On 4 December 2003, the Senate referred the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Amendment Bill 2003 (Cth) to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee for inquiry and report.  

The Clinic made a substantial submission, entitled 'Discrimination Against Drug Users: Execarbating Addiction',  to this inquiry.  The Clinic also made a Supplementary Submission to assist the Committee in its deliberations.

The Bill seeks to amend the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) ('DDA') to provide that it is lawful to discriminate against a person on the ground of 'drug addiction' unless that person is undergoing a program, or receiving services, to treat the addiction.  The Bill applies to discrimination in all areas of life covered by the DDA, including employment, accommodation, club membership, land, sport, the administration of Commonwealth programs, and access to goods, services, facilities and premises.   

In the Clinic's view, the Disability Discrimination Amendment Bill 2003 (Cth) should not be enacted.  The Clinic considers that the Bill:

• is unwarranted and unnecessary;
• is inconsistent with international human rights law;
• is inconsistent with international law relating to drug demand reduction policies and programs;
• is contrary to the objects and purposes of the DDA;
• will impact severely and disproportionately on financially and socially disadvantaged people;
• will perpetuate many of the underlying causes of drug use;
• will have a negative educational impact and further stigmatise and marginalise drug users;
• may act as a barrier to some people accessing services or receiving treatment; and
• may increase the incidence of unsafe injecting practices. 

The Committee's Report, tabled on 15 April 2004, made the following important findings, among others:

• The Committee received 118 submissions from a diversity of organisations, including the medical profession, the legal profession, the alcohol and drug sector, welfare agencies and people affected by drug use. 116 of the submissions 'opposed the Bill in whole or in substantial part'.
• The Committee received persuasive evidence that the Bill is unnecessary and is unlikely to achieve its purported objectives.
• The Committee considers that the Bill would have 'significant public health impacts' including, potentially, a decrease in the preparedness of drug users to seek treatment and an increase in the transmission of blood-borne viruses such as HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C.
• The Committee is concerned that the Bill would 'increase the marginalisation of drug-dependent people'.
• The Committee is concerned that the Bill violates the right to equality before the law and would 'exclude a particular set of person's from the Act's basic human rights protection'.

In light of these findings, the Committee recommends that the Bill be referred to the Ministerial Council on Drugs Strategy for further consideration and that, if subsequently enacted, the Bill should only permit discrimination on the ground of 'drug addiction' in the area of employment and not in other areas such as accommodation, education, the provision of goods and services and the like.

The Labor Senators and the Australian Democrats both issued dissenting reports. While substantially agreeing with the Committee's findings, the Labor Senators and the Australian Democrats both recommend that the Bill not proceed, with the Democrats also recommending that policies should be formulated to address the lack of availability, accessibility and affordability of drug treatment services.

The Committee's Report makes extensive references to the submissions of PILCH and its allies including the Support and Accommodation Rights Service of the Council to Homeless Persons, the Disability Discrimination Legal Service, Fitzroy Legal Service, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, the Combined Community Legal Centre Group of NSW, VIVAIDS, Dr Alex Wodak of St Vincent's Hospital and Anglicare Victoria among many others.

Importantly, the Committee's Report also relies extensively on the outstanding submissions of PILCH member firms Clayton Utz and Arnold Bloch Leibler. The submissions of Clayton Utz and Arnold Bloch Leibler were clearly afforded significant weight by the Committee and strongly influenced its findings and recommendations. The involvement of law firms in public policy advocacy and law reform work is an exciting development in the provision of pro bono legal services.