Child Support Advocacy Group Pathways Submission Table of Contents Table of Contents 1. Form of submission 1.1. Dual purpose submission 2. The Yellow Brick Road 2.1. Preview 2.2. Scorecard 2.3. About the author 2.4. Chronology 2.5. Need for urgency 2.6. Court counselling 2.7. The birthday present 2.8. Court counselling fixes 2.9. Legal aid 2.10. Child support 2.11. My miscellaneous tuppence worth 1. Form of submission 1.1. Dual purpose submission 1.1.1. This is essentially a submission to the Pathways gig but it also includes an innovative plan to use the Family Court Counselling facility (via the Chief Executive Officer, who is on the panel) to effect a reconciliation in relation to my own case of the Stolen Generation - not the indigenous one but the far bigger one constituted by the one million children of divorce/separation who did not see their dad last Christmas. The hope is that the act of reconciliation and apology might send messages to our wider community to end the huge loss of life, generally by father and child suicide but also as per Parsons type situations. 2. The Yellow Brick Road 2.1. Preview 2.1.1. I assume the word Pathways was coined from the Yellow Brick Road expression which came from the panel (or perhaps it was those commenting on the panel's comments) from the last talkfest/gig. 2.1.2. As a picture is worth a thousand words, and to get your attention, here, with the (assumed) permission of artist Murray, I have amended his masterpiece "Yellow Brick Roadworks" to show the current position where those who are suitably briefed as their rights, created by the Attorney General, and who have simply spun around to the right, past the witch's hat, Taussig Inc, CSA, Legal aid, and Court counselling and especially not via the family law cow detour, are now sitting at the right hand of the Wizard of Oz, safe from suicide.I will return to the various characters in this story, but already most of you will know where you sit personally. 2.2. Scorecard 2.2.1. On a scale of 1 to 10 the Attorney General (who is the Wizard of Oz in the cartoon) is an 8, but not yet completed the job so will probably be a 10. To think that when I wrote to John Howard in 1994, as my then local member, to inform him of the 1.6 billion dollar pa fraud inflicted on the Australian taxpayer under Labor (but STILL exists) by the Family Court in ignoring "the court shall specify" under s 77A and s 66L (as it then was) how much double dipping it inflicted on dad in property settlements, the reply was from the Shadow Attorney General, Amanda Vanstone. Oh my God, what a terrible situation we COULD have been in had she become the real AG! 2.2.2. I know it is a bit off subject but in as much as it may help with the illegal immigration problem I provide this suggestion. Get Amanda up here to Cooktown, place her on James Cook's monument on top of Grassy Hill with a big Brunhilda pitchfork and I guarantee she will scare every boat person (and probably the illegal fishing boats as well) clear out of Australian waters. If you need proof of my assertions just consider Skasie, she has scared him clear off to the Northern Hemisphere. 2.3. About the author 2.3.1. My name is xxxxx xxxxx and I am a volunteer worker in the Child Support Advocacy Group based in Cairns but in fact assisting people all over Australia (and even clients in Ireland and Denmark). The group itself is not funded although we have yet to hear back from the Attorney General in relation to our funding application under Men's Health Initiatives. The result of non funding is that I am now left as the only active person in the group doing the advocacy work, with a client base presently of 248. 2.3.2. My purpose in doing this submission is both congratulatory as well as suggestive. As I say, the main concern is death associated with family law/CSA and I am hoping the reconciliation plan hereunder via Richard Foster (but by necessity before the gig actually gets on the road) works and that he is able to actually provide the panel with happy news about the apology to my own son from court counsellor Dr Merideth. 2.3.3. The other matters in this submission are Taussig Inc (family law lawyers - commonly called the family law cow), Legal Aid, CSA, and Court Counselling. Some of these matters are in the direct control of the Attorney General and others only in indirect esoteric control, by gentle persuasion of a political/financial kind. But in most cases he has overcome those hurdles and fixed the problems. 2.3.4. So because the most important matter is the reconciliation I will start with that, but because the cause of the problem is court counselling, I will need to explain that initially. But even before that, every good submission needs a chronology 2.4. Chronology 2.4.1. The chronology of our story from 1996 is that on 8 January 1996 the then Labor AG Michael Levarch said in the press release of the so called reform act There will be access to justice in the Family Court solicitors will be relegated to the sidelines Taussig Inc, in fact Michael himself, said "no way Jose, we bred the family law cow so no way you will stop us milking". Then Michael Levarch was gone, having done nothing to back his fine words. Michael Taussig said to the third Michael ("house and garden" Watts) of the Law Council of Something "here Michael, just take over the milking for a bit while I stir up these parents" (mum pulling the horns of the cow and dad pulling the tail - with all the dangers of that position) 2.4.2. "Look here folks, could you stop pulling for a bit as I have a new formula to feed the cow based upon parenting plans". "Will it help?" said the gullible parents, who to that point were only fighting over the cow and not the kids. "Sure it will, just you wait and see". And it came to pass without one more year of our Lord passing that the cow lactated so profusely that both Michaels had to man the buckets under the bovine. 2.4.3. Enter the new AG Mr Williams, fresh from hearing the bleating of Michaels 2 and 3 hereabove to the CSA JSC of 1994, and he said "this whole thing is a mess". The JSC chairman Roger Price had already written to me (and I guess others) to say: Parties are spending more on legal fees in family law than is actually available for division in the whole pool of assets. If parties can not afford access to justice in family law, then there is no justice. for which, and other comments Roger was fired from the Family Court JSC of 1995 and Martyn Evans took over 2.4.4. The new AG decided to put deeds into action rather than the empty words of the former AG and later in 1996 we read in the press: Legal System due for Full Shake-out A fundamental overhaul of the legal system is being planned by the Federal Government, possibly including an end to the aggressive adversarial system in many cases. The biggest shake-up of the system in decades could revise trial procedures and ways of resolving disputes in and out of court, and give judges a larger role in questioning witnesses. It may also lead to the creation of an advocate-general to represent consumers in public interest cases and "multi-door" courts that put people on various paths to reach settlement Federal Attorney-General Daryl Williams has told the Australian Law Reform Commission to virtually wipe the slate clean on administration of justice in federal courts and tribunals and come up with a better system. The review's basic task is to devise a simpler, cheaper and more accessible legal system, especially for family, civil and administrative law case. To that end it will also consider dramatic changes in the education of lawyers, non-lawyers and judges, and in work practices and the "culture" of litigation lawyers. The commission will be assisted by an advisory group of leading judges, retired judges and academics, including former High Court Chief Justice Sir Anthony Mason, former NSW Chief Justice Sir Laurence Street and merchant banker Mark Burrows. The review was initiated by former Labor Attorney-General Michael Levarch before the last election, but has been strongly endorsed by Mr Williams. It is limited to federal law, but some recommendations are likely to be taken up by State governments. It is not expected to recommend changes in -criminal trial procedures. Commission president Alan Rose said the adversarial system was under increasing strain. "It is criticised for being inefficient, wasting time and money, fracturing business and personal relationships and breeding cynicism about the legal system and the dispensation of justice," he said. Under the blended adversarial court system used in Australia, the UK and the US, plaintiffs and defendants have a key role in putting the arguments and defining the dispute. In contrast, under the inquisatorial system used in France and other European countries, the judge has responsibility for getting to the truth of the matter. 2.4.5. So Nicholson CJ got hold of Stan Grant and did a Face to Face interview on Ch 7 saying the AG was wrong and the family law cow was quite contented. B&B came and went, and the last sole parent pension mum to leave Qld turned out the light [Ed: Hi Bettina, as you are on the panel for this gig, the SPRC Report 75 on the average distance from dad to kids said 201 kms and not 141 - and my name is xxxxx (in Cairns) and not Bruce (in Townsville) - he's the one who did the CD "No Kids on Board" - OK?] after the Los Angeles gig and Pauline Hanson came and went but in the background the new AG was simply beavering away at 8.5 on the Pagani open ended Richter scale. [Ed: Ms Pagani was counsel for Ms B in B&B and did a learned article after winning (for the wife - not the kids) "B&B the Aftershock - 1.5 on the Richter Scale"] 2.5. Need for urgency 2.5.1. What I am seeking here is an act of reconciliation whereby Dr Stephen Meredith of counselling service personally acts as the medium of getting the enclosed present to my son C for his 18th birthday on 23 August 2000, together with an apology for the harm he caused to my family. That is the simple message of this part of the submission, which I will try to keep as tight as possible. 2.5.2. Also I need to mention that I have 2 appeals (NA 10/00 and NA 35/00) pending so I will obviously avoid mentioning any matters which are actual grounds of appeal, but that is a little difficult as the appeals both concern inter alia contact with C last Christmas. Also by getting these matters off my chest in the (loose, no punches needing to be pulled) Pathways forum I will not be tempted to divert from tight submission in the appeals. The urgency enunciated herein is that I fear my son could be suicidal and if this birthday present is also simply stolen by the mother, as she has done for the last 5 years for all 3 children, he may be pushed over the limit. Even if I was to win my NA 10/00 appeal and have the mother dealt with via the non punitive sanctions I am pleading (and of which Bell J appeared to be in favour), that would not happen until late October 2000, and that may be too late to save my son. 2.5.3. In the work I do via the Child Support Advocacy Group and otherwise, I do not purposely set out to save people from suicide but I know that at least 5 clients have told me, with passion, that but for my help in relieving the oppression by the industry, they would have done the same as did Greg Wilton MP, or even Mr Parsons. There could be 50 more I have saved, I just do not know and neither do I have the time to collect such data. 2.5.4. The urgency is that even if they were to clone me 100 times and we actually prevented all 1,000 father suicides per annum caused by the system (defined below) but lost my own son, then I would surely have won the battle but lost the war. I really don't know the answer to child suicide (mainly boys separated from their father - and Australia has the highest average in the world I am told), but I will do all in my power to help my own son, and if I can generate some precedent by way of reconciliation then that is good. 2.5.5. In my view the reason I have been so wildly successful in saving fathers from suicide is contained in the eulogy of Mr Wilton's sister: In a moving eulogy, his sister Dr Leeanda Wilton spoke of how her brother had been treated "coldly and brutally" by the system before he died. She told how her brother had felt he was "in the middle of nowhere" What I do is to remove the oppression "by the system" - that being mainly from solicitors and the CSA as Bell J described it in (the second of the four) Gilmour hearings as: "It is a creature of its own creation, it is getting bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger. It is bureaucratically ... it is ... it is eating itself". My experience suggests that by simply removing the causal oppression (often simply by the use of Family Court and High Court judgements), the depression, which finally enacts the suicide, simply vanishes. 2.6. Court counselling 2.6.1. The first point where I agree with the Attorney General (rather than the contrary view of Nicholson CJ) is in regard to court counselling, especially the family reports by internal and (sometimes) external child "experts". I seem to remember the CJ challenged the article by Mr X in the Australian on 24 December 1999 in which he said: Mistake number two: at the insistence of the separate representative I agreed to a family report by a court-appointed psychiatrist. I found it biased and inaccurate. It is in the family reports that the alchemy of truth characteristic of the court occurs: where black can be turned into white, junkie mums into sober paragons of maternal virtue and men into violent sub-Neanderthals. It is here where the accusations of women, no matter how implausible, can be reported as fact. 2.6.2. In my case, and for so many others I help, this is absolutely true. One of my saddest cases is Mr Bob Parsons who I only came to "know" after the stabbing outside the Family Court at Dandenong. I only wish I could have advised him before those horrific two and a half days "in" the court at the hands of the oppressor his de facto hired from Taussig Inc. I can say unequivocally he not only would not have stabbed his de facto but also that he would have got his contact matters heard rather than be badgered for more child support, without any jurisdiction by the court (as the JR kept telling the oppressor for the entire period). 2.6.3. I believe the CJ started a pilot plan at Dandenong after that for LIPs but the registry has just this week been downsized with the reallocation of funds to the Federal Magistrates Court. However to return to the report, the counsellor in Parsons used the same tactic of delaying the report so that the oppressor could attempt to go ahead with an enforcement matter before the child matters. 2.6.4. In my case I had consented to a B&B type move (for 2 years only) in May 1995 for the family from Sydney to Darwin and the Family Report was intended to ensure that all was well with the 2 children (then 13 and 15) in regard to their schooling and contact with their father. The letter to the children in September 1995 to arrange Christmas access as per the orders was stolen by the mother and given to Dr Merideth. Christmas came and went and no access (as it was then called, just prior to the "reform" act) took place. 2.6.5. The Family Report was finally released in late January 1996. Because I was in fact geographically separated form the kids Dr Merideth could not use the normal alchemy of (false) sexual interference allegations so he went for the standby of psychological damage. I complained to the court and another Family Report was ordered. But to use the words of Nicholson CJ in Patching "by then the damage was done". The second Family Report reported that "the children are angry, the children are sad, the children want answers" (good on you kids!). Of course the so called doctor could not explain the problem to the kids as he was the cause of the problem. 2.6.6. The doctor departed, along with the separate representative as fast as their little feet would allow them. The present problem is that the mother simply used the PAS initiated by Dr Merideth, AND aided by her solicitor, to do copy cat atrocities for the next 4 years. Because her solicitor became the President of Taussig Inc in NSW the undergrowth at Darwin registry simply allowed the abuse to continue. 2.6.7. The next tracking of Dr Merideth was in 1998 when I deposed (in the first ever WWW affidavit, at least in the Family Court), in a hearing before Warnick J: 3 Dr Merideth was last seen disguised as a Bedouin camel driver in Upper Mongolia Since then my so called sinister men friends have tracked the so called doctor down to the Family Court sub registry in Alice Springs. 2.6.8. So the deal is that Dr Merideth gets on his camel and gets back to Darwin and is provided with the CD present and proceeds to enact the reconciliation herein. In the alternative my contempt of court action against him is progressing quickly up the long list in my own Yellow Brick Road, and (failing the reconciliation) I expect his contempt will be explored at the same time as that of the mother's solicitor Ms Hole in regard to the 29 September 1995 attempt of arbitrary arrest by the Marshal of the Family Court (on his good horse Topper?) and all the officers of the Police force of New South Wales and all the officers of the Federal Police, notwithstanding that the order I was alleged to have offended had been set aside by consent some years before. 2.6.9. The offer is simple. Dr Merideth performs as required herein and I, by this public submission, forgive his sins and undertake NOT to go ahead with the contempt application pursuant to s 112AP. Or in the alternative he does not reconcile, whereupon he will be reinstated to my pending list. As far as compensation might be concerned, I undertake by public submission hereby, not to sue for compensation from Dr Merideth as long as he undertakes this reconciliation. But if I am forced to have him dealt with for contempt I will be looking for victim compensation (following Parsons). 2.7. The birthday present 2.7.1. As I have stated, I know what causes the suicide of three fathers every day of the year, but am a little more foggy on the cause of kids suicide. What I do know is I know far more than the so called social scientists, and for that reason I think it worthwhile to share these theories via the explanation below. 2.7.2. The present I am asking Dr Meredith to pass on to C is a CD from The Smashing Pumpkins entitled Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness, but first let me backtrack a bit. Musical appreciation had always been an integral part of the bond I had with my children, even before separation, but is now lost, post Merideth. My elder son R, now 23, would always prepare a cassette for me as a Christmas present to educate me about such as Metallica and Nirvana. He called this "a tradition", and I was always thrilled to receive this educational offering, and even try to educate my own peer group, brought up on Beatles, Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan for the "protest" input. 2.7.3. It seems all music these days is of the protest ilk, but in different form, and that is the thrust of this submission. Following the rape of my family by Dr Meredith I was able to get one (4 day) Christmas contact visit, which was in 1996, with the other 2 children. At that time C was 14 and he said "I couldn't live without Rage Against the Machine". As I found, "the machine" is the plastic "me me" lifestyle we baby boomers have inflicted upon our youth, a life for them without justice, without opportunity, without hope ... without hope. Unfortunately former DPM Tim Fisher did not do such research but tried to buy youth votes by saying he was a Rage fan and ABC Triple J did a very funny spoof comparing Tim's policies to the diametrically opposed Rage policies. Anyway, I have just grabbed an extract at random from their CD: SETTLE FOR NOTHING A jail cell is freedom from the pain in my home Hatred passed, passed on and past on A world of violent rage But it's one that I can recognise Having never seen the color of my father's eyes Yes, I dwell in hell but it's a Hell that I can grip I tried to grip my family But I slipped To escape from the pain and an existence mundane I gotta 9, a sign, a set and now I gotta name Read my writing on the wall No one's here to catch me when I fall But death is on my side Suicide 2.7.4. In my humble submission (IMHS) this could have been called "the Ode to Johnno", the indigenous lad who hung himself in jail. It is all there in a few lines, the lack of a father (even a Howard IVF disapproved one) but it seems a violent de facto dad and hence a non nuclear family and hence the alternate "sole parent pensioner" family which, by the statistics of our decrepit society as we now know it, breeds criminal upbringing (by stealing textras from Woolies), jail (mandatorally or otherwise) and suicide. 2.7.5. The reason I would like to get the Pumpkins stuff to C is that although the Pumpkins also recognise the evils (eg Despite all my Rage I'm still Just a Rat in a Cage) of the society we have given them, they have hope in changing the future as well as enjoying youth while they can (to the extent we allow them). In the song 1979 they say Shakedown 1979, cool kids never have the time on a live wire right up off the street you and I should meet junebug skipping like a stone with the headlights pointed at the dawn we were sure we would never see an end to it all and I don't even care to shake these zipper blues and we don't know just where our bones will end to dust I guess The lyrics conclude with the, in my humble opinion, (herein IMHO), prophetic: the street heats the urgency of sound as you can see there's no one around 2.7.6. The translation of zipper blues IMHO is puberty blues, and what they are saying IMHO is to not complain about being at the youth stage, but grab it with both hands and enjoy it while you can because, as sure as God made little apples it will only get worse as you grow up. Latter in the song there is a 2 liner which is almost as brilliant as the 2 liner from Kirby J in Harrington and Lowe (about your former secret women's business at Order 24 conferences) which the High Court got rid of: Depart from those pre-conditions and what is done can not stand as it is forbidden by the Constitution Pumpkins say: Justice never knew the rules hung down with the freaks and ghouls 2.7.7. Coming from a John Howard approved nuclear family myself back in the 1960's I can identify with the above. The time from age 17 to 22 (when I got drafted for Vietnam) was the best part of my life and I am hoping that Dr Meredith might find it in his feminist black heart to give this present to C and at the same time apologise for his atrocities over the last 5 years, before C's whole youth becomes a bad dream, perhaps resulting in suicide, as for so many other youth. As the Pumpkins say in Tonite Tonite, there is still time and hope for reconciliation and apology. time is never time at all you can never ever leave without leaving a piece of youth and our lives are forever changed we will never be the same the more you change the less you feel believe, believe in me, believe that life can change, that you're not stuck in vein in the resolute urgency of now we'll crucify the insincere tonite the indescribable moments of your life tonite the impossible is possible tonite believe in me as I believe in you, tonite 2.7.8. Such is the finality of PAS, as per your recent Brisbane Family Law Conference, I don't ever expect to have any future relationship with my children - the statistics would say I will probably never ever talk to them again before I die. The harm has now been done and it cant be undone, just as the indigenous stolen generation can never have their childhood back. Just because my kids have one by one escaped (or are about to in C's case) the jurisdiction of the family court as they become 18 does not mean that everything reverts back to good old times. My concern is simply that C can get it straight in his mind why his father suddenly seemed to lose interest in him - to tell him the truth, from the horse's mouth, that dad had no say in the matter, he was just another victim of the freaks and ghouls, as is C, as are the other million kids. With the truth (and a little Pumpkin help) I would hope he can survive. 2.8. Court counselling fixes 2.8.1. What is absolutely clear is that the court counselling service completely failed my children, and actually caused the end of the relationship between my children and myself. What is absolutely clear is that the court counselling service caused the obfuscation which resulted in Bob Parsons killing his de facto. My submission to Pathways on court counselling is, as the AG has been saying since 1996, get rid of it as it has no place in the court system. Of course the problem with outsourcing it (as happened to CES) is ensuring the same "bees to the honeypot" as Justice Wood referred to these people don't just move across the street. I don't have the answer to that, all I know it the present system, with the present freaks and ghouls is "broke beyond repair". What could be will be discussed in my full court appeals, so I can't talk of that here. 2.8.2. But to conclude the discussion above, it would seem patently clear that most of the problems in child matters relate to the simple fact that children themselves are not properly listened to despite: 68F How a court determines what is in a child's best interests (1) Subject to subsection (3), in determining what is in the child's best interests, the court must consider the matters set out in subsection (2). (2) The court must consider: (a) any wishes expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child's maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child's wishes; However s 68H goes on to say: 68H Children not required to express wishes Nothing in this Part permits the court or any person (sic - incl Merideth) to require the child to express his or her wishes in relation to any matter. 2.8.3. Now in my own case Dr Merideth, clearly in contempt of court, simply asked the children if they wanted to keep having contact with dad, mum having escaped to Darwin, but when they said yes, he stopped it anyway. In general this is overcome by court counselling by the use of the Dr Mengler one way mirror system where dad and kids are placed in the playroom and the social worker/observer watches and listens and reports. For example the observer in Parsons actually said Mr Parsons was not firm enough as he did not scold his son who threw a ball at his head but said "it's good practice for him". Meanwhile, after her evidence in court, the trial by newspaper verdict of the Sunday Herald Sun on 6 August 2000 states "Wife Killer's Violent Past". In fact the only suggestion of violence by the social worker who did the Family Report on the Parsons family was that Mr Parsons had knocked out a pedophile who had tried to molest his son at a scout camp-fire. The alchemy of reporting was so convoluted that he was portrayed as having assaulted an innocent person rather than protecting his child. 2.8.4. In B&B a so called landmark case on rights of children, there was not even a separate representative for the children. All that had happened was they had been given the same Dr Mengler treatment by the local social worker at the Cairns sub registry, and the hearsay evidence was that "they would go to Bendigo if mum really wanted" sort of thing. 2.8.5. But to return to my own case, the separate representation and Family Report were both ordered to determine that the welfare etc of the children and contact with dad was maintained in Darwin. So surely the first exercise was to see the kids in their natural habitat in their Pymble home I had built for them but given to their mum so they could keep going to Knox Grammar. Instead they were summoned to the 23rd floor of a city office block to be interviewed by their rep. Once in Darwin Dr Merideth admitted he did not even know what school they went to, and he cared the less as his only duty as he saw it was to stop contact. 2.8.6. So the B&B kids could have had their views (if any) put directly to the court, Mr Cumming could have gone to Pymble on his way to work, Ms Gibbon could have prepared the Family Report for the Monday (rather than the Tuesday) so Mr Parsons child matters could have been resolved on the Monday (avoiding the stabbing on the Wednesday, after 3 days of attempted asset stripping, without jurisdiction, by the hired gun from Taussig Inc). 2.8.7. But as I said, it is far too broke to fix - far too long as the vehicle used by the feminists who rule this once great county to destroy families, so we need a completely new approach, so here is my suggestion. The legislation sort of says to listen to kids but don't ask them. In the political area, where you can ask what you wish, Tim Fischer tried to relate to kids' music and I think that was a real start. Unfortunately his research was wanting and he went bottoms up. But I feel that there is a lot to be learnt from such as I have detailed above. It seems that wishes expressed by kids can be indirect, ie they choose the music which suits their personality and aspirations. I am not sure how all this could provide the answer, I am simply saying it sure looks like the key to the answer. 2.8.8. What I am saying is that had Mr Cumming (or preferably someone more resembling a human being) gone to my son's home and "hung out" for a while with him, observing and listening but not prompting, he would have had a far far better idea about the child than via an interview in a starchy solicitor's office, and the same at the Darwin end for Dr Merideth (or preferably a human being). IMHO the present system is as unsuitable for kids as are these obnoxious supervised contact centres, Camp Dachau without McDonalds, that are so popular with the feminists. Or as obnoxious as the trendy new orders devised at court counselling conferences (aka parenting plans) for telephone contact to dad at certain times only (while the pedophile down the road can ring the kids any time she/he wants). 2.8.9. And possibly before another Christmas is upon us, a dad who stays on the phone one minute too long will be arrested by the Marshal of the Family Court, and all the police of his state or territory and all the members of the Federal police, brought before a magistrate who will be forced to enforce a mandatory imprisonment sentence on him. I am sure that the Family Law Reform Bill 1999 (mandatory sentencing) can not now possibly go through following the international condemnation of our state and territory laws. However the present system is not just broke it is terminally defunct, AND it is a blight on our human rights performance which Sir Anthony Mason said in 1998 was worse than many third world countries. Exactly. 2.9. Legal aid 2.9.1. The AG does have the direct power in federal legal aid matters but only insofar as chopping the lot (or diverting it away from lawyers). Presently federal legal aid is handed out by the states and as these offices are totally feminist controlled, it only goes to women and generally is only used for oppressive actions against children and fathers via such as false allegations of sexual interference. 2.9.2. In appreciation of this abuse of public money the AG has threatened to wipe the lot, has threatened to set up federal offices in the states, and he has in fact reduced the funding somewhat. All that is still in the melting pot but the reforms will happen, maybe not overnite but they will happen. I would have to sound biased by saying that it should be diverted to "non-lawyer" advocates (as per the 1996 plan of the AG), but that is the answer, and it will happen based on the excellent track record of the AG so far. 2.10. Child support 2.10.1. Where does one start in CSA matters? What quotes does one make? How many folios does one fill. Perhaps the best is to say as little as possible and hope the CSA does "eat itself" (quote per Bell J). The CSA is a hugely expensive blight on our society, paid for the taxpayer, and it enacts atrocities on that society which would have made Hitler blush, all this being done, supposedly, so the taxpayer does not have to support separated kids. "That is a lie" (quote per Roger Price) as you know Jocelyn. As you know the feminist power freaks who have fiddled with the SSAct have done it so cleverly that even the full court in Ganter and Grimshaw thought "the only party not affected is the taxpayer" (quote per full court). The only mum who misses out on every pension, benefit or allowance (or payment) know to woman - regardless of whether dad pays $5 a week or $300 is the Howard model mum who doesn't desert the family for financial reward. I have a full discussion about this based on the Vanstone Wright family (which I call the Wrong family) at amandaforpm.com. Please note the study was done in 1998 so the actual names of the pensions, allowances, benefits, payments and other hands-out have changed several times to confuse everyone, including the court. 2.10.2. So in the context of this Pathways gig it is not so much a matter of reform but of simply sharing the experience that as long as people like us can tell the parties the truth about paying a proper amount of child support (thus dispelling the job protecting lies of the CSA) there is no problem. By this I am saying that by saving Tinman, Tinwomen and Tinkid and some 200 others from this oppression it might be said we have done a good job, but it only scratches the surface in a global view of the massacre of 3 fathers per day suiciding, as well as cases like Parsons. 2.10.3. Perhaps the only problem has been establishing that proper amount (and I have never met a parent who was not happy to support their children with the proper amount). But since April 1998 we have had the BSU figures available and in June 2000 even the "boffinary buffoons who I pay" (quote per John Fahey) at AIFS have adopted the BSU and ditched Lovering and Lee. 2.10.4. The Explanatory Memorandum with the 1999 amendment act extrapolates a 100 million saving to the taxpayer if ALL people were sufficiently informed of these option to simply depart from the CSA oppression. To sum all this up I will include the NOTATIONS we added to the orders for the Tin family, which most people do elect to include. These notations never fail to get a wry smile from the magistrate as he makes the consent order (but a scowl from the CSA as they lose another victim). NOTATIONS A These orders are sought by Mr Tinman (applicant) and Ms Tinwoman (respondent) to be made in compliance with s 4, the Objects of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 which state, inter alia : S4 3 It is the intention of the Parliament that this Act should be construed, to the greatest extent consistent with the attainment of its objects: (a) to permit parents to make private arrangements for the financial support of their children; and (b) to limit interferences with the privacy of persons. B The parties specifically request that the Child Support Agency refrains from any further interference with their privacy. C The parties recognise that by consenting to depart from any necessity to use the Child Support Agency they are fulfilling their own moral obligation (to the extent of $1,800 per annum) within the overall intention of the Parliament in the 1999 amendments to save 100 million dollars per annum in public funds by allowing parties to exercise their own responsibilities to child support. 2.10.5. Child support/maintenance, stage 1, stage 2 or stage 100 is as simple as that. First know your rights and obligations and second consent to same (and Ms Argyll, it matters not a fig if the mum is on a sole parent pension, a DV rehabilitation allowance, a supporting dog payment or on the moon, it is a court order). End of story - survive. No person is obliged to use the CSA at all. The simple result is that if everyone did that the CSA would eat itself and 1,000 more fathers pa would have a fighting chance to see their kids at Christmas (provided they can evade the next hurdle of Taussig Inc). 2.11. My miscellaneous tuppence worth 2.11.1. In no particular order, here are my thoughts on further matters in relation to the Pathways gig. 2.11.2. By way of explanation for those reading this who are not fully up on legal terms, LEGISLATION (the FLAct in this case) is made by parliament, which act, at s 123, allows the judges of the family court, or a majority of them, to make RULES (the FLRules) as to court procedure etc, by which the end result of what is argued in court and decided upon by the court becomes LAW (case law). So when Keating said L-A-W, LAW he meant legislation. 2.11.3. IMHO the Attorney General has done a fantastic job within these constraints to reform the INDUSTRY (best defined by Jeremy Bentham in 1767 as "Judge and Co"). The first point is he appreciates the rule to never amend (reform) the legislation, unless it is really broke. The AG inherited the "1996 reform act we had to have" from Keating and has then had to contend with the huge feminist enpowerment freaks who want more so called reforms including the ability to mandatarily lock up so called dead-beat dads. So the strategy to pull out the big federal stick on the state and territory mandatory sentencing legislation is totally brilliant, as the AG can now sit back and say to the feminist power brokers "I ran your 1999 Reform Bill up the flagpole as you demanded, but you should now take over as it seems Geneva might be a bit upset". So we can safely assume the 1999 Reform Bill will simply wither and die, thus ending the possibility of oppression by legislation. 2.11.4. The AG does not control the FLRules and the judges, or a majority of them, have done nothing at all in regard to the logical reforms I suggest herein. In fact it took the High Court in Harrington and Lowe to even get the secret women's business provisions out of Order 24 (all about what are commonly called Roll Over Conferences at the Lost Property Office). So what does the AG do? He starts a new court, with new rules (or at least there will be new rules soon - hopefully making the new court a solicitor free zone according to Diana Bryant). Brilliant Mr Williams, absolutely brilliant. 2.11.5. Then we have the common call of "they orta change the law" (generally meaning the legislation). The link between legislation and law is that the reason one needs to be so careful about changing the legislation is that it might extinguish the law already made, either officially or by inference. The perfect example is that the court was tough on contempt of access before the reform act of 1996 per Stevenson and Hughes etc, but not one case of contempt of the new term contact has been published after the reform act. On the other hand a million kids (including mine) did not see their dad last Christmas, so it is not as if the reforms actually reformed anything per se. The answer is that the industry has sort of inferred that B&B is the new law on contact, so no point about complaining of not getting contact. 2.11.6. Now everyone, including the AG, admits B&B was just one case about one particular issue about one particular Buttercup bound for her Bendigo boyfriend. As seen, even Mrs Buttercup's own attorney, Ms Pagani of counsel, puts the aftershock at only 1.5 on her own open ended Richter scale. But above all, the case has nothing to do with contempt of contact (orders?) which means, to use the immortal words of Michael (house and garden) Watts (and quoting Michael Taussig himself, leader of Taussig Inc) to the 1994 JSC, "someone has got to argue it and don't think the profession has been arguing it as assiduously as it should be", someone has to argue it. 2.11.7. Given that the above discussion by the leaders of Taussig Inc was about so called double dipping, and that the JSC (including Mr Williams) in 1994 decided that the so called profession "dismally failed" in that regard, and that in 2000 double dipping is still alive and well, and accepting that the so called profession never argues anything in court, assiduously or otherwise that is not in the direct interest of the female combatant, it looks like a litigant in person has to put it to the court. I will be doing that at appeal come October, not assiduously but simply lawfully. Hopefully the AG might intervene on this as well as B&B given that this one affects millions of fathers and children, not just the happiness of one lady. 2.11.8. As far as the role I fill presently, I see myself, and hopefully other non-lawyers, as filling the gap the CJ mentions in his obiter dictum (together with Moore J) in Johnson: 106. We have no knowledge as to whether either party applied for legal aid but given current legal aid policies it is unlikely that they would have received aid had they done so. 107. We can only deplore a situation where the Full Court is called upon to construe a highly complex piece of legislation without the benefit of legal argument. This is an increasingly common phenomenon and is an intolerable situation so far as the future development of the law is concerned. 2.11.9. I must say I can only agree with the stance of the Attorney General in this regard, particularly as he was part of the 1994 JSC where it was recorded in Hansard that "Taussig Inc" simply uses the "house and garden" approach (at $15,000) and that only parties who are "almost pathological" would go to court. Lawyers have no intention of developing the law, they are too busy making money. 2.11.10. I presently work as a Peter Reith approved work for the dole volunteer and as I do 80 hours per week my rate is therefore $2 per hour for the advocacy work I do. Obviously I would be very happy to do such work at legal aid rates of some $80 per hour, even though most solicitors turn their nose at such while they make $220 plus per hour on other victims via the house and garden method. I am sure that if the plan set out above was adopted: To that end it will also consider dramatic changes in the education of lawyers, non-lawyers and judges, and in work practices and the "culture" of litigation lawyers. there would be many more non-lawyers "cloned" to be quickly up to speed on these matters. 2.11.11. Although the AG could simply get rid of Legal Aid (or divert to it people like me) and could remove the counselling by further starvation of funds, the Levarch idea of removing the family law cow (at least from the family court - if not the new court) is a bit of a pipe dream in all reality. Most of the people on the Pathways gig are lawyers or owe their job to lawyers. So getting rid of Taussig Inc "culture" by Royal proclamation would seem out of the question. So accepting that unfortunate reality and moving on, my next concern is as to who actually hears matters and my preference is via the minority decision in Harris and Caladine by Brennan J (and I forget who else) where his Honour said: 23. It is a matter of public notoriety that the Family Court has frequently been embarrassed by a failure of government to provide the resources needed to perform the vast functions expected of the Court under the Act. But the Constitution does not bend to the exigencies of a budget and, if the humanly important problems of familial relations create a mass of controversies justiciable before the Family Court, Justices must be found to hear and determine them. In other words I am in favour of people having direct access to judges to settle their "familial problems". My submission is that to try to shortcut that process (as has been tried) by employing cheaper "undergrowth" in the court does not work, as it simply creates a whole swag of new problems. I am saying do it once, but do it right, and that can only be achieved by having the matter determined by a judge. 2.11.12. Recent benchmarking surveys in July 2000 by Justice Stephen O'Ryan (aka SO'R) reveal the following: The Family Court of Australia is the largest superior court in Australia. It is a high volume specialist Court with 11 Registries, 50 judges, 200 professional mediators, including lawyers and behavioural scientists, and 450 other staff. It provides litigation, mediation and information services through 22 significant locations and a large number of circuit locations throughout Australia (except for Western Australia, which has its own family court operating under the same federal legislation). Co-located with the Family Court adjudicative functions are counselling, conciliation, mediation and forensic assessment services. It thus adopts a multi- disciplinary approach. If one was to accept that one of these so called behavioural scientists costs about one third of a judge (setting aside the question of unfunded superannuation in gigantic proportions from Comsuper) then we have the funds available for some 70 more judges. 2.11.13. Noting that, for reasons unknown, SO'R neglected to include Rs and JRs in his figures I will remain silent as to where I put these people in this budgetary exercise, ie out of the picture as per Brennan J etc or as Gaudron J "pre-condition" inclusions as per the majority decision in Harris. All I am submitting is that the 200 strong undergrowth (below registrar level) gets axed, thus freeing up funds for more judges, and which total seems to more than double the present tally. I know for a fact Bell J would agree on that score. 2.11.14. Next IMHO the time spent per case can be dramatically reduced for reasons I detail hereunder. In round figures, if we now have double the number of judges and each judge handles 10 times the volume then, in my submission, the Brennan dream is fulfilled and every Tom Dick and Mary who has a familial problem actually gets their day (or at least a fraction thereof) in court before a real judge rather than before some hairy legged lesbian at Relationships Australia or a so called Legal Aid Conference (which might be a Qld only abuse) who knows absolutely nothing of family law but is quite willing to chop up the family home, car and dog, under the guise of relationship and parenting counselling - whatever that and the equally obnoxious expression "parenting skills" might mean. But quite apart from my own views, the High Court says it is forbidden by the Constitution. 2.11.15. So how do we reduce the times of trials by 90%? That is quite simple IMHO. IMHO the answer is in the FLAct at s 123 which allows the judges or a majority of them to make procedural rules in the court. 2.11.16. Firstly I would suggest that Barbara Cartland affidavits be banned and there be rules of court in Order 16 as to affidavits (exclusive of attachments) not exceeding say 2 folios. This would avoid the necessity for the trial judge to have to read 50 pages of so called affidavit by Buttercup (normally paid for by the taxpayer under Legal Aid) such as: 1. I was born as a young girl and for many years I grew up on a farm with my mum and dad and 2 chooks and a duck and my domestic violence adviser advises me I might have been sexually abused by my father at the age of 2 and I really don't know if that's the truth but I ventured on to Leeton where I started to pick peaches and my boss said to me you are good at picking peaches so I was promoted to the cannery and ..... [blah blah blah] Don't laugh, I see these all the time. 2.11.17. Secondly I would suggest that all submission to a trial judge must be in writing, as is the rule for appeals. This would avoid the need for strutting minuscule barristers to do the full Rumpole in the family court. My experience is that when I have provided a LIP with a written submission (which is what I do for all matters going to court) the trial time has been dramatically reduced, with no diminution of the force of the case, and which case my client has always won (especially against Ms Pagani, who simply relies on Judge & Co affiliations and huff and puff). 2.11.18. Thirdly I would suggest that cross examination by lawyers (accepting that they will continue in the family court) be limited to say one hour, as SO'R did to me and Moss J did to Peter Vlug (Vlug & Poulos). I have earned the displeasure of the full court for my expose on how SO'R as a QC just before he became a judge was allowed by his Butterworths "little mate" RC to ramble on for over a week in the Carpenter case, doing a Horace Rumpole as if he was before the grand jury in a murder case. I would continue to accept the one hour cutoff as long as the same rules are applied to everyone. In retrospect, knowing what I now know about what really needs to be brought out in cross examination (if anything, in most cases), I could have done the job in 15 minutes maximum. 2.11.19. My submission is that the budget already made to the Family Court would most adequately allow for the Brennan J concept of all genuine people having their genuine family law/CSA grievances heard by a Chapter III judge under the Constitution (perhaps including Rs and JRs), if the abovementioned clauses were included in the FLRules by the judges of the Family Court or a majority of them under s 123. In fact I would go on to say there would be a huge surplus of funds, for redistribution to the taxpayer. But as I say herein, the surgery requires the removal of a huge amount of dead wood which is so firmly entrenched in the family law cow that such "culture", even a diamond tip saw may not suffice in exorcising. And if such reform is not done voluntarily to the FLRules, I am totally behind the AG simply diverting another 10% (plus GST), annually, to the new court.