With special guests:
- Greg Andresen
- Dr. Colin Jory and
- Sue Price.
Once again Dads on the Air is well ahead of the media pack, by investigating and separating the facts from the spin. Further to our own submission, today’s show will focus on the way our Government is about to use unsubstantiated claims and mis-information, in order to hoodwink the public into believing some sort of Domestic Violence pandemic is forcing it to ‘reform’ Australian Family Laws, as per the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence) Bill 2010. Oh and surprise, surprise, this is all for the ‘Best Interest of the Children’ of cause.
The general public, who still thinks it can’t happen to them, will eventually be horrified to learn how their fellow citizens are being treated with absolute contempt and fleeced of everything dear to them, by a multi-billion dollar government sponsored divorce industry, which is driven by fanatical ideologues who hold our legislators to ransom with hysterical hyperbole about the level of Domestic Violence in the community.
Unfortunately, to their own peril, it is not until families face the somber prospect of being permanently separated from each other, that they belatedly start to look around at what they face. In most cases however, by then it is far too late, and the outcome for the vast majority is soul destroying.
First up we speak with Greg Andresen, who is researcher and media liaison with Men’s Health Australia - Australia’s primary source of information about the psychological and social wellbeing of men and boys. He is also senior researcher with the One in Three Campaign. The One in Three Campaign aims to raise public awareness of the existence and needs of male victims of family violence and abuse; to work with government and non-government services alike to provide assistance to male victims; and to reduce the incidence and impacts of family violence on Australian men, women and children.
Greg worked on submissions from both Men’s Health Australia and One in Three to the recent Family Law Amendment (Family Violence) Bill 2010. He is with us today to talk of his concerns about the proposed bill from both a men’s health and a family violence perspective.
Next we speak to Dr. Colin Jory, secondary school teacher, historian and Shakespeare scholar, who recently wrote in News Weekly (Letters, October 30) “that if the pro-family political parties want to make huge gains in their vote, all they need do is make a sustained assault on the Family Law Act, the Family Law Court and the domestic violence industry”.
He further stated “that of all the factors which harm the Australian family and do draconian injustice to individual Australians, nothing remotely compares with these in scope or severity”.
“Now the Gillard Labor Government has revealed its intention to amend the Family Law Act to make it even more draconian and unjust. In 2006, the Howard Coalition Government amended the act to require judges to approach custody cases with the “rebuttable presumption” that both parents are equally important in a child’s upbringing. The presumption is rebuttable in the sense that if there is compelling evidence that one of the parents is likely to harm the child, access should be limited in proportion to the risk”.
We close the show with the ever vigilant Sue Price, Co-Founder and Director Men’s Rights Agency. The Men’s Rights Agency also reluctantly responded to the proposed Family Law Amendments, as their experience has shown it is a complete waste of time, due to the outcome generally already having been pre-determined. Accordingly in their submission she writes the following:
“We are responding to your suggested amendments to the family law act under extreme protest. In fact, we would prefer to boycott the whole process because our community well understands the uselessness of responding to government inquiries, when there is a strong suspicion the government has already predetermined the outcome. However, we are placed in the position of having to respond or be accused of failing to do so when the limited opportunity was provided.
While there is a need to protect women and children from abuse there is also a need to recognise men and children need protection from women who are abusive and violent.
There is also a need to recognise the 2006 changes were initiated because too many children were being denied an opportunity to develop a relationship with their father.”
We again extend an invitation to any Federal Parliamentarian who would like to join us on air, in order to defend the proposed Family Law Amendments. The community would dearly like to hear from their elected representatives in order to find out the truth about such an important issue, which ultimately will adversely affect so many of their fellow Australians.
Editor