2001
2001.1. Definition of Charities and Related Organisations
Submitted 16 January 2001 to the Department of the Treasury, Australia.
Published: Victorian Humanist, Feb. 2001: 4.
Inquiry into the Definition of Charities and related Organisations. In we made these points:
• Humanist lifestance: its precepts and aims and areas of interest.
• The HSV’s activities; it is [a] voluntary, not-for-profit organisation; its provisions for continuing education, for participation in debates on ethical and social issues and contributing an informed view to surveys of public opinion, and for social interaction and group participation.
• Charities should be defined as organisations which offer constructive help irrespective of recipients’ commitment, gender, ethic origins and in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
• The current social environment in Australia is increasingly secular as shown by several indicators
• Commercial and non-commercial activities of charities and related organisation should be distinguished in their classification.
• Lobbying should be defined as an action which fosters commercial or political gain, and not that which responds to calls for public opinion (such as this submission).
• The HSV is excluded from obtaining tax deducibility status and other privileges accorded to the churches in Australia. We contrast this with systems in some [other] countries, [such as] Norway, Holland, Belgium, where state funds are allocated on equal basis to secular groups and churches.
––––––––––
2001.2. Racial and Religious Tolerance Legislation
Submitted 22 February 2001 to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Department of Multicultural Affairs, Victoria.
Published: Victorian Humanist, March 2001: 3.
The following points were made in our response to the proposed Racial & Religious Tolerance Legislation (Victorian government Department of Multicultural Affairs):
• We support this initiative and the proposed educational campaign against racial vilification which we regard as an abuse of freedom of speech.
• We strongly support the inclusion of those who do not hold a belief in the supernatural and do not engage in religious activities.
• Freedom from vilification, threats and persecution is a part of charters, covenants and Bills of Rights in most civilised countries.
• The context in which abusive words or actions occur is vital to their interpretation.
• The following should not constitute vilification:
(a) serious and critical debate on religious tenets and laws;
(b) condemnation of acts of brutality which are religious and cultural practices;
(c) “blasphemy”: this legislation should not protect the honour or reputation of gods;
(d) satire: good natured mockery or lampooning.
• Only individuals should be protected from personal abuse and threats.
––––––––––
2001.4. National Privacy Guidelines
Submitted 4 July 2001 to the Federal Privacy Commissioner.
Published: Victorian Humanist, Aug. 2001: 3.
On the Draft National Privacy Principle Guidelines sent to the Federal Privacy Commissioner’s Office, we made the following comments:
• We regret that these guidelines are not legally binding as are the Data Directive enacted by the European Union in 1995. The Data Directive gives full protection, in all member countries, of the privacy of citizen’s personal information.
• We suggested that, in view of the rapid growth in both bio- and information technology, these guidelines and accompanying legislation should carry short “sunset” clauses and so be open for regular reviews.
• Health issues are of primary concern: information on genetic data, disability and the donation of body parts is to be regarded as strictly confidential.
• Collection and disclosure of health information by law enforcement agencies, e.g. private prisons, should be defined with precision and monitored by an independent agency.
• Where a serious threat exists to life of an individual or to the public, disclosure should be mandatory. We recall the 1987 shootings in Hoddle and Queen Streets, Melbourne, where the perpetrators were known to their counsellors as potentially dangerous to others.
• Properly de-identified health records should be released after some years for epidemiological research rather than destroyed.
• The public should be informed and encouraged to prepare “advance directives” or so-called “living wills” on all aspects of health care including the matter of records disclosure.
• Though cultural issues require a sensitive approach, we do not believe that practices which violate the statutes of this country should be able to claim the right to nondisclosure on the grounds of confidentiality. We refer to harmful practices by some pseudo-religious groups: child marriages, female genital mutilation, social isolation, etc.
• We observe that the claim “commercial-in-confidence” is sometimes used to avoid scrutiny and thus is abuse of the right to privacy. Organisations in all sectors should be accountable.
––––––––––
2001.5. A.B.C. Board Appointments
Submitted (?) 2001 to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and Information Technology, Parliament of Australia, and the Arts References Committee
Published: Victorian Humanist, Sept. 2001: 4.
ABC Board Appointments
The Humanist Society of Victoria strongly supports the role of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as a national, independent and comprehensive broadcaster.
We pointed out that we had previously written to the Minister of Communications, Senator Richard Alston, expressing our concern with the government’s lack of commitment to adequate three-year funding and decisions made by the ABC Board and management which contradict the ABCs charter.
We pointed out that while reducing funding has hampered the ability of the ABC to consistently deliver high quality programs, we also considered that the Board’s appointment of Jonathan Shier as Managing Director, a person with little experience and commitment to public broadcasting, has further reduced the capacity of the ABC to deliver quality broadcasting. Shier’s appointment is widely perceived as a product of a Board composed of members, many of whom have publicly identified links to the government. This marked politicisation of the Board’s composition has greatly reduced public confidence in the objectivity of its decision making.
We said we appreciated the opportunity to put our views on the ABC Board Appointments, and believed that it is essential that new methods be put in place that increase public confidence in ABC Board and management decision making.
We pointed out the three groups with a special interest in the ABC:
• the people of Australia as listeners and viewers,
• those who work for the ABC,
• the government who fund the ABC.
We said that the ABC as a statuary body [was] set up to fulfil its charter independently of the government of the day. Thus the composition of the Board, including its Chairman, should be seen as truly independent.
Recommendations for ABC Board Appointments
1. That a parliamentary committee, whose membership accurately mirrors the proportional strength of the various political parties and non-party independents in both houses of the Federal parliament, be charged with appointing three-quarters [of] the ABC Board members for three-year terms.
2. That this parliamentary committee be newly appointed after each election.
3. That this committee should make its choice from persons nominated through a public advertising process. This process should take the form of notices in newspapers, on radio and television and in other public platforms, inviting suggestions for Board membership.
4. That the people selected for appointment should demonstrate public commitment to the charter of the ABC.
5. That this parliamentary committee should annually review the performance of all ABC Board members, and have the power to terminate the appointment of any member who has been deemed, through their actions or words, to have compromised the charter of the ABC.
6. That this committee should annually report to Parliament on its deliberations.
7. That those employed by the ABC should appoint by secret ballot a further quarter of the board members for three-year terms.
8. That the Chairman of the ABC Board should be selected by the board members, from among themselves for a three-year term, subject to review annually.
––––––––––
2001.6. Ethical Guidelines on Assisted Reproductive Technology
Submitted 10 November 2001 to the National Health and Medical Research Council.
Published: Victorian Humanist, Feb. 2002: 3.
On Ethical Guidelines on Assisted Reproductive Technology we made the following main points:
• Short “sunset” clauses should accompany laws and guidelines on biotechnology to enable frequent reviews.
• Secular morality should underpin the approach to problems posed by modern medical advancements.
• Research carried out on a cluster of cells from the early pre-embryo offers major therapeutic benefits for all. We believe that there is a moral and societal obligation to promote such research.
• We believe that life starts at the beginning of consciousness in the foetus and not with the fertilised egg, given that some 50 per cent of these fail to implant and develop into an embryo.
• We reject the notion that assisted reproduction violates human dignity and state that dignity is born of love, respect and acceptance from parents, peers and community.
• We oppose instructions which allow the pre-embryo to succumb rather than be used for research. We support those who offer to create fertilised ova for research, as in the UK.
• We strongly support research on stem cells given its great potential to alleviate human suffering.
• We oppose reproductive cloning of human beings and support its present ban.
• Research Ethics Committees should ensure that research is open to peer scrutiny and results become public property and should not be patented as “intellectual property”.
• We argue in favour of equal access to assisted reproduction by single and lesbian women as emotional security in childhood appears to be the main factor in the well-being of the child.
• We enclosed the Position Statement and Recommendations of the Australian Academy of Sciences in support of our views.
––––––––––
[End of 2001]
