(Race, Crime, and Justice) Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER) Policy - Essay Example

Running Head: Sociology The Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER) Policy A Discussion Paper Submission (1) Discuss whether or not the Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER) signals a dramatic change in government policy. The Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER) definitely signals a dramatic change in government policy because, according to Michael Dillon and Neil Westbury (2007), it has not been the self-determination regulations that have resulted in the present problem but instead the abandonment of the government of an important involvement in far-flung Australia.

The development of NTER draws on a government-focused strategy so that the changes encompass a broad range of policy services and domains. The government-focused strategy to this policy and its emergency feature renders this a ground-breaking strategy. The NTER is a wide-ranging piece policy that does not merely address the high prevalence of child abuse in the northern territory. It comprises courses of action aimed to resolve different issues, such as: modifying the sentencing system to disallow any special privilege for aboriginal lawbreakers by considering customary law, enhancing federal government supervision of criminal acts against aboriginal children, allow the government to rent indigenous lands, establishing new policies that permit the government to hold back fractions of selected people’s welfare checks, and prohibiting alcohol in particular zones of the northern territory (n.a., 2007).

In actual fact, a large number of the conditions in the NTER Act are not just distinct to fighting child abuse, but were also omitted in the document that the Howard government employed to rationalise its course of action. (2) Does the Northern Territory Emergency Response include a complete rejection of concepts such as self-determination and/or reconciliation? The NTER is an interconnected policy and a group of legislation put into effect in 2007, but that comprise a number of controversial features from an aboriginal human rights viewpoint (Calma, 2007).

NTER, to a certain extent, rejects self-determination. The policy has profound repercussions for an array of basic human rights, particularly those related to the right to non-discrimination. It is my contention that the conditions of the NTER are irreconcilable with the human rights duties of Australia. The Northern Territory policy of the Howard administration is founded on the premise that aboriginal social systems are defective, and have to be repaired by mainstream political and economic strategies (Calma, 2007).

A severe continuation of colonial regulations and traditions rejects global human rights and endangers an age-old distinct culture, for the benefit of economic development. In order for aboriginal culture to be safeguarded and preserved Australians should give up an extent of national independence to facilitate self-determination signified in constitutional prerequisites. Referencesn.a. (2007). “Restoring Social Order through Tackling ‘Passive Welfare’: The Statutory Intent of the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 (Cth) and Social Security and Other Legislation” Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 19(2), 1-9.Calma, T. (2007).

“The Northern Territory ‘Emergency Response’ intervention- A human rights analysis” Social Justice Report, pp. 197-233.Dillon, M. & Westbury, N. (2007). Beyond humbug: transforming government engagement with indigenous Australia. West Lakes, S. Australia: Seaview Press.