2002
2002.1. Migration and Humanitarian Programs
Submitted 20 Feb. 2002 to the Department of Immigration, Australia.
Published: Victorian Humanist, March 2002: 3.
In response to a call for submissions on 2002-2003 Migration and Humanitarian Programs and Associated Settlement Issues we made these points within the set terms of reference:
* It is regrettable that the Swedish system of handling asylum seekers was deemed unsuited here.
* Australia’s reproduction rate falls below replacement levels. Adult migrants and those who overstayed their visits (some 60,000 illegals) make for our population growth.
* A large initially unskilled labour force could be utilised in regional areas to replace the drift of that population to the city, to carry out large scale repairs of our environmental degradation, and in large projects of transport and inland development.
* We believe that Australia can and should accept a proportion of refugees larger than the 12,000 we do now. Two decades ago the number was 20,000.
* Hungarian and Czech migrants escaping the Soviet invasion of their countries arrived here without identity papers and have integrated and contributed to our society.
* Volunteers from established ethnic communities could help with language and “orientation” courses for the new arrivals.
* As a signatory and one of the original drafters of the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees Australia should be compassionate and generous to the asylum seekers. Its present harsh treatment will be seen in the future as another dark period in our history.
––––––––––
2002.2. Religion, Diversity and Social Cohesion
Submitted 7 April 2002 to the Australian Multicultural Foundation
Published: Victorian Humanist, 2002: – .
In our submission to the Australian Multicultural Foundation on Religion, Diversity and Social Cohesion we made the following main points in answer to specific questions:
• We see injustice and intolerance towards some sections of the community, e.g. indigenous Australians.
• Comparative Beliefs as a core subject in schools would engender tolerance rather than sectarianism.
• Self righteous, critical comments on the beliefs of others by many churches, the vilification of gays and lesbians and the denial of equal rights and status to women, hinder the creation of social and moral capital.
• Matters of religion and State should be clearly separated and sectarian religious instruction be privately funded.
• Attempts to impose sectarian attitudes on the rest of the community are a matter of concern.
• The Law should be changed to acknowledge the equal value of secular services to the community, e.g. those provided by civil celebrants to be GST free as is the case when provided by churches.
• We listed organisations we regard as harmful to social cohesion such as Christian Identity Ministries, League of Rights, National Action, and White Supremacists.
––––––––––
2002.5. Oaths and Affirmations in Court
Submitted 14 July 2002 to the Law Reform Committee, Parliament of Victoria.
Published: Victorian Humanist, Sept. 2002: 3.
Public Hearing
Inquiry into Oaths and Affirmation by [the] Law Reform Committee of Victorian Parliament
The HSV was invited to put a Humanist view to this committee at a public hearing on 1 August 2002. After giving a brief overview of Humanism as a life stance or philosophy, we made the following points:
• Use of an affirmation rather than an oath was non-discriminatory.
• Oath taking originated in a country with a State religion, something that does not apply in Australia.
• Though Australia was a largely Christian country in the past, it was now a distinctly pluralistic society.
• Those who claim the continued dominance of Christianity cite Census figures which are derived from a single, biased question.
• A national social survey has shown Australians to be far less religious than indicated by the census data.
• Many application forms, e.g. for passports, opening a bank account, senior citizen’s card, expect truthful, answers without relying on oath taking.
ADDENDUM
From the Victorian Humanist, Dec. 2002: 3.
Feedback
Oaths & Affirmations
The HSV received a copy of the Report by the Victorian Parliamentary Law Reform Inquiry into Oaths and Affirmations with Reference to the Multicultural Community. 52 submissions were made to this Inquiry. Only one other secular group made a submission — the Adelaide-based Atheist Foundation of Australia
Rosslyn Ives and Ray Dahlitz for the HSV were among the 28 who witnesses appeared before Committee of Inquiry. The HSV was among several groups strongly advocating the removal of sworn oaths and favouring the use of a simple affirmation to “tell the truth”. In her evidence Rosslyn used the CAHS “40%” leaflet which was quoted extensively in the final Report, as being critical of the accuracy of ABS census data on contemporary patterns of belief in Australia.
––––––––––
2002.6. Issues on Aging
Submitted 31 August 2002 to the Standing Committee on Aging, House of Representatives, Parliament of Australia.
Published: Victorian Humanist, Sept. 2002: 3.
To Standing Committee on Ageing, House of Representatives . . .we made the following points:
• As people age they should be supported and encouraged to remain living within the wider community, rather be congregated in retirement villages or “homes” for the elderly.
• Domestic and public buildings should automatically include design features suitable for all ages and degrees of mobility, e.g step height, mandatory railings, door widths.
• Labour regulations should be modified to permit older members of the community who wish to continue in paid employment to do so.
• There should be education campaigns that draw attention to the wastage of experience and skills that arise from retirement age limitations.
• People, while fit and well, should be encouraged to prepare an “advanced directive” which make clear the limits to medical treatment they desire if their health deteriorates.
• We strongly endorse the proposition that voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide should be available for those who request such an option.
––––––––––
2002.7. Cloning and Stem Cell Research
Submitted 11 September 2002 to the Senate Community Affairs Legislative Committee, Parliament of Australia.
Published: Victorian Humanist, Oct. 2002: 4.
On current Bill on cloning and stem cell research (Senate, Community Affairs Legislative Committee) we made the following points:
• We oppose reproductive cloning and support the licensed research on human cells, embryonic or adult, in the belief that this research offers potential treatment for people with damaged organs, and offset the great shortage of organs for transplantation.
• We note the opposition to such use of the surplus, and to be [the?] discarded embryos, is based on religious grounds. Problems arising from modern biotechnology should be resolved on the basis of secular morality concerned with the needs of sentient human beings.
• We are concerned that a majority decision in favour of such research was overturned by a small minority of religious adherents. In our secular and democratic country the credibility of our decision-making processes is thus diminished.
• We believe there is a moral obligation to use these cells for medical purposes rather than discard them.
• We are encouraged in these views by the support given for this research by such individuals and organisations as Sir Gustav Nossal, Prof. Peter Doherty, Prof. Ian Lowe, the AMA, Australian Health Ethics Committee, and The Australian Academy of Science.
• Should the proposed ban be imposed on this research, Australia will lose its leading place in biotechnology, our experts will emigrate to countries that allow this research e.g. UK and Canada.
• We would like to see this research free from commercial constraints, open and accountable. We would like its benefits to be affordable to all in need.
• Any legislation or regulation should have a short sunset clause in view of the rapid progress in biotechnology.
ADDENDUM
From the Victorian Humanist, Dec. 2002: 3.
Feedback
Stem Cells & Cloning
We were invited to make a submission on the new aspects of research on human embryos and prohibition of human cloning that arose when the relevant Bills went before the Federal parliament.
The published Report from these latest submissions showed that the churches and Right to Life groups greatly predominated on the list of submittals. Our main point on “supporting licensed research on human cells”, was quoted verbatim and noted as a minority view shared by the ethicist Professor Peter Singer and by Julian Savulescu, Professor of Applied Ethics, Oxford University.
––––––––––
2002.9. Aboriginal Health Research Guidelines
Submitted 30 December 2002 to the National Health and Medical Research Council
Published: Victorian Humanist, Feb. 2003: 4.
We responded to the call for submissions by the National Medical Health and Research Council (NMHRC) on the subject of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders Health Research. In answer to specific questions we made the following main points:
• Whenever cultural aspects and their profound effects on health and well-being are disregarded, medical treatments are at risk of failure.
• Mutual trust among all research stakeholders is pivotal to successful outcomes. Transparency and accountability of processes are essential.
• Wherever possible the Aboriginal community should be involved in the implementation of research activity.
• The notion of “benefit” is based on a value judgement. The Ethics Committees and the researchers must therefore establish that the research subjects share their concept of benefit.
• Legitimate community representatives should offer cultural advice. There must be agreements on the publication of outcomes and the degree of confidentiality.
• We find the concept of knowledge ownership of concern; sacred and secret knowledge held by some and not shared with others defies the issue of equality.
• The “risks and benefits” equation common to all undertakings must be fully considered prior to research approval.
• Cultural distinctiveness should be respected and valued. But cultures are not static and evolve to adapt to change, to maximise survival and hopefully to eliminate harmful practices.
• We believe it is possible to accept the benefits of modern medicine and science to improve health without subjugation of values.
• As stated, indigenous communities researchers and their proposals may be judged by differing sets of values.
• We urge that, in view of the disproportionately high rates of morbidity and mortality among the indigenous Australians, we provide:
1. assisted training of indigenous health workers, e.g doctors, nurses, therapists;
2. resources and priority to research leading to immediate improvement of the health and longevity of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders.
––––––––––
[End of 2002]
