Govt to change drug dependence disability ruling

Regarding: Disability Discrimination Act

Case: Marsden v HREOC etc..


The government's proposed legislative changes to disallow the classification of drug addiction as a disability raises a number of concerning issues.

John Howard said "It will not be unlawful to discriminate against a person on the basis of addiction to a prohibited drug if the person is actually addicted at the time of the discrimination," and "That is why the Government has decided to change the law to make it absolutely clear that drug addiction is not a disability under the Disability Discrimination Act"

To consider the points of these propsed changes, definitions do have to be considered. Firstly, in medical terms, drug dependence is in fact a mental illnes. It can be defined as a maladaptive pattern of substance use, leading to clinically significant impairment or distress. There are different definitions of drug dependence but they all have a common thread. For example, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illness uses seven criteria guide the assessment, based on tolerance, withdrawal, substance use used in larger amounts or for longer than intended, desire or unsuccesful efforts to control use, time spent obtaining,using, or recovering from substances and continued usage of substances despite the awareness of a problem caused by the substance.

Secondly, while open to constant reclassification, there is a difference between impairment, handicap and disability; impairment being an abnormality of body structure or function e.g. broken arm or brain lesion, handicap being a reduction in the ability to perform basic tasks or activities e.g. eating, and disability being a disadvantage in fulfilling social roles. In legal terms, a disability as it is defined by the act, is in part "a disorder, illness or disease that affects a person's thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgment or that results in disturbed behaviour" that may occur presently, have previously or in the future or be imputed to a person. In general, however, it is an inability to fulfil a social role in life e.g. as a valued employee or breadwinner, as a consequence of a condition. It may well be argued that a state of drug dependence, as opposed to merely being under the influence, inteferes with a person's ability to act in accordance with their appropriate social role in society. Does drug dependence not constitute a disability?

One point the Prime Minister has failed to clarify, is the fact that just because a person is "addicted" to a substance at the time of the discrimination does not mean the person was under the influence of that substance at the time of discrimination and this is where the Disability Discrimination Act is so important. Presumably, one aspect of anti-discrimination legislation, is to prevent discrimination against those who, despite being able to fulfill the requirements of a role, may be less desirable employees for one reason or another. Ofcourse in the case of the Disability Discrimination Act, this act concerns situations where that undesirable quality is a disability.

Does the current legislation infact allow an impaired drug affected individual to be immune to punitive measures whilst acting in a certain roles? I can't answer this, but it shouldn't allow this ofcourse. It should, however, prevent a disability such as the drug dependence itself, from being a basis upon which an individual is discriminated against. Surely the legislation is designed to protect against this kind of discrimination. If there are adverse affects of the current legislation changes should be not be made but they should not based on a technical legal or medical definitional argument. Rather, the spirit of the legislation should be upheld. The law should be written for the majority to benefit, not against the minority who may choose to exploit the law. The government needs to be careful to assess who is affected by this proposed legislative change.

In the bigger picture, drug dependence is in part a societal issue. The pressures society places on its members may drive them to many forms of dependence including tobacco and alcohol. To weaken legislation and deny natural justice is further penalising those with an already debilitating disorder. Will we find that those with a heavy smoking habit will find themselves able to be discriminated against because of this dependence? This is an extreme example but may indicate the impact of such legislative changes.

If it is true that a society may be judged by the way in which it treats its sick and elderly, the quality of our society is suffering through it's failure to protect those vulnerable members of the society by appropriate legislation. These changes would only serve to further disadvantage a vulnerable segment of society. Apart from the related federal court case, Marsden v HREOC & Coffs Harbour & District Ex-Servicemen and Women's Memorial Club Limited [2000] FCA 1619, it would be interesting to know whom or what prompted such a proposal and who such a change would serve.

Once again, an already marginalised segment of the community is being further disadvantaged through an attempt to weaken their protection against discriminatory behaviour, such behaviour that at a community level only serves to deepen the problem of drug dependence

Who would've thought it was so easy to be published. The weekend Australian published a short letter I emailed in to Letters to the Editor. Given that it will probably disappear soon, here is the letter:

"You really have to wonder whether John Howard and Peter Costello suffer from phantom back pain, given they're so spineless. If they do have back pain, it's obviously not enough to require a disability pension. To target the sick and disabled through the Budget in such a manner is shameless.

Oliver Daly
Atherton, Qld"

I can't say I was happy with the expression, so clunky. I can only improve.

Is it right to quote one's self?

This article, Wonderful life of Brian, was from The Australian acouple weeks ago but is well worth a look. It's a piece written by Phillip Adams, and talks of the death of a close friend of his, Brian. Acouple of paragraphs grabbed the concept of friendship by the scruff of the neck and shook its importance into stark clarity, and it was these passages that affected me most. I hope my comments don't tarnish these perfect sentiments.

"... There were times when the friendship, like a marriage, seemed to have gone on too long, when it was running out of energy or relevance, but then it would come back, as strong as ever."

- It's frustrating how friendships can do this. They carry on of their own volition at times and in many ways you have to allow things to take their course, for good or bad.

"Like all old friends, Brian and I talked in shorthand. A word, a phrase, was code for this anecdote or that experience. With his death all that shared memory, the shared culture, the shared experience of time itself, evaporated. It's not only the present and the future you're denied by the death of a friend – it's more the richness of the past. It's the loss of yesterday as much as the loss of tomorrow that constitutes grief."

- Having to relegate those moments to the past, with no hope of being able to share them or add to them. To take a slightly different context, it has felt to me that each good-bye is a small death. I don't like good-byes, a "see you soon" is far more preferable.

"A friend is someone with whom you may think aloud. As the 17th-century proverb puts it, there is no better looking glass than an old friend. So when that mirror in which you see yourself is broken, when you no longer have that person with whom you were able to think aloud, that death is your death."

Thanks Phillip.