Tuesday 30 June 2009

The Barbara Biggs Show, Dads On The Air, 30 June, 2009.






Posted by at No comments:

Saturday 27 June 2009

Rudd reform 'won't reduce child abuse', Weekend Australian, 27 June, 2009.




Rudd reform `won't reduce child abuse'

Stapleton, John. Weekend Australian [Canberra, A.C.T] 27 June 2009: 6.
Show highlighting
According to this approach, the best way to protect vulnerable children is to defend parental rights, keep families intact, and try to prevent abuse and neglect by providing support services which attempt to address the parents' complex problems.

VULNERABLE children in the care of dysfunctional or abusive families will be no better off under the Rudd government's revamped child protection program because the reforms make it harder to remove minors from their parents.
The planned expansion of child abuse prevention programs could inadvertently lead to more children dying while in the custody of unfit family carers, according to a report by Centre for Independent Studies research fellow Jeremy Sammut.
"Fatally Flawed: the Child Protection Crisis in Australia", argues that seven-year-old Ebony, who was starved to death in 2007 by her parents, could have been saved if not for the failed child protection ideologies that kept her with her dysfunctional parents.
"They (the government's proposed reforms) are actually a plan to leave more children with dysfunctional parents for longer, at great risk of long-term harm, on the highly questionable basis that family support services will keep them safe," Dr Sammut writes.
Under the umbrella of the recently released National Child Protection Framework the Rudd government has endorsed a multi-million-dollar expansion of programs to help struggling families. But Dr Sammut says there is no evidence this approach works.
"A radical family preservation-focused approach to child protection has become orthodox practice inside child protection agencies," he writes.
"According to this approach, the best way to protect vulnerable children is to defend parental rights, keep families intact, and try to prevent abuse and neglect by providing support services which attempt to address the parents' complex problems.
"This has led child protection agencies, which in most states are sub-departments of much larger departments of community services, to become increasingly confused about their core responsibility to intervene in the best interests of children."
Dr Sammut said child protection academics routinely argue that mandatory reporting, introduced in the 1990s and making it compulsory for professionals and the public to report any suspicions of child abuse, has been responsible for overwhelming agencies and should be wound back. In NSW, only 13 per cent of complaints are followed up with a home visit.
But far from being a failure, Dr Sammut argues it has been a spectacular success.
"Mandatory reporting has mass-screened disadvantaged families, capturing an increased level of dysfunction in Australia's expanding underclass of welfare-dependent families which have serious problems including domestic violence, parental drug abuse and mental illness," he says. "The most at-risk children have been identified and re-identified, mostly by mandatory reporters."
In NSW, a quarter of all the hundreds of thousands of child abuse reports are triggered by only 2100 families. Half of the reports are accounted for by only 7500 families.
"A relatively small hard core of dysfunctional parents retain custody of their children, and are re-reported 10 and 20 times, because child protection agencies fail to take the appropriate statutory action in thousands of high-risk and potentially catastrophic cases. This was the case for Ebony," Dr Sammut says.
Despite a widespread belief that a lack of funding is crippling agencies such as DOCS, Dr Sammut says money "is not the problem". According to his report, government spending on child welfare is at record levels, having quadrupled in a decade. At the same time, child abuse continues to soar, with substantiations of abuse having doubled since 2000.
Dr Sammut argues the only way forward is for state governments to establish child protection agencies separate from departments of community services.
"To do this job properly you need a whole range of skills, good assessment abilities, deep knowledge of child development, as well as the skills of a policeman. Instead, we unleash first-year graduates on the community."
Credit: John Stapleton
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday 25 June 2009

Judge puts name to starved girl: Ebony, The Australian, 25 June, 2009.



Judge puts name to starved girl: Ebony

Stapleton, John. The Australian [Canberra, A.C.T] 25 June 2009: 7.
Show highlighting
A CHILD who starved to death in her housing commission home at Hawks Nest in NSW just weeks before Christmas in 2007, while her parents were living in thesame house, has been granted a name, despite legislation that normally prohibits the identification of any child victims of crime.

A CHILD who starved to death in her housing commission home at Hawks Nest in NSW just weeks before Christmas in 2007, while her parents were living in thesame house, has been granted a name, despite legislation that normally prohibits the identification of any child victims of crime.
Supreme Court judge Robert Hume said the seven-year-old girl had been the subject of the most profound neglect and the failure to grant her a name would have served to perpetuate her abandonment.
He allowed the publication of her middle name, Ebony.
The names of her parents remain suppressed to protect the identity of her three siblings. A lawyer representing the siblings and the NSW Department of Community Services, Sue Kluss, claimed publication of her name would be a breach of child protection legislation.
However, Justice Hume said respect for her life meant there was "considerable interest in this poor little girl having some identity assigned to her. She should not simply be some anonymous person".
He said a pathologist brought to the house at Hawks Nest, in NSW's Hunter region, had found the child's body in a state of extreme emaciation, "almost like a mummy", and the worst case of child malnutrition experts had seen.
"She was found in the most atrocious circumstances," he said.
"She was the subject of the most profound neglect and abandonment. To my mind, maintaining her anonymity would perpetuate the abandonment."
Ebony's mother was this week convicted of her murder and her father of manslaughter. The pair sat expressionless in the dock at the East Maitland Courthouse yesterday as sentencing was set down for August 6. They did not speak to each other.
Justice Hume said Ebony was so malnourished she would have been incapable of movement and was likely to have been in a semi-conscious state for weeks or months at a time.
Medical evidence suggested she was kept in her bedroom for extended periods and had almost never been outside.
While living in Sydney two months before her death, Ebony was left in a room with the window boarded up so she had no view outside. The judge said the child lived in putrid, squalid rooms, pungent with the smell of faeces and urine.
Earlier yesterday, the mother's barrister, Dennis Stewart, told the court his client was shocked by the guilty verdict and was unable to give evidence on her sentencing submissions.
"She is finding it very difficult to focus," he said.
NSW Ombudsman Bruce Barbour said yesterday a detailed report into the family's dealings with several government agencies had been provided to relevant ministers and departments.
"I will be making a detailed, special report to parliament in relation to this matter once the criminal proceedings, including the sentencing, have been finalised. This will provide information about my findings and recommendations."
Credit: John Stapleton
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday 20 June 2009

Luxury brands charge into shopping maul, Weekend Australian, 20 June, 2009.





Luxury brands charge into shopping maul

Safe, Georgina. John Stapleton. Weekend Australian [Canberra, A.C.T] 20 June 2009: 3.
At the Chanel store, which stocks clothing, handbags, shoes, costume jewellery and fine jewellery, prices start at $310 for a Chanel badge and top out at $11,600 for a leather and lace-trimmed jacket.

Full Text


COCO Chanel once said: "A fashion that does not reach the streets is not a fashion."
In line with this democratic mantra, Chanel will today open its first ready-to-wear store in a shopping mall in Australia.
Next month, the world's largest luxury brand, Louis Vuitton, will open its first shopping mall store in Australia, also at Sydney's Westfield Bondi Junction, before Louis Vuitton and Chanel both open stores at Chadstone shopping centre in Melbourne in November.
The move into malls is not an anti-recession strategy -- it was planned by both brands well before the economic downturn hit -- but it should certainly help the luxury labels win new customers in uncertain times.
Chanel communications manager Susie Stenmark said: "There is significant traffic in WBJ. It is a very popular retail space and we expect to enjoy great success there."
Louis Vuitton's Oceania chief executive Philip Corne agreed that luxury consumers today looked further afield than the traditional strongholds of Castlereagh Street in Sydney and Collins Street in Melbourne.
"There are many people now who don't shop in the city on a regular basis, so if we can place our stores outside that (CBD) environment we are doing them a service and hopefully growing our business at the same time," Mr Corne said.
But luxury does not come cheap. At the Chanel store, which stocks clothing, handbags, shoes, costume jewellery and fine jewellery, prices start at $310 for a Chanel badge and top out at $11,600 for a leather and lace-trimmed jacket.
Most shoppers at Westfield Bondi Junction last night were excited at the prospect of the new Chanel and Louis Vuitton stores opening in the centre. But not everyone was sure they could afford to buy the offerings.
"I am French, so for me it is very exciting," said graphic designer Marianne Malafosse, 35.
"I just wonder how well they will do. I don't think Australians are going to buy a Chanel jacket every day, especially not at $10,000 a pop."
Others were equally enthusiastic. "I am excited by Louis opening, I am a total fan, absolutely." said Suzanne Daily. "I am going to buy some luggage."
Luxury brands are extremely fussy about the company they keep and tend to cluster together, so with Louis Vuitton and Chanel moving into malls, it is likely that others will follow. Given luxury consumers have deeper pockets than most, the arrival of Louis Vuitton and Chanel is likely to prove beneficial for other nearby tenants, who also stand to gain from their largesse.
Other upmarket shops already at the centre were enthusiastic about the new arrivals, believing they would bring in more business.
Sara Cawt, the manager of women's clothing store Karen Millen England, said: "It's fantastic. The big brands bring in the foot traffic and it gives a more upmarket look again to the centre.
"We're definitely pleased to be opposite. It's nice to be rated with world-class designers."
However, Wendy Jaddes, manager of hairdressing salon Joh Bailey, said the security guards at Chanel were a bit off-putting.
"I wasn't game enough to walk in, and I even work in the centre," she said.
Credit: Georgina Safe, John Stapleton
Posted by at No comments:

Indians high-risk violators of visas The Australian 20 June 2009 Additional Reporting

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/indians-high-risk-violators-of-visas/story-e6frg6n6-1225737992776

Indians high-risk violators of visas

  • JUNE 20, 2009 12:00AM

South Asia Correspondent
New Delhi
INDIAN students in Australia are ranked among the highest risk groups for visa violations, according to a government review which found they were up to three times more likely to breach conditions than the average foreign student.
A review of the student visa program assessment levels, conducted by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship last September across all applicant countries, ranked Indian students alongside Bangladeshis and Cambodians as a level-four risk - the second highest risk category. No country currently ranks as a top level-five risk.
The upgrade resulted in a significant tightening of the rules for Indian students, which is likely to dampen demand for Indian student enrolments more than any short-term impact from recent publicity over assaults on students in Australia, education agents say.
Harmeet Pental, South Asia director of the Australian university-owned IDP Education agency, said he had seen no evidence of a drop in enrolments for the July university semester among Indian students, though that could change next year.
As many as 14 Indian students have been assaulted in Australia in the past month, sparking angry protests in India.
But Mr Pental said of greater concern was the impact new visa restrictions would have on the growth in the numbers of Indian students attending university.
Indian students must now prove they have enough money to survive for the duration of their study and pass more stringent English language tests.
Mr Pental said the crackdown failed to distinguish between "quality" university students and the almost 80 per cent of all Indian students who came to study vocational education training courses such as cookery and hairdressing, seen by many as a backdoor means of gaining permanent residency.
Gulshan Pathania, president of the Association of Australian Education Representatives in India, said while visa breaches were overwhelmingly committed by vocational students, university students were also being punished.
The number of Indian students studying in Australia has risen dramatically in recent years, from 11,313 in 2002 to 96,739 last year.
Immigration risk levels for Indian students were upgraded after a DIAC audit found that in 2006-07, 4.66 per cent of the 58,268 Indian nationals granted visas breached their conditions, compared with an average rate among foreign students of 1.32per cent.
In 2007-08 the unlawful rate among Indian students was 1.48per cent of a total 87,145 Indian visa-holders, compared with 0.99 per cent for the average foreign student.
The Immigration Department insists the visa restrictions will not affect the applications of genuine students.
Additional reporting: John Stapleton
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday 18 June 2009

Honey, I Killed the Superbug, The Australian, 18 June, 2009.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/honey-i-killed-the-superbug/story-e6frg6n6-1225737035676

Honey, I killed the superbug

  • JOHN STAPLETON
  • JUNE 18, 2009 12:00AM
AUSTRALIAN researchers have been astonished to discover a cure-all right under their noses -- a honey sold in health food shops as a natural medicine.
Far from being an obscure health food with dubious healing qualities, new research has shown the honey kills every type of bacteria scientists have thrown at it, including the antibiotic-resistant "superbugs" plaguing hospitals and killing patients around the world.
Some bacteria have become resistant to every commonly prescribed antibacterial drug. But scientists found that Manuka honey, as it is known in New Zealand, or jelly bush honey, as it is known in Australia, killed every bacteria or pathogen it was tested on.
It is applied externally and acts on skin infections, bites and cuts.
The honey is distinctive in that it comes only from bees feeding off tea trees native to Australia and New Zealand, said Dee Carter, from the University of Sydney's School of Molecular and Microbial Biosciences.
The findings are likely to have a major impact on modern medicine and could lead to a range of honey-based products to replace antibiotic and antiseptic creams.
Professor Carter's two sons, Marty, 8 and Nicky, 6, think it's funny the way their mother puts honey on their sores. But she swears by it, telling stories of how quickly it cures any infection.
"Honey sounds very homey and unscientific, which is why we needed the science to validate the claims made for it," she said.
The curative properties of various types of honey have been known to indigenous cultures for thousands of years, and dressing wounds with honey was common before the advent of antibiotics.
"Most bacteria that cause infections in hospitals are resistant to at least one antibiotic, and there is an urgent need for new ways to treat and control surface infections," Professor Carter said.
"New antibiotics tend to have short shelf lives, as the bacteria they attack quickly become resistant. Many large pharmaceutical companies have abandoned antibiotic production because of the difficulty of recovering costs. Developing effective alternatives could therefore save many lives."
Professor Carter said the fascinating thing was that none of the bacteria researchers used to test the honey, including superbugs such as flesh-eating bacteria, built up any immunity.
She said a compound in the honey called methylglyoxal -- toxic on its own -- combined in unknown ways with other unidentified compounds in the honey to cause "multi-system failure" in the bacteria.
The results of the research project are published in this month's European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday 16 June 2009

Family Law - Is the Man the Loser, NSW Parliament House, 16 June, 2009.

Family Law - Is The Man The Loser?

http://dadsontheair.squarespace.com/family-law/
The group Forum Of The Round Table held a public forum at Parliament House, NSW on the evening of Tuesday 16 June 2009 on the topic of “Is the man the loser in family law?”

Two of the speakers were Dads on the Air team members John Stapleton and Peter van de Voorde. Transcripts of their speeches follow below.

LINKS TO THE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE: 

ONE:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXmowplvgqg

 TWO:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_JcAro6ojo&t=9s

—————————————————

FINAL VERSION SPEECH PARLIAMENT HOUSE 16 JUNE 2009

Just to clarify, in case anyone hasn’t realised, the poster for this event was unfortunately incorrect and I was labelled as thefounder of Dads In Distress (DIDS), rather than as one of the founders of Dads On The Air (DOTA), by mistake. While it would be an honour, I don’t actually have any connection with Dads In Distress; but we do have in the audience Phil York from DIDS, who would be happy later to give the coal face view of the issues we have come here to discuss.

I would like to thank the organisers Forum Of The Round Table and everyone else who has helped to put on this event.

For those of you who don’t know, Dads On The Air is a community radio program run out of 2GLF in Liverpool in western Sydney which by dint of pure perseverance has become the longest running fathers show in the world. Our topic today, “Isthe man the loser in family law?”, is shorthand for much broader debate on whether the style of custody order most common in the Family Court, and most family courts around the Western world, that is sole-mother custody, is really thebest for our kids. And whether or not the almost universal anti-father bias in our public institutions in child support, child protection and legal aid is producing the best outcomes.

There isn’t much doubt family law is biased against men - unless you want to discount the voices of 100,000s of fathers here and around the world.

Dads On The Air would not exist if family law was not biased against fathers. It was the collective outrage of a group of heartbroken men which meant when the opportunity came up back in 2000, we started a dads show. We’ve gone on to attract a talented team with journalistic, entertainment and internet experience. The first few years must have been a bit of a strain on the audience, with long spiels against the impacts of family law and elaborate deconstructions of domestic violence or anti-father ideologies.

None of us had any radio experience, but we have been fortunate to find ourselves in an era when there has been plenty of material to broadcast. We have made mistakes. The program today is very different to what it once was. While we continue to follow Australian family law and child support issues more closely than any other media outlet we also pursue more broader debates.

Dads On The Air has been proud to broadcast a range of voices little heard in the mainstream, as well as having politicians, authors and academics who’s voices, at least on these subjects, are often ignored by gender study courses and journalists alike. Dads On The Air was born not just out of a sense of injustice, but out of frustration with the mainstream media’s failure to take men’s issues seriously, often confusing social affairs reporting with feminist causes.

We have been proud to provide an outlet for a number of groups including the Shared Parenting Council of Australia, theMen’s Rights Agency, the Fatherhood Foundation, Fathers4Equality, Fairness In Child Support, Lone Fathers and Dads In Distress, mostly sad dads who want to see more of their kids. The single most barbaric thing any civilisation can do to its citizenry is the removal of children, yet this happens every day. They’re told it is in their children’s best interests. They often show signs of post traumatic stress disorder, repetitive, obsessive, fragile, fighting injustices they have no hope of solving. We’ve broadcast their voices, taxi drivers, teachers, firemen, policemen. It does the country no good to have a body of such disaffected people.

But we’ve also tried to be open to the many complexities of the debate, and guests have included Diana Bryant of theFamily Court, then Attorney General Phillip Ruddock, the head of the family law inquiry Kay Hull and many others. Over the years we’ve also broadcast some of the world’s best known father activists, including Fathers For Justice founder Matt O’Connor, the brain behind Britain’s most sensational stunts, including climbing Parliament House, Buckingham Palace and bridges across England. Author of Family Court Hell Mark Harris, jailed for waving at his children as they drove past him on the street.

Recent guests such as Professor Stephen Baskerville, author of Taken Into Custody, argue the long march through theinstitutions is almost complete and the divorce regime comprises the most totalitarian institutions ever to arise in thewestern democracies. Families have been systematically portrayed as dangerous places for women and children.

Men have been systematically propagandised as violent, abusive patriarchs or historical relics. Separated men have been ridiculed as nothing but aggrieved litigants. He argues the divorce industry is a serious perpetrator of human and constitutional rights violations. No political party and no politicians question it. No journalists investigate it in any depth.

Other guests have included John Hirst, author of Kangaroo Court: Family law in Australia, who tracks the public perception as a wonderfully progressive court to become one of the country’s most hated institutions. He said: “I cannot see the way by which the Court can be rescued. Until there is fundamental change, it will continue to give offence.”

Commentators such as Warren Farrell, author of several books The Myth of Male Power: Why Men are the Disposable Sex and Father and Child Reunion have provided unique deconstructions of the domestic violence, child abuse, child support, family law and social welfare industries predicated on the vilification of men. He claims the traditional image of male-as-oppressor is inaccurate and has hindered both genders, leaving men feeling undervalued and women angry.

We’ve also interviewed many women critical of the anti-father bias in family law, including, most fascinatingly, Erin Pizzey, founder of the first women’s refuge in Britain, who has been critical of the way the refuge movement was used to perpetuate a radical anti-male agenda. We’ve also interviewed a number of non-custodial mothers. Recently one mother, Diana, who copped all the false allegations and alienating behaviour commonly perpetrated on fathers, brought tears as she spoke of parking opposite a school just in the hope of catching a glimpse of her children.

It is telling that amongst academics who have come on the show, the University of Western Sydney is the only dedicated men’s study unit, the Men’s Health and Information Resource Centre. John MacDonald and Michael Woods have examined the poor outcomes amongst separated men, while Men’s Health Australia has argued for gender neutral approaches to domestic violence.

This is but a small sample of the numerous authors and groups we have interviewed, many focusing on the impacts of family law and its anti-father bias.

It is common, perhaps even fashionable in family law circles, to blame the litigants for their own problems. The fact they are silly enough to get bound up in complex and expensive family litigation is sniffed at. But unfortunately separated parents have to have family law orders in order to gain payments through Centrelink or that much reviled institution theChild Support Agency.

Nothing sends a shiver up a politicians spine more than the sight of a separated dad clutching a large file of legal documents making a beeline for him or her at a public function. For these things are insoluble. Their grief and their sense of aggrievement cannot be assuaged by a few rote letters to department heads. Family law creates an enormous well of pain. How can this politician helps this poor bastard, who has just been through the worst time of his life, who has lost his children, his home, much of his assets and income, his dignity, his social position, his sense of self worth.

The issues which affect men are not being addressed. One simple example: On the Dads On The Air website we have a counter which estimates the number of clients of the Child Support Agency who die every day. We estimate the figure at around 12 a day, probably an underestimate. Every fathers group in the country has linked family law and child support with the high death rate amongst separated men. Where are the inquiries, the concern?

We covered the family law process in Australia begun by the previous Howard government closer than any other media outlet. There was ample evidence during the family law inquiry, including most powerfully from many grandparents, of the pain the present system creates. We interviewed many people who hoped the well of misery would be resolved. It is deeply unfortunate in our view that the previous Howard government baulked at true reform of family law, despite widespread public support, and even those modest reforms keeping father’s in children’s lives could now be wound back. But at least now a detailed record of the hopes and frustrations of so many people is actually on line, documented,undeniable. Available for future researchers.

I often wonder how younger generations of fathers, those you now see walking their kids to school or in shopping malls with their children climbing all over them, will deal with all this. Surely there are enough cautionary warnings to suggest further reform is needed so broken hearted dads and children unnecessarily deprived of their fathers becomes a thing of the past.

All is not lost. But governments are wise to listen to the voices of the people over the those of their own tax payer funded academic, bureaucratic and judicial elites. I hope when the history of all of  this is written Dads On The Air will be seen as having had a civilising influence on the debate, making available voices and points of view which may otherwise have been ignored. Men are the losers under the present family law regime, but so are we all. Thank you.

John Stapleton
Program Director
Dads On The Air
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)