Lesbians are setting the Federal Government’s Family Law reform agenda

Lesbians are setting the Federal Government’s Family Law reform agenda


MEDIA RELEASE, 20th January, 2006

Anti Family Forces Hi-jack New Family Relationship Centres

Men’s groups can’t say what they really believe, but Social Worker and Family Counsellor, Ms Matilda Bawden, today did. “Lesbians are setting the Federal Government’s Family Law reform agenda”, she said.

Labelling the Federal Attorney General Phillip Ruddock’s new Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill as ingenuine and a betrayal of the trust and hopes placed by Australian families in the Federal Government and the Liberal Party, at large, Ms Bawden said, “Non custodial parents have wrongly been led to believe that, unlike many since the 1995
Duncan amendments under the Keating Labor government, these reforms would be meaningful and convincing”,she said.

Ms Bawden’s comments come in response to complaints by non-custodial parent groups that they have been frozen out by the Attorney General’s Department from fair and proper representation on the Community Services and Health Industry Skills Council (CSHISC) Steering Committee.

Non-custodial parent groups have had their expectations for shared parenting outcomes in the Family Court raised with the promise that the Industry Skills Council's, Family Counselling, Family Dispute Resolution & Children's Contact Services Project Steering Committee will be developing the professional standards and competencies for working with families undergoing
dispute, separation and divorce.
As part of the promised reforms, many of these mediators and counsellors will be employed within the newly touted Relationship Centres, however, Ms Bawden believes that the standards and competencies have not covered the critical issues the Federal Government promised they would.

Ms Bawden said, “I am deeply concerned that we now have a predominantly lesbian, anti-father culture and world-view of families determining the competencies and standards towards which family counsellors and mediators will aspire when working with children and their parents during the family breakdown process."

"Sadly, most hetero-sexual women are probably blissfully ignorant of this influence."

"There is almost no father-friendly representation on this Committee and certainly NO evidence to show it is even sympathetic to genuine shared parenting or joint residency outcomes or ideals.”

Ms Bawden points out, “Of the 60 modules contained in The First Draft Industry Qualifications and Validations not one contains so much as a whisper (must less passing reference to) shared parenting. What is more, the Committee is saturated with representatives of organizations which are on the record as being opposed to shared parenting.”
(reproduced here as a PSA, emphasis added)

Although I personally have no concerns about the sexual preferences of the officials involved, or any person for that matter, there is an undeniable polarization in Australia. Homophobia and hetero-phobia (If that's a word?) is rampant.
In plain english, I could care less what someone's sexual preferences are so long as they do their job right.
Because of the entrenched distrust, reinforced every day by facts such as those represented in the article above, the attitude of most Australians is toxic.

.. I noticed that Pru Goward was appointed for her term in the Office of Federal Sex Discrimination commissioner for a five year period commencing July 2001. Than means if my maths are correct she has less than a month in office.
...
The role of Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner has never been held by a man. According to HREOC’s web site the role was created in 1984, and has now been held over a period of 22 years by six women. Pru Goward is the 6th Commissioner, and also a notable feminist.

I think if I were holding a hypocrisy competition HREOC would get 1st prize...
(noted 8 July 2006 by members of the Mens Rights Agency)

Feminists are roundly vilified by most men and women in Australia because of the influence they have had on family, social and legal issues. The positive contributions of Feminism have become a part of the daily culture, but the movement is coming to be identified with the hate- and fear-mongering of a vocal, radical minority.
For example, a story on A Current Affair recently showed fathers playing with their children in public. The fathers hugged and kissed their children, suffering disapproving stares from passersby -- mostly women. Questioned, the women were concerned that these men were pedophiles!


But in such an atmosphere, you would think the leadership would be sensitive to both sides and make a reasonable balance of representation; and be certain to include all views in the results of any legislation.
From the outside, it's as if the whole country were in being played in a "Let's you and him/her fight." game.
Paraphrased for the leadership: You folks go over there and call each other names and I'll just sit here and watch.", with no concern for the damage done to families, children, or the future of the nation.

Risk - Reward analysis

It isn't hard to read between the lines to see that so long as the homo- and hetero-phobic battle continues, there will be plenty of taxable economic activity around the Family Courts.
You have to wonder how much of the $10 billion lost productivity in Victoria alone -- because of the lack of mental health system -- could be recouped just by taking the dependency on perjury out of the Family Courts and Intervention Order processes?

Maybe that what's needed? A Risk-Reward analysis showing the economic and taxable dollar advantage to returning the public's faith in the Family Court system. In conjecture, a short-term analysis would favor the current brutal, adversarial system; a long-term analysis would probably favor the return of faith and trust to the police, courts, and social system.
Unfortunately, evaluating the human suffering caused by the present system is difficult, but not impossible.

Un-Australian

Watching this madness from outside, you can't help but wonder about the old saying that "A country gets the leadership it deserves." -- From what I've seen of Australia and Australians, these folks deserve much better.
Very simply, anyone does.

The most damning condemnation anyone can use in this country is "un-Australian." It is the phrase used to express the highest ideals of Australian society; sadly, in the negative.
Is it fair to say that the current system is un-Australian?

This article is from January, 2006. It's now 9 July 2006.
The first FRC's (Family Resource Centres) went into operation only 7 days ago. So far, the reports are mixed, and the expectations not high. Too many FRCs are populated with "professionals" trained and experienced in the extraordinarily discriminatory and prejudiced social-legal system already in place.
I am still amazed that no national leader has stepped into the moral high ground on these issues.