*does a little dance for churches*
Jul. 8th, 2007 08:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
highlyeccentricAUSTRALIA'S 43 Catholic bishops have attacked the unequal application of welfare payment restrictions to Aboriginal parents as racially discriminatory and counterproductive.
Cabinet's in-principle support for the plan to link welfare payments to school attendances and children's wellbeing for all Aborigines, but only for those non-indigenous families regarded by authorities as negligent, probably breached Australia's own laws and its international obligations, they said.
The bishops' criticisms form part of a rising tide of opposition to the detail of the Federal Government's emergency plan to crack down on child abuse in the Northern Territory. The Uniting Church, Wesley Mission and the National Council of Churches have also criticised it.
The bishops welcomed the Government's high priority to child abuse, but said much more than a "law and order response" was needed to address the "shameful state of affairs" in Aboriginal communities. Effective solutions could not simply be imposed from above and solutions to child poverty, child abuse and homelessness required long-term and adequate funding.
although i note that the UCA and Wesley Mission are treated as separate entities... hmmm...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-07-07 12:13 pm (UTC)Firstly, the legislature can change the law in order to implement the proposal. So they can't actually really be in conflict; the idea is absurd, as it implies that the current law can bind future parliaments.
Secondly, Australia doesn't have any international obligations. The only consequence of the breach of international instruments is some political kerfuffle - no legal ramifications to speak of.
Grr. Sorry.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-07 12:42 pm (UTC)you're right about that. and the appeal to "law" in what's actually an ethical question isn't really constructive either. If you're going to protest something, one would hope you'd vociferate even more forcefully if the law supported something you found unethical...