 |
News & Events - July 2004
A set of values, standards, expectations and ethics
"We must be honest in failure, but humble in success.
We must learn to laugh, but never forget how to cry.
We must be able to reach into the future, but never forget our past.
We must not take the easy option, but we must deliver the best option."
"We know that with these values there is clear evidence that shows that competition, clear standards,
clear lines of authority, clear discipline and clear expectations support our sons."
29 July 2004, Hon John Tamihere
Tamihere comes out ...
Kia ora and good evening, and thank you for joining us here tonight. St Peter's College is a place that had a very strong influence on providing me with the right values and views in my formative years. The fact that I did not always live up to these very good values is my lasting regret.
Tonight I have got an announcement to make that might come as a bit of a shock to you: I am coming out of the closet.
I am coming out of the closet to declare that I am a proud Kiwi male.
I am also proud that I am a father.
I have a woman, and I am proud of her.
I have young sons and daughters and I am proud of them.
I believe that the pendulum of political correctness has swung too far. I am sick and tired of hearing about the deficit model, where, as red-blooded heterosexual men, we are supposedly the creators of all that is bad and evil in this world.
A number of attitudes prevalent in our society are in fact highly dangerous to our wellbeing, and are particularly dangerous to the wellbeing of our young men.
I am concerned as a Kiwi male myself, and as a political leader, and perhaps I am most concerned because I am the father of young sons.
How pressing are our difficulties? How urgent are the needs of our sons?
- Young men are four and a half times more likely than young women to kill themselves.
- Young men are 22 times more likely than young women to be imprisoned.
- Young men are five times more likely to cause a fatal car crash.
- Young men are twice as likely to be killed in a car crash, and three times more likely to be injured.
- Boys are four times more likely than girls to be stood down or suspended from school, or identified as having behavioural problems.
- Boys are more likely to leave school with no qualifications, and have a consistently higher rate of youth unemployment.
- Of the top 10 ranked schools in New Zealand, seven are girls' schools.
- Men are more likely than women to die of cancer and heart disease.
- The Family Court, despite huge shifts in society, continues to award custody of children to women rather than men, and men are much more likely to be denied access to their children.
These are just some of the very worrying symptoms that suggest that our menfolk are not doing well at all.
These are not just aberrations or one-offs; they are part of a consistent trend - and it is that trend that I want to turn around.
If any other segment of our society demonstrated the difficulties I have just listed (and there are plenty more) all hell would break loose.
Our society has embraced the concept that girls can do anything - so what about boys?
The thinking is that we can look after ourselves, that there isn't a problem. Well there is a problem and I am speaking for Kiwi heterosexual men, simply because that is what I am, and we need to speak up for ourselves. We need to advocate for ourselves; we need to champion our rights.
This isn't about simply turning back the clock to what we may remember nostalgically as the heyday of the Kiwi bloke.
Unless we start to ask the right questions and set the right standards, there are no standards.
Unless we set expectations, there are no expectations.
Unless we have ethics and beliefs, there are none.
We of this generation do not have to face the trials, tribulations and catastrophes of our fathers and grandfathers as they fought world wars, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. But we have a new threat and a new challenge that we must face.
The greatest single menace that threatens men is their own willingness to produce alibis for their own failures. To make excuses, in the most articulate fashion, for our mistakes.
In recent decades the greatest sanction on behaviour was the sanction of our parents, our peers and our community - not the police or criminal justice system, not the Children and Young Person's Service and not the welfare department.
When we take responsibility for our own conduct, rather than say that it is someone else's problem, we control the strongest sanction there is. We need to give men today an opportunity to not just take responsibility, but to define it.
Do men conduct themselves differently to others? Of course they do and one way that is demonstrated is the way we show affection for those who mean most to us. The love we men have for our children is deep and it is enduring. At times it is understated, but it is as strong and as passionate and as deeply held as anyone else's.
Yet many men I know have walked away from their relationships and children to protect them from the trauma and the hurt that the breakdown of their parents' relationship inflicts on them. I have been there and I have contemplated that.
Men do not like talking about their problems. They console themselves by thinking through a solution and moving to act upon it. Men understate their problems, just as they understate their achievements.
Men like to come home from work and blob out on the couch and watch TV. They do not always want to talk and communicate. They want space. Their missus wants the reverse. These differences don't make them wrong - and I think it is time we stopped feeling like we have to apologies just for being who we are.
The role of men changed dramatically in the last 30 years, leaving some important questions unanswered.
Do men suffer from post-natal depression? Are they skilled to deal with the significant childcare roles that are now asked of them? Do they have the same support mechanisms in healthcare, education and employment as others, or are they just deemed to be strong enough to handle all things? How easy is it for men, and young men in particular, to turn to their mates, their peers, brothers, fathers and role models to express their feelings if they are hurt or angry or simply not coping? Is it right that the criminal justice system becomes the substitute for cleaning up males' harm and pleas for help?
What are the solutions to these difficulties? Firstly we have to acknowledge that we have a deep, serious and enduring problem. Before we can put in place any short, medium and long-term solutions to the problems expressed, we must have a set of values, standards, expectations and ethics.
We must have a conversation that helps us reclaim and reshape them for a new era. This conversation must make us strong enough to know when we are weak, and brave enough to face ourselves when we are fearful.
We must be honest in failure, but humble in success.
We must learn to laugh, but never forget how to cry.
We must be able to reach into the future, but never forget our past.
We must not take the easy option, but we must deliver the best option.
We know that with these values there is clear evidence that shows that competition, clear standards, clear lines of authority, clear discipline and clear expectations support our sons.
We now have evidence that perhaps the most important figure in a boy's life is his father - and I cannot think of anyone who influenced me more than my own father.
We know that one in three boys live apart from their natural fathers, and that less than 18 per cent of primary teachers are male.
Notwithstanding this, we know that our sons quest after heroes and role models. Under no circumstances can we make excuses for being absent; no longer can we make excuses for emotional or physical abuse. We cannot make excuses if young men do not have a father as a role model.
We must acknowledge that they do need role models - and male role models. Most men do want to be better fathers, but often society's attitudes and institutions can be barriers to them doing so.
I don't have all the answers, but I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this very important debate.
What I do know is that it is OK to be male.
It is OK to be a red-blooded Kiwi heterosexual male.
It is OK to have a male bonding session with the boys.
It is OK to scream and shout and jump up and down when the All Black scrum powers over the top of the Poms.
But just as importantly it is OK to pick up and love and cuddle our babies and take them to the park.
It is OK to be assertive - but not to be ugly and violent.
It is OK to intervene, to stand up and take ownership against bad role models and bad behaviour of other men.
It is OK to acknowledge that men can bind together the fabric of family, of community and of country.
It is OK for us fathers to ensure that our sons are imbued with hope and an appetite for adventure.
It is OK for our sons to know the joy and inspiration of life, because we need them to be strong enough to contribute to their families and communities, and skilled enough to contribute to the economic wellbeing of their society.
They must progress to one of the greatest accomplishments they can for their families, their community and their country - and that is to be good fathers.
I thank you again for the opportunity to contribute to this very important discussion tonight, and I also encourage you to also contribute yourselves. As I said, I don't have all the solutions - that is something we need to discuss and debate and work out together.
Men and boys count - it is time we stood up to be counted.
29 July 2004, 30 per cent increase to Family Relationships Program and
re-evaluation of the child support scheme
As part of the Australian Government's response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee inquiry into child custody arrangements, funding for the Family Relationships Program will increase by 30 per cent, Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Larry Anthony said today.
Mr Anthony welcomed the Prime Minister's announcement today of an immediate increase in funding for this program that is delivering real support to families right across Australia.
"In recognition of the important work that Family Relationships programs do for Australian families, the Australian Government will immediately increase funding from $54 million to $69 million in 2004-05."
"Programs to receive additional funding include counselling, mediation and conciliation services, Childrens‚ Contact Services, family relationships and pre-marriage education and skills training, the Contact Orders Program and the Men and Family Relationships Program, including MensLine."
"These services are vitally important in the early intervention and prevention of family separation. Where families do separate, they have an important role in reducing stress and minimising the conflict that can be involved."
"The Prime Minister‚s announcement today also recognises the difficult circumstances some grandparents find themselves in relation to their legal standing with regard to their grandchildren."
"The Australian Government will propose changes to the Family Law Act to highlight the role of grandparents and introduce changes to their access to legal aid."
"I will be taking immediate steps to establish a Child Support Taskforce to report back by March 2005 on a comprehensive re-evaluation of the child support scheme. I will announce the details of membership and terms of reference of the Taskforce shortly."
"What is in the best interests of children in the event of family separation has been central to the inquiry and also in the Government‚s response. When a family does separate, the needs of their children have to be paramount."
"The additional support for services that support family relationships will go a long way to build more resilient families and minimise conflict," Mr Anthony said.
29 July 2004, Attorney welcomes proposals for reform in famliy law
Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has welcomed a new approach to the family
law system announced today by the Prime Minister.
The proposed package of reforms is in response to the House of
Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs'
inquiry into child custody arrangements in the event of family separation.
Mr Ruddock said the reforms demonstrated the Government's commitment to
improving outcomes for separating families and ensuring the focus was on
the best interests of the children involved.
He thanked the Committee for its hard work in undertaking this very
demanding inquiry.
"The proposed reforms will enable many more families to resolve disputes
outside the courts," Mr Ruddock said.
"The establishment of new Family Relationship Centres across the country,
together with increased support for other services to help parents resolve
disputes and focus on the best interests of their children, will mean
better outcomes for families and children.
"The centres will also be able to help find solutions where agreements or
court orders break down, which is often a major cause of conflict," he
said.
The Government proposes to introduce changes to the law to encourage more
sharing of parenting responsibilities after separation and to make it
compulsory to attend a dispute resolution process before parents can go to
court over a parenting issue. Cases involving violence or child abuse
will not have to meet this requirement.
Other measures include:
- increased resources for children's contact services and the Contact
Orders Program to reduce waiting lists and establish services in more
locations;
- a new combined registry for the Family Court of Australia and the
Federal Magistrates Court; and
- proposed changes to the law to make processes in the Family Court
relating to children's matters less adversarial.
"The Government will be consulting with the community on the
implementation of these significant changes to the family law system," Mr
Ruddock said.
"In the meantime I welcome the Prime Minister's announcement of an
immediate injection of $15m in 2004-05 for services assisting families in
difficulties before and after separation."
Media Contact: Steve Ingram Parliament House Phone: 02 6277 7300 Fax: 02
6273 4102
ABC AM, 29 July 2004, Ruddock speaks about Family Court shake-up
Reporter: Alexandra Kirk
TONY EASTLEY: In a shake-up of the role of the Family Court, the Federal
Government plans to set up a national network of family relationship
centres to handle messy custody disputes.
The centres would be outside of the existing Family Court, and would not
involve lawyers.
Fifteen of the centres, to be operated under contract by churches and
other existing family organisations, are expected to open this year.
Visiting a centre would be compulsory for couples involved in custody
disputes.
Also in the government recommendations, to be released this morning, are
plans to grant greater custody access rights to men.
The Attorney General Philip Ruddock is speaking here to Alexandra Kirk.
PHILIP RUDDOCK: The centres will offer assistance to all separating
couples, weather or not they've commenced any legal proceedings. It will
be focussed on providing practical assistance. It will help couples
resolve those disputes promptly and before, hopefully, relationships
deteriorate and conflict becomes entrenched. So we see this as a very
substantial change and a very beneficial change.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: But the family relationship centres, they won't have any
teeth will they? They won't be able to enforce any decision or
recommendation?
PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well what we want to see is a greater proportion of the
matters resolved by people not being in a situation of conflict. The teeth
still exist within the family courts and in the magistrate's courts.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: Coalition MPs and, as I understand it, you too - were in
favour of a Family's Tribunal. Did it come down to the Prime Minister not
wanting one?
PHILIP RUDDOCK: No. I think it is a question of looking at the way in
which the system can work more effectively and achieve resolution of
disputes and what we see through the family relationships centre network
and getting it up and running is a way of achieving that outcome. And that
was primarily what the Committee was seeking.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: Do you think coalition MPs though will be disappointed?
PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well there may be some that will be, but I think there is
a recognition that a very significant new set of arrangements are being
put in place more effectively. I mean, we have accepted most of the
recommendations of the Committee will be amended.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: But not the primary one.
PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well we will be amending the law as the Committee
recommended, to accept that the starting point in relation to any matter
involving children is that equal shared parental responsibility is that
point and that parents should share the key decisions in relation to a
child's life, regardless of how much time the child spends with each
parent.
So we will be amending the Family Law Act to refer to the need of both
parents to have a meaningful involvement in their children's lives and
that children have a right to spend time on a regular basis with both of
them.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: But not necessarily equal time?
PHILIP RUDDOCK: No. We recognise that that's not always possible but we do
believe that there ought to be equal shared responsibility and that would
occur in all cases except those involving violence, child abuse and
entrenched conflict.
Parents would still be able to put their case for a different arrangement
and the courts, in appropriate cases, could consider the best interests of
the child as the most important question in resolving those matters.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: And what about the vexed question and something that
causes a lot of anger, and that is child support payments?
PHILIP RUDDOCK: What we will be seeking through the measures that we are
implementing with a child support task force to report back in early March
is to comprehensively re-evaluate the scheme.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: You couldn't come up with an alternative scheme?
PHILIP RUDDOCK: The Committee recommended that there ought to be a child
support task force to report on those matters, and we've accepted that
recommendation.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: The Parliamentary Committee said that it wanted to see a
less adversarial system of managing child custody. Do you think you'll end
up delivering that?
PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well there are a number of steps that we've taken:
requiring people to approach family relationship centres at the beginning
of a process, and you won't be able to access the courts until you have
been in that centre, where you've had access to parenting advice and
assistance and up to three hours counselling provided freely in those
centres. That's a significant advance in itself.
We'll be amending the law in a number of respects and I've already
outlined to you how that will happen in relation to shared parental
responsibility, but we will also be requiring the courts to operate in a
less adversarial model, and we'll be amending the Family Law Act to
achieve that outcome.
In addition we'll be amending the Family Law Act to provide greater
opportunities for grandparents and through that we hope that they'll be
able to have access to certain services and some access to legal
assistance when necessary in order to be able to put their claims.
TONY EASTLY: The Attorney General Philip Ruddock speaking there to
Alexandra Kirk.
13 July 2004, Hartsuyker announces $300,000 grant for Dads in Distress
The Coffs Harbour based organisation Dads in Distress will continue to support fathers following the announcement of a $300,000 grant from the Australian Government.
The Federal Member for Cowper, Luke Hartsuyker, said today $300,000 will be provided to DIDS over the next three years under the Commonwealth‚s Stronger Families and Community Strategy.
Dads in Distress is a dedicated support group of men that provides telephone support, community-based peer group support, advice programs and referral to established community education and training programs for fathers who have gone through a separation.
"Since DIDS was initially established with the support of seed funding from the Australian Government, they have developed a network of support for divorced men," Mr Hartsuyker said.
"All separations are difficult and coping can be especially hard for non custodial parents. DIDS aims to assist fathers who require additional support in that area."
Mr Hartsuyker said the Australian Government funding was granted under the Local Answers programme and would provide the organisation with the financial security necessary to continue their good work.
"When a couple separates there is obviously challenges for all members of a family, but what is often overlooked are the difficulties that fathers endure," Mr Hartsuyker said.
"There are statistics which indicate the male suicide rate is relatively high and there are indications that many of these suicides are linked to divorce or separation, with traumatic effects on all family members."
Mr Hartsuyker said the Local Answers initiative supports locally developed and implemented projects that give families and communities the power to develop their own solutions and help them to help themselves.
He said that support was now being networked through other regional townships and delivering invaluable assistance to many fathers.
The Australian , 6 July 2004, MPs in last-ditch pitch on custody
By Patricia Karvelas
John Howard will hold a special meeting with Coalition MPs opposed to his plan for a one-stop shop to deal with child custody battles.
Although the Prime Minister is backing the low-cost proposal for a Job Network-style office to resolve custody battles, Coalition backbenchers want to create a special families tribunal. The MPs hope they can change Mr Howard's mind at a last-ditch meeting in two weeks.
The low-cost alternative will offer mediation and counselling advice to couples, reducing the likelihood of disputes ending up in the Family Court.
The shopfront plan, devised by Sydney University law professor Patrick Parkinson, is a compromise on the child custody tribunal pushed by Children's Minister Larry Anthony.
But a Coalition backbencher said the meeting would attract large numbers of MPs still committed to the tribunal.
"We will push our case again, we know he (Mr Howard) is leaning towards the shopfronts but we're not giving up on the tribunal."
Labor's justice spokeswoman, Nicola Roxon, said the idea being pursued by Mr Howard had promise.
"It would be foolish to rule out things that might provide families with relief," she said.
"We take seriously that the (parliamentary) committee made a recommendation about needing to find some option which was simpler but cheaper for people.
"I think there are some serious reservations expressed about the tribunal, and it's one reason we are conscious of seeing what the Government comes up with because they have access to much more advice and information."
Ms Roxon agreed the plan could appease the tribunal's vocal critics, including recently retired Family Court chief justice Alastair Nicholson, who questioned the constitutional validity of the tribunal.
"A package like this doesn't raise the same legal problems that a tribunal might, and I guess depending on what it is they think these shopfronts will do and how they will be resourced, then we would have to make an assessment of whether it was going to deal with the issues that the public has been raising and it obviously has the potential to."
The Australian , 5 July 2004, PM stirs clash on custody reforms
By Patricia Karvelas
John Howard has thrown his support behind a radical "one-stop shop" for feuding couples to resolve custody battles, placing him on a collision course with Coalition MPs favouring a new families tribunal.
The Prime Minister is backing the low-cost alternative, which will offer mediation and counselling advice to couples, reducing the likelihood of disputes ending up in the Family Court.
But the Job Network-style scheme has received only lukewarm support from several ministers and government backbenchers, who favour the proposed $500 million families tribunal, recommended last year by a bipartisan parliamentary committee.
Cabinet is expected to debate the contentious scheme in the next few
weeks.
It will consider the shopfront plan, designed by Sydney University law professor Patrick Parkinson, as a compromise on the child custody tribunal pushed by Children's Minister Larry Anthony and understood to have been given in-principle support by Attorney-General Philip Ruddock.
The shops would establish "parenting plans", but they would not be binding, whereas the tribunal would have legal authority to make enforceable agreements. The other key difference is that under the Howard plan, lawyers would continue to have a role in custody issues.
One liberal backbencher told The Australian yesterday the Parkinson plan would not receive Coalition partyroom support, despite Mr Howard's preference for this model.
"We are sticking with the tribunal idea," he said.
"We want lawyers left out of the process."
The parliamentary committee recommended parents be encouraged to first visit a shopfront providing information and counselling on custody issues before seeking binding parenting orders from a families tribunal.
The alternative scheme, in which a national network of one-stop shops would be staffed by trained relationship counsellors, is understood to be significantly cheaper than the $500 million-plus tribunal favoured by government backbenchers.
Under Family Court rules, families are encouraged to try mediation before going into the court.
Cabinet may also consider a plan to put into law a requirement that parents must attend a shopfront before going to the Family Court.
The Australian has learnt the one-shop stop alternative proposal evolved out of discussions between senior advisers in the Prime Minister's office and Professor Parkinson, who was asked to devise the scheme.
In his paper, distributed to cabinet ministers, Professor Parkinson says the shopfronts would resemble the federal Government's national privatised job placement agency system, the Job Network.
But the Job Network-style scheme is unlikely to win the support of MPs who have previously pleaded with Mr Howard to endorse the tribunal proposal, arguing that it was needed to reduce the adversarial nature of the Family Court system, giving the tribunal the right to order binding parenting plans and cutting out the role of lawyers.
But it will appease the tribunal's vocal critics, including recently retired Family Court chief justice Alastair Nicholson, who questioned the constitutional validity of the tribunal.
The tribunal was meant to take responsibility for much of the Family Court's workload on custody matters, but backers of the new national shopfront scheme argue this idea will do the same without compromising the role of the court.
Dads In Distress is funded by the Australian Federal Government.
|
|
Back to www.dadsindistress.asn.au
