2005
2005.1. Ethics in Biotechnology, Victoria [1]
Submitted 12 January 2005 to the Department of Human Services, Victoria.
Published: Victorian Humanist, Feb. 2005: 4.
In response to an invitation from [the] Department of Human Services to comment on the final draft of Ethical Principles to Guide Biotechnical Research in Victoria, we submitted the following comments (supported by two relevant articles from New Scientist):
1. Humanists believe that ethical problems arising from modern biotechnology should be resolved on the basis of secular morality concerned with the needs and benefits of sentient humans and not by the tenets of various belief systems.
2. Openness and transparency should be paramount in ethical research and the “commercial in confidence” clause seen as unethical.
3. A well-informed consent should be sought from all persons taking part or being affected by the research.
4. Prevention of poorly tested medicines (e.g. Vioxx) and chemicals (e.g. DDT) being released and providing a more thorough modelling of likely risks of GM [genetically modified] foods.
5. Commercial interests and constraints (patents, claims of intellectual property) must not affect the fair distribution of research benefits.
6. Compliance with the Code of Conduct should be monitored and the Code reviewed biannually.
[See also 2005.6.]
—————
2005.3. ATSIC Amendment Bill (supplementary)
Submitted 15 February 2005 to the Senate Select Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Parliament of Australia.
Published: Victorian Humanist, 2005: – .
1. Indigenous Affairs
Following our submission [2004.4] on the ATSIC Amendment Bill 2004 we were invited to augment our comments and answer questions before the Senate Select Committee dealing with this matter. The meeting was, however, cancelled and a written supplementary submission invited. We made the following points:
• Humanists regard a nation’s laws as a reflection on the degree of civilisation it has reached. Positive discrimination towards the disadvantaged is one of the marks of a civilised society.
• By all measures the indigenous Australians are greatly disadvantaged. We submit that the ATSIC Amendment Bill should state our commitment to eliminate this disadvantage. This would be of importance in the absence of an Australian Bill of Rights.
• Humanists value greatly the ideal of liberal democracy and human rights. Imposition of appointed representatives, in place of elected ones, violates these principles.
• We quote the former Liberal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Fred Chaney) in favour of having elected representatives.
• We regard health and education as the crucial social areas and urge that special rather than mainstream approach be adopted to alleviate disadvantage.
• Adequate funding is essential to deal with these problems.
––––––––––
2005.4. Corporal Punishment of Children
Submitted 26 February 2005 to the Law Reform Commission of Victoria.
Published: Victorian Humanist, March 2005: 4.
On the corporal punishment of children we made the following main points to the Victorian Law Reform Commission reviewing assault laws (1987).
• Humanists regard all forms of corporal punishment as a legacy of our barbaric past. We oppose the old, common notion that discipline comes ‘through the rod’.
• Smacking is a failed, destructive and costly method of discipline. Ill effects persist for years in destroying the sense of dignity, self-worth and security. Violence becomes acceptable.
• We quote large-scale national research in support of this view.
• We point out instances where the civilising process was achieved by legislative change.
• We list countries where child smacking was declared an assault and outlawed. This complies with the UN and UNICEF charters on the needs and rights of the child.
• We quote from the address given to HSV by the former Chief Justice of the Family Court, Justice Alastair Nicholson OA (10 October 1997, at the Fred Hollows Memorial Dinner, Dallas Brook Hall) and enclose a copy of his speech.
––––––––––
2005.5. Ethics in Research on Humans
Submitted 15 March 2005 to the National Health and Medical Research Council.
Published: Victorian Humanist, May 2005: 4.
1. On the new, reviewed National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research on Humans we made the following brief comments:
* We congratulated the authors of this Statement on establishing a high ethical standard for this type of research.
* The changes incorporated in this revised Statement will greatly reduce the potential for abuse that is inherent in this type of research.
* On the composition of Human Research Ethics Committees (HERC) which approve or do not approve any given research project, we believe that there should be one member with a background in applied, secular ethics to balance the presence of the religious leaders.
––––––––––
2005.6. Ethics in Biotechnology, Victoria [2]
Submitted 13 April 2005 to the Department of Human Services, Victoria.
Published: Victorian Humanist, May 2005: 4.
On the Victorian Statement of Ethical Principles for Biotechnology we made the following main comments to the inquiry of Human Services Department, in response to questions:
* The format, definitions, [and] explanations are clear, necessary and adequate.
* Of particular value is the now enlarged list of Ethical Principles (Section 6).
* The map of ethical controls is a very informative and useful document.
* We suggest that the field of embryo research into early human development, genetic transmission of disease, causes of miscarriage, means of safe contraception, etc., should be added to this Statement.
* On a definition of ethical principles, we favour the Consequentialist Theory of Ethics where actions are aimed at the best possible outcomes in a given set of circumstances.
* We are concerned with the entirely voluntary nature in the adoption of this set of principles and we recommend that they be given legislative status.
* We strongly support the principle of respect for persons, based on their dignity and autonomy, but we do not extend that dignity is inherent in the genome. We therefore do not believe the notion of human dignity ti [sic: in?] the zygote or embryo.
* Justice requires the prevention of special privilege which would curtail equal distribution of the benefits of research.
* We queried the use of the “commercial in confidence” clause, and asked how it could avoid being seen as a smokescreen for unethical activity.
[See also 2005.1]
––––––––––
2005.7. Review of the Education Act in Victoria
Submitted 28 April 2005 to the Minister for Education, Victoria.
Published: Victorian Humanist, June 2005: 4.
On the Review of Education Legislation in Victoria (secondary schools), we made the following points:
• Humanists regard free, secular and universal education as a public good, and an important national investment rather than a private benefit.
• Democracy is underpinned by equity of access to educational opportunities.
• The recent steady shift of resources to privileged schools will create an upstairs-downstairs society with built-in disadvantages for many.
• The concept of free education is compromised by the introduction of “voluntary” fees in government schools. There should be equal access to good quality education regardless of parental earning capacities.
• The legislation should entrench the secular aspect of education as a guiding principle of government school provision.
• Comparative Religion [or Belief] should be a core subject in government schools to foster tolerance and understanding of the many belief systems now present in the community. Sectarian religious instruction should be privately funded and not provided by the State.
• The basic tenets of democracy should be taught in the context of social education — that includes human rights, relationships and ethics — rather than as a set of principles of Australian democracy, a concept that lacks consensus in our society.
• All schools should be subject to forms of accountability and transparency of process. However, public access to random information of the performance of students should not be allowed.
• We strongly support the total ban on corporal punishment in all schools regardless of parental approval for this failed and destructive method of discipline.
• There should be a cap on class sizes in the legislation, in recognition that student achievement is in inverse proportion to class sizes.
• We state our belief that the “user pays” principle is a false economy when applied to the pursuit of skills and knowledge, for the nation as a whole benefits from higher levels of learning.
ADDENDUM
From the Victorian Humanist, Nov. 2005: 4.
Review of Victorian Education and Training Legislation
As [a] submitter HSV received a copy of the White Paper which proposes to affirm in the Act the following main principles:
• Free instruction in government schools or TAFE to the end of Year 12. Some specific fees may be charged and voluntary contributions sought.
• Secularity in Government schools, “The government school system is secular, and open to the adherents of any philosophy, religion or faith. The curriculum and teaching in government schools is not to promote any particular religious practice, denomination or sect.”
• Ensure the Act explicitly permits the teaching of comparative religion in government schools and removes any legal ambiguity surrounding this practice.
• Add to the Act: “All providers of education and training, both government and non-government owned, must ensure that their programs and teachings are delivered in a manner that supports and promotes the principle and practice of Australian democracy, including a commitment to elected government, the rule of law, equal rights for all before the law, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and association, and the values of openness and tolerance.
• Freedom to choose school, the right to attend the designated and neighbourhood school, and the right to information on school and student achievement.
• A common regulatory regime regarding standards for all schools.
––––––––––
2005.8. Human Rights Charter for Victoria [1]
Submitted 29 July 2005 to the Human Rights Consultative Committee, Department of Justice, Victoria.
Published: Victorian Humanist, Sept. 2005: 4.
On the proposal to have a Charter of Human Rights in Victoria we submitted the following main points to the Consultation Committee on this subject. These points are within the terms of reference and in response to set questions.
• Humanists, as strong proponents of human rights, consider that their implementation measures the degree of civilisation a society has reached.
• A Bill or Charter of Human Rights is of vital importance at present when global and political forces undermine our basic rights, democratic structures and institutions.
• We deeply regret that this Charter is not intended to encompass the vital economic and social rights.
• The current protection of human rights is inadequate, poorly covered by the common law and in need of statutory power. Minority groups and the disadvantaged need to be protected by a specific statute now absent.
• Such Charter will meet our obligations as signatories to International Covenants on human rights; ensure that human rights are respected by legislators; educate the public; and help to change the culture of disregard for human rights.
• The Charter should be reviewed at frequent intervals to be amended and augmented.
• It should contain all rights included in the Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Act 2004 and the right to silence, safe environment, education, information and a form of treaty with indigenous Australians.
• A nexus between rights and responsibilities should be established.
• All proposed Bills should be vetted for human rights infringements.
• Government policies should be developed and implemented without breaches of human rights.
• Independent auditor to assess annually the compliance with the Charter and this report made public.
• We strongly support the introduction of a Human Rights Code of Conduct for government and public instrumentalities.
• The courts should have the power to declare a law incompatible with the Charter and annul it or order a redraft before it is returned to the Attorney-General.
• Local Governments should operate under the Human Rights Code of Conduct.
• Serious breaches of human rights should warrant compensation.
• Rather than litigation we support a system of complaints with a Commissioner or Ombudsman with executive powers. Detailed annual report from this office should be made public.
• An educational campaign about human rights, as in the case of the UK, aimed at public servants, police, prison agencies, judges, health workers, the media, schools at all levels, remote and isolated communities, local governments, subcontractors, and private suppliers of human services. All media should help to inform the public in an engaging way.
• The outsourcing of human rights abuses via contractors and hidden under “commercial and in confidence” claims needs attention in formulating human rights protection. Violations include the use of sweatshops and child labour for industry, abuse of inmates in privately-run prisons and detention centres. We strongly urge the Government to curtail the use of “commercial: inconfidence” clauses, used to evade scrutiny.
• We express concern about the proposed increase in ASIO powers.
[See also 2006.1]
––––––––––
2005.9. Gene Technology Ethics
Submitted 7 October 2005 to the Gene Technology Ethics Committee (Parliament of Australia?)
Published: Victorian Humanist, Nov. 2005: 4.
To the Gene Technology Ethics Committee (GTEC) on their final (third) Consultation Draft, National Framework of Ethical Principles in Gene Technology, we made the following points:
• We congratulate the GTEC on formulating a set (10) of good principles.
• Of particular value is the attention given to the long-term protection of the environment.
• Principle 9 — the equitable distribution of the benefits of gene technology, sharing knowledge, particularly with those in developing countries — underpins ethical behaviour in all medical and scientific research.
• We are concerned that the need for transparency of aims and procedures has not been adequately stressed. This essential aspect of new technologies may be curtailed by commercial interests or scientific rivalry.
• The expedient, frequent use of the commercial-in-confidence clause prevents scrutiny. It should be deemed unethical in the context of all medical and scientific research.
• Without total transparency in this research, the public will be justifiably suspicious and averse to the products of gene technology.
––––––––––
2005.10. Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005.
Submitted 9 November 2005 to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee, Parliament of Australia.
Published: Victorian Humanist, Feb. 2006: 4.
To the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee we made the following points on the proposed Anti-Terrorism Bill Nov. 2005:
* We acknowledge that current circumstances require measures to deal with terrorism. However, recent arrests of suspects indicate that adequate measures are in place and we question the need for more draconian legislation.
* Regrettable invasions of privacy, such as inspection of bags or parcels, checks of identity and public video surveillance, are justifiable at present, provided they are applied to all citizens without selective aim.
* More time is required to consider these significant changes that affect our civil rights and way of life. Without a wide-ranging public and parliamentary debate we run the risk of having bad laws enacted in haste.
* Potential for abuse of powers is created by greatly widening the powers of Australia’s security organisations without adequate scrutiny of their operations.
* The proposed legislation is in breach of our signed obligations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on these points: arbitrary detention, insufficient access to judicial review, possible conflict in separation of executive and judiciary powers.
* In the absence of a Bill of Rights in this country there is need for a set of strong safeguards to protect systems of justice and democracy. A biannual audit to Parliament from an independent panel monitoring the use of this new law would be a minimum safeguard.
* The law of sedition, even in its modernised form, carries the risk of stifling free expression of views, [and] debates in public and in the media. Laws of sedition are a hallmark of totalitarian regimes and are inimical to democracy. We urge that this section be deleted.
* For a variety of reasons there should be frequent review of this legislation. We strongly urge that a two-year, rather than the proposed 10-year, sunset clause be enacted.
––––––––––
[End 2005]
