A CIVIL liberties group says Labor's proposed national anti-discrimination laws have removed the only protection for people against genetic discrimination in the workplace.
A CIVIL liberties group says Labor's proposed national anti-discrimination laws have removed the only protection for people against genetic discrimination in the workplace.
In their submission to the Senate inquiry into the draft bill, Civil Liberties Australia says current laws prevent a person being discriminated against based on a disability that "may exist in the future (including because of a genetic predisposition to that disability)".
Director Tim Vines says this part of the law has been left out in the definition of disability in the current draft and could mean people who have a greater chance of getting certain diseases may be discriminated against by employers, insurance companies or superannuation funds.
"Genetic discrimination occurs where someone treats you so you are worse off because you might have a genetic predisposition towards a certain illness (like cancer), or a condition like sickle cell trait, or a higher risk of becoming an alcoholic or developing a gambling addiction," he said. "You may never develop cancer, or a problem with alcohol, but you could still be treated as though you are a potential invalid or risk to the business."
Mr Vines said the government's decision to leave it out of the draft bill also means that it will fail to stop employers from asking workers about their genetic health.
"More and more Australians are having genetic tests done but our genetic discrimination laws seem to be getting weaker," Mr Vines said. "There's no reason for our existing protections to be removed. No one has explained why it is being dropped from the existing law."
The latest concern comes as the second day of Senate hearings took place in Sydney, where indigenous groups, religious organisations and human rights advocates gave evidence.
The National Association of Community Legal Centres said it broadly supported the proposed legislation but called on the government to remove the words "offends and insults" from the bill.
Australian Catholic Bishops conference general secretary Brian Lucas said he was concerned about the onus of proof shifting to people defending allegations of discrimination.
"When you are required to prove that you did not do this, there is a real opportunity here for certain mischief-making with respect to how complaints can be brought," Father Lucas said. "Organisations can be very vulnerable to great expense and a great deal of difficulty in proving something that can be almost impossible to prove."
He also defended the exemption for religious bodies in the bill, which allows churches to discriminate against gay people within its education and health institutions.
The government's Bill to prevent discrimination is introducing new discrimination into how people with genetic defects are treated. Either inadvertently or deliberately, the government has omitted a key clause which was in the old Act. If it remains out of the new bill, the outcome could limit people's life insurance and superannuation, CLA warns.
Read media release » ...
Read submission » ...
Read Article, The Australian 25 Jan 13 » ...
Listen to this discussion on Radio Adelaide Breakfast » ...
'No taxation without free choice of personal peccadilloes' should be the new catch-cry of smokers, says a CLA member partial to a puff. He's incensed by the hypocrisy of political bullies happy to rake in tax revenue from smokers. And another similar mob now claims the merest wisp of 'sidestream' smoke will kill you: lord knows how we're all still alive, given the smoke of dubious origin clouding our cities and towns from this summer's bushfires.
The NZ High Court has delivered an unexpected puff of freedom of choice to the inmates of Auckland Prison. They can, from now, smoke...something they were barred from doing 18 months ago by regulation. The High Court said the way the ban was brought in was not legal, so those who have kicked the habit by force will now have a tough choice to make over this Christmas period. The Auckland ruling is expected to apply in virtually all NZ jails. The NZ Government will have to pass new legislation to reinstate the ban.
Chief Justice Wayne Martin gives an excellent backgrounder in this speech as to why and how a new mental health court in WA next year will fulfil a major need, as he demonstrates with statistics drawn from other jurisdictions around Australia.
Throughout most of the world, governments acknowledge that the 'war on drugs' has failed. Progressive governments are debating what will replace it. In Australia, some federal and state MPs are leading the way. Campaigners are planning a national drug summit for 2013.
A contributor commenting on the 'Patents' article (see below), has questioned whether new law protects researchers from being sued by Big Pharma over patents. No, says CLA Director Tim Vines, the new law has so far only created more uncertainty. But, of course, one thing is for sure: you and I no longer own all our own genes.
How much of your intrinsic genetic information do you own? Certainly not all, as maybe 20% is locked away in the vaults of big pharmaceutical companies whose business aim is to make the most money possible from their holdings. CLA Director and National Media Spokesperson Tim Vines explains why there's a growing debate over the possible need for new laws.
A government electronic health records system costing hundreds of millions of dollars, in preparation for a decade, is in a shambles this week as the newly-'launched' e-portal won't even take the basic registrations online for which it was set up. As well, there's doubts about how safe people's private health information will be. CLA's CEO Bill Rowlings reports...
The NT Government was formed in 1978 on a culture of unlimited grog, some of coming from Cabinet ice-chests. But why can't we change the politics of grog in the territory? Why can't better restrictions be put in place?
We could increase taxes on grog, and bring in minimum pricing, and have outlets close on pay days, at least for a while.
The drug "war" is yet another example of hyperbolic rhetoric where political and law enforcement public relations spin has replaced practical analysis and fiscal common sense. When 'the powers-that-be' realise that the basis for tackling drugs should be economic savings to the nation – with improved health and crime prevention benefits as a by-product – we might start to get somewhere, Bill Bush writes.
Noel McLaughlin (Letters 3 April 2012 Canberra Times) misrepresents (columnist) Jack Waterford’s position on the AFP. Jack was not criticising the personal bravery of individuals. Rather, what I understood him to be saying is that the AFP have been encouraged, both by sweeping anti-terrorism legislation, and the enthusiastic and uncritical support of a previous Attorney-General, to use their authority and resources inappropriately in a ‘win at all costs’ way. Little consideration seems to have been given to ensuring that those charged with enforcing the law, do so in accordance with what the law actually says, and not what they think it says.
The proposed WA Mental Health Act aims to deliver "best possible treatment and care", but the Bill does not reflect these noble words, says CLA lead author Rhys Jones. Rather than enhancing people's rights, the draft Bill actually increases the the ability for the State to treat people against their will, making life easier for the health bureaucracy rather than better for the mentally ill.
CLA has received many requests over the past few months for information about people's civil liberties and rights in relation to surveys by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The ABS is becoming more like Big Brother in its approach, it seems, in two major surveys currently under way into Health, and Financial/Utilities. Here's a report of a recent interview...
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | © Civil Liberties Australia A04043 - ABN 46 368 619 567 |