Kids to be denied their Fathers, because of ONE Man’s vote – Tony Windsor
Life Insurance Quotes - Get Life Insurance Now, Fast Efficient and Reliable. Protect your children's tomorrow by preparing for their interests today. Life Insurance Quotes Australia
Please read the following letter that was sent to Tony Windsor, Federal Member for New England, on the proposed 2011 child custody/family law changes currently before Parliament, designed to prevent most separated fathers from having contact with their children.
The office of Tony Windsor has made it clear to me that they do not care to respond to the serious issues confronting separated fathers and children of separated families, despite being given ample opportunity to do so in response to this letter, and in previous discussions.
Because of their condescending and dismissive attitude, I now publish this letter, unfortunately without any official response from Tony Windsor.
The attitude of his staff has given me the impression that Tony Windsor has sold out his beliefs on shared parenting, since he has jumped into bed with Julia Gillard and the Greens.
I consider Tony Windsor’s actions to be a total betrayal of the natural rights of the children of Australia, and I feel ashamed on his behalf that he didn’t even believe that this issue deserved an explanation, much less a simple response.
Please feel free to distribute this letter to any print, radio or other media outlets in Australia, and in particular in Tony Windsor’s electorate of New England, including the regional centers of Tamworth, Inverell and Armidale.
===========================================
From: Ash Patil
Fathers4Equality-Australia
To Tony Windsor
Email: Tony.Windsor.MP@aph.gov.au
Parliament Ph: (02) 6277 4722
Tamworth: Toll Free: 1300 301 839
Inverell: (02) 6721 0144
Federal Member for New England
PO Box 6022, House of Representatives
Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600
CC: Tamworth, Armidale & Inverell & other media
Dear Mr Tony Windsor,
You may recall that we corresponded back in November 2005, whereby I wrote you, as I did for every other Member of Parliament, to ask for your thoughts on Family Law reform.
Specifically, you were asked for your views on a Rebuttable Presumption of Equal Parenting Time, given the enormous community support for Shared Parenting, and in response to the recommendations by the Hull bi-partisan (Coalition/Labor) Child Custody committee, after 3 years of intensive community consultation.
We appreciated your response to our questions back in 2005 Mr Tony Windsor, whereby you not only indicated that you supported Shared Parenting as a concept, but you highlighted your support for even stronger measures that would enforce a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
On November 4, 2005, YOU wrote:
“On a personal basis, I would not be opposed to an amendment to the Family Law Act to incorporate a legal presumption of equal parenting time in the event of separation, rebuttable if child abuse can be reasonably substantiated, or if the parent’s mutually agree to an alternate arrangement.
Should the feedback from the residents of the New England Electorate differ from my own view I would have to re-examine my position however to date the comments I have been receiving have generally been in line with my own views on this matter.
Thank you once again for writing to me and I hope the foregoing will clarify my position on this issue.
Tony Windsor MP
Member for New England
Yours sincerely
It was therefore a complete shock that we learned that on the 31st May, 2011, you voted with the Gillard government and the Greens to pass what is widely believed to be a Trojan-Horse bill designed in practice to deny fathers any form of meaningful contact with their children after separation. The bill was passed by one vote ONLY.
This bill, deceptively called the Family Violence Amendment bill, 2011, is not only anti-Shared Parenting, it is in fact anti-Contact, as it legally endorses Perjury, Parental Alienation and Unsubstantiated Allegations as legitimate means to deny a child their natural right to have any contact at all with their father.
The obvious question Mr Windsor is why did you support this bill, a bill that goes against your own personal beliefs, and those quite clearly of your constituents (then and now)? Were you perhaps distracted by all the attention and the extra roles lavished on you by a Gillard government desperate for your support, that you let this most malicious bill pass without due scrutiny?
You must be aware that the bill you have voted for explicitly:
- creates an effective presumption of guilt against innocent fathers
- makes conclusive evidence, especially in defence of abuse claims, subservient to subjective beliefs
- removes penalties against knowingly false allegations of child abuse & domestic abuse
- provides tacit encouragement for Parental Alienation by removing the ‘friendly parent’ provision
- perpetuates the offensive and unfounded stereotype that men are a natural threat to their children
- perpetuates the untruth that Shared Parenting exposes children to child abuse. In fact, shared parenting households are statistically the safest environments for children.
- perpetuates the unfounded presumption that mothers are unable to harm or abuse their children
- perpetuates the unfounded presumption that women never engage in domestic abuse
- has so diluted the concept of domestic abuse, that it can be applied to any form of behaviour, whether it is real, innocent and benign, or completely imagined;
- contravenes the United Nations Convention on the rights of the Child by denying the child their right to participate ‘meaningfully and fully’ with both their mother and their father.
- contravenes the International Bill of Human Rights by denying fathers their right to a fair trial
- violates Sex Discrimination standards, by procuring laws designed to only protect half the population from domestic violence, while ignoring or dismissing the other half.
- has slashed funding for post-separation mediation to force parents back into the Court system
- will in effect divert seriously scarce child protective resources from their primary task of genuine child protection, to that of chasing up legally motivated allegations.
- will promote sole maternal custody, which according to the Australian Institute of Criminology, accounts for almost 80% of all familial child abuse.
Shame on you!
Mr Windsor, you are married man and a father with 3 children. You may very well have an optimal relationship with your wife, but you like every other human would have at times had tensions and disagreements with your wife. You should realise that if you had separated (when your children were young), that even a decent father as yourself would have been completely removed from your children’s lives, if relied upon this bill.
There is simply no reasonable reason why laws designed to reduce the incidence of domestic violence, cannot also respect the human rights and natural justice of men, women and children.
Given that over half your electorate are males and children, you have an obligation to seriously consider the implications of this bill, if passed by the Senate.
This bill will not reduce the heat of divorce. It will not encourage mediation and agreement. It would not share the burden of child raising. It will not promote equality for women. It will only further disenfranchise already maligned fathers, creating the potential for more tragedies.
People will be asking why the government chose again to promote a “winner-takes-all”, litigation-intensive, archaic, punitive set of laws designed for mass punishment, in the hope that it would instil fear, enforce compliance and subdue violence.
This form of mass punishment has not worked in Egypt, it has not worked in Syria, and it will not work in Australia.
We need laws that apply to all Australians and encourage co-operative parenting, reduce litigation and the enormous legal bills that destroy the future of our children, and we need all Australians to be judged by the one standard, the one law, not selective laws depending on one’s gender.
We are all equal after all, right, so why is this bill designed to only protect one gender?
If this bill is passed, the next father or mother who either suicides or commits a tragedy against their children, people across Australia will be wondering what pushed them over the edge.
This bill is an opportunity to make a genuine effort to diffuse separations, not to create more reasons for people to lash out at a system that has completely betrayed half of all Australians.
Please take this opportunity to re-think this poorly thought-out bill. Please tell us what you can do to amend this most malicious bill, before it’s too late. Please do not tell us that since you thoughtlessly voted for it, then you can now wash your hands and do nothing.
We understand that you can influence the final vote in the Senate, if you show an interest. You can otherwise not blame fathers and children for holding you and others like you responsible for taking Australian families back to the dark ages in family law, for you had that final vote that could have amended this bill into something workable, but chose not to.
We would appreciate a written response within 7 days of the posting of this letter.
Ash Patil
Fathers4Equality-Australia
Website: www.fathers4equality-australia.org
Email: president@fathers4Equality-australia.org
–end of letter to Tony Windsor, Federal Member for New England–
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
In April 2006 my former partner of 14 years & the Father of our 3 children [aged 12, 10, & 7 at the time] made false allegations of physical & sexual abuse in the Family Court. In July 2008 The Family Court found: CHILDREN—Best interests—-Where Father alienated children from Mother—-where children are not at risk of physical or sexual abuse from Mother—-Where Father previously made such unfounded allegations—where Mother poses no risk………
107. The Fathers’s conduct towards his children and the Mother has been nothing short of despicable.
108. It has been calculated to punish the Mother for leaving the relationship and has been carried out without the slightest regard for the proper interests of the children – particularly their right to be able to know and love both parents.
109. It matters not what label may or may not be given to the Father’s behaviour under the DSM IV. His behaviour is unlikely to change. He is incapable of promoting a relationship between the children and their Mother.
121.The Mother’s ultimate remedy will lie when the children are moved to see her later in life, free from the corrupting influence of their Father.
122. It is hoped in the fullness of time the children will seek out their Mother and that justice will be done with the passing of the years.
The siblings were separated in this process, I was given Sole-custody of our youngest daughter; no contact with her Father or siblings [ Court Order] & the two oldest children were left to live with their Father…” Children’s Wishes”… even though the Judge stated that, “it was not an optimal placement of the children but it falls within the exception referred to by the Full Court. I only wish it were otherwise”.
I grieve daily for the loss of my two oldest children & our devided family. I no longer know where my two oldest children or their Father live. & I deal daily with my youngest daughter’s need to ‘Belong’…….The Family Law Court in Australia is SHOCKING….
When I told the Judge I did not accept his Judgement, he, told me, he, was… “unable to change Human Nature”. The Father was not fined or punished for his perjury. I was studying to be a school teacher at the time & the false allegations of sexual abuse affected my possibility of a career. I have lost everything.
The new Laws proposed will only make it easier for a malicious, vindictive parent to make false allegations of abuse/violence.
SHAME, AUSTRALIA, SHAME, This Is NOT In OUR Children’s Best Interests………
[Reply]
I can’t believe this is happening. Why oh why is the Gillard Govt with it’s wishy-washy coalition MPs allowed to get away with what it is currently doing?
This is truly a backward step and definitely NOT in a child’s best interests.
I am step-mum to a child in a change of residence order (quite unusual) and supported my husband in his endeavours for years to get access of some kind. This was in spite of all kinds of unfounded allegations by the mother. Luckily we had sage Family Court decisions by our learned judges who could see a fabrication when it presented itself.
We may as well throw up our collective hands in future custody cases, since it will not matter how much money a paternal litigant throws at his Application in a case and the vain hope of seeing his children after separation.
Shame, shame shame on you Tony Windsor.
Boo to the feminists (from a female) who have only biased views to present in the child custody forum. It is high time the fathers and children of this country are given a true voice for their rights.
The Labor party has to go!
[Reply]
Tony Windsor you are a disgrace. I have had to fight tooth and nail to stay in my daughter’s life. It has cost me financially, emotionally and physically. But i would do it all again because my daughter and I are so close, and she deserves a good, loving and responsible parent. She wants to live with me, but her mother will not allow it. She is building constant resentment towards her mother and rather than address why her daughter is resenting her, her mother prefers to just shift the blame to me. Somehow her poor relationship with our daughter must be my fault. I suffer constant verbal abuse and threats of withdrawal of access. I have court orders but I know they are worth nothing if she decides to ignore them. And now you have given her carte blanche to to use this new evil tool to remove me from my daughter’s life. And she is just the kind of person to use it too. I have never said an unkind word to her, but with your new legislation that will not matter. She simply cries wolf and my daughter loses a good and loving father.
How do you sleep at night?
[Reply]
Zac Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 1:26 pm
SteveM, you should invest in a Dictophone to record those threats and to prove that you, “have never said an unkind word to her”
I know exactly what you are going through.You have to get smart and NOT get angry.
And if you don’t want to invest in a Dictophone, just telll her that you’re recording her when she telephones you or let her hang herself with voicemail and text messages.
Good on you for being a proper role model for your daughter.
[Reply]
Is there anti descrimination laws in Australia, I seen posters if fed court splashing about violences against women, seems gender descrimatory, should be no voilence against people ??
[Reply]
Zac Reply:
July 30th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
The government train and pay ADF personell (predominately male) to deliver violent acts in foriegn countries on ‘insurgents’ and then do little to defend these brave people when their spouses (predominately female) exit the ‘long distance’ relationships with claims of potential violence, firearms fear and gross absenteeism.
As a test case for the ‘civilian’ population will the government show how they will defend those ADF members, who have made personal and family sacrifices for their beloved country, so they don’t live through the remainder of their careers alienated from their children- who they probably love more than their country ?
As with the civilian population engaged in ‘Family Wars’, the government has much to answer for the creation of the way courts handle custody disputes.
[Reply]
Tony, Tony, Tony,
What’s wrong with you?
Don’t you realise what’s about to happen to the kids of divorced parents in Australia?
Prioritise man!
[Reply]
I took part in the original bi partisan enquiry that was used to legislate for Equal Parenting Time because I believe in the natural rights of children to have a loving,responsible and happy relationship with both parents because I love my son and I want the best for him.
And so I ask what happened to Mr Windsor’s promise of support for stronger measures to enforce a presumption of Equal Parenting time by marginalizing all fathers with the same broad brush??
[Reply]
I cannot believe that a Minister of the Crown namely Mr Windsor can sell out loving hard working decent father’s as he is proposing to do in a few weeks.
I took part in the bi partisan enquiry into shared parenting through my local Member’s invitation at the Entrance on the Central Coast of NSW some years ago after seeing the effect that separation and later divorce had on my young son.
What happened to our champion Tony Windsor’s support for even stronger measures to enforce a presumption of Equal Parenting Time?
It’s time to stand up for your electorate Mr Windsor and the views of your all your pro-active non-violent male constituents who are in the majority and want more time with their kids and not less.
So don’t betray the natural rights of the children and future voters of this country to enjoy a balanced loving,responsible and happy relationship with both parents without being ostricised from either one.
[Reply]
I congratulate Ash Patil from Fathers4Equality for such fine letter. Im not a father but was gravely sadden by what this law could do to innocent fathers. Thank you for bringing this into light.
[Reply]
Thankfully the magistrate saw the wrongdoing in my case, and has granted access to my only son, i have not seen him for 5 1/2 months, you guys might say that is not a long time, but bear in mind my son turned 1yr old on the 12th of July, I was supposed to have him for his birthday, but she did not keep in contact with her solicitor so the phone conference could go ahead. I now am able to have supervised visits, (only because of his age and the length of seperation) 2 consecutive day a fortnight, this was my request as I have to travel up to 12 hours to get to the airport, then fly 4 hours to get to where my son is. I know it is not the best situation, and my credit card is going to cop it, but at least the magistrate did not entirely rule in the mothers favour. Just remember guys, sometimes it can go in our favour, and keep your chin up.
[Reply]
Howard Beale Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 12:22 am
With respect Ron a few hours of supervised contact for 2 days per fortnight is entirely in the Mother’s favour. This does not permit a meaningful relationship to develop and ensures you are responsible for child support for the next 20years.
And if you want to be a father this will force you back to the court repeatedly over years until the family law-domestic violence industry squeezes every last dollar it can out of you … – in the best interests of the child of course.
Would it not make more sense for the law to presume you to be a fit and loving parent, & thereby order a staged contact regime towards maximum practicable parenting time with both parents before the child starts school. Your money could then be spent on the child rather than given to family lawyers.
Of course if the family violence bill gets in forget about this.
[Reply]
I want to see my kids. Their mum wont help out or anything – now the new boyfriend is taking sides. It was not so bad when just being against her and her family.
Sometimes when I turn up to see them on their birthdays there not home, or I can only see them for 30mins even if I’ve driven 3-4hours then have to drive back home. The kids are not alowd to call me and are discouraged from contacting me in any way.
Child support is taken directly out of my pay. The kids mum wants more money or I cant see the kids.
I cant afford any more money.
I was not alloud to have my kids over the school holidays because the x-wife and her boyfriend want to take the kids on a holiday for two weeks and essentially I (the kids dad) does not matter.
Unfortunately I have not seen my son and daughter for over 2 months because of the x-wifes stance with wanting more money to see the kids.
Reciently again I have started going down the hopeless ‘legal’ path and feel I’m geting no-where on a knifes edge contemplating the futility every day.
It was my birthday yesterday, It would of been good to see them. It would be good to see them anytime.
My situation sucks. The kids are the ones that are suffering.
Power to all those trying to hang in there.
[Reply]
The Family Law amendments, aka the “Hate Men” law, take the “He said” out of “He said/She said” and remove all penalties for and statutory protections against lying.
Family Violence is redefined to include non-violence, fear no longer has to be reasonable and no proof is not required. You are presumed guilty and we are all guilty under the new definition.
Interim AVO’s are re-introduced into the Act without explanation. This is the major tactic for sole custody. The other parent is encouraged to legally seize your house, assets, children and future income in a three minute hearing without your knowledge simply by alleging family violence. Any objections are silenced by a temporary AVO under threat of gaol.
Unless you have $100K and 2 years to try to prove innocence, by which time it doesn’t matter, you still lose your kids by Catch-22. It is not in their best interests to change their settled environment – besides the children likely hate you since the protections against alienating the other parent have been removed supposedly to protect children.
This is not law but persecution masquerading as protecting children.
More disturbingly the Family Violence Bill will put the majority of children at increased risk of child abuse because it manufactures and perpetuates the family violence it purports to protect children from.
80% of reported child abuse occurs in single mother homes because one parent is inevitably overwhelmed and under scrutinised. The Bill prohibits shared parenting. The protections of one fit and loving parent will inevitably be removed. The Bill is a Trojan Horse hiding the WMD of family inside.
The Family Violence Bill is nothing more than feminist pork for Labor/Green re-election.
The Left wants this because 70 percent of unmarried/single parent women voted for ALP or Greens. They vote for the party that offers the richer subsidies and more welfare.
The Govt misrepresents itself as champions of motherhood and family for these green female votes knowing that the same laws in the USA, the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, has resulted in 40% of children being fatherless, the mass criminalisation & incarceration of men, $billions thrown away in welfare & programs to deal with all the social pathologies directly related with mass fatherlessness – crime, addictions, poverty, suicide, teen pregnancies, underachievement. The insidiousness of it is that this creates a self-perpetuating cycle.
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2005/oct05/psroct05.html
At the same time that the Family Violence Bill forces government to become the financial provider for millions of children and their caregivers, it also reduces the government’s tax receipts to pay for the handouts.
Income tax day now divides us into two almost equal classes: those who pay for government services and freeloaders. In 2009, 47 percent paid no federal income taxes, and the bottom 40 percent receive cash or benefits financed by the 53 percent who do pay income taxes.
In the USA the Family law-domestic violence industry is estimated to cost taxpayers $112B/yr in the US. This scales to $12B/yr here.
If you have children or grandchildren and want to maintain relationships with them then contact your Senator now and demand that he/she oppose this Trojan Horse Bill.
[Reply]
My first & last blog:
I’m a father of 3 wonderful children and have lost them to a nasty, malicous, perjuring piece of **** who physcially and emotionally abused my daughter in partciular.
Since losing virtually all contact my daughter has started developing suicidal tendencies – which I predicted and told the solicitor last year could happen and put in writing in Mar.2011 – fortunately as the family therapist says I have no insight. She has only shown these tendencies living alone with her mother…… but there is no real protection for her and I can do nothing to help.
All of this was avoidable if the law simply supported shared care and didn’t promote mothers to generate acrimony and that they can eventually get whatever they want if they keep going back to court.
I laugh at this new law. The idiots on a crusade are too stupid too understand it will do more harm than good. It will :
1) Encourage acrimony (which is indirectly a form of child abuse)
2) Increase the rate of father’s suicide.
3) Increase the rate of other tragic violence – especially to mothers.
4) Increase the rate of abuse as more children are forced to live in the sole mother’s care as the protective mechanism of shared care will be lost.
5) Damage children’s relationships to their mother’s – most people I know who had to grow up that way resent their mother’s for cutting them off from their fathers and hold it against them.
6) Damage children’s development. It is less likely than ever that their wishes will be heard and taken into consideration and my daughter hates it that no one will listen to her and is depressed now.
The real tragedy is how much of this is avoidable if there were reasonable laws in place that were fair to all which would truly protect children against selfish/malicious parents and improve their childhoods.
I now generally ascribe most tragic acts of family violence through the divorce/separation process to the fools that make and administer the system.
Unreasonable situations create unreasonable reactions and I only feel sadness for the people so unable to cope they resort to extreme measures.
It is 2011 and human rights in Australia are largely a myth. The “Stolen Generation” is still growing.
sixstix@hotmail.com
[Reply]
this is why one parent can abduct a child, and do it without fear of punishment, Mr Windsor, you are making it easy for this to happen. Shame on you.
If anyone is interested, I have a facebook page dedicated to this, search. Parental abduction, why isn’t it a crime in Australia.
All support will be appreciated.
[Reply]
Tony Windsor does not understand what this would do to farthers who care and love there kids
I hope he ends up thinking about this otherwise there will be a lot more farthers taking there lives. If it is not fair treetment for both parents when it comes to seperation and custody of there children.
[Reply]
An excellent letter from Ash Patil to Tony Windsor. I live in the UK and belong to Fathers’ groups for obvious and similar reasons to Australian dads.
The Gillard inspired proposal is horrifying for all the reasons given.
Please add me to your email list if not too much trouble. I would be interested to follow the progress of this ‘assumption of guilt’ bill.
All the best, Jeff Baynham.
[Reply]
This sucks big time and I’ve posted it around the web and on my FaceBook page.
I’ve been thinking about this issue in terms of contract law. By default if it isn’t otherwise specified in a contract, the ‘state’ (the top-down government) is the adjudicator in matter of contract breach. After my breakup my ex and I reached an agreement without the state’s involvement – I was lucky.
My point is that while most do not write up and sign an explicit contract when getting married, they should do, and when so doing, they should assign a non-state adjudicator hence bypassing the state’s power over their lives.
I for one will never ever again marry without a clear explicit (and loving) written contract. I encourage others to do the same.
[Reply]
Good morning Darryl,
Thanks for your thoughts and readings of the laws of this Great Country, but I ask you look again at what you have read and consider you have set aside Law that has evolved since the Constitution of Australia was created and the Statue of Westminster made.
I refer you to S.4 of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 (3)
“Nothing in section 5 shall affect or apply to or be construed as affecting or applying to any enactment relating to naval or military matters or to naturalization nationality or aliens or to copyrights patents of inventions or designs or trade marks or to any matter with respect to which the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia has made or hereafter makes any law with which a repeal if effected by such section would be inconsistent.”
Not to make too big a subject out of this topic, to I, this Imperial Acts Application Act is an Act of Victoria dissolving English Law in Victoria consistent with the Statue of Westminster regarding English Law and the right of Parliament(Cth) to make Commonwealth Law.
This is at Imperial Acts Application Act 1980-sect 8. v.
“v. Be it likewise declared and enacted by authority of this present parliament, That neither his Majesty, nor his privy council, have or ought to have any jurisdiction, power or authority, by English bill, petition, articles, libel or any other arbitrary way whatsoever, to examine or draw into question, determine or dispose of the lands, tenements, hereditaments, goods or chattels of any of the subjects of this kingdom, but that the same ought to be tried and determined in the ordinary courts of justice, and by the ordinary course of the law.”
Furthermore, regarding the cited “Habeas Corpus Act 1640, 16 Charles I c. Australia does not have a Privy Council which this Act was to regulate and this Act dissolved the Star-Chamber that was a Closed Court prior to this Act.
Although our High Court does demonstrate misbehaviour consistent with the then Star-Chamber it is not a Star-Chamber by design, that is, it is an Open Court of and for the People although judges like Hayne, Crennan, and Kiefel JJ take it upon themselves to administer justice without giving a party a right to be heard.
This Act regarding Habeas Corpus is treating the Star Chamber as a body and removing that body of the Star Chamber from the confinement of its Chambers to the public arena for its removal.
This Act further defines what wrongs will cause a Writ of Habeas Corpus to be executed and a limit on the time for seeking the execution of this Writ.
Might I ask you demonstrate your great ability to read the law by moving on to the Commonwealth Law which is where this topic is based.
At present you are stuck in State Law that has no place, other than passing interest, in this topic and the Commonwealth jurisdiction of this topic.
[Reply]
Darryl O'Bryan Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 3:22 am
With respect Ian section 118 of the Commonwealth Constitution gives full faith and Credit to the State law as long as that State law is subject to the Constitution. Every Act is subject to the Constitution including Commonwealth law and any law that is inconsistent is to considered as invalid.
We the people lost access to our courts from around 1975 when the Family law court came into being as it is the fist Star Chamber to appear since 1640 and is bringing about arbitrary decisions against the true meaning of the JUDICATURE not the judiciary. The rules of courts from 75 to now have in each court level a restriction to filing unless that writ passes by a registrar or judge in chambers which is a loss of the Imperial law 2 Henry 4 Chapter 1 Sections 4 & 5 (1400) ” All his leige people and subjects may freely and peaceably, in his sure and quiet protection, go and come to his courts, to pursue the laws, or defend the same without disturbance or impediment of any”. When one does attempt to bring about a writ showing an action against the inconsistencies of either the States or the Commonwealth one is quickly labelled vexatious or frivolous through inconsistent unlawful rules of court.
Australia has been under the rule of LAWYERS for too long and the sovereign people are suffering as a result and as we were warned 2 thousand years ago do not trust lawyers especially when they get into Parliament and start making laws to feather there own nests.
[Reply]
I though this Tony Windsor was independent and reflected the veiws of his electorate it appears that he can be bought and sold by the highest bidder like some Judas, shame Tony, shame,guess who I will not vote for in the next federal election
[Reply]
Ian Mack Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Good morning George,
Do we have to wait for the next election or is there some way the people of his electorate can pray for his removal on the basis of failing Misrepresenting the wishes of the people of his electorate.
Maybe Darryl O’Bryan could redirect his thoughts to this subject to give the people back what he has said and Windsor is demonstrating we the People have lost.
Darryl O’Bryan said:
“We the people have been disenfranchised of our access to the parliament by the Political party system and it is time we recognise that and vote for an INDEPENDENT and vote political parties out of existence.
PLEASE Australia read your Constitution and realise that we are being monumentally screwed by our so called representatives.
We the People are the HIGHEST AUTHORITY in the land and as such all those in our PUBLIC SERVICE are our servants not our Masters.”
Darryl, this is Commonwealth Jurisdiction and it appears a start point is Chapter 3 of the High Court Rules by class action of the electorate. The Misbehaviour could be for “Abuse of Public Office” by abuse of power to cause a detriment to the people of the electorate, in breach of s.142.2 of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth).
[Reply]
Darryl O'Bryan Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 11:38 pm
Ian
Commonwealth jurisdiction is in every State refer section 15A Acts Interpretation Act 1901 Commonwealth.
The Family Law Act 1975 is an inconsistency to Judicature which is what I have stated before to be judged by our peers not a single judge.
Single judges have only got jurisdiction when they are in a court overseeing a JURY. The Family Court is the first court in Australia to have in its realm no provision for a jury. When we hand over our CONSENT to a lawyer we hand over our Common law rights and take on Roman law which treats us as guilty and we have to prove our innocence.
STOP GIVING THESE PARASITES JURISDICTION they are all committing treachery against the Constitution but because Australians have been asleep at the wheel the corrupt legal profession has disenfranchised us of our sovereignty and our Constitutional rights.
It is as simple as saying “I do not CONSENT to this jurisdiction”.
They cannot take it any further . Then file a charge against the Judge for attempting to pervert the Judicial power of the Commonwealth, section 43 Crimes Act 1914 Commonwealth.
We cannot just lay down and die we have to do something instead of just letting them walk all over us.
[Reply]
Im going through the court system at the moment fighting for my sons right to have his fathers contact that he has a very strong bond to
i have never done anything wrong by the mother or my son its only her sister that has finally convinced her to leave me and move near by her.
but in order to make me look less respectable the mother throws fallacious obstacles in my way most are very easy to produce hard evidence in showing they are simply not true but non the less in court and just about anywhere i try to turn to for help im looked down upon as scum of the earth and receive no help what so ever even legal aid has let me down because of claims made and i will be seen as guilty until a month later the courts see my undeniable evidence. while the mother is supported by everyone and is using extreme underhanded tactics that have no grounds for action the sort that in any other case would have the book thrown at them for devising the law.Taking away my sons right to have access to me is barbaric his 11 months old and completely devastated from his mothers actions and for what…. so the mother can have her own way and remove my sons father out of his future.
i never struck either the mother or my son i never threatened i haven’t even raised my voice what got to her the most was i was always supportive to her feelings even when she was trying to wind me up for a fall. and for this i know have an AVO that has been taking months to be heard just to clear my name.
Fathers need equal rights and support genderism should be seen no differently to racism
i was the primary career for my Son i woke up with him i feed and made his food for as well made lunch and dinner for the mother i ran a business from home i changed his nappies i took him where his mother slept for his breast feeds i played with him i carried him around when he wanted cuddles we were the best of buddies with a highly strong bond.
now after the mother listening to her sisters advice for the 20th time trying to get her to move to a drug infested suburb with factory’s full of pollution. a place i stated i did not want my son to grow up in
and with the law so one sided and eyes closed i will be lucky if i see him again before his old enough to find me for himself
Bad call Tony it only makes me wonder what underlines this decision you have made in a system that is so unfair to begin with
you only have to look at people who grew up all there life wanting to know who there father was and sad they missed out seeing them for so many years to know its in the child’s best interest
im very sure if my 11 month old son could articulate just one word on this matter that word would be NO
[Reply]
Brad Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 1:13 am
(my AVO is based on apparently continually ringing and texting causing harassment my phone records state 2 phone calls consisting of 4 & 9 minutes and one text message non of which are uncivil and are in regards to my sons welfare)
[Reply]
Ian Mack Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
Good morning Brad,
Are you in NSW or Qld, the AVO laws of each State are different but implemented in must the same way. It sounds like you have not had a final hearing, you have an untested “Interim AVO” and you have to return to Court sometime in the near for a final hearing, what month might that be?
Remember don’t give detailed information on this or any other site because it can be used against you in the Courts.
The State AVO and the Family Court are 2 different jurisdictions and although the Family Court is Commonwealth Law they love untested AVO’s because the judge can use it to claim an appearance of Family Violence to support their dishonest destruction of yet another family.
Was the AVO sought by the Police on behalf of the mother and if so have you made an application with the Court for the matter to be treated as vexatious?
Do you have a lawyer or are you seeking to represent yourself, don’t use the duty solicitor for anything more than information about the law, they are there to create work for the Court or the Courts work would be halved.
I would believe the summons has more grounds on it than just harassment/stalking by phone calls and text messages.
Have you seen or been given a copy of the brief from the other side yet?
If not why not? Demand it so you can prepare your case or have another adjournment so the Family Court can rely on the untested AVO.
If you are representing yourself you can talk to the representative of the other side and if it is a police prosecutor they will, more often than not, willingly talk to you thinking they can cause you under duress to agree to the Order or an undertaking without prejudice that the mother will use as circumstantial evidence you have committed family violence.
DON”T agree to any undertaking or Order if you are innocent of the accusations!!!!!
If you are in NSW you might want to remind the prosecutor of the simplest of charges to prosecute if the Police are prosecuting the AVO.
That is: the CRIMES ACT 1900 (NSW), Public mischief s.547B:
(1) Any person who, by any means, knowingly makes to a police officer any false representation that an act has been, or will be, done or that any event has occurred, or will occur, which act or event as so represented is such as calls for an investigation by a police officer, shall be liable on conviction before the Local Court to imprisonment for 12 months, or to a fine of 50 penalty units, or both.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person shall be deemed to make a representation to a police officer if the person makes the representation to any other person and the nature of the representation reasonably requires that other person to communicate it to a police officer and that person does so communicate it.
Again you need to file charges or a complaint in your local police station for this charge to be prosecuted.
As fathers we don’t like doing this sought of thing to our family members but unless we start we cannot defend ourselves against wrongly sought AVO’s.
Good luck,
Ian.
[Reply]
Brad Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Hi Ian,
Thank you for your advice it is the best help i have been given by anyone it is also the only real advice given.
Im in NSW it is a interim AVO and will be heard mid August as i do not agree to anything stated in the AVO for the grounds of application
yes the AVO is sought by the Police on behalf of the mother.
No actual application with the Court for the matter to be treated as vexatious? but i did tell the judge this has caused both me and my son much grief. i do have a solicitor but there waiting on legal aid so i represented myself.
Yes the AVO grounds had more then just phone call and text harassment the mother also states she feels i am stalking her (for the record the mother also took off with my son to a refuge im happy to explain the events leading up to that but in short lets just say 100% was no rational grounds for her actions what so ever this was just her first tactic on making sure she gets her own way in regards to our son.) also on the application claims i allegedly have antique firearms (they are wall ornaments and family heirlooms passed down from my great grandfather and now lost after surrendering to police) but by definition there not firearms and there not dangerous weapons and the mother knew this. she also claims i isolated her from friends and family i can produce mass record evidence against this claim also. and finally the application makes other remarks saying i said derogatory remarks about her but honestly im not that sort of person.
( copy of the brief from the other side ) not the grounds for application? i will make note to search for that but i believe i have built a good case to be heard so far and your help is icing on the cake.
(adjournment so the Family Court can rely on the untested AVO) im 99% sure i can show the judge all he needs to know would the above mentioned be something i would have interest in if i thought the AVO would actually be put in place?
the police prosecutors look at me like im the scum of the world and even tryed to have interim raised so that i could not go within 100 meters of the mother or my son the judge dismissed this saying the application for AVO is not that serious to impose that the interim states 1 a b c Standard order and 10 11 additional order.
my Sons name is also on the protected persons application and feel that’s a bit hurtful but understand this must just be a standard procedure.
Thank you for the reference to the crimes act 1900 i t feel bad taking action against the mother of my child but do understand such actions should have consequences from what i read it seems mothers making false allegations never face any consequences for there actions anyway and this i feel should be made apparent in order to make them think twice before taking such measures
Cheers Ian Thank you for your time its an awesome feeling to know that someone out there actually cares about me and has sound advice.
.
Ian Mack Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Brad contact me on mackian27@hotmail.com, we need to talk more closely.
It is good you think the Magistrate will listen to you but the reality is they will hear more of what the police have to say than you.
You need the Police to admit in the Court the application is vexatious even if such an admission is to you in front of some other person.
The issue of stalking is an interesting 1, it has a requirement at law of evidence of multiple events and normal day to day contacts and communications regarding a child do not constitute stalking.
Any contact me with a ph number and I will try and help you better.
Cheers,
Ian
[Reply]
Zac Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
Brad, I feel your pain and I am so glad that you are keeping your head in this difficult time..Sir Ian’s advice is brilliant, as usual..he IS a white knight.
It is disgusting that a concerned parent’s actions and movements could be viewed as ‘stalking’..you might seek advice from a family body such as Relationships Aust., Centacare, etc about how you can re-engage with your son and how they can help.
You should document the history of the firearms and obtain a report that they are disabled…this is just grand hysteria…we may as well melt all our kitchen and garden utensils as possible weapons in the family arena.
I also had difficulty bringing myself to highlight my ex-wife’s criminal behaviour (false statements, affidavits and child protection notifications) and got almost zero support in countermanding her perjurous strategy from any authority.
I put her actions down to (a) jealousy- of my love of our children, (b) projection- of her childhood onto our daughters., and (c) a hidden psychological history kept secret from me for 14 years.
You might also start to piece together any history or traits that could be construed as concerning. You may know her better than her mad sister.
With little help from authorities (and an inept first lawyer) I endured 10 months of restricted access. My daughters were 11 &7 at the residency hearing and had their own lawyer. I gained near 50/50 custody.
Good luck Brad and if you come across even half as well in court as you do here then you will be just fine and your son will live, spend time with- and have a father growing up and will one day judge the actions of his mother and aunt.
Keep your head held high.
I’d like to thank you all for your letters and emails so far.
It has forced Tony Windsor to send Fathers4Equality a response.
Please keep writing to him, to other politicians and especially to the media, as a paltry response from Tony Windsor does not absolve him of his malicious act against the children of Australia.
I must add that I am not impressed with his response at all, as it sounds like a complete cop-out, and something that must have taken 2 minutes to type out, probably by an assistant or receptionist.
Clearly, fatherhood and the rights of children are not worth taking the time to write a proper response.
And like a true politician, he does not explain how he has managed to support two incompatible views on family law, one back in 2005 when he was a true independant, and the completely opposite view, now that he has been courted by the ALP and the Greens.
I will post this letter on the blog here in the next few days, in the meantime, please keep up the pressure by emailing, writing and phoning as much as possible, for the sake of our kids.
They deserve better than the likes of Julia Gillard, Bob Brown and Tony Windsor imposing a one parent policy on the vast majority of children from separated families, which in statistical terms is the highest risk environment to place a child in terms of child abuse.
[Reply]
JUST A FEW QUOTES FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ON THE FAMILY VIOLENCE BILL:
SPEECH ON FAMILY VIOLENCE AND FAMILY LAW TO
COINCIDE WITH INTRODUCTION OF FAMILY VIOLENCE
BILL INTO PARLIAMENT BY THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
HON ROBERT MCCLELLAND MP
“It is appalling and staggering to see that one in three Australian women have experienced physical violence.”
“The recent endorsement of the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children by the Council of Australian Governments, on 14 February 2011, marked a significant milestone in the level of collaboration and commitment of Commonwealth and State and Territory Governments to work together to reduce
violence against women and their children in Australia.”
“To assist in improving the legal framework to protect the safety of women and their children, I asked the Australian Law Reform Commission to conduct an inquiry into Family Law and Family Violence, in the context of the interaction of State and Territory family and domestic violence laws and the Commonwealth Family Law Act.”
[Reply]
Zac Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
News Flash! Rupert Murdoch’s wife SLAPS comedian.
Mr. McClelland…If you get two teenage girls trying to scratch each others eyes out that would be,
” two out of two young Australian women that have experienced physical violence”
The Attorney General’s ‘alleged’ statement AGAIN implies that men, alone, are responsible for ALL violence.
In a week that public disclosure and underhanded tactics are under emmense scrutiny in London (phone hacking enquiry) OUR public officials should also review the way that they gather statistics and information and distribute the ‘facts’ to enhance their standing in a contentious arguement.
[Reply]
I have spent five years in the Family Court and it is still not over. Most of the effort was required to rebut false, malicious allegations by the mother. Many times she was revealed as a liar and perjurer but nothing was done about it. It has been the worst experience of my life. As it is now it is already a pathetic system. Rather than making it worse we really need to improve it.
[Reply]
The Chief Justice of the Family Court has gone on the record as saying that these changes are for the protection of women and children.
By omission, she is also saying that they are NOT for men.
I think she was also one of the ones who has pushed hardest to remove any penalty against false allegations.
So if the Chief Justice says that these laws are meant to protect women, you can bet that all the judicial officers will have to fall into line.
In one case in Tasmania, the Judge jailed a mother who repeatedly and actively alienated the children against their father. The Judge finally gave custody to the father out of frustration of this woman’s repeated antics aimed at destroying any bond between father and children.
The Chief Justice crucified this Judge, and sent a strong memo to all Judges not to act against mother’s who behaved this way.
This mother was released from prison and the custody order was reversed, based on the actions of Chief Justice Diana Bryant.
So if she thinks this way, how do you think she will interpret in practice these new laws?
Not hard to work out is it?
[Reply]
It is sad that a politician replies to letters only when it suits them. This is a very serious matter and an explanation to why a change in position has been made is warranted. I have written to Mr Windsor to also ask for an explanation reiterating the points in the letter above. I am a mother and I don’t support the bill!
[Reply]
The longer Labor/Greens are in power the worse its going to be for everyone, especially Dads, kids & families. They’re continually trying to breakdown the family so they can take complete control. If this goes through then we’ll have to all unite and start taking action.
[Reply]
Darryl O'Bryan Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Either party are no better. We the PEOPLE need to WAKE UP and realise that the Commonwealth Constitution does not recognise POLITICAL PARTIES. We the people have been disenfranchised of our access to the parliament by the Political party system and it is time we recognise that and vote for an INDEPENDENT and vote political parties out of existence. PLEASE Australia read your Constitution and realise that we are being monumentally screwed by our so called representatives. We the People are the HIGHEST AUTHORITY in the land and as such all those in our PUBLIC SERVICE are our servants not our Masters.
[Reply]
Ian Mack Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 10:19 pm
If this goes through it will be too late and mothers are going to pay the price with their lives.
Why are fathers so feared, because they have the physical strength to do whatever is required when they have moral support for their required actions.
When do fathers have their most physical strength, when they are supported by a good woman.
When do fathers do wrongs, when the woman they rely on for their moral support and belief in themselves is removed by the woman that has given them that support in their family home.
What these self centred women (female or gender confused men like the AG) who are pushing this type of law through is they are destroying the very society they think they will control with their lies of being abused. In reality, which is something these mentally dysfunctional people (female or gender confused men like the AG) are doing is pushing men into a corner and what happens then?
Men, who have nothing to lose, lose it, and the woman pays hopefully with her life, so the children are protected from her violence. This is what the judges, the gay like the AG, and our Parliament are trying to promote hence the AG and judges protect judges from inquiries for their criminal misbehaviours in the Court, and woman from prosecution for their crimes against our children and families.
I agree, PUBLIC SERVICE are our servants not our Masters, but we the people have not stood up for ourselves in so long the PUBLIC SERVICE and PARLIAMENT believe the inverse.
As I have said before: Maybe Guy Fawkes needs to show Parliament it is acting other than how the people want it to act and not in the best interests of society as we know or believe it should be.
[Reply]
Carol Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 1:29 pm
It’s bad for grandparents too! Grandparents are experiencing the same as fathers in the courts. Grandparents are also up against the abuse of “MOTHERS” who use false malicious fabricated allegations of abuse as their defense to deny their own children a relationship with their grandparents with no penalty for perjury by the courts.
[Reply]
It is amazing to see this happen in of all places – Australia!! These are laws that meant to suppress. I thought that these type of laws only happened in 3rd world countries like Malaysia but lo and behold, it’s happening in a developed nation. Is the current government truly interested in the rights of its citizens? I wonder why the regression is taking place. Perhaps Australians should consider booting this government out at the next election.
Father’s are an important part of the ecosystem of child development and Australians should not allow the removal of the father from this ecosystem. The Malaysia family courts always rule in favor of women and men get a tough time in the courts. Many men are taking this issue up and will vote against the current government due to this situation. But a system like this is expected in a 3rd world country like Malaysia, but NOT in Australia. Hmm, it makes me wonder why….
[Reply]
The following refers to the speech by Kate Ellis in support of the Family Violence bill, which is on the public record.
Ms Ellis claimed that separated mothers do not make false accusations of family violence and child abuse to gain a tactical advantage in family law proceedings. The only evidence she was able to provide was “a report in 2007 by the Australian Institute of Family Studies finding that the family violence allegation rates in custody proceedings in the Family Court of Australia or in the Federal Magistrates Court are similar to the reported rates of spousal violence profiles in the general divorcing population.”
[Reply]
there is a law in WA that is similar. this law is putting innocent men in prison, in the present. It relates to sexual abuse that may have happened when an adult woman was a child. The law is worded along these lines ‘there does not have to be any evidence that a crime took place, if the jury believe the complainant, they can convict on that and that alone’ We all know how vindictive and spiteful some females can be and they will lie to get there own way. Hell has no fury like a womans scorn. I know of this law because I know someone very well who got trapped by it, he even suffered a heart attack possibly when the verdict was announced. The DPP even schooled the ????? to change the statement for court to that which she gave to the police so it would tug on the jury and get a conviction. Believe me, when this man got to trial he had his legs hacked away from underneath him, it was very frightening to witness. This WA law and this bill are hand in hand, deadly poison to the very fabric of our society.
[Reply]
Darryl O'Bryan Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 9:42 pm
Section 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution “When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth then the latter shall prevail and former to the extent of the inconsistency be considered invalid” so the WA law is invalid as it is inconsistent with Habeas Corpus which establishes that we are innocent until proven guilty.
[Reply]
Ian Mack Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
Habeas Corpus is the Order to produce a body therefore I do not understand your reference.
Habeas Corpus is not innocent until proven guilty.
Innocent until proven guilty is within the Doctrine or Common Law of “Justice Must Be Done And Seen To Be Done” which is the founding Laws of our judicial system.
The problem is judges and MP’s only rely on that, “Justice Must Be Done And Seen To Be Done” when it suits them rather than the foundation for their duties.
Hence the AG wrote to me 2 days prior to a High Court hearing, and said what the High Court (HC) were going to do with my application to appeal a High Court judge (Keifel) wrongly claiming I had sought an appeal of an issue for a Writ that was before her, I had not sought.
That is, the HC Hayne and Cronnan JJ planned on dismissing my appeal application without hearing, 2 days prior to the HC hearing on the basis litigation must end. This demonstrated such CONTEMPT of the proper administration of justice, the Senate who were informed and provided a copy of the letter from the AG no longer wants to talk to me because the AG (the Dishonourable McClelland) Hayne, Crennan and Keifel JJ will be held accountable and put in jail for their crimes if allowed to be prosecuted by an Honourable HC and the Senate preform their Duty to the Law and their Oaths of Office which they have not.
And that is the end, not the start of where I am: which includes physical evidence of Bryant and Mushin’s criminal offences against the Laws of the Commonwealth.
Darryl, look at the law with an open mind and read the black letters of the law.
Don’t read into the law what you want until you know what it is saying first, then add in what s.15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 says; “a construction that would promote the purpose or object underlying the Act (whether that purpose or object is expressly stated in the Act or not) shall be preferred to a construction that would not promote that purpose or object..”
[Reply]
Darryl O'Bryan Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 2:24 am
Ian
Habeas Corpus also defines our court system and outlaws the Family Court Act as it is a Star Chamber.Section 118 of the Commonwealth Constitution brings the Imperial laws into full force. Also section 24 of the Australian Courts Act 1828 brings the laws of England as well as the Haylesburies laws of England first edition. I read the law and show people without discrimination at monthly meetings in Melbourne and Gippsland. To read Habeas Corpus and our Bill Of Rights read the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 Victoria and in every State of Australia since 1922.
Dear Sir/ Madam
My name is Darryl O’Bryan and I am the Chairman of the Community Law Resource Group
http://www.clrg.info
Our Group has received an email which is outlining the Proposed Family Violence Bill in
front of the Senate. As a Commonwealth Public Official I remind those in the Federal
Senate that all Imperial laws are beyond the powers of any legislator State or Federal to
amend or repeal. This was a finding of the Law Reform Commission NSW in 1976 when the NSW
Government applied to repeal an Imperial law Public Offices Act 1889 and the Sale of Offices
Act. All the laws in England are in force as of the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900
through section 118 and would require a referendum through section 128 to amend or repeal
and in fact being a law of England the results of the referendum if they were in favour of
an amendment or repeal would then need to be approved finally by the Westminster parliament.
If this email is to be ignored and the bill goes through and I in my obligation as a
Commonwealth Public Official I find that any bill which is made law that repeals or amends
any Imperial law then I have no choice but to start a prosecution proceeding under section
13 of the Crimes Act 1914 Commonwealth against any or all those involved in the passing of
the bill.
Your Sincerely
Darryl O’Bryan
[Reply]
Ian Mack Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 10:52 pm
Darryl O’Bryan,
Before you go doing what you say you are going to do, please re-read the Constitution without your blinkers on.
S.118 is: “Full faith and credit shall be given, throughout the Commonwealth to the laws, the public Acts and records, and the judicial proceedings of every State.”
That is, it reinforces the Laws of the States that existed before the Constitution was made.
S.128 is solely for any re-write of the Constitution that may be sought or agreed to by the people of Australia and does not limit the Parliaments power to make or repeal or amend any law the Commonwealth Parliament has made at any time in the past.
S.109 causes Commonwealth Law to prevail over State Law where there is an inconsistency.
Chapter V of the Constitution which is s.106 to s.120, is solely concerned with the Laws of the States and not applicable to English Law in any way.
You need to read: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – CLAUSE 4. Commencement of Act:
“The Commonwealth shall be established, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth shall take effect, on and after the day so appointed. But the Parliaments of the several colonies may at any time after the passing of this Act make any such laws, to come into operation on the day so appointed, as they might have made if the Constitution had taken effect at the passing of this Act.”
MOREOVER:
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – CLAUSE 5
Operation of the Constitution and laws [see Note 3]
“This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State; and the laws of the Commonwealth shall be in force on all British ships, the Queen’s ships of war excepted, whose first port of clearance and whose port of destination are in the Commonwealth.”
Have you heard of the “Statute of Westminster”, that reinforces the above.
Maybe we fathers need to look at how we can cause the following to occur?
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 32
Writs for general election:
The Governor-General in Council may cause writs to be issued for general elections of members of the House of Representatives.
After the first general election, the writs shall be issued within ten days from the expiry of a House of Representatives or from the proclamation of a dissolution thereof.
That is, cause a Writ for a new election while Gillard is on the back-foot in the public poles.
[Reply]
Ian Mack Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 10:54 pm
Is it the North or South pole I am meaning? lol.
Or a slip and POLL is what I was meaning, lol.
[Reply]
Can you direct me to the sections to which you object.
I cannot see why you say the bill is based on gender
I cannot find the preamble which you say is gender specific
[Reply]
Leonard Gale Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Look up Kate Ellis’ speach during the debate in the lower house.
Her whole speach was about the need for these changes to protect women and children against men.
I think she even mentioned that she did not believe that women abused men, at least not in any meaningful numbers.
This bill is designed to promote sole custody in any cases where domestic abuse is alleged, and who do you think will end up with the kids in almost every single case?
[Reply]
Johno Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
This bill has refused to include ”denial of child contact with the other parent”, even in the case of existing Court Orders, as a behaviour that comprises child abuse or family abuse. They have included everything else, even one’s imagination, but not this. So who do you think they are protecting here, fathers?
Of course not, this is all about re-establishing the presumption of maternal control of the child, ie, mum owns the kids and dad can’t even see them if mum doesn’t agree.
[Reply]
Carl Schmidt Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
If you read the original draft of the bill, you would get a good understanding of what McLelland’s goal was.
In the original, it was littered with references to protecting women and children throughout the who bill.
In the original, McLelland even included attempted suicide after separation as a form of domestic violence.
Did you follow that? It is men who almost exclusively commit suicide after divorce, not women. So Mclelland wanted to punish the person who just tried to kill himself by labelling him an abuser.
Doesn’t take much to work out what the intention of this bill is. It is designed to be used by women against men, not the other way around.
[Reply]
Emily (Nan) Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Section 117AB has been removed from the Family Law act, as of this bill.
This section provides that should a parent make knowingly false allegations (of family violence of child abuse), that they would be required to pay part of the legal costs of the person to whom they made the false allegation about.
So as of this bill, if you make an allegation of child sexual abuse, for instance, and it is found to be completely false, there will be zero penalties against you.
Now, as you may or may not know, the majority of serious child abuse allegations in Court are made by mothers, however the majority of serious abuse abuse perpetrators are mothers.
So, who do you think this change is protecting, and does this sound like sensible, child-focussed changes to you?
[Reply]
Jack Cochrane Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Read this and see what Kate Ellis had to say about the gender purpose of this bill
http://www.f4e.com.au/blog/2011/06/10/government-deception-wont-reduce-family-violence/
[Reply]
labor no more Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
This is according to George Christesen, Nationals MP during the lower house debate on the bill.
“I suspect that there is a strong feminist ideology driving these amendments. It is feminist ideology that has created this malicious code to rob men of their rights to be fathers. It is feminist ideology that has dressed up this malicious code to rob children of their right to have a father in their lives. It is feminist ideology that has dressed up this malicious code to create the illusion of acting to stop family violence.”
[Reply]
Can you be specific which “Amendment Items and subsections” you are against. Are you against all of the amendments?
[Reply]
Leonard Gale Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Okay, here is one:
==
It is of note that this new definition is considerably broadened, and that it removes the requirement for a person ‘reasonably to fear’ for their personal wellbeing or safety. The Explanatory Memorandum does not give a reason for the removal of the ‘reasonable person’ test. However the consultation paper for the exposure draft bill relies on the AIFS Evaluation that argued it should be removed on the basis that the reasonable person test imposes a significant evidentiary burden on people who are already vulnerable..
==
This means that if you make an allegation, no mater how ludicrous, it will literally be considered as domestic violence against the person you have accused.
So, it does not matter what a reasonable person would consider threatening behaviour, the burden of proof has now been diminished or even completely removed, because the built in assumption is that if you make an allegation of abuse, you are always telling the truth, so you should not be expected to show proof that any threatening behaviour occurred.
Even if you did show proof, that proof does not have to be proof that a reasonable person would find convincing, or even suggestive of a threat. So, as long as you make a threat, regardless of whether it is reasonable, true or imagined, it will now legally constitute domestic violence, because of the assumption that all allegations are genuine.
[Reply]
Zac Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
I recieved a summons for an AVO application by my ex after I retrieved MY dog (registered to me) from my ex’s property after the dog didn’t return with the children, as agreed. I even asked the cop to accompany me, 100metres from the station, to retrieve my ‘property’, but no joy. He suggested that I leave a note, which I did..
I fought the AVO application and I eventually settled with an undertaking…Police in Vic. are instructed to poke their noses in even if it’s trivial…so that they cannot be held to account if the ‘situation’ worsens.
[Reply]
Children and Fathers are in dire need. We need to establish Fathers Union Australia to give us the voice we so need, all that support this please contact me stevewickenden@hotmail.com. Please forward this…
[Reply]
As a loving father, still in court (with not abuse allegations), feel afraid of what this sort of laws can radically change the life of our children. Just one year in court and that affects them so much, I cannot imagine what this new laws can bring into their lives.
Whoever, Windsor, Baldwin and other people with the power to vote must always think on the “BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN”, and do the right thing… vote against this law. VOTE FOR CHILDREN , VOTE FOR OUR LOVE FOR THEM.
[Reply]
Tony, you can’t seriously be considering voting FOR this bill. Against the wishes of your electorate?
A presumption of guilt for any accusation, substantiated or not, true or not, the right to lie in court. Is that what you stand for? Is that what the Gillard government meant when it spruiked “social conscience”?
A mere 0.5% of families experience violence and it is not ‘usually’ dad.
Please review the analyses of the 30 year, wide-ranging research of many diligent people, summarised by Martin Fiebert Ph.D. He is the head of California State University, Long Beach Psychology department http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm rather than some activist for ‘rights’.
He analyses 282 scholarly investigations, comprising 218 empirical studies and 64 reviews and/or analyses.
The sum of 30 years research? Irrefutable evidence that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 369,800 people.
You cannot ignore this, many liars have blamed men for all violence, but the evidence is clearly to the contrary.
Please do the children of Australia a favour and research the claims on which the proposed sham legislation is based!
Do you want the acceleration of the rate of creation of MORE damaged families, and disenfranchised children on your conscience? THAT is what this law will generate – it will generate NOTHING worthwhile for society.
If you are truly independent, pleas eschew political pragmatism for independent analysis.
With respect, Mick
[Reply]
Tony, you can’t seriously be considering voting FOR this bill.
A presumption of guilt for any accusation, substantiated or not, true or not, the right to lie in court. Is that what you stand for? Is that what the Gillard government meant when it spruiked “social conscience”?
A mere 0.5% of families experience violence aand it is not ‘usually’ dad. Here are 282 scholarly investigations: 218 empirical studies and 64 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 369,800.
You cannot ignore this, the liars have always blamed men for all violence, but the evidence is clear.
Please do the children of Australia a favour and research the clams on which the proposed sham legislation is based!
The research by Martin Fiebert Ph.D. the head of California State University, Long Beach Psychology department http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
Do you want even MORE damaged families on your conscience? THAT is what this law will generate.
If you are truly independent, pleas eschew political pragmatism for independent analysys, like the one above.
[Reply]
Maybe a petition to Parliament or by a Senator to the Senate for an Inquiry into the conflict of issues of Winsor, Howard Beale has raised, is required to push for a Disillusionment of this Parliament to cause Gillard to run for her life?
Conflict of Interest not identified by a Member of Parliament is misbehaviour by that Member, requiring their removal is it not?
But I suppose if the AG, the Dishonourable McClelland, can make misrepresentations regarding petitions and commit Derelictions of Duty by refusing to cause inquiries into multiple judicial misbehaviours.
I believe, most of the multiple judicial misbehaviours alleged, have been presented directly to the Dishonourable AG and there are those presented by petitions to the Parliament.
If the Dishonourable AG can be excused his Dishonourable Misbehaviours, why should Winsor or Oakshot have any fear of being called on their misbehaviours due to such a call is required “Leave of the Dishonourable AG” or the implementation/inquiry by the Honourable Speaker.
I know there have been petitions addressed directly to the Honourable Speaker that have been handed to the Dishonourable AG (inspect the AG’s page of petitions published) for the Speaker to fore fill a duty of the Speaker’s being to speak to the Queen regarding issues raised in Parliament.
These duties have not been completed for some reason like: the Dishonourable AG has chosen to relieve the Honourable Speaker of the information that has caused these duties to be imposed on the Honourable Speaker.
With such misbehaviour to prevent a duty of the Speaker and thereby aid and abet judicial misbehaviour by the judiciary of the High Court and Family Courts.
What else can we expect but MP’s to do other than their duty to the people they have sworn oath to properly represent in Parliament.
[Reply]
This guy is a traitor.
How suspicious that he supports equality for fathers and children one minute, and then when he gets lavished with all these important roles from the desperate Labor party, all of a sudden he gives the FINGER to all separated dads and kids.
The guy is SCUM and he has zero integrity as far as I am concerned.
[Reply]
Good letter Ash. It seems that Tony Windsor has some obligation to tow the (labour) party line…I have read that Rob Oakshot will be gone next election, almost guaranteed. Windsor could be in trouble too.
Imagine a hardworking pollie’s wife divorcing him because, “he is hardly ever home” and subsequently, “a crap husband and father” ..They don’t realise how close they are sailing to family disaster themselves.
Gillard is not family oriented either. She helped bust up Craig Emmerson’s family when he jumped the fence with her…remember Garreth Evans wooing Cheryl Kernott to bed and then the cabinet?
I think that there will a lot more family disasters and vigulantiism resulting from this bill if it is passed.
[Reply]
admin Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 11:21 pm
Zac, I think you are spot on with regard to Rob Oakshot. I believe a recent internal electorate poll done by the liberals has him at disastrous disapproval levels, where he is certainly to be gone for good come the next election.
However Tony Windsor has powerful support in his electorate, in fact I believe he had recorded the highest level of support for any local member of parliament in the history of Australian politics, but that was before he became of the deputy leader of the Greens. In any case, Windsor will be much harder to push out than Oakshot, but we have to all do our bit to get rid of him.
[Reply]
Howard Beale Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 4:03 am
Centrebet was running a book on whether Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor will hold their seats at the next election.
June 13th, 2011 Oakeshott has a 27 percent chance of being re-elected while Windsor has a 31.5 percent chance.
Since Carbon Sunday all bets are off.
The market for an election is the second half of 2013 at $2.25 with second favourite on or before 31st Dec 2011 at $2.75.
The big hope is that a Labor member will drop dead or get caught banging his/her chauffeur and force a by-election. At the moment Labor would lose any seat with a margin of 10% or less.
[Reply]
Zac Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Howard…I didn’t know commonwealth chauffeurs were compelled to drop their tweeds as part of their job description. I suppose that what knowledge is procured on the job ( eg; tattoos and birthmarks, conversation or seduction) stays ‘on the job’.
Here in Victoria our Jeff had a ‘reserve’ first lady and he fought tooth and nail to stop the media ‘gallery’ from publishing the story.
Ever since his ‘near’ fatal car crash in his first term in public office, he treated every ‘extra’ day as a bonus day and later ruled the state with such arrogance that the arrogance itself, principaly in the form of radio advertising, led to his unforseen undoing.
Let’s NEVER be afraid to keep them all honest.
Please put Tony Windsors email address and contact phone number on your website. I really would love too email me and call his office. We have too put pressure on people like this we need too make more noise on this issue.
[Reply]
thomas bunting Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
His phn number, email address and postal address is on the top of the letter for everyone to see
[Reply]
Tony windsor us commonly calles Judas in Armidale thrse data.
he has comoletely sold out his constituents to the Greens and Feminists
[Reply]
Realy there is no reasioning with sociopaths or socialists. We need a well organised strong campaign to remove the socialist Labor Party
[Reply]