The Gillard Labor Government supports extortion and single parent families. A Bill called the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 is currently before Parliament.

The Bill has recently received the support of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. The Senate Committee’s Report on the Bill was tabled in the Senate on Monday 22 August 2011 (Hansard page 74).

There are two (2) parts to the Bill.

Firstly, there is a broadening of the definition of what is deemed to be “family violence”. The refusal to hand over your credit card to your wife, husband or partner will constitute “family violence”. At the same time, penalties for providing false information are to be removed from the Family Law Act 1975 (it is noted this later item is specifically not supported by the Coalition Senators in the Senate Report).

This will lead to extortion.

Secondly, the wording of the Bill will legislatively lift “family violence” above the need of children to see both parents after either divorce or separation.

The proportion of one-person households increased from 15.7 per cent of households in the 1976 Census to 24.4 per cent in the 2006 Census. The proportion of two-person households also increased from 28.1 per cent of households in 1976 to 34.1 per cent in 2006 (ABS 2010 Year Book).

The Bill, if passed, will result in false allegations of family violence. This will then further contribute to the increase in one-person and two-person households in Australia.

We only have to look at the recent British riots to see what problems this will cause.

John Flanagan                                                                                                   Deputy Registered Officer,                                                                                                                    Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting). http://www.equalparenting.org.au/                                          noncustod@yahoo.com.au

Lake Times
Page 4, 11 August 2011.

Federal MP crticised.

The local Federal Member for Throsby, Stephen Jones, is running from the locals.

The Federal Member’s office initially agreed to speak at the Fairness In Child Support’s August meeting. At the last minute, his Office Manager rang to cancel the appointment.

This is despite the fact that the appointment had been made 4 months previously and confirmed a week ago.

This is supposedly because Stephen Jones had other commitments.

In reality, Stephen Jones did not wish to speak on issues outside of his comfort zone.

If Stephen Jones is truly the local representative, then why does he not want to speak to his constituents?

John Flanagan
Assistant Secretary
Fairness In Child Support
Coniston.

Our local Federal Member, Stephen Jones MP*, was supposed to attend our August Fairness In Child Support meeting. This was to discuss the Family Violence Bill and other similar issues. At the last moment, he chose not to attend, claiming that the meeting was a set-up.

This is a letter to the editor published in the local newspaper on 10 August 2011. This was in reply to his non-attendance.

Regards

John

* Stephen Jones is the Labor Member for Throsby (Wollongong), formerly held by Jennie George.

Illawarra Mercury
Letters to the Editor
Page 19, 10 August 2011

Keeping up with Jones.

I would like to express my disillusionment with the Federal Member for Throsby, Mr Stephen Jones MP.

As the local member, he is supposed to represent all constituents in the electorate of Throsby and not to be selective. He may not agree with what he is hearing. That is his right.

However he has a responsibility to listen to the concerns of others and not to bury his head in the sand.

Mr Jones was invited to a meeting of the Fairness in Child Support to discuss the changes relating to shared parenting. The new laws or the interpretation of the laws are going to disadvantage children and the rights of the child to grow up knowing both parents.

As such, this will cause hardship to a large cross-section of the community. The meeting was a way to express these concerns and maybe get some insight into how the Government reasoned to regressing a law introduced under the Howard years.

Mr Jones accepted knowing both the date and the content of the meeting. No set-up, just a way of getting answers and feedback. Months of planning went into organising this meeting. Then a week before the meeting, he decided to withdraw.

His actions have shown a lack of character and integrity. It is a clear sign that he has betrayed his slogan that he sprouted during the last election – that he would take on the hard issues.

Neville Edwards, Port Kembla.