Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Wednesday, 4 August 2004) . . Page.. 3402 ..

illnesses. For example, if employers are allowed access to genetic information when recruiting staff, this could lead to some very well-qualified and healthy persons becoming unemployable. I believe this sort of thing occurs, and it is patently unfair and utterly without ethical justification.

A case in point is an 18-year-old male named Nathan, whose mother had Huntington’s disease. Nathan completed university with above average marks and was deemed to be in the top 5 per cent of applicants for a public sector job he was seeking. The final requirement was to pass a medical examination in which the applicant was required to submit his family’s medical history. Nathan did this, noting his family had a history of Huntington’s disease. Nathan was subsequently offered the job, but only on the proviso that he undertook a genetic test. It proved negative for the genotype that causes Huntington’s disease. If Nathan had the genotype that caused Huntington’s disease, it would not mean that he would definitely get the disease. To base employment on the possibility that somebody might develop a certain disease is patently unfair. It is seriously discriminatory and is simply biological determinism at its worst.

I appreciate the co-operation and the effort put in by the opposition and members of the crossbench when looking into bills in general. Indeed, we seem to work quite well together when we are debating or about to debate a bill. However, I cannot say that that exists with the government when a bill does not have its name on it. It is interesting to me that in this instance Mr Stefaniak, Ms Tucker’s office and Ms Dundas’ office were extremely open to discussing this bill. Given that this bill was tabled in December last year, I cannot recall one occasion when the government ever came to me or my office, even though we offered to provide information to the government to discuss it. So, it would be good if there were more co-operation and collaboration between the government and others in this place. Maybe the day that the majority in this place see this will be a day to celebrate.

A United States study conducted by Northwestern National Life Insurance in the late 1990s found that by the year 2000, 15 per cent of employers plan to check the genetic status of prospective employees and dependants before making employment offers. This is a very high figure and underlines why we need to take steps to protect people against genetic discrimination.

Over the years we have seen, particularly in the area of employment, many examples of discrimination ranging across characteristics such as race, gender and age; characteristics which are unchangeable, characteristics which of themselves do not constitute a risk simply because they exist. Over the years we have moved to eradicate these abhorrent forms of discrimination within our society. It took us a long time between acknowledging the discrimination and addressing it through legislation.

Indeed, in 2002, this Assembly unanimously passed the amendment to the Discrimination Act on pregnancy discrimination. I remember that debate very clearly. Despite the fact that it was a unanimous vote, the Chief Minister was quite bitter in his statements, saying, “I find this unnecessary”—and this from the man who professes to be the social conscience of his party and the territory and who wants to preserve and protect people’s rights. How much taxpayers’ money was spent on putting through a bill of rights? It seems to be a very arbitrary preservation and protection of people’s rights, and only when his name is attached to it.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .