Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Discrimination as usual for Australia’s Indigenous policy

By Robyn Seth-Purdie - posted Monday, 15 February 2010


Government consultations and Amnesty International’s research in prescribed communities revealed that some people do consider measures such as compulsory income management, and alcohol and gambling restrictions to be beneficial. This is in the context of problems such as humbugging and alcohol and drug-fuelled violence.

But the fact remains that these measures curtail rights available to the rest of the Australian community. It is not clear that restrictions, such as compulsory income management, are improving the welfare of residents living in communities subjected to these measures, particularly women and children. From the evidence available - and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare notes that it is of poor quality, in part due to the failure to set up baseline measurements - there has been no clear improvement in child welfare, rates of domestic violence or school attendance. There are no other indicators that the gap is being closed.

Above all, community members have not given their consent to being the subjects of extraordinary restrictions. As Amnesty International and the government’s own review of the intervention found, there is widespread community resentment of racially-targeted measures. For many Indigenous peoples these measures are a forcible reminder of the paternalistic, intrusive control and egregious discrimination of the past.

Advertisement

The Bills widen the already considerable discretions of the Minister for Families, Housing and Community Services in relation to prescribed areas, and compulsory welfare quarantining. It is proposed that some of these powers be exercised in a delegated instrument not subject to disallowance by the Senate.

Even the most liberalising reforms in the Bills - the possibility of obtaining exemptions from compulsory income quarantining or special benefits for submitting to it - have not been developed with the individuals who will be affected. They don’t meet UN human rights standards for ensuring that the marginalised enjoy the right to social security on the basis of equality with others.

Indigenous people in Australia need human rights protections. They need the government to fulfill its international human rights obligations to ensure equality before the law.

As the ALP 2007 Platform acknowledges, “historical policies are a fundamental cause of poverty and marginalisation today”. These proposed laws provide no assurance that the Australian community will not be faced with this reflection as it contemplates the current policy in some years’ time.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

8 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Since joining Amnesty International Australia in 2007, Robyn Seth-Purdie has briefed UN treaty bodies in New York and Geneva on Australia's human rights performance. She contributes lectures to the Masters in Social Policy Course at the ANU and has published papers in social policy, governance and public administration. She has a long and varied background in the public sector, including policy analysis and review, program management, complaint investigation (with the Commonwealth Ombudsman) and research on inquiries. She has a PhD in Psychology and a Diploma in Jurisprudence from the University of Sydney and is a member of the Australian Institute of Management Consultants.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Robyn Seth-Purdie

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 8 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy