2008
2008.1. Census, 2011
Submitted 29 February 2008 to the Australian Bureau of Statistics
Published: (a) Discussion, Victorian Humanist, Feb. 2008: 4.
(b) Draft submission, Victorian Humanist, March 2008: 4.
(a)
Submission Discussion, 10 Feb. [2009]
The religion question in Census2011
Here is the current “religion” question and answer section, which we will discuss:
What is the person’s religion?
• Answering this question is OPTIONAL
• Examples of “Other — please specify”‘ are SALVATION ARMY, HINDUISM, JUDAISM, HUMANISM.
• If no religion, mark the “No religion” box.
• Remember to mark like this:
Catholic
Anglican (Church of England)
Uniting Church
Presbyterian
Greek Orthodox
Buddhism
Baptist
Islam
Lutheran
Other — please specify
No religion
The Census will have around 50 questions that generate data used mostly by government and businesses for planning purposes.
Answers to the religion question are requested because —
• religious organisations are the largest providers of services to the community outside those provided by governments;
• information on religious affiliation is widely used in the religious community, and by government agencies that provide services complementary to those of religious organisations.
The closing date for submissions is 31 March 2008.
Rosslyn Ives
(b)
Draft Submission
Draft submission to Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) on the religion question in Census 2011.
• We urge ABS to place the “No religion” option at the top of the list, instead of at the bottom. This would bring this question into line with several other questions, which we cite, where the negative response is the first choice offered to respondents.
• We recommend that the question be rephrased as, “Does the person have a religion?” rather than the current, “What is the person’s religion?” which presumes that all people have a religion, ABS just wants to know what it is.
• We also suggest that a supplementary question be asked, “Is the person an active religious participant?”, with a choice of the following responses, Weekly, Monthly, Occasionally or Never.
• We argued that the question as currently asked inflates the numbers of Christians and underestimates the number of those with no religion. We cited several sample surveys and other social indicators that show a sizable minority (around 40%) of Australians to have no religious affiliation.
The closing date for this submission is 31 March 2008.
There is still one unresolved issue with the form of the “religion” question. It currently includes in the question instructions for “Other, please write in”, “Humanism” as an example. For most people this implies that ABS considers Humanism to be a religion. However, that is not the case: Humanism is categorised as Non-religion.
HSV still needs to decide whether we want to request that Humanism as an example of an answer to a question which asks “What is the person’s religion?”, should be removed.
––––––––––
2008.2. National Bill of Rights
Submitted 20 March 2008 to the Attorney-General of Australia.
Published: Victorian Humanist, April 2008: 4.
National Bill of Rights
In our submission to the Attorney-General, the Hon. Robert McClelland, we made the following general and specific points.
• We join a growing number of prominent citizens and legal experts to call for a national Bill of Rights.
• We support the nexus between rights and responsibilities and consider that both should be enshrined in law.
• A number of abuses of basic human rights during the previous government revealed deficiencies in protection of individual rights in Australia and created a climate of fear and insecurity. A Bill of Rights is now a matter of urgency.
• We view the formulation of human rights conventions by the UN in 1948 as one of the great civilising steps in the progress of humankind.
• It is a matter of pride to us that Australia played such a leading role in formulating these conventions sixty years ago.
• It is a matter of embarrassment that Australia is now alone in the Western world without a national Bill of Rights.
• We favour a statute-based Bill such as the UK Human Rights Act which retains the legislative power of the Parliament.
• Human rights in Australia are poorly protected by common law: there are gaps and ambiguities. Minority groups and the disadvantaged need a specific statute of protection.
• The Bill should incorporate principles of human rights covenants to which Australia is a signatory and adopt the best aspects of existing Bills in UK, NZ, Canada and South Africa.
• Humanists consider that the law in all its forms has a powerful educative role and shapes a civilised society, therefore all aspects of human rights should be detailed in law.
ADDENDUM
From the Victorian Humanist, June 2008: 4.
Feedback
From the Federal Attorney-General the Hon. Robert McClelland MP a response to our submission on a National Bill of Rights (summarised in VH April 2008).
The federal Government will undertake an Australia-wide consultation to determine how best to protect human rights, with a national Charter or Bill of Rights being an option. He encourages us to make our views known to this future enquiry.
––––––––––
2008.3. The Education Revolution
Submitted 22 March 2008 to the Minister for Education (and Deputy Prime Minister), Australia.
Published: Victorian Humanist, April 2008: 4.
To the Federal Minister for Education, the Hon Julia Gillard, we made the following points:.
• We congratulate the Government on its approach taken in the “education revolution”.
• Humanists believe that education is a national investment, not a private benefit; equity of access to education underpins the concept of democracy; and free, universal and secular education is a hallmark of a civilised society.
• High quality early education is of paramount importance in personal development, thus we applaud the inclusion of preschools in the formal education system.
• We support a national curriculum for major subjects and are pleased with the stated aim of developing the ability for critical analysis in secondary students.
• The present funding inequities between public and private schools are indefensible: 70 per cent support the 32 per cent attending private schools. This is a major social injustice, and we urge the Government to adjust it to fairer proportions.
• We are concerned about the erosion of confidence in public schools caused by poor amenities due to gross under-funding and Mr Howard’s remark that it is “a values-neutral area”.
• Unequal opportunities in education cause social exclusion, polarisation and create an “upstairs-downstairs” society. This must be urgently countered lest it become entrenched and accepted in Australian society.
• The proposed government funding of Christian chaplains in public schools violates the principles of secular education and our constitutional separation of State and Church. Specially trained school welfare officers should be available to advise students on personal problems.
• Humanists advocate the teaching of Comparative Belief Systems to engender understanding, tolerance of diversity and harmonious participation in our multicultural community. This, in our view, is education at its best.
• We quote a letter to The Age where the reverend Dr Bob Fraser advocates “a broadly multi-faith education curriculum”.
• We believe that secular moral education should be a core subject, in which personal and social obligations are stressed along with the universal values of liberty, equality, tolerance and respect for others. This should be taught by teachers who are independent and free from sectarian dogma.
––––––––––
2008.4. Euthanasia Laws Repeal Bill
Submitted 2 April 2008 to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee, Parliament of Australia.
Published: Victorian Humanist, May 2008: 4.
In support of the Euthanasia Laws Repeal Bill 2008 we made the following points to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee:.
• Humanists regarded the Northern Terrtory Rights of the Terminally Ill Act as a compassionate and civilised approach to dying with dignity.
• We were dismayed when this bill was overturned. It denied the democratic rights to the territories, it omitted the operative voluntary and denied in Australia the rights now being granted in other countries.
• We respect the rights of those who wish to prolong their dying, and submit that the rights of those who seek assistance in shortening this process while terminally ill should be respected. At the core of the issue is the person’s autonomy.
• A law that denies the relief of prolonged suffering in terminally ill humans but enforces it in cases of other animals is an incongruous, wrong law.
• Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Luxembourg and Oregon USA permit voluntary euthanasia under strict legal and medical supervision. There is no evidence of the predicted slippery slope.
• Three Australians over the age of 75 commit suicide every week. 80 per cent of Australians support PAD (physician-assisted dying) and this attitude cuts across religious and political divides. 58 per cent of doctors now support this proposal.
• The practice now occurs in a clandestine manner and it is essential that it be open to scrutiny.
• The present law puts the caring physician in breach of it.
ADDENDUM
From the Victorian Humanist, June 2008: 4.
Feedback
From the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee: notification that our submission on the Euthanasia Laws repeal Bill 2008 (summarised in VH May 2008) has been released as a public document.
––––––––––
2008.5. Violence against Women and Children
Submitted 15 July 2008 to the National Council on Reducing Violence against Women and Children (? Department of Family and Community Services, Australia).
Published: Victorian Humanist, Aug. 2008: 4.
In our submission to the National Council on Reducing Violence against Women and Children we made the following main comments in answer to specific questions:
• Humanists regard domestic violence as a particularly abhorrent crime and a grave social problem. A major cultural change in the community and in our justice system is needed to ensure family safety. Changes in attitudes and behaviours are best achieved through law reform and education.
• The causes are a widespread belief that wife-bashing is not a crime; past teachings about a woman’s subservience, mostly of religious origins; past treatment of “domestics” as a private matter; the frequent failure of the justice system to protect victims. (We enclosed relevant reports.)
• Women’s shelters and refuges should be seen as an emergency measure and not as an acceptable solution to the problem. We strongly support the recommendations that the perpetrator and not the victim should be removed from the home.
• The police and not the victim should be required to lay charges. The breach of intervention orders should be regarded as a serious offence.
• We support the following recommendations of the Victorian Law Reform Commission on the subject: to establish specialist Family Violence Courts with personnel trained in all aspects of the crime; to train specialist police units to conduct all criminal prosecutions, assist and advise victims and witnesses; to fund community legal centres to provide specialised advice and representation in courts; courts to avoid delays of cases, during which further offences can be committed; that causing a child to see or hear or otherwise be exposed to violent behaviour should be an offence incurring an intervention order for such a child.
• A new definition of family violence needs to be broad enough to include abuses specific to certain groups in the community: indigenous, migrants and people with disabilities.
In addition we submitted two views:
.
• Corporal punishment of children teaches them that conflict can be resolved by force, and that violence is acceptable. It engenders violence, as found by the National Committee on Violence in 1990. We support their recommendation that after a period of public education, corporal punishment be outlawed as happened in Europe fourteen year ago.
• We submit, as a preventative measure, the problem of domestic violence be included in school curricula as part of the subject of human relationships. It should discuss the failure of relationships, violence as criminal behaviour, the need for economic and self-dependence and social alternatives for girls, and the detrimental tradition of socialising men to be dominant and aggressive and women to be passive. Violence is often the result of parental modelling and schools should act to modify it.
––––––––––
2008.6. Physician-Assisted Dying, Victoria
Submitted July 2008 to all Victorian Members of Parliament.
Published: Victorian Humanist, Sept. 2008: 7.
Text of letter delivered to all Victorian MPs in mid-July.
Subject matter: HSV views on Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008.
The members of the Humanist Society of Victoria are appealing to all members of the Victorian Parliament on a humane matter of conscience rather than party politics. We urge you to vote in favour of the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008 and so enable doctors legally to help terminally ill patients to die in their own way.
This bill would legalize an option for people suffering gross indignities and insufferable pain due to a terminal illness, where palliative care may be inadequate. To seek medical assistance in order to release themselves from life, at a time and a place of their own choosing, is a desired and desirable option for people in that condition. It is a most personal decision and would be the result of careful, lengthy deliberation.
We consider the reasons for supporting passage of this bill are overwhelming.
First, as you would be aware, many doctors are already acquiescing to requests from their terminally ill patients for assistance to die. These doctors are in breach of the current laws, yet when they have made this known publicly none has been prosecuted. This indicates widespread community acceptance of these practices. It would surely be preferable for the legal position to be properly defined to allow those involved to operate openly, provided there are strict guidelines and adequate supervision. Openness enables transparency and the maintenance of the highest standards of decision-making.
Second, all recent polls on community attitudes to physician-assisted dying (or voluntary euthanasia) show, there is around 80 per cent support for it to become a legal option for those who wish to make that choice.
Third, those who do not wish to avail themselves of the option would not be subject to any pressure as a result of the change in legislation. In particular the bill specifically protects the patient’s right not to make such an option. For anyone else improperly to influence the patient’s decision is punishable by law. Doctors and nurses may refuse to participate, and those who do assist the patient waive all right to benefit from the death, whether directly or indirectly.
Fourth, as a multicultural society Australia is made up of people from many religious faiths as well as a sizable minority with no religious faith at all. Australians are therefore free to make their own moral choices, provided they do no harm to others. A person suffering from a chronic terminal illness, who seeks assistance to die at a time and place of his or her own choosing, does not affect other people who would not personally make the same choice.
Fifth, in overseas jurisdictions such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Luxembourg and the American State of Oregon, where similar legislation has been enacted which permits physician-assisted dying under strict legal and medical supervision, none of the negative effects predicted by opponents of such humane measures has occurred. Having the option itself has been found to bring relief, even if it is never finally exercised.
We urge you, in your role as a representative of the people, to act with compassion for the few terminally ill who wish to avail themselves of the option of legal, physician-assisted dying.
––––––––––
2008.7. What Should Be Patentable?
Submitted 2 September 2008 to the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, Australia.
Published: Victorian Humanist, Oct. 2008: 4.
The Australian Government’s Advisory Council on Intellectual Property called for submissions on what matters should be patentable. We quote extensively from scientific publications in support of our views, making the following main points:
• Humanists believe that ethical aspects should determine exclusions from the patenting of intellectual properties.
• We observe with regret that the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission on this subject in April 2004 have not been implemented. Presently 20 per cent of human genes are patented intellectual property. They are neither invented nor a product of innovation being essentially discoveries of existing entities of nature and consequently should not qualify for patenting.
• The present arrangements leave us too often at the mercy of monopolies. They make life-saving drugs and genetic tests more expensive and inhibit biometric research.
• The present patenting criteria need to be urgently revised. Inventors of new techniques should be rewarded adequately without obtaining ownership and monopoly over items such as genes.
• Humanists believe that any science directed towards the improvement of public or human well-being should be funded by governments.
• We strongly support Richard Jefferson, Head of [the] Centre for Application of Molecular Biology in his call for “open-access genetics” to free the tools of modern genetics and biology from the “shackles of excessive patenting”. His team makes methods of biological research available for all to use, which is particularly valuable for developing countries.
• We find it very regrettable that our obligations under AUSFTA (our free trade agreement with the USA) compromise Australia’s stated aims to benefit society as a whole in matters of patentable material.
• We strongly believe that any ethical aspects of limiting patentable material should be determined, case by case, by courts of law, free from the pressures of political or other interests. At present article 17.9 of AUSFTA precludes the consideration of ethical issues by either the courts, the Parliament or the Patent Office (Q3).
• We are hopeful that this review of patentable subject matter, will lead to changes in a system which currently favours commercial interest to one based on precedence for ethical approaches and human well-being.
––––––––––
2008.8. Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century
Submitted 1 December 2008 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.
Published: Victorian Humanist, Dec. 2008: 4.
In answer to questions on Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century we made the following points to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission:.
• Humanists regard the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a key document for civilised standards of human conduct.
• We recognise that total, unfettered freedom cannot exist where the pursuit of common good and justice deals with competing needs.
• Religious tenets have the potential to benefit or to harm. (We quoted several reports of human rights abuses and destructive practices in various cults and churches.)
• Australia should not tolerate human rights abuses practiced in the name of religion. We expect the State to protect its citizens from such harm.
• Section 116 of the Australian Constitution protects religious freedom rather too well by its “guarantee of the free exercise of any religion” without saying that there are legal limits to such freedom and that the law of the land should prevail.
• We expressed major concerns about the separation of State and religion and quoted many cases where it is breached: in particular, funding of religious organisations, schools, chaplains, hospitals; appointment of a head of a church to an executive position in government; political lobbying, donations and intimidation of MPs on social issues such as IVF, abortion and surrogacy; outsourcing of many social services to faith-based organisations (e.g. Commonwealth Employment Services); in pregnancy counselling, custody disputes etc. We commented that relegating basic human services to churches and charities is a return to the Dark Ages.
• In the aftermath of 11 September [2001] there emerged resentment towards Islam. It is regrettable but understandable. Regrettable because it affects the majority of Muslims who are peaceful, law-abiding and do not support or engage in jihad. The emergence of violent, fundamentalist groups caused the backlash against Islam.
• The subordinate status of women was established by Judaism, Islam and Christianity and is still entrenched in orthodox congregations. This ancient denial of equal rights affects the lives of many women to this day and limits their opportunities in life. (We listed some practices of gender discrimination in open defiance of these laws as observed by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner.)
• We commented on and gave examples of the growing influence of religion in public policy, e.g. MPs’ religious beliefs or obligation to their churches appearing to prevail over the wishes of the great majority of their constituents.
• We support the freedom of religion and belief and freedom from vilification on those grounds, but not the freedom from criticism of harmful, sometimes barbaric practices in the name of religion. Such criticism is part of civilising activism, which in the past has put an end to slavery, burnings at stake and other acts of brutality of the early Christians. We observe that much religious intolerance sterns from doctrinal differences within the various religious denominations, and that they pose a threat to social cohesion. The growing numbers of non-believers are often disparaged and blamed for social ills by church leaders.
• We stated our conviction that the key to religious tolerance is education in comparative systems of beliefs. An unbiased comparison of beliefs is education; sectarian instruction is not. The secular State should not cater for private arrangements of such needs, and the cost should be borne by those who require religious services of any kind. We are concerned by the attempts to introduce creationism and “intelligent design” beliefs into science classes as if they are scientifically valid alternatives to evolution and argue at length against these attempts. Now more than ever we need to deal with the growing complexities of the natural world rationally and scientifically.
• We regret that the universality of the Declaration of Human Rights has recently been eroded by the adoption of an Islamic version of Human Rights by the UN Human Rights Council, where Islamic States form a majority. This version imposes severe penalties on criticism of sharia law, the practice of punitive amputations, hanging of gay men, female genital mutilation, stoning to death, child marriage, lashing, etc. Humanists view these developments with grave concern.
––––––––––
2008.9. Review of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service
Submitted 1 December 2008 to the Department of Communication and Digital Economy, Australia.
Published: Victorian Humanist, Feb. 2009: 4.
Review of ABC and SBS
General remarks
1. Victorian Humanists welcome this timely review of the ABC and SBS.
2. The national broadcasters report, interpret and promote debate on aspects of an increasingly complex world. This should be done in depth and with integrity, and needs to be of high quality.
And as we do not live by information alone, the arts (drama, concerts, comedy, ballet etc.) should be of an exemplary standard and reflect the pursuit of excellence and should be untainted by commercial advertising.
3. The privately/commercially operated media outlets have been shown to be guilty of unethical broadcasting practices, undisclosed vested interests, “opinions for sale” and some censored reports. And we see no commitment to excellence, education or serious debate where the interests of sponsors or advertisers prevail.
It is therefore imperative that the ABC remain entirely free and independent from commercial interests.
4. The freedom from political interference is of greatest importance. This particular freedom is the hallmark of democracy and must be maintained at all costs.
5. The Humanist Society of Victoria does not offer technical expertise on digital broadcasting but we submit our members’ hopes and concerns about the future of the ABC and SBS.
Specific points
6. It is our sincere hope that this review will result in significant and badly needed improvements to the national broadcasters in the area of funding, governance and independence from government and commercial influences; and that there will be a growth in the production of meaningful, innovative and high quality content.
We are encouraged by press reports which indicate commitment to such improvements.
7. In the past decade both the ABC and the SBS suffered a decline in independence and consequently a decline in meeting its charter obligations.
(a) The appointment of ABC directors who were the winners in the “culture wars” was seen as board stacking and eroded the valuable public trust the ABC enjoyed.
(b) The gradual spread of advertisements throughout the SBS programs caused this specialist multicultural station to depart form its primary role and to resemble a mainstream commercial station. Sponsors and advertisers have no interest in special social objectives.
8. It is our hope that better funding and freedom from advertising revenue will allow programs which help to combat social ills such as racism, xenophobia and intolerance of diversity. The recent and highly acclaimed First Australians is an example of “value for money” invested in national broadcasting.
9. We also hope that in all its new delivery platforms the national broadcasters will be able —
(a) to be widely accessible and free of charge;
(b) to use its considerable records, archival material and new research to play the role of an open university, and —
(c) to maintain the separate focus and functions of the ABC and SBS.
10. We state our support for the following proposals canvassed at the 2020 Summit on this subject:
* Reform sedition laws to ensure freedom of speech principles. The provision of new sedition legislation has no application to works of art, works of scholarship or works of intellectual inquiry.
* Increase peer assessment to improve the quality of work.
* The government should take immediate steps to remove culture from all free-trade agreements, including the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement, to ensure Australian content restrictions.
* Ensure that screen agencies support access and development for emerging film-makers and practitioners.
––––––––––
[End of 2008]
