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

[wouldloveabubba]

Hi all

I went to a meeting at our new clinic in Melbourne last week, and they announed that the powers that be, had to extend the date for the police checks, they didnt realise the logistics of it all, it is now the 1st September 09..

[dusty]

Originally Posted by wouldloveabubba

they didnt realise the logistics of it all

Thanks for letting us know hun. xx

[buliej]

Thanks WLAB - but what about the child protection order search - was that postponed too?

[wouldloveabubba]

Oh I can't remember

I would say so, probably best to talk to your clinic when you are next there

[Persephone1]

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.

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. 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

[dusty]

Persephone1 you are a legend

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.

[Persephone1]

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?

[Loula]

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?

[Persephone1]

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

[wouldloveabubba]

Originally Posted by Loula

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 ..

[Bridget]

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."

[Bridget]

sorry - should have read Ms finn

[Bridget]

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

[Persephone1]

Originally Posted by Bridget

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 ...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.

[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.