A/HRC/15/37/Add.4 according to the information received by the Special Rapporteur, the NTER measures have had the effect of generating or heightening racist attitudes among the public and the media against Aboriginal people. Concern has been expressed especially about the stigmatizing effects of the large signs at the entrance to prescribed areas announcing the alcohol and pornography bans, and of the special government-issued BasicsCard that is mandatory for purchasing essential household items. 25. The Special Rapporteur finds credible assertions that, in general, the design of the NTER provisions animates perceptions of indigenous peoples as being somehow responsible for their present disadvantaged state. The special government-appointed independent board established to evaluate the NTER, the NTER Review Board, noted that “there is a strong sense of injustice that Aboriginal people and their culture have been seen as exclusively responsible for problems within their communities that have arisen from decades of cumulative neglect by governments in failing to provide the most basic standards of health, housing, education and ancillary services enjoyed by the wider Australian community”.11 26. After considered evaluation of the totality of circumstances, and with the objectives of the relevant international human rights instruments in mind, the Special Rapporteur is not convinced that the particular aspects of the NTER that limit or impair rights are justified by and proportional to the legitimate aims of the NTER. When government measures not only apply differential treatment to indigenous peoples, but also limit or condition their enjoyment of human rights and cast a stigmatizing shadow upon them, the most exacting inquiry must apply. To find the rights-limiting, discriminatory measures of the NTER to be justified would require a careful assessment that they are strictly necessary to the achievement of the legitimate NTER objectives, that those objectives somehow override the rights and freedoms being limited, and that there is an absence of suitable alternatives. 27. At this stage, after more than two years of the NTER being operative, such an assessment would have to be based, at a minimum, on clear evidence that the NTER is in fact yielding results in terms of its stated objectives and that the rights-limiting aspects of the programme are in fact necessary contributing factors to those results. To date, the evidence in this respect is at best ambiguous.12 The Government has reported certain improvements in access to food and in safety for indigenous women and children, on the basis of consultations with indigenous individuals subsequent to the adoption of the NTER measures.13 However, even assuming such improvements, there is no evidence that the rights-impairing discriminatory aspects of the NTER have been necessary. 28. The Special Rapporteur is of the view that there must be better alternatives to the current NTER scheme that could incorporate a holistic approach to advancing the security and well-being of indigenous women and children along with the well-being and rights of all indigenous individuals and of the communities that they constitute. Several indigenous women with whom the Special Rapporteur met pleaded for such a holistic approach while explaining that their rights as indigenous women are inextricably bound to their capacity to 11 12 13 32 Report of the NTER Review Board, p. 9. For example, in its report monitoring NTER activities for the period January 2009 to June 2009, the Government identified data showing significant increases during that period in reported incidents of alcohol-related and domestic violence, and of child abuse, although it could be that these increases are at least in part due to an increase in reporting to the police of such incidences. FaHCSIA, Closing the Gap in the Northern Territory: January 2009 to June 2009, Whole of the Government Monitoring Report – Part One, Overview of Measures, pp. 31–33. See Australian Government, Report of the Northern Territory Emergency Response Redesign Consultations (2009). GE.10-13887