Beauty, like politics, is at the heart of things. Freedom from violence, freedom to be at peace, to believe (or not), to love, to learn, these belong at the heart of things. Beauty joins them, always. One of my daughters took this photo and shared it with me, she has a talent for striking to the heart. I’m sharing it, beauty, something that sits at the center of things, an essential for humanity. 

http://www.tumblr.com/blog/heartofthings

When sons Vanish

Is there a mother in the country, whose heart doesn't clench a little, when the Australian media reports the disappearance of a teenage boy? Is there a family in Queensland who didn't watch, perhaps unwillingly but watch nonetheless, as developments unfolded in the search for missing teenager, Daniel Morcombe? A mother whose heart doesn't ache for the suffering etched on Denise Morcombe's face? I wonder how many prayers were uttered on behalf of this family, from pulpits and pews in Australia last weekend? They were heard in the church I attended. How many parents and siblings wonder how it must be, to be Daniel's twin brother, growing up and living with what might have happened to Daniel? Bradley Morcombe talked about his brother in 2009, about his first attendance at school without his twin, about missing him constantly. Perhaps mothers are not the only people whose hearts ache when they hear news about missing children.

While the Morecombe family continues an experience that must be excruciatingly painful, we are watching a family confronted with evil of a kind most of us can barely imagine. We are watching a family living so as to oppose it. The loss of a son and brother has taken this family into determined, effective charitable action on behalf of lost children and their parents. See the bottom of this page for links to the charity. Evil touches our lives in a variety of ways. Reading the media on the kinds of things criminals interviewed in the Morcombe case had to say about what happens to children who are snatched, abused and killed, is like looking into the face of pure evil.

Anyone with a BA including a little sociology can tell us the popular stance on childhood. It’s something we created and in the past people didn’t treasure children the way we do now. We ‘created’ childhood, as a stage of life that requires protection and special care. However, reading the pages of the Christian Bible, one finds a wealth of reference to the value of children. Jesus of Nazareth said that ‘the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these.’ (Mark 10:14) That part of our heritage which is Christian includes both the reality of suffering and hardship in children’s lives, and a reason for treasuring our children. It is they to whom the ‘kingdom of heaven’ belongs,

The danielmorcombe foundation can be located by clicking on this link.

We protected the cows

The Senate committee looking at proposed changes to the Family Law Act 2006, the Family Law Legislation (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011, tabled its report on Monday. It's a report that favours change, a report that recognises the unfortunate message the current wording of the Act gives, to Australians. Under the terms of the current Act, abuse of various kinds is given a category, which includes the word 'serious'. We have inclined toward leaving abuse alone, unless it is 'serious'. Any protective parent will tell you that in the Family Court of Australia, 'serious' means 'blood on the floor in front of the judge'. How has this categorising developed?

As a community, with significant encouragement from father's rights groups, Australians are inclined to believe that women often lie about family violence. We believe that the children of abusive parents are better given to the abusive parent than they are not knowing the parent. This relates to a misinterpretation of data published by the AIFS some time ago. We also seem to think that protective parents should be punished for attempting to protect their children. At the latter point, we become the epitome of the abuser. We use children, to punish an uncooperative parent. A parent who appears 'unfriendly' about a child's relationship with an abuser, may have his or her children removed from his or her care, and handed to an alleged abuser. That is akin to saying; “If you don't smile for the man who bashed/abused you and give your baby to him regularly and look happy about it, we will take your baby and give it to him for good.” This happens. Children die of it. It's something the Senate committee wants changed. This is where the catch and the cows come in.

When the media published footage/photos and reports of cows being ill treated in Indonesian abattoirs, the Australian public and its government acted almost overnight. Live exports to Indonesia were stopped. We prefer cows we eat to be treated nicely before they are slaughtered. On the other hand, although we know that children are suffering, even dying, we have little to say. Writing for The Age, Andrea Petrie and Michelle Griffin (The kids are not all right, August 17, 2011) refer to the distress of a mother who regularly hands her child to an her alleged abuser. Each time she hands the child over, she is terrified it will be the last time she sees the child alive. This is the experience Darcey Freeman's mother had, before Darcey's father threw her off a bridge to her death. Every weekend parents across the country have varying degrees of this experience.

The Family Law Act is in the process of being changed. It's taking a while, but it's important that this time, we get it right. In the meantime, we protected the cows. We made a big fuss and government acted fast. The industry attached to bovine abuse seems to have been suitably punished. And the Family Law Legislation (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 grinds its inexorably tedious way through the systems of governmental process. One hopes that one day it will become law. I wonder how many children might die waiting? In the meantime I suppose that at least we protected the cows.

Australians are worried. Our worries revolve around money. Instead of spending money, we're saving it. “Households are stashing away cash...” we're told. I can't help feeling guilty, instead of stashing cash, I buy a little ice cream. Or a little chocolate. When the media makes a noise about power prices rising, I diminish our power consumption. As a result, when the power price rises, ours falls. None of that assists the economy because apart from the ice cream and chocolate treat, I'm not buying stuff. In fact I'm avoiding buying stuff. I'm one of the nervous Australians who wants to not spend, in case things go pear shaped. 'Pear shaped' in this context means 'anything that prevents us paying our bills and purchasing essentials'. By 'essentials' I don't mean ice cream and chocolate. I mean medication so that my transplantee husband can stay alive. I mean meat, carbohydrate, fruit and vegetables, so we don't become malnourished. Then things like power, water, communications costs (internet and phone). And as a luxury my university fees and things related to study.

Leading with an article that seems to berate Gen Y for 'staying home more', a development that is 'worrying business', media reports a dip in consumer activity. Gerry Harvey is quoted as saying that consumers are 'rattled' http://www.news.com.au/money/money-matters/australians-saving-out-of-fear-and-its-doing-the-economy-no-favours/story-e6frfmd9-1226097253516. He likens consumer sentiment to the kind we might have if there was 12 % unemployment. Employment is sitting at 5 %. Maybe spending on non essential items is something some people have begun to feel they can manage without. You can only kid people that they need a house looking like it stepped off The Block, or a kitchen that appears to be loosely related to Master chef, for so long. The next enormous household utility bill arrives and the makeover desire evaporates, only to be matched by a desire to maybe be able to heat the living areas (or sleeping, depending on the ages and viral status of those who need heating) of the house for a couple more months, by which time the winter weather might be over. And that's for a household without a mortgage, which pays no rent. Add the cost of shelter, and people on low incomes are in deep water. No wonder Australians are worried.

Women's Words

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2778808.html#

Sophie Cunningham writes on the position women occupy globally, as an exemplar of the position female authors occupy in Australia. Well worth a read, and the comments that follow are a wonderful reflection on Cunningham's points,

Reductio ad absurdum

The means by which issues relating to a specific group and its problems, is sometimes evaded.

Where there are articles relating to problems facing any specific group, reductio ad absurdum is sometimes used to side step the issue (which is the problem facing the specific person or group.) For example, if we read about a child being run over by a bus, we might find comments about how "Trucks run over children too!" or even "Trucks even run over buses!" Well, yes, and night follows day which follows night etc. The addition of a statement that sounds so simple as to be idiotic to attempt to disprove, does not change facts. A child was run over by a bus.

In this case the assumptions surround the problems faced by women in the face of the Family Law Act 2006, and the deaths of children that have arisen as a result of the created family law system. The fact that sometimes men are abused, or that sometimes women hurt children, does not excuse the dismissal of the fact that the family law system is failing women and children, where they face abuse. It does not prove that the system ought not to change. As far as I know, reductio ad absurdum proves nothing. It's an evasion, a roadblock. I hope that our leaders will not fall for it.

The 'sisterhood' is 'creepy'

Women in Australia, have a long way to go to achieve real equality. I would say that this is not because the power hungry male stands in the way. It's partly because of other women. Women who find the efforts made by women of earlier generations 'creepy', women who think they're there now. They're equal. Women who believe that having a child is a 'lifestyle choice' like buying a new pair of curtains or taking a holiday.

Lin Hatfield Dodds writes about the equality. or lack of equality, experienced by women in Australia. See what she has to say at: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12245

Dodds concludes by saying the following: "We are living in a country where 11 per cent of the population is living in poverty, where over 100,000 people are homeless, where hundreds of thousands of people are on public dental waiting lists, where our 2 million welfare recipients can't access the supports and services they need to get and keep a job, while trying to survive on woefully inadequate levels of payment. This is not the Australia I want to live in. ... I want to live in a country where every citizen is valued. Where every person has the opportunity to participate in, and contribute to, their community. Where women have the same opportunities and outcomes as men. Where diversity is celebrated and where government takes a strong lead in delivering social justice and inclusion for all."

That's the Australia in which I want to live, no, expected to live. Now and then I stop top look around, disoriented, and find myself dismayed. Was this all that the suffering of my Mothers' and earlier generations achieved? Have we any value at all as persons, as individuals? Or are we simply useful, tax paying earners, on fairly low incomes, doing fairly menial work whilst still performing most of the family related labour free of charge?

Julia is Cooking

A goose, I gather. That is, Australian political editor, Dennis Shanahan, is of the view that Gillard's goose is looking cooked. This is an issue related to a two party system in which success is presented in poll results and in which we see point scoring in our national media each day. When Gillard's goose is ready for the table, we'll move on the latest shambles concocted by Tony Abbot. And back again. Rather like a tennis match.

Enjoy! Shanahan's article is linked below, the match can be followed by reading popular media each day to find who has things cooked, who is looking raw and whose dish looks ready for the bin!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/julia-gillards-goose-is-looking-cooked/comments-e6frgd0x-1226083044841

Family Law Amendment Bill 2011

Introduction

On 26 May, 2011, the Family Law Bill 2011 was debated in the Senate. The contents of the debate gave an interesting insight into the political divide on issues relating to child safety, where there is domestic abuse. In context, the debate came following media reporting on the deaths of a number of children, who were the subjects of various formal and informal family dispute actions. In stark contrast, the following week the Australian media moved to encourage community outrage, after an ABC report on the mistreatment of cattle in Indonesian abattoirs. Sales of beef dropped and the government acted swiftly to ban the export of live cattle to the offending plants. The Family Law Bill continues to be discussed. One wonders how it can be, that, as a nation, we care to take immediate action to protect cows. In the case of child safety we require the receipt of years of research, months of debate and referral to a senate committee. We move quickly to make cows we are gong to eat, more comfortable. We defer taking action on violence against children.

Hansard

Unfortunately Hansard does not give a word for word account of what took place, Mon 26 May, in the Houses of Parliament. I walked away from the debate on Family Law Act Amendment 2011, with one word ringing in my ears; “But...”. Hansard does not record the use of the word “but”. Despite this, 'but' appears in speech after speech, where senators insist that “children have a right to be safe”, and qualify the statement with something other than safety and something that may lead to lack of safety. The argument that children have a right to be safe, appears in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. As Australia is a signatory to this convention, it would be in our interests to seem familiar and cooperative with its requirements.

Convention

Unicef provides a fact sheet which gives an easy to read overview of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 19 of the convention states that;

Children have the right to be protected from being hurt and mistreated, physically or mentally. Governments should ensure that children are properly cared for and protect them from violence, abuse and neglect by their parents, or anyone else who looks after them. In terms of discipline, the Convention does not specify what forms of punishment parents should use. However any form of discipline involving violence is unacceptable. There are ways to discipline children that are effective in helping children learn about family and social expectations for their behaviour – ones that are non-violent, are appropriate to the child's level of development and take the best interests of the child into consideration. In most countries, laws already define what sorts of punishments are considered excessive or abusive. It is up to each government to review these laws in light of the Convention.

If our political leaders are familiar with this article in the convention, and common sense suggests a politician or her or his staff will look at it before debating related issues in the political context, the statement that “Children have a right to be safe...” is understandable. “Children have a right to be safe” signifies the idea we are obeying the convention to which we are signatory. It signifies our familiarity with the statement and the concept. It might even signify agreement with the statement.

The debate

This debate divided members along party lines. Coalition members gave speeches in which the 'but' may not have made Hansard, but was dominant. It should be noted that he 2006 Family Law changes were the result of Coalition legislative action. The Coalition might be expected to support against change, their own law. Further, in Australia 'liberal' and 'national' politics (these are the Coalition opposition party) tend toward preferring a traditional family model. This supports male authority exercised over the adult female, expecting a male breadwinner and female home worker. Weak legal and social support for abused women and their children fits the Coalition's ideological framework. It allows a measure of male dominance to exist in marriage or marriage like relationships. It also fits the conservative position in that the conservative inclines toward the traditional. If these relationships were conducted in a certain way in the past, unless there is very good reason, the conservative will insist that they continue to be done that way. One might argue that a string of child killings should be enough to urge change upon us, unless our conservatism is of more value to us than the lives of children. In the speeches of some Coalition politicians it appears that children's lives are not.

The Australian Coalition in general presented views that are contradicted by recent research, some MPs even referring to parts of research that could be made to appear supportive of the Family Law Act 2006. Opposition Whip Ms Marino began, saying that “Shared parenting reforms did not expose children to greater risk of violence and abuse...”. However she went on to say that “...neither is it fair to pretend that people are not hurt by the court decisions or that in some cases that hurt is … to the point of being life destroying.” Let's be clear, Marino is referring to death here. She is saying that “Shared parenting … did not expose children to risk of violence … in some cases they are harmed to the point of death...” This towering contradiction was repeated by other speakers. Marino was also the first of a string of opposition speakers referring to the bogey-man of false allegations.

Mr Billson referred both to 'grave concern' about the effect on children from violence, while he asserted confidence in the law of 2006. In his view what is needed is better training for professionals attached to the family court. He is not mistaken, better training is needed. However such training should not spring from law that continues to diminish claims of abuse, just in case the claims might be false. Philip Ruddock agreed that “...not every child will be safe...” and, “Where you can work it through and where a child has a continuing relationship with a parent, it is so much more positive and so much better.” This statement lines up with the false assumption that a relationship with an abusive parent is less harmful that losing contact with that parent whilst in the formative years. Relationship with the abusive parent is also likely contained in the 'broader rights' to which Ruddock appealed when he said “... the importance of ensuring that children are safe and secure but also ensuring that children's broader rights are also recognised...” Ruddock claimed that litigation in the family court is smaller in volume than it once was, and challenges the listener as to whether he or she would “...want to change that?” In this way he places clearing the court, ahead of child safety. Ruddock refers to the danger of false allegations, appealing to us that we would surely not wish to make provisions that allow false allegations? In this he, also, gives prevention of false allegations higher priority than child safety.

False allegations

The Australian Coalition appears deeply worried about the idea that women use claims of child abuse, to gain an advantage in the Family Court. Everyone knows a parent who says that false allegations were made in the Family Court, and a parent who was separated from his or her children for a time. I know a man who experienced this, and I know two women who experienced this. Anecdotal evidence, but quite powerful. However is it the scourge our Coalition politicians seen to think it is?

Dr Michael Flood (2010) wrote a paper examining this issue. In his paper, Flood refers to the idea that women routinely make false allegations as a myth, and considers it in the light of several matters of fact. The facts he has uncovered are as follows;

That the risk of violence increases at the time of separation.

Most allegations of domestic violence made in the context of Family Law proceedings are made in good faith, and with support and evidence for their claims.

Rates of false accusations of rape are very low.

Women living with domestic violence often do not take out protection orders and do so only as a last resort.

Protection orders provide an effective means of reducing women's vulnerability to domestic violence.

Flood discusses these claims and provides references for readers who wish to check their veracity. This and other similar information has been available for some time. Therefore we can conclude either that Coalition politicians disagree with or are willing to dismiss available information. The consequences of diminishing the claims of abused women can be severe. A list of dead and injured is available at the National Council for Children Post Separation web site. They number over thirty, most of whom were children. For each of these there are numerous families and perhaps hundreds of people, who will experience long term anguish. In some cases, causing suffering was the pronounced purpose of the act of violence. Both Arthur Freeman and Ramazan Acar are fathers who stated that violence against their children was motivated by a desire to hurt ex-wives. I would argue that if there is a choice between dead children, and an ex-wife getting away with a false claim, it would be better that we risk the possibility that some ex wives may get away with false claims. However in the senate debate on 26^th May, there was no mention of the killing of children for the purpose of harming ex wives. It seems that ex-wives making false claims about abuse, is deeply worrying. Ex-husbands harming or killing children to punish or hurt their mothers, is not so worrying.

Kate Ellis, Australia's current Minister for the Status of Women, should have the final word in this case. She told the senate that the government will remove “provisions that had the perverse effect of discouraging the reporting of family violence … this bill will continue to support shared care...” and “...where family violence or abuse is a concern the courts will be required to prioritise the safety of the child...” In response to Coalition insistence that the law unchanged has been doing well and that the AIFS had said that it doesn't, as it stands, put children at risk she notes that; “The Australian Institute of Family Studies and the Family Law Council say that the Family Law Act is failing to properly protect children and other family members from family violence and abuse.” There is nothing more to say. Twenty first century Australia cannot be allowed to continue being a place where family law leaves children at the hands of abusers.

Sickness and Politics in the House

It's hard having a house full of sick people, being sick yourself, and taking an interest in the political life of the world and the nation. All you want to do is collapse in a chair and stare mindlessly at a television screen for a couple of hours, but alas! The political wheels grind on.

This morning the front page of News.com shrieked another horror story about food prices. Go to http://www.news.com.au/money to read for yourself. It appears they will rise. "Families are paying $1300 a year more than two years ago and it's about to get a lot worse...experts warn food inflation is set to stretch household budgets to breaking point ... the average households weekly food spend dangerously close to the $200 mark." Yes, that's what it says, "Dangerously close". Visions of weapon wielding food dance before my virally challenged eyes, and I continue down the page. An economist is reported to have said that households currently spend about $185 on the weekly food shop. Dangerous indeed.

My own take on this is that if we stop eating for a few months, companies over-pricing our food will be forced to lower prices. Some readers blame the labour government. Some add the rise in food prices to a possible carbon tax and completely freak. One wag points out that packages from the supermarket weigh less than they did a couple of years ago, so we are "paying more for less." Several posters make the expected remarks about "Ju-liar" (supposedly clever play on the name Julia, given name of the current Prime Minister who may have been flitting about national supermarkets at midnight changing price tags but probably wasn't). The sensible responses, the quieter responses, point out that "I make my own" and "I buy in bulk" and "I shop at the markets." That is the answer, buy less processed and 'treat' food. Eat healthily. Use the methods that numerous 'pay less' gurus suggest. They work. I know they do, and whenever a story like this one hits the national news pages I think ruefully of the chocolate, ice cream and biscuits I might have to forgo. Then there are the desserts we used to make and now buy. The cakes and biscuits. All self made. These days my children bake more than I do! The various snack foods that harm our health ... maybe that's the danger that lurks in the supermarket food aisles, maybe that''s the threat. They should be labeled "Moment of sweet/salt fattiness on tongue and shorter, poorer quality life ..."

Corporatisation and welfare services the new face of public life?

Today I sat in a Centrelink office, waiting to show someone a tax assessment so my student/child might continue to receive Youth Allowance. Yes, I sat. I recall the last time I was there, you stood in line unless you had a formal appointment and a time for it. You did your business in a minute or on a bad day ten, and then left. In my case, today, I was very nicely greeted and identified, my name was taken and I was asked to sit. I was assured that someone would call my name shortly.

Now, I'm a little cynical about that. It might be the study of politics, which tells me that public services these days behave as though they're providing a product for the buying public, when in fact they're providing cost cut service (as low cost as they can get away with), for the public they serve. In truth they're providing a social 'good' to citizens of a state, and in Australia, citizens have a legal right to such 'goods'. It might have been the daggy carpet and vinyl seat covers, or perhaps the two men swearing at one another in a fight they were asked politely to 'take outside' where they continued swearing at one another, while a couple of nervous aged pensioners watched them and waited inside to talk with someone.

I did not leave that office feeling cheated, after waiting forty minutes (where I used to wait only a few) having been told that the document I was clutching was the wrong document and I'd need the formal Australian Tax Office assessment, for nothing. I got nothing. For my time, for my attempt to fulfill Centrelink protocols and avoid having my child's payment suspended until the time the formal 'proof of income' arrived, for my nice-as-pie response to the nice-as-pie presentation I found when I entered the office. Next time I'd like to let the woman with the headset know that I think she ought to be standing behind the empty counter doing my business, rather than playing it as if she were presenting some television audience show . Of course I won't. I need the support for the poverty stricken student. In fact I'm one of those myself, but at the moment I'd rather eat grass than ask for support from Australia's 'pretending to be a corporate offering' welfare system.

Kathleen Flannagan¹ examining Housing Tasmania, reminds us that after the 1990s, the discussion about corporatisation of government services became limited, focussing on profit. This confines the conversation to financial matters, evading the key issue, which she identifies as “...whether the model is appropriate for achieving social outcomes.” Given that anything designed to provide a service should properly provide that service, focussing on profit seems odd. Profit might encourage cutting of corners. Legislative provision goes some way toward protecting citizen rights to effective and appropriate service. But according to Flanagan, where government funding is inadequate, as it appears to be with Housing Tasmania, and if the chief focus is on profit, the effect on already disadvantaged people can be “devastating”.

John Ralston Saul² discusses this issue at length in the Massey Lectures and his subsequent book, “The Unconscious Civilisation”. In his view, it is not even loss of service that ought to worry citizens. It is our loss of consciousness, our loss of sovereignty, our tendency toward comfortable inaction and laziness. It is our willing silliness; “How is it then that we have fallen into taking seriously someone like the economist Milton Friedman who walks about equating … democracy with capitalism?”(87) It is our tendency to be lulled by the ideas of economics which in his view, have become a substitute for god. In Saul's view god is another result of our laziness and weakness. Our being readily convinced that pursuing our daily economic interest is more valuable and more important, than is having freedom in the public space. Perhaps it is these things that engender my discomfort, when entering a place offering public service, I am confronted with head sets, screens and the kind of decor that might be at home in my doctors' office, or my dentists'. Perhaps I am sensing and disliking, the lack of real freedom that has become part of our society.

12008, The corporatisation of government agencies: Does it work for public housing?

21997, The Unconscious Civilisation