Anyone in VIC done the police check required to continue or commence IVF post-July?

[paradise lost]

What I have done is spoken to the Human Rights Legal Resource Centre in Melbourne. They are going to continue to look into it (although they have limited resources), but they have indicated that one way of getting a 'test case' for them to take on board is to wait for someone to be refused access to IVF on the basis of their police record/child protection check and then go in all guns a'blazing. HRLRC is considering contacting Melbourne IVF in the hope that such a patient would be referred to HRLRC when this happens.

But how likely is it that someone who has done nothing questionable will be refused? Will they REALLY refuse IVF on the basis of old DUI convictions? And if someone is refused because they are a convicted paedophile will blazing guns be effective or appropriate in getting them a baby? If the focus is on crimes against children and crimes of a sexual nature, are we ready to fight for the rights of paedophiles or rapists to have children with AC?

I totally disagree that couples should have to go through this, and i think as a protection policy it is poorly thought-out and will be completely ineffective, but i don't see a test-case due to to refusal being successful unless people are going to be refused for very unrelated or arbitrary reasons, KWIM?

Bx

[Persephone1]

Paradise,

No, I think you're right, it's unlikely that a test-case would be successful if the police check revealed horrendous violence or sexual crimes. But I don't think that sort of case would win on the discrimination aspect anyway - the government would say "look, the legislation is working, and the discrimination is justified."

On the other hand, if someone was rejected for a dirty record (and apparently the only things that will eliminate you would be violent or sexual crimes and/or child protection issues, not your average DUI), and their record was in fact for something that could be argued is not fair discrimination, then that's the case that might be more appropriate to pursue. I'm thinking that it might be a case where someone has a prior conviction for assault from when they were 19, only to be told at 35 that they can't access IVF - that's the sort of case that might be worth fighting.

The government will always argue that the ends justify the means. I don't think it does - I seriously doubt that prohibiting convicted paedophiles from accessing IVF would stop them from abusing children, if that's what they intended to do. AND I don't think the demographic of IVF patients matches the demographic of people with criminal records, on the whole.

Also, I think at the core of the conservative MP's argument is their secret belief that gay people are paedophiles. Mr Finn's comments above suggest this, and from what I've heard on the political grapevine, this was the driving force behind the police checks. The police checks are discriminatory, and if the government was serious about protecting children, they wouldn't be starting with the IVF clinics. It's a total sham.

[Bridget]

What annoys me is that people who do abuse their children (to the point that their children are made wards of the state) are allowed to have more children. The government doesn't remove these subsequent children until there is clear evidence that they are also being abused. They even get the baby bonus.

My mum worked in child protection for most of my life and the stories she told me were just heartbreaking. So how can the victorian government say on one hand that it needs to protect the children of IVF patients (with no evidence of increased risk of abuse) but allow actual abusers to continue their abuse AND financially aid these people.

I think its pretty clear the only way they could convince some members of parliament to allow same sex couples to have access to IVF was to "prove" that they were OK parents by performing police checks. Ridiculous and outrageous. But I guess if it got them over the line on allowing same sex couples access to IVF then I feel a little better having to do the ridiculous police check.

What we need is someone who has given up on IVF (because of age maybe?) or who has completed their family but could "pretend" to want another child just to be refused treatment.

[Treen]

Hi ladies,

Does anyone know what the Vic gov would do if the couple already has frozen embryos, but were refused treatment on the basis of the police checks? Does the government then have custody of my embryos? Frightening.

[sammiejam]

"My very great concern is that we could have a situation where two male paedophiles commission -- and I have to say to the house that I detest that word in this context; the use of that word very much reflects the government's attitude to children -- a child, and if there were no police checks, there would be nothing anybody could do to stop them. I would not want to see a child put into a position where they would be effectively under the guardianship of paedophiles. To allow that to happen would be a total abrogation of our responsibility as members of Parliament. For that reason I will be opposing this particular amendment."

I very much doubt that 2 MALE paedophiles would be able to get prg in the first place. *rolling of eyes*

[Nurse27]

"My very great concern is that we could have a situation where two male paedophiles commission -- and I have to say to the house that I detest that word in this context; the use of that word very much reflects the government's attitude to children -- a child, and if there were no police checks, there would be nothing anybody could do to stop them. I would not want to see a child put into a position where they would be effectively under the guardianship of paedophiles. To allow that to happen would be a total abrogation of our responsibility as members of Parliament. For that reason I will be opposing this particular amendment."*

It infuriates me that people seem to automatically assume that 2 gay men = 2 pedophiles. There are plenty of people out there who have been physically and sexually assulted by heterosexual parents. One does not exclude the other.

South Australia does not have the police check, but we have to complete a stat dec stating we promise to do the best by the child and so on.

[Persephone1]

Ladies,

I have received a response from the HRLRC about this issue. I am happy to forward a copy of the letter to anyone, if you want to pm me.

Generally though, they think the police checks breach the Victorian Charter of Human Rights but the discrimination would probably be found to be justified and proportionate given that the purpose of the legislation is to protect children.

Unfortunately the police checks are not considered a breach of the Equal Opportunity Act either, because a person's police check is not protected under the legislation. However, there has been recommendations on this issue - that a person should not be discriminated against on the basis of their police checks - but for now, it's not applicable. The HRLRC recommends writing a friendly letter to the A-G on this issue.

There's a bit more to it, but let me know if you're interested and I'll forward a copy of the letter to you.

Hope that clarifies some things...seems like we all have to grin and bear it, despite how outrageously discriminatory it is on a moral and social level.

Seph

[ShareBear]

This whole thing makes me see red....

Until the entire population of Australians who are at child-bearing age are also subjected to these checks - it's discrimination. Plain and simple.

Fight it, Victorians.