With special guest:
- Greg Andresen.
The proposed Australian Family Law amendments came under attack from one of Australia’s more enlightened Federal Parliamentarians, George Christensen MP, this week, who likened them to taking the George Orwell approach to ranking considerations in his classic novel ‘Animal Farm’. Mr Christensen slammed the proposed amendments as being like a ‘Trojan Horse’ loaded full of terrible consequences that will undermine some of the most basic human rights of parents and children.
On this week’s program we take another look at the proposed Amendments and speak with Greg Andresen, spokesperson for Men’s Health Australia, who has exposed many of the domestic violence myths being promoted by the Gillard Government and draws attention to some of the misleading claims made recently under Parliamentary privilege, by the Federal Minister for the Status of Women, the Hon Kate Ellis MP.
This is particularly troubling as it is impossible to develop fair and just legislation based on flawed information provided by self-interest groups, whose main focus in life is to protect their government funded existence, while the evidence provided by victim groups has been discounted, ridiculed and ignored.
While Men’s Health Australia and the Minister both agree that child abuse and Family Violence are real, Men’s Health rightly question the alleged need to throw away due process in order to protect children from abuse and violence. They correctly point out that it is impossible to protect people from both abuse and false allegations of abuse at the same time as is proposed in the amendments, especially since each of them are considered abuse and cause immeasurable harm to the lives of the victims.
George Christensen maintains that “what is inside this Trojan horse, the malicious code that will infect society, is an attempt to undermine equal access for both parents. This change would invite the court to ignore the requirement to consider the second pillar—the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents”.
In his address to Parliament, George expressed his concern about the proposed broadening of the definition of family violence and made a passionate plea for sanity to prevail. “The broadened definition of ‘family violence’ would mean that a wide range of everyday activities could potentially be construed as violence.
The broader definition includes as violence such things as repeated derogatory taunts. Under the proposed definition, much of what happens right here in the parliament would be construed as violence. Also included as violence is this little nugget: ‘preventing the family member from making or keeping connections with his or her family, friends, or culture.’ Under this broad definition, a parent could not prevent a young teenager from spending 20 hours a day talking to friends on Facebook, for fear of being accused of family violence”.
“What happens when a parent acts in a way that a reasonable person would describe as good parenting? What happens when a father says to his 13-year-old daughter, ‘No, you can’t go to Julia’s party because there will be alcohol and no adult supervision’? I will tell you what happens. An upset teenage daughter talks to a vindictive mother, who then claims the daughter is a victim of family violence—and it is their right under this definition. Another child loses the right to have a meaningful relationship with her parent. Under this definition, a parent would be too scared to ground a child as punishment for bad behaviour, for fear of ‘depriving a family member of his or her liberty.’
Speaking in one voice with hundreds of thousands of powerless, dispossessed Australian parents and children, he concludes his Parliamentary address with:
“These amendments should be seen for what they are. They are a Trojan horse, full of malicious code designed to deprive fathers of their rights. The best thing we can do to protect the safety of children and to prevent family violence is to leave this act as it is.”
While the rest of his Parliamentary colleagues prance about like frustrated show ponies, desperately chasing media attention to feed their inflated egos, George Christensen is scrupulously researching the subject matter of his Parliamentary responsibilities.
Fortunately and belatedly, the Australian public has finally discovered a quite achiever to represent them, who is ethical and has the intelligence, ability and courage to challenge some of the many injustices, that an uncaring, self-centred establishment has caused to be imposed on an unsuspecting electorate over many decades.
We look forward to seeing and hearing a lot more in the years to come, from George Christensen, a principled man.
Editor