October 8th 2005

  Buy Issue 2717

Articles from this issue:

COVER STORY: THE WAR ON TERROR: Identifying and tackling the causes of terrorism

EDITORIAL: Ethanol back on the national agenda

NATIONAL SECURITY: 800 potential terrorists in Australia

CANBERRA OBSERVED: Can Labor ignore Latham's message?

QUARANTINE: Federal Court overturns pig meat import ban

EUROPE: France pays mothers to have more children

DIVORCE LAWS: Fathers turning against Howard

FAMILY: Parental duty of care fails adolescents

EDUCATION: University students struggling with English

SCHOOLS: Primary schools performing poorly

STRAWS IN THE WIND: Germany and the hazards of proportional representation / Minefield Childcare and its critics / Latham diaries fall-out / State-federal jousting

HIV/AIDS EPIDEMIC: Using common sense, not condom sense

OPINION: Why Latham's Labor lost

POPULATION: Communist China's abuse of pregnant women

Real face of Labor (letter)

Legal redress for paternity fraud (letter)

Elite media's hatred of Bush (letter)

BOOKS: THE COLLAPSE OF GLOBALISM: and the Reinvention of the World, by John Ralston Saul


Books promotion page

Fathers turning against Howard

by Warwick Marsh

News Weekly, October 8, 2005
Five years ago, the separated fathers of Australia would have died in the ditch for John Howard. Now they want to lynch him, writes Warwick Marsh.

Five years ago, the separated fathers of Australia would have died in the ditch for John Howard. Now they want to lynch him.

It was five years ago that John Howard announced that he was attracted to the idea of joint custody or shared parenting and that he would initiate an inquiry on the matter. This was a vote-changing issue and Howard won himself a new legion of fans amongst separated dads, second families and grandparents.

Five years on, after endless multi-million dollar enquiries and committee meetings, the bureaucrats, the lawyers, the social engineers and the liars have won the day.

Field day for lawyers

The Government is likely to introduce this year the new Family Law Amendment Bill promoting so-called "joint responsibility" among separated parents. This is an idiotically vague notion that will give the lawyers a field day and means nothing on the ground. Even intact couples may not agree on every subject.

Joint responsibility to do what? Choose the schools and what church the children are going to go to? Sure, separated couples are going to happily compromise on which church to send the children to on Sunday ...

This was the bill that was going to introduce shared parenting as the desired outcome post-separation. The bill does nothing of the kind, and will perpetuate the abuses now occurring in the family law and child support arena.

If the Howard Government had any backbone, it would have legislated for shared care and responsibility of children as the norm post-separation. The proposal that equal parenting should be "considered" by the Family Court will make no difference to its current practice whatsoever. The court will continue to perpetuate the discredited sole-mother custody model, with all the pain and harm it creates to parents and children alike.

In August, the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs tabled its report, entitled Exposure Draft of the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005.

Since then, all the positive coverage John Howard received when he announced his Government wanted to reform child custody in this country has gone.

At taxpayers' expense, the Attorney-General Philip Ruddock recently toured the country promoting the Government's proposed new 65 "Relationship Centres" - centres which will now add another layer for separating parents before they hit the Family Court.

Ruddock also peddled the official bureaucratic line that his Government is implementing the most sweeping reforms to family law in 30 years. The Government is doing nothing of the kind.

In his tour of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Darwin and Adelaide, Ruddock was confronted by furious fathers wherever he went.

What was meant to be a triumphal tour to champion reforms to family law turned rapidly into a fiasco.

To many observers, Ruddock came across as poorly briefed and defending the indefensible.

Nonsensical claims

During his grand tour, Ruddock has made nonsensical claims that the Family Court is not biased against men. It is outrageous to make these claims in front of an audience of fathers and their families, who know this claim to be a nonsense, and whose own children have been so savagely impacted by Family Court decisions.

While the Howard Government is spouting the rhetoric that it supports the right of children to a good relationship with both parents, not one child will see their dad for one extra day as a result of the new family law reform bill.

  • Warwick Marsh is president of Fatherhood Foundation and is married with five children.

All you need to know about
the wider impact of transgenderism on society.
TRANSGENDER: one shade of grey, 353pp, $39.99

Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles

NATIONAL AFFAIRS Cardinal Pell's appeal in the High Court this week

NATIONAL AFFAIRS Time and timing are crucial to Cardinal Pell's appeal by Peter Westmore

COVER STORY Beyond the Great Divide

COVER STORY Murray River full; reservoirs low; farms for sale ...

ILLICIT DRUGS Cannabis marketed to children in Colorado

EDITORIAL Holden, China, covid19: Time for industry reset

COVER STORY The world has changed: Now for the new order

© Copyright NewsWeekly.com.au 2017
Last Modified:
April 4, 2018, 6:45 pm