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

I've been discussing this with another friend going through IVF recently. We're both in Victoria and are affected by the legislation. We're also both lawyers, and have sought advice from Human Rights lawyers on this issue. :angry:

The Bill that included this little gem included the changes to the provisions for IVF access for lesbian couples. The media focus at the time was on these changes, and the police checks provisions largely went by unnoticed. The submissions received on the legislation was mainly from religious organisations objecting to the lesbian access provisions.

There is an argument that the police check and Child Protection check provisions contravene anti-discrimination law, but unfortunately this is unlikely to succeed. Most anti-discrimination provisions relate to employment, etc. The Victorian Charter of Human Rights does provide that no one should be discriminated against in the provision of goods and services, but again it would be difficult to make it stick. The advice I've been given is that in order to have a 'cause of action' (a case to argue) an IVF patient should either:
a) obtain a police check and if what is on their police check results in them being refused access to IVF, making a complaint of discrimination, or seeking an administrative review of the decision, or
b) refuse to obtain the police check, recieve an official refusal from the IVF provider, and then make a complaint of discrimination.
Obtaining a police check that is 'clean' and proceeding to IVF will not result in a cause of action.

I should add that the three HR lawyers I've spoken to have given me two and half different responses. Besides that, the obvious downside is that none of us want to delay our IVF treatment with our own political activism and court cases.

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.

I hate these provisions. I wrote to the Attorney-General at the time the Bill was being debated and told him exactly that. :protest: It is so discriminatory, and you know what? DH and I have already wondered what it is that makes us less 'deserving' to be parents, and we don't need the government scrutinising us any more. And in my line of work, I see plenty of people who would fail the police checks, if only they weren't so fertile.

If anyone has been refused treatment on the basis of their police checks or child protection checks, they are welcome to call the HRLRC.

And of course the irony is that the demographic of people accessing IVF are probably not the same demographic who have dirty police records...

Oh, and if you want to keep track of what's happening at MIVF, see http://www.mivf.com.au/ivf/bulletinb...e=LN&cat=sub18

Persephone1 you are a legend :clap: :clap: :clap:

Thanks for sharing what you are learned. I really hope noone gets refused treatment, but one day it may happen. I just really hope that it wont be a serious case that the Government can then use to justify their position. Time will tell.

Once again thanks to you and your friends for thinking this through. I did look into Fed Anti-Discrimination laws but it doesn't seem that they extend to this scenario.

ETA: I have to share some reputation around first but you deserve it IMO.

Mods?

Just as an aside - I found this thread by accident because it's in the LTTTC LTAC thread. I've only been on IVF for five months, so I wouldn't normally have come in here. Is there anyway it can get linked to the other LTTTC threads so that other IVF girls can read it?

i havent started with my PC as im not currently cyceling! do i still need to do it?and a police officer friend told me not to do it until they ask? am i wrong in thinking this?

You won't have to check until you're cycling again. GL!

:

---

i havent started with my PC as im not currently cyceling! do i still need to do it?and a police officer friend told me not to do it until they ask? am i wrong in thinking this?

---

Loula ... Initially hun, I have to saw wow !!! sexy rexy new avi ....

It's on the MIVF and Monash Websites, and when you visit the clinics the brochures are clearly visable that we need to get them done. My first nurse appt with new clinic advised us to have it ready from the 1st Sept 09 ..

Hi Seph

I'm also a lawyer and I've been through a similar set of discussions with other lawyers. I noticed that the scrutiny of acts committee actually referred the bill back to parliament because they thought this provision may have been a breach of the Charter of Human Rights.

At the time the bill was being considered I emailed Sue Pennicuik and asked her to fight for us. I didn't get a response and assumed it had fallen on deaf ears but upon reading legislative debate I now know that she did an amazing job trying to fight to have it taken out.

see this link Assisted Reproductive Treatment Bill - amendment re police checks | Greens MPs in Victoria

My personal favourite (or rather not so favourite) quote is the one from Mr Finn where he says:

"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."

sorry - should have read Ms finn

actually - I was right the first time - shows you how much I know about Vic parliamentary members

:

---

At the time the bill was being considered I emailed Sue Pennicuik and asked her to fight for us. I didn't get a response and assumed it had fallen on deaf ears but upon reading legislative debate I now know that she did an amazing job trying to fight to have it taken out.

---

I also wrote to Sue Pennicuik, and because ummm...I'm politically active :redface:...I had dinner with her and a few other sympathetic MPs. Our concerns were not falling on deaf ears, but of course the conservative factions have a strong voice and there was little that the Greens could do. I did however get a response from Sue, so I'm surprised you didn't get one - she's usually very good at responding to letters, so perhaps it was just a clerical issue.

Unfortunately I think the police checks really only got through because all the media hoop-la was focussed on the "IVF for lesbians!" stuff.

Mr Finn would make me laugh, if he didn't make me want to vomit. :p

:

---

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

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.

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.

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.

"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*

:

---

"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.

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

:

---

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

---

I encourage people to keep up the rage about it though. Voice your opinions to whoever may be listening, nag, complain and be angry about it. We want to avoid this happening anywhere else. May Victoria be the only place this slips into law.

Seph I would love a copy of the letter. Can you email me at Gmail, dustygal is the prefix. Cheers and thanks for the info.

Dusty, I've emailed it to you - let me know if it doesn't arrive.

Even tough the police check seems to have it's obvious downsides as described and nobody know where this will eventually end - who decides who is going to have children - I in some ways would agree with doing some form of a background check but obviously it's very specific as I have just found out, and I am really annoyed by this.

My wife and I just started this IVF treatment and were told that we need ot have a police check done. I thought okay, no issue as we both have a current "Working with Children Check" as we do volunteer work with children in the community. I pretty much assumed that this should be sufficient as to obtain a WWC a police records check is done and then on top of that you records are monitored on an ongoing basis.

So I asked them to accept our WWC instead of the requested police check and this was the reply:

"The cards they have are Working With Children Check cards and these checks are not conducted by Victoria Police. DHS are clear in their instructions that they will not accept a Working With Children check and a police check conducted by us must be provided."

To put it blunt this I find way out of line. If I just would start challenge that statement I would need to ask if not the Victorian Police conducts the police check who does for the WWC? How many police forces and records do we have in this country?

On a more general level one has to ask what they are trying to achive? Is it the protection of the unborn child? If yes, than one would assume that if somebody is certified to work with other people's children that should provide sufficient protection for their own children? Obviously not!

So the only conclusion here can be that somebody wanted to introduce a barrier to IVF treatment by putting a process in place that delays or prevents the treatment.

So much for the intentions of the people who introduced this legislations - now I am going to have a police check conducted by Victorian Police, not that other police that does the police checks for the WWC!

Hi Andy1
It seems you are caught up in the reddest of red tape :wall:. Perhaps they just haven't properly interpreted the legislation yet or are being super cautious to follow the letter of the law. Either way I hope you don't have to go through too much more invasive searches.
GL with your cycle!

Saw this in the Hun today:

New law demands police checks for childless couples | Herald Sun

The Hun was running a poll - please vote! - Poll Popup | Herald Sun

Seph

This is outrageous and offends on so many levels. This discriminates against infertile couples. There is no evidence to suggest this group of parents are higher risk - quite the opposite. Anyone who's been through IVF and has been lucky enough to conceive thinks their baby is so precious. You have to really want children to go through the emotional and financial strain of IVF. IVF is not a lifestyle choice, as gossiped about aging stars in womens magazines, it is a treatment for medical conditions for ordinary women and men.
This is a 3 part check requiring checks against the policy criminal records, child protection orders and fingerprint check. What is going on with society when ordinary citizens are have fingerprint checks? Is infertility now a crime? What happens with this information and does it create a record entry for people who previously were not on the police database?
This will be a double whammy for infertile couples in VIC, after the federal govt removed IVF from the Medicare safety net, increasing treatment costs by thousands of dollars. This is government and bureaucracy gone wrong. I'm sure the police, always under resourced, have some real criminals to chase.

I'm 23 weeks pregnant with a georgeuos IVF baby after trying over 7 years & 3 frozen embryos - luckily in NSW.

Most Victorians, the writer included, would support initiatives to protect at risk Children and therefore some suggestions may be helpful. Basic Internet research identified that Australian Politicians and Beauracrats may pose considerably more risk to their children than IVF couples. To support this proposition the following are listed:

Milton Orkopoulos , 2008 NSW Labour 13 years detention, 28 Child Sex Offences
Keith Wright, 1993 Qld Labour, 11 years, Child Sex Offences
Bill D’arcy, 2000, Qld Labour, 11 years, Child Sex Offences
Terry Martin, 2009, Tasmania, Court hearing in progress, Child Porn
Willian Stuart Brown, 2000, Ausaid/Australian Embassy Jakarta Child sex offences
Peter Hollingworth allowed a known Paedophile priest to continue working, whilst Archbishop of Brisbane – latter resigned as Governor General as a result of the scandal.

In view of this, it is fair for the population to demand that:

1) The Police Clearance and working with children requirements for IVF patients be removed, or that this requirement be introduced for all Victorians of reproductive age.

2) Politicians should subject themselves to special scrutiny and police clearances before being allowed to have children on the basis that there appears to be considerable more risk of children being abused by politicians than IVF parents.

To date no evidence has been produced by any politician supporting the case that there is an issue with child abuse among IVF patients. I have written to many politicians without a sensible response, excpet for the Greens who are very supportive.

and to add my twopenneth in, apart from being outreagously offensive by implication, it's also utterly utterly pointless.

I've lived in Australia for 1.5 years. Did they check with the UK police? No. So I (or DH) could have been the UK's most wanted list for 33.5 years of my existence, and moved country to escape it (as notable paedos do- like Gary Glitter - not the UK's best export), and would not have shown up on the stupid little form.

:wall: honestly. As if people live in one place all their lives.

LondonMiss, great point, anyone from overseas wouldn't come up on the Australina register.

The thing is, unless every person who wishes to fall pregnant (naturally or not) is required to undergo a police check prior to even trying, then it is discrimination.

With only a relatively small percentage of children born in Australia are a result of IVF (I think it's something like 4% Australia-wide, so an even smaller number if you just consider Victoria), that means that the majority of children born in Australia will not have had the dubious 'benefit' of having their parent's police cleared.

So to place this impost on just a few for no real reason is arbitrary and disciminatory. Unless there is a known and proven history of peodophiles undergoing IVF to conceive children (and why would they when 96% or so of them can simply do it naturally?), then there isn't sufficient reason to impose this breach of privacy on an infertile couple.

I think this is simply a case of a pollie looking for cheap point-scoring without the stats to back it up. The problem is that as IVF patients are in the minority, it got passed as being 'in the interests of the child'.

I take real issue to being considered guilty until proven innocent. Yet this is what this legislation does. All Victorian IVF patients are being treated as if they are criminals until they can prove otherwise. Disgraceful.

So what are we going to do about it?

ITA Sushee. Even though I am in Qld, I would be willing to help out in anyway i can to get this reprehensible situation changed.

With all the changes to medicare re OB & GYN, IVF and this, it just seems like women and in particular woman with infertility issues (who are a minority and by definition a disabled minority at that) are being targeted. It is disgusting.

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.

I am in the process of filling this paperwork out too-it makes me so angry!!!!
Child protection?????? Anyone undertaking assisted reproduction clearly WANTS a child and deserves the same rights as those who conceive naturally.
These laws are insane and discrimintory!
:hug:
:babyboy: 22/08/2009-ICSI Boy

I think it is completely discriminatory for Victorian couples to have to undergo these police checks which is why I have picked the topic for my yr11 persuasive speech. I would be really grateful to anyone who could share their personal experiences and/or offer their opinion on the issue.:protest:
Thanks so much guys

:

---

I think it is completely discriminatory for Victorian couples to have to undergo these police checks which is why I have picked the topic for my yr11 persuasive speech. I would be really grateful to anyone who could share their personal experiences and/or offer their opinion on the issue.:protest:
Thanks so much guys

---

I am available to give my opinion...... :wall:
What a great issue to cover
:leap:
:babyboy:

Hi BS,

You might like to contact the Human Rights Legal Resource Centre. They've given legal advice on this issue and have lots of resources that might help. There's a possible court challenge that might be launched in the future from someone who has been effected - although I don't know any more details about that. The HRLRC might though.

Oh, and Hansard papers will have all the things that the politicians said about the Bill before it was passed. A lot of it was focussed on what the pollies thought of IVF access for lesbians and single mothers, but there is some in there talking about the police checks.

Good luck!

:

---

I am available to give my opinion...... :wall:
What a great issue to cover
:leap:
:babyboy:

---

Hi PM!
It would be great if you could give me your opinion! Please do!
Thanks heaps!