Australian Human Rights Commission Australia and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), Shadow report to the CERD Committee – 8 July 2010 The Commission is concerned that there has been a failure to require consent for measures that are intended to be ‘special measures’ for the purposes of the RDA and Australia’s human rights obligations. For example, the alcohol restrictions measure in the NTER have not been developed with adequate community consultation and do not meet the requirements of consent for a special measure. Also, to be consistent with the RDA, measures relating to the management of land must be taken with the consent of the landowners. The redesigned five-year leases therefore remain inconsistent with the RDA in this respect. 57 In the Commission’s view, it is preferable that measures that may limit the rights of people of a particular racial group are designed so as to be nondiscriminatory under the RDA, rather than justified as special measures. The Commission has serious concerns about the inappropriate classification of State actions as ‘special measures’, particularly in relation to measures that intentionally discriminate on the basis of race and which are formulated without the participation and the acceptance of Indigenous peoples • The broad categories of ‘disadvantaged youth’ and ‘long-term welfare payment recipients’ are not sufficiently targeted to comply with a human rights based approach to income management. The Commission has noted that the preferred features for an income management measure that would make it consistent with international human rights standards include: - - voluntary/ opt-in approaches - rather than automatic quarantining or an exemption approach a last-resort approach for targeted risk areas such as child protection (that is supported by case management and support services), akin to the Family Responsibilities Commission model in Queensland - rather than automatic quarantining and a defined period of income management, where the timeframe for compulsory quarantining is proportionate to the context. • The Commission is concerned that Indigenous peoples will be more vulnerable to being subjected to income management under these categories than non-Indigenous peoples. This risk stems from the limited access to education, training and employment for Aboriginal people, particularly in remote communities in the Northern Territory, and the consequent high proportion of Aboriginal people accessing welfare payments for extended periods. There is also a large Aboriginal youth population in the Northern Territory, many of whom also have difficulties accessing education, training and employment. • The Commission is also concerned that including domestic violence as a trigger for being income-managed as a ‘vulnerable welfare payment recipient’ under the redesigned income management scheme, could place women in situations of domestic violence at greater risk of harm. Centrelink Social Workers currently provide women who have experienced domestic violence with information on entitlements and 19