JUDGMENT PENALISES COMMUNITY

COURTS, in attempting to protect the rights and freedoms of an individual,
in reality often diminish the rights of the majority of Australians.

At the same time, particularly in the areas of civil litigation, the notion
of personal responsibility and accountability is further eroded.

Decisions in a number of civil cases indicate that over-indulgence in
alcohol is not the fault of the consumer, but the person who served the
drinks. It is also a common defence in some criminal cases that
responsibility for personal behaviour had been diminished because of an
over-consumption of alcohol or drugs.

Now a decision in the Federal Court in a discrimination case has continued
this trend. The court has determined that drug addiction is a
legally-recognised disability, reversing the decision of the Human Rights
and Equal Opportunities Commission.

It found that the Coffs Harbour and District Servicemen's and Women's
Memorial Club was wrong to expel a member who was a heroin addict undergoing
methadone treatment on the basis that he was not a person of good character.

By declaring drug dependence as a disability, the court has ignored that
drug use is a personal choice, one that remains unacceptable in our
community. In protecting the rights of the individual, it has ignored the
rights of the club to determine who it will accept as members.

The decision also threatens the rights of employers, real estate agents who
rent property and other community groups.

Drug or alcohol abuse is not condoned in the workplace. However, if a
drug-dependent person is classified as disabled, he or she would have to be
considered for employment or retained as an employee under the Federal
Disability Discrimination Act.

If an employer fails to do this, the company will be liable for damages.

The drug-dependent person is no longer responsible for the consequences of
his addiction. It becomes, by law, the responsibility of his employer.

The term mutual obligation has been used by the Federal Government to
describe the intention of its welfare reform. It should also describe the
relationship between employer and employee. This decision denies that
possibility.

The judgment ignores the rights of most other people in the community. It
deserves to be appealed in their best interests.