Today, the Senate is due to debate - and possibly pass - legislation that will
undermine the human rights of Aboriginal communities in the
Northern Territory until 2022.
Despite the failure of punitive policies to improve the wellbeing of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, the Government looks set to
renew and even expand some of the harshest measures under the Howard Government's Northern Territory Emergency Response for ten more years.
If passed, the Stronger Futures legislation would:
- Introduce the most severe social security penalty in living memory – a 13 week non-payment period – for parents and carers whose children are not attending school regularly.
- Reinstate prison sentences for possession of alcohol on Aboriginal Land, including up to 6 months imprisonment for a single can of beer.
- Extend bans on the judiciary considering Aboriginal customary law and cultural practice in bail and sentencing decisions.
United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Dr.
James Anaya, has
condemned Australia for laws which: “overtly discriminate against aboriginal peoples, infringe their right of self-determination and stigmatize already stigmatized communities”.
The Government held consultations with communities for just six weeks before declaring a mandate from the community to enact its policy agenda.
Aboriginal people attending public meetings were told they could not discuss two of the most controversial measures: income management and prohibitions on judges considering customary law in bail and sentencing.
In Senate Committee hearings, communities expressed their confusion and anxiety about the proposed laws. Many were not even aware of the Government's plans.
Without a groundswell of opposition, this legislation could be rubber stamped by politicians and implemented until at least 2022.
Its effects would be serious and long-term.
No comments:
Post a Comment
This blog does not take Anonymous comments. Experience shows that comments cluttered with "Anonymous" are boring and people don't know whether "Anonymous" is one person or many. This is not a decision about freedom of speech. It is a decision about boring or unwillingness to be known by even a pseudonym.