Rob, I'm not sure what has happened to the law but a document on the ALRC website is worth a read http://www.alrc.gov.au/media/2003/bn290503-5.htm

The key recommendations are

- In common with the general thrust of the report, the dignity and autonomy of human beings requires that non-consensual DNA parentage testing should be prohibited, unless there is a court order or other lawful authority.

- DNA parentage testing only should be conducted by laboratories accredited for this purpose by the National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia (NATA). Further, NATA should review its accreditation requirements for DNA parentage testing to ensure that they meet the highest technical and ethical standards, particularly in relation to consent to testing, protecting the integrity of genetic samples, and providing information about counselling.

- The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) should be empowered to regulate access to home use or 'DIY' parentage testing kits, having regard to both technical/quality control considerations and the personal sensitivity of such tests—especially in the absence of counselling.

- DNA parentage testing involving children under 12 should be allowed only with the written consent of both parents, or pursuant to a court order. This rule also should apply to children 12-18 years of age who lack sufficient maturity to make a free and informed decision about testing.

- DNA parentage testing involving children of 12-18 years who are sufficiently mature to make a free and informed decision should be permitted only with the consent of the child, or pursuant to a court order.

- The results of DNA parentage testing should not be admissible in any legal proceedings in Australia unless the testing complies with the laws and regulations described above. This would reinforce existing evidence law, which discourages the admission of improperly obtained evidence, and also would serve to deter individuals from resorting to non-accredited testing by limiting the use to which such unauthorised test results may be put.

R0bert

Thanks for that ref, as I said, "it really shows the power of the neo-feminist lobby in this country." Yeah, and now for 'mutual consent to allow a PI to follow your cheating husband' - I dont think they will be arguing for that (although it is clearly a much greater breach of privacy) because this is a right that "women want". That seems to be the only thing of concern now, they smokescreen it with a lot of other issues but the lack of consistency on the 'privacy' criterion juxtaposed with the remarkable consistency with the 'what women want' criterion shows that this is what is really behind such legislation.

It is enough to make a man want to emigrate or at least not have children with any Australian women, hey! isnt that what a lot of men are doing? Neo-feminists are cooking their own geese - they complain that men wont commit but no-one with any sense would commit to a relationship where they are open to such unprotected abuse. Under this law a woman could claim that James Packer was the father then, denying permission for a paternity test, hook into millions of dollars a year in child support.

I think women should be opposing these changes because if they get this legislation through they you will find it even more difficult to get a man to commit.