The Australian Labor Party - state and federal (Iemma & Beazley) - appears quite pro-female and anti-male.

Maybe a woman, or some women, have had a difficult time with shared parenting; maybe they haven't. Experience tends to initial scepticism of such claims; many are tactical and designed to garner sympathy, support and advantage.

And what of the harrowing experiences of men denied their children, families, homes, property and incomes?!!

Iemma is 'ignorant'.

Only registered users can see links on this forum! Register or Login on forum!

Only registered users can see links on this forum! Register or Login on forum!

Contact Mr Iemma in his capacity as Premier, cMinister for State Development, and Minister for Citizenship

Level 40 Governor Macquarie Tower
1 Farrer Place,
SYDNEY NSW 2000
Phone (02) 9228 5239
Fax (02) 9228 3934
Email

Only registered users can see links on this forum! Register or Login on forum!

-----------------------------------------

Only registered users can see links on this forum! Register or Login on forum!

The West Australian
25 November 2006, Page 73

Premier calls for changes to co-parent laws

Sydney - A harrowing account of a woman’s struggle to escape her abusive husband has sparked calls from NSW Premier Morris lemma for changes to co-parenting laws for separated parents.

Under a massive overhaul of family law by the Federal Government in March, judges must consider granting parents equal time with their children after a family break-down.

But Mr lemma said it appeared the new laws were not working because they ended up, in some cases, having a “perverse” effect on women and children who had escaped abusive relationships.

“I would say that, certainly, the Federal authorities ought to heed the message of those victims who are now recounting how a black and white application of a 50:50 (co-parenting) rule, without taking into account circumstances, has the perverse effect of making life worse for the woman and for the child,” he said yesterday.

“Rather than making it better, it is actually increasing the harassment and the intimidation and prevents the mother and the child from rebuilding their lives."

Mr lemma made the comments after announcing an extra $28 million, four- year package to improve support services for victims of domestic violence.

Details of the package were released ahead of today’s White Ribbon Day, which aims to raise awareness of violence against women.

Shortly before making his announcement to an audience of domestic violence support groups, Mr lemma heard one woman’s disturbing tale of her battle to escape her abusive husband.

The woman said she and her young son left her drug-dependent husband in 2000 after 10 years of emotional, physical and verbal abuse.

But she had been ordered by the Family Court to adhere to a 50:50 shared parenting plan, which she said kept her at the mercy of her abusive former husband.

“Although the court ordered 50:50 parenting, these circumstances are not reflected in real life,” she said.

“These orders do not fit into narrow, predefined pigeon holes.”

The NSW Opposition spokeswoman on women’s issues, Catherine Cusack, said the State Government needed to do more to prevent deaths related to domestic violence.

She called on the Government to set up a domestic violence homicide review team to mirror the work of the NSW child deaths review team.
“The NSW Domestic Violence Committee Coalition and NSW Women’s Refuge Movement have been calling for a review team, and drawing attention to the domestic violence-related deaths of at least 16 NSW women this year,” she said.

Meanwhile, Federal Opposition Leader Kim Beazley pledged to set up a national council on violence against women and children if Labor wins government next year.

A political stunt of the lowest order.

iemma (lower case intended as a mark of total disrespect) made these comments while at the same time anouncing another pot full of money to address violence against women and children.

Isn't it amazing that these polllies are either so ignorant or worse, so morally corrupt that the can ignore the reallity of family violence. Most independant studies indicate that women are as violent or more violent as men within relationships. Of course the real victims are the children, because by definition they are innocent and supposedly learning from their parents.

michael flood researcher of doubtful reputation is a the same time call for inspiration on how to engage men in addressing domestic violence, while at the same time categorising men as the perpetrators and in need of fixing. The laugh is that he and his cronies have been told often. The issue is not onesided, and the so called perpetrartors refuse to listen to someone who refuses to hear them.

the DV industry is ruthless with anybody who dare to publicly suggest that the issue is more complex than just blaming men. Erin Pizzy started the first ever shelter for battered women. She soon realised the women she was trying to help were as violent as the men they suposedly sought to escape. Only very recently, a researcher for Wentworth Area Health service published a study suggesting that many of the premises underpinning current DV strategies were incorrect and counter-productive.
University of Western Sydney's men's healt unit published a link to the research. Within days of the link being posted the research vanished of the web.

The sad part is that while the pollies and self proclaimed experts continue to ignore reality and only address half the issue, DV will continue, both for now and from generation to generation.

Mr iemma's comments could be indicitive of a level of ignorance or an inability to understand such matters and are therefore only damaging to his credibility. I wouldn't be too worried about what a state labour leader thinks in relation to a federal matter that is being organised by their opposition. The politicians take as much notice of their opposition as our ex family opposition takes of us and they seem to throw just as much mud. Feel sorry for mr iemma because this sort of ignorance will only contribute to his political downfall. Instead we should use that email address to approach him and offer to enlighten him. If what is written is his opinion then he obviously doesn't understand fully the matters which he is referring to, but in his position he is unlikely to be able to make any significant changes so he is probably just playing politics. It is human nature to criticise at first those things which we do not understand. peoples perspectives are only determined by their experiences. Mr iemma's experiences obviously do not include all the perspectives of family breakdown or domestic violence as his comments would indicate.

It would be like Mr iemma asking me which way his brain surgeon should operate. Sure I could give him my opinion but if I were him I wouldn't take any notice of me on matters in relation to brain surgery. Because allthough this might surprise a few of you, I don't know a lot about brain surgery......but I do have an opinion on it

That being said we should also remember that things that you read and see on the television can be edited and context can be manipulated.

If we dealt with every scenario to ensure that the worst case didn't happen again there would be no kids, marriages or politicians. But even mr iemma will tell you that.
That reminds me of a couple of jokes (funny how politicians do that)

Q.What do you call a bunch of politicians in a paddock
A. A vacant lot

Q. what do you call a group of out of work politicians
A. A good start

Many people believe that they should be seen to be doing something, because something would be better than nothing. What a lot of people don't realise is that sometimes doing something is worse than doing nothing.

The latest changes appear to me to be a good start. but they are just the start.

Hang in there
Chris

I wonder if his opinions would change if his wife for some reason or another left him. Being a politician surely is a stressfull and time consuming profession. In court that could be argued as neglecting?
The stress could lead verbal or physical actions against his wife and children. Well this could be his wifes perspective if that eventuated and he wanted to see his children.
No wonder society is so dysfunctional with norrow minded opinions like that, and he's a premier.
28million in aid to battle DV against women. That should easily be recouped by the income tax on solicitors wages that men are paying, just to try and be some form of a father to the children they bear.
Does anyone have any knowledge or figures in regards to how many shared parenting plans have been brought about since the introduction of the new laws. He says in "some cases" has ended up worse. How many cases have ended up better? where do they get these figures from