A/HRC/15/37/Add.4 argument is offered only summarily, without any explanation of what the different standards are or how they might apply to justify the NTER. In any case, the Special Rapporteur is of the considered view that the NTER’s racially discriminatory aspects could no more qualify as “legitimate differential treatment” than they could as “special measures”. 63. The Special Rapporteur stresses that any Government measures that discriminate on the basis of race must, in order to comply with Australia’s human rights obligations, survive the highest scrutiny and be found to be proportional and necessary to advance valid objectives. As noted above, after having been in place for well more than two years, the discriminatory measures of the NTER cannot be found necessary to the legitimate objectives they are intended to serve, if the discriminatory treatment is not shown to actually be achieving the intended results. 64. In response to the Special Rapporteur’s assertion that the evidence of such success is ambiguous at best, the Government only provides specific information to show some success in the income management regime. No evidence of success by the other NTER measures is offered. Of course the Special Rapporteur welcomes any improvement in the living conditions of indigenous peoples, especially the most vulnerable among them, although he is aware that the Government’s interpretation of the data in this regard is disputed. Yet, even accepting the Government’s account of such improvements as a result of income management, one can only speculate how the compulsory aspects of the income management regime that discriminate on the basis of race have been necessary elements leading to the improvement. The question is not simply whether the NTER measures are yielding results; but whether the discriminatory, rights-impairing aspects of the measures are themselves proportional and necessary to the results. The Special Rapporteur reaffirms his assessment that the evidence in this regard is ambiguous at best. 65. In any event, the Special Rapporteur commends the Government for taking the initiative to engage in wide-ranging consultation with affected indigenous people and to reform the NTER. Without specifically opining on the content of the reforms the Government has proposed, the Special Rapporteur notes that he is aware that the reforms are being vigorously debated by stakeholders and challenged by some as insufficient. The Special Rapporteur is also aware, as noted in paragraph 32, supra, of significant criticisms against the very consultative process that the Government contends meets the standard of free, prior and informed consent. Thus, open to question is the extent to which the Government’s proposed NTER reforms can indeed be said to count on broad support among the affected indigenous people. 66. In conclusion, the Special Rapporteur reaffirms the recommendations provided in paragraphs 36–41, while reiterating the need to fully purge the NTER of its racially discriminatory character and conform it to relevant international standards, through a process genuinely driven by the voices of the affected indigenous people. GE.10-13887 41