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.
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