2003
2003.1. Humanitarian Program, 2003-04
Submitted 2003 to the Department of Immigration, Australia.
Published: Victorian Humanist, March 2003: 4.
On the 2003-04 Humanitarian Program we made the following main points within the terms of reference set by the Department of Immigration:
• Australia’s humanitarian programs are greatly discredited by events such as the “Tampa crisis” and the “Children overboard affair”, [unlike?] the “Pacific solution” and New Zealand’s prompt and compassionate way of dealing with their asylum seekers.
• We hope this program can revert to accepting 20,000 refugees per year as was done in the past rather than 12,000 as at present, as the countries where most refugees are fleeing from are rife with political and religious persecution.
• We recommend the Swedish model of dealing with asylum seekers and regret this process was deemed unsuitable here.
• Australia should give more funds to the UNHCR programs to assist countries of first asylum. Compared with countries closer to disturbances, we have a very small resettlement rate: 1 per cent of our population over 15 years.
• Sending refugees back to their country of origin should not be used as a deterrent to others. Australia should set up consular agencies in Indonesian ports and conduct interviews there.
• We are appalled by the decisions to expel almost all of the asylum seekers from East Timor who escaped massacres in their country over a decade ago. They are well integrated into Australian society and have wide and warm support. This fact demonstrates the inherent Australian generosity and “fair go” that cannot be expressed towards those asylum seekers who are imprisoned for years in distant isolation, treated as criminals, driven to despair and demonised by government propaganda.
––––––––––
2003.2. Ethics in Human Stem Cell Research
Submitted 2003 to the Department of Human Services, Victoria.
Published: Victorian Humanist, April 2003: 3.
To the Victorian Department of Human Services call for submissions on the Code of Ethical Practice for human stem cell research, we made these main points in answer to questions:
• We regret the restrictions and prohibitions on this research which were imposed by the Federal legislation. The potential of this important work is thus curtailed. We note that the UK has a much less restrictive approach.
• There is a moral and social obligation to use the surplus IVF embryos for medical research rather than discard them as proposed.
• Problems presented by modern technology should be dealt with on the basis of secular ethics and morality concerned with the benefits and needs of sentient human beings.
• Rules, legislation and codes of practice should be reviewed bi-annually given the rapid growth in biotechnology.
• This code should not be applied retrospectively to work in progress.
• The autonomy of those who wish to donate their gametes for research should be respected.
• This research should be open, accountable, [and] free from any commercial restraints such as patents or confidentiality.
• The Government should foster public debate on this subject and respect the majority view.
• Compliance, monitoring and review should be carried out by bodies such as the human research Ethics Committee and Biotechnology Safety and Ethics Unit.
––––––––––
2003.3. National Health Privacy Code
Submitted 17 April 2003 to the Australian Health Ministers’ Council
Published: Victorian Humanist, May 2003: 3.
On draft of the National Health Privacy Code we made the following points:
• The Code should be legally binding as that enacted by the Council of Europe.
• It should carry a sunset clause to deal with rapid IT changes.
• Health records should include: Advance Directives on end-of-life decisions, persons appointed with the Enduring Power of Attorney (Medical Treatment), instructions re[garding] organ donations and permission or otherwise on disclosure of health records for teaching and research.
• Law Enforcement Agencies’ access to health records should be authorised and monitored by an independent body.
• We oppose the destruction of any data. After seven years data should be de-identified and placed in archives for demographic and epidemiological research.
• The selling of health records should be regulated by law. While government research is open to scrutiny, commercial organisations are not. We suggest that the sale of non-identifiable health information for commercial purposes be made on the condition that the use of this data be open to scrutiny.
• Corporatised medical services have greater potential to breach the Privacy Code. We urge that they be subject to special, legally binding rules and open to scrutiny.
––––––––––
2003.4. ASIO Powers Bill
Submitted 17 June 2003 to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia.
Published: Victorian Humanist, July 2003: 4.
In our submissions to the Senate Legal & Constitutional Legislation Committee we made the following points:
ASIO Legislation Amendment Bill 2002
• After minor changes this Bill still contains measures that Humanists see as the hallmark of a police state, unacceptable in a liberal democracy like Australia.
• Secret detention, including minors of 16 years on a mere suspicion of possessing information about terrorist activity, is a draconian method of gathering intelligence, a violation of our civil rights.
• We believe that existing laws and ASIO powers are adequate to deal with terrorist activities. The proposed additional powers create the potential for basic human rights abuse.
• The detention of and interrogation of a minor is in breach of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted in 1989.
• In some rare case the proscription of an organisation might be justified on the basis of its program of violence and criminal activity. However, the power to ban such groups must not be in any one MP as proposed by the Bill. We urge that both Houses of Parliament be involved in such a decision.
• This Bill creates excessive, unchecked and potentially dangerous powers.
• We welcome the addition of a three year sunset clause.
––––––––––
2003.5. Human Rights Commission Bill, 2003
Submitted 17 June 2003 to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia.
Published: Victorian Humanist, July 2003: 4.
In our submissions to the Senate Legal & Constitutional Legislation Committee we made the following points:
The Human Rights Commission Bill 2003
• We are deeply concerned about the proposed changes to the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) as they undermine its independence and greatly reduce its power.
• Following significant cuts to HREOC’s budget the government now seeks to transfer much of its power to the Attorney-General’s office. This politicises HREOC’s activities.
• In its present structure HREOC underpins the concept of separation of powers and is the main watchdog dealing with infringements of human rights by governments and NGOs.
• As Australia is the only Western democracy without a Bill of Rights it is vital that HREOC maintains its independence, is better funded and has its powers strengthened.
• Of further concern in the area of human rights is Australia’s refusal to ratify and sign the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, or the Convention against Torture, or the new UN statement on the Right to Self-Determination of Indigenous Peoples.
• Given Australia’s pioneering and proud role in formulating the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), we find the present disengagement from our former commitment alarming.
• Our continued mistreatment of the asylum-seekers, condemned both by the UN Committee on Human Rights and Amnesty International, casts a shadow on our record in this area.
• Combined, these regressive and harsh reforms damage our culture of tolerance, respect for human rights, compassion and fairness and diminish us in the eyes of the civilised world.
––––––––––
2003.6. The Growing Rich-Poor Divide
Submitted 20 July 2003 to the Department of Community Affairs, Australia, and the Senate Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia.
Published: Victorian Humanist, Aug. 2003: 3.
On the Growing Rich-Poor Divide we made the following main points:
• We support the calls for a summit to deal with this alarming trend.
• We listed findings by a number of authoritative reports on this subject.
• Economic and public sector changes imposed in the past decade resulted in a more unequal society.
• Governments must intervene to moderate the negative outcomes of reforms.
• Primary poverty should be target for special direct or indirect relief.
• The growing inequality of opportunity causes social polarisation and stress.
• Poverty denies access to education, adequate housing and good child nurture.
• The relegation of social support to charities and religious bodies may be seen as an abrogation of the government’s duty of care for its citizens.
• Accepting charity demeans and stigmatises.
• There is a rise in both excessive and inadequate hours of work, while the rise [in] casualisation of jobs compounds the inequality of income distribution.
• We support proposals for voluntary reallocation of work hours.
• We stress the need for job creation and suggest areas of priority such as Landcare, public transport infrastructure, and water conservation.
• Long-term, unrelieved poverty causes social exclusion and polarity, loss of talent and an underclass that threatens the stability and health of society.
• Understandable resentment and cynicism develops in the community when tax avoidance schemes for the rich e.g. off-shore tax havens, are tolerated.
––––––––––
2003.7. National Census, 2006: Religion Question
Submitted 28 July 2003 to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Published: Victorian Humanist, Sept. 2003: 4.
To the Australian Bureau of Statistics we made the following points on the 2006 Census, in reference to the “religion” question:
• We proposed changing the current question “What is the person’s religion?”.
• The current question elicits misleading responses, and thus produces inaccurate data.
• It does not inquire about present religious practice. Many people therefore mark the religion of their parents though they do not identify with these beliefs.
• The question implies that each person is expected to be religious and puts a negative connotation on the answer “No religion”, the last choice after listed denominations.
• We strongly support the proposal to put “No religion” at the top of the listed categories.
• Past Census figures did not reflect the marked departure from religious practices and the general continuing secularisation of the Australian population. Surveys of church attendance report significant decrease.
• Many important grants and allocations are made on the basis of Census data. Thus the question should seek to determine the number of people who actually use these subsidised services.
• We propose that the question should be “Does the person have a religion?” with No or Yes, followed by a list of major denominations. A subsidiary question should ask: “Is the person an active religious participant? No . . . Yes . . .”
• In its present form the question will continue to elicit misleading data and be at variance with other surveys.
––––––––––
2003.8. Changes to Medicare
Submitted 11 August 2003 to the Senate Select Committee on Changes to Medicare, Parliament of Australia.
Published: Victorian Humanist, Sept. 2003: 4.
To the Senate Select Committee on Changes to Medicare, we made the following main points:
• Medicare was established as a universal health cover system on the basis that along with schooling and the justice, system health services are a public good and underpin social equity.
• The proposed changes to Medicare will destroy this equity, [and] create a two- or three- tiered health system based on income as it is in the USA.
• We believe that the 30 per cent subsidy to private health insurance destroys the integrity of a civil and egalitarian society.
• Hospital privatisation and the corporatisation of many medical clinics opened health care to market forces which are noted for causing social inequity.
• Value for money from the private health insurance continues to decline in spite of the generous subsidy. The $2.5 billion private health insurance rebate should be put into the public health system which covers everyone, and which is often used by the privately insured for emergencies. We applaud the proposed funding of additional medical school places, increase in GP trainees and nurses in GPs’ rooms.
• We urge the government to maintain the present universal health cover, to abolish [the] Private Health Insurance rebate, legislate to prevent the emergence of a tiered health care system and to invest in the cost-effective measures to prevent ill health.
––––––––––
2003.9. Tertiary Education Funding
Submitted 26 August 2003 to the Minister for Education, Australia (B. Nelson).
Published: Victorian Humanist, Oct. 2003: 3.
To the Federal Minister for Education on the proposed changes to tertiary education we made the following main points:
• Humanists believe that education is a public good, a significant national investment, and not a private benefit.
• The “user pays” principle applied to the pursuit of skills and knowledge is a false economy. The nation benefits from high levels of expertise.
• Equality of access to educational opportunities underpins the concept of democracy. To deny this equity is to cause social exclusion, and polarisation.
• Present access to university places is skewed in favour of private school students. The proposed changes will compound this inequity.
• The proposed 4,000 scholarships for disadvantaged students will not meet the needs of the 28,000 from low-income families who seek to start higher education each year.
• Selection of students on their capacity to pay, rather than [on] academic merit, fosters financial élitism and is cost-ineffective.
• The prospect of rising course fees and a large increase in HECS debts will be a deterrent to all but those from wealthy families.
• Australia shows poorly compared with other OECD countries where students pay a lower share of the cost of education.
• We propose:
1. The creation of subsidised dedicated places in medical schools for country students to relieve the shortage of doctors in regional areas, and —
2. A levy — a targeted tax as for Medicare — to be imposed to fund all levels of education adequately and equitably.
Footnote: In the UK, a similar dispute drew sharp criticism from Jim Herrick, the Editor of New Humanist. He wrote: “Our present cabinet, most of whom have been so well served by their research-rich university experience, are planning to perform that most odious of tricks. They’ve got to the top and are about to remove the ladder.”
––––––––––
2003.10. Definition of a Charity
Submitted 28 September 2003 to the Board of Taxation, The Treasury, Australia.
Published: Victorian Humanist, Nov. 2003: 4.
To the Board of Taxation, on the definition of a charity, we made the following points (within the terms of reference):
• Not-for-profit, voluntary organisations collectively play a vital social role.
• We support the Government’s proposal to accord charitable status to some child care and self-care groups.
• We disagree with the recommendation that closed or contemplative religious orders qualify as charities.
• We argue that public advocacy, as distinguished from lobbying, be allowed as [a] secondary purpose of charities.
• Encouraging religious organisations is inappropriate for secular Government.
• Public benefit purpose should include services that create “social capital” by creating opportunities for community involvement and inclusion.
• Any commitment to religion we regard as a personal matter which should not be funded in any way by the State.
• We strongly argue that altruistic purpose be a required feature in the definition of charity, for it underpins its very concept.
• Charities should dispense their benefits without unjust discrimination and in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the UN.
––––––––––
2003.12. MedicarePlus Proposals
Submitted 15 December 2003 to the Senate Select Committee on Medicare, Parliament of Australia.
Published: Victorian Humanist, Feb. 2004: 4.
To the Select Committee on the Government’s MedicarePlus proposals we made the following main points:
* We regard the universality and equity of access to high quality, publicly-funded health services as a mark of a civilised society, as practiced in the UK and continental European countries.
* Such services are more efficient and less costly than the two-tier USA model.
* It is disappointing and regrettable that, in spite of election promises, the Government proposes to introduce social divisions among health care users based on their income.
* the provision of a “safety net” ends our egalitarian system and introduces the notion of public health care as charity for the poor.
* We support incentives for doctors to bulk bill everyone. The argument that the well-off should not expect to be bulk billed at the taxpayers’ expense loses its validity in the context of the 30 per centrebate from taxpayers’ money for their private health insurance. The [$] 2.5 billion used for this rebate is an inequitable as well as inefficient distribution of public money.
* We support the proposed measures to increase the number of doctors and nurses for busy medical practices. The provision for additional places in medical schools —providing students can afford the cost of study — is a wise investment for the future.
* The recruitment of foreign doctors would provide a rapid relief to the current shortage of GPs. We suggest they should be selected from the well qualified and be experienced. A short crash course on specifically local conditions (e.g. Ross River, Barmah Forest viruses) and some months of work, under supervision, in a range of public hospitals’ services, (wards, casualty, intensive care etc.) would appear a useful required introduction to our health care standards.
* The outcome of MedicarePlus Bill, in terms of increase in bulk-billing rates is uncertain. We therefore urge that it carry a short sunset clause to enable an early review of its effect.
––––––––––
2003.13. Senate Reform (Sect. 57 of Constitution)
Submitted 25 December 2003 to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Australia.
Published: Victorian Humanist, Feb. 2004: 4.
To the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet we made the following points on proposed changes to Senate’s powers:
* We welcome all measures to modernise our constitution and quote Sir Gerard Brennan’s comments on this matter.
* The evolution of the Senate from a states’ house to a house of review is an enhancement of our democracy, its system of committees is of. particular value.
* The Senate’s role should not be as a rubber stamp for all attempts at reform but as part of checks on executive power.
* Having passed 90 per cent of all Bills of this Government it cannot be seen as obstruactionist. Its power to block supply — the ultimate obstruction — should be repealed.
* The concept of total mandate for all Government actions is disputed by several aspects of our electoral system. Voters appear to give a mandate to the Senate by voting for a major party in the lower house and a minor one in the upper.
* We support the second option to change Section 57 to deal with deadlocks, provided a fixed, four-year term of office is introduced and supply blocking is repealed.
* Joint sitting of both houses to resolve deadlocks to take place only after a general election following a full term in office.
* We expect that issues at the core of the deadlocked Bills be canvassed in the election campaign.
* We suggest some other urgent changes to our constitution such as the repeal of Section 25; more federal powers to regulate the modem economy and to mitigate the negative aspects of globalisation; to include or attach a Bill of rights to our constitution.
––––––––––
[End of 2003]
