.
4. Engage in wide consultation and direct participation on matters related to disabilities

1. 1. As we’ve heard in the past few days, whenever the question was about participation by persons with disabilities, the government refers to a committee. According to Article 10 of the Persons with Disabilities Rights Protection Act, both central government at the ministry level and local government at the municipality level, are required to establish a committee, often called a group or a taskforce to promote and protect the rights of persons with disabilities.
   2. This is insufficient for several reasons: First, persons with disabilities constitute at most one third of the participants in these meetings, so they don’t have the final say in the meetings; Second, the agenda of these meetings is not decided by person with disabilities, and many important issues are not included for discussion; Thirdly, meetings are often organized without taking into account the special needs of persons with disabilities.
   3. Government agencies should strive to understand and find ways to reduce barriers to accessing government information and participating in decision-making, and try to collect inputs in a direct and diverse way, rather than relying on the limited membership of these committees.
   4. This consultation process is particularly important if the committee is to recommend that the government drafts a National Action Plan to Implement the CRPD.