Where does the right to social security come from?
❂Via the Australian Attorney Generals website:
“Australia is a party to seven core international human rights treaties. The right to social security is contained in article 9 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
See also article 5(e)(iv) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) , articles 11(1)(e) and 14(2)(c) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women , article 26 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and article 28 of the Convention on the Rights of people with disability (CRPD).”
❂International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights:
ICESCR Article 9 states: “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance”
❂Articles 22 and 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights :
“Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to soSocial security…” “Everyone has the right to Social security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”
▶Can the right to social security be limited?
❂Article 4 of ICESCR provides that countries may subject economic social and cultural rights only to such limitations ‘as are determined by law only in so far as this may be compatible with the nature of these rights and solely for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a democratic society’.
❂The UN Committee has stated that such limitations must be proportional and the least restrictive alternative where several types of limitations are available, and even where such limitations are permitted, they should be of limited duration and subject to review.”
This is where the LNP are overreaching their authority:
➡The CDC targets those who do not fit stated target criteria and their justification for the program ie: those who do not drink, use drugs, use violence or commit crimes under influence or gamble. Therefore it is not, when reasonably considered, a proportionate response to the stated program goal.
➡ Forced third party income management and economic segregation, is NOT the ” least restrictive’ option available to this government it is in fact the most restrictive option available.
➡The current legislation limits full and equal application of protection under law for forced CDC trial participants, excluding them from accessing in full, their rights and protections contained within the Social Security Act 1999 and Disability, Rights of Child, Racial and other Non Disctimination Acts that would ordinarily apply to them.
➡The current Act and CDC legislation has NO requirement for review. NONE. Just an ‘end date’ and the Goldfields CDC cards are showing 2021 as a expiry date.
These points, individually and when combined, therefore demonstrate that the CDC does NOT meet this required criteria.
CDC INQUIRY SUBMISSIONS TO NOTE:
❂ Australian Human Rights Commission submission to the Cashless Debit Card Senate inquiry 2017. https://www.facebook.com/SAYNOSEVEN/posts/503449913383161
❂ The Consumer Action Law Centre submission (#26) to the CDC Senate inquiry 2017 : https://www.facebook.com/SAYNOSEVEN/posts/503720886689397
❂The Law Council of Australia submission to the CDC Inquiry. Submission #30 https://www.facebook.com/SAYNOSEVEN/posts/503483763379776
Unfortunately, government has access to a clause in our Social Security Act which stipulates that all Social Security payments are ‘ subject to legislative amendement’.
This government has used that ‘tool’ written into the Act and widened its ordinary definition to include empowering them to ‘amend’ our human and civil/disability/racial and other rights and protections under the Act as well, rather than just defining who is/isnt able to receive payments..
That is where the difficulty lies with regard to class actions/court cases. They are not ‘exactly’ breaking the law per say, they are bending it to an inch of its life and in our view, misusing the original intention and spirit of it.
They have simply dismissed the Human Rights Commissioners statement and the recommendations of the HRC as a group, as well as other recommendations from the Law Society and other legally qualified groups – this is a serious matter in itself, and so, it is up to the HRC to stand by its statement that this program does not meet human rights standards, and act on it before any of us are liekly to get a chance.
We feel that the HRC will need to lead the legal pathway and instigate any legal challenge to the Act itself, which they havent and are unlikely to as the HRC are hanging by a political thread themselves and the IPA and LNP using Cory Bernadi, want to abolsih the Federal Commission and repatriate the matter of upholding Human Rights to the States.
We dont need a degree in metaphysics to foresee that such a shift could place these State run commissions in the LNP’s political hands as oposed to its current Federal auspice if they lose the next federal election. It also and most importantly pushes Human Rights over all, even further away from the cabinet room making it more likely they will be ignored or sumarily dismissed.
See Cori’s HRC abolition private members Bill here: https://www.aph.gov.au/…/Bills…/Bills_Search_Results/Result…
CDC 2017 Legislation here:
Social Security at 1999 here: