Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Barriers to Overcoming Change In Legislation

Yes the law could be better , the system could be fairer - what prevents this from happening?

There are a number of reasons why things seem to be a bit difficult to get changed. If we had a good idea of what these things were then we could adopt the appropriate strategies to deal with them.

For example  - it has been seen that having a PERSON who is taking on the AG role who is OPEN TO CHANGE is a positive thing. In this example the idea that the GOVERNMENT MINISTER PERSONALITY type could be a barrier.

What are the other things which may make change difficult?  :upsidedown:

Once we have the view of the barriers - then we can have the strategy to overcome the barriers- sometimes common sense does not work on everyone.  :shake:

1) The Legal profession - are they with or against the change? How can they be put ONSIDE?

2) The political parties (not individuals) - at the policy level - what is stopping them?

3) The Roles - people in defined roles - AG, Head of Family Court & FMC?

4) The first order groups and their positions - Law reform Comm, Law Council, etc

5) the second order groups - Aust Institute of family studies, lobby groups, etc

6) The media - Who would be actively against it and why - how could that be looked at or resolved?

7) The public - what would the public need (messages, stories, examples, emotions, logic) to help them see the issue?

I like lists  :thumbs:

Why am I raising this? It's not immediately clear to me that the way this group goes about trying to influence change cannot be IMPROVED. There has been success, but in some ways it,s obscure. Even if the law has been changed maybe the judges have not been using it well, maybe the public have not been aware of it, maybe the lawyers have not been pointing it out as well as they could, maybe the people doing the wrong thing have not been called to account, maybe the media has not highlighted it, etc.

Maybe the law is now too complex to MAKE ANY SENSE to anyone who is not deeply involved in the detail. Even politicians have limited capacity to comprehend issues (Time, pressure, politics, etc). So if the real problems in achieving the FUNDAMENTAL change are not the constructs of the law but the:

a) Use that judges make of the law

b) people not being informed and not getting information from their lawyers

or something else - then maybe we need to look at working on that as well.

I have observed that when a change is required to fix something BAD which happens to men - the public couldn't care less.Men are allowed to be treated badly - its expected (its their role). It simply does not get the urgent and powerful response that the BAD things that happen to WOMEN get. This is not equality but it is (I submit) A FACT.

How is this problem to be overcome? Should we (like HEROC did with paid carers model) - align MEN with something that the public do care about? (Like women did in the seventies - remember they were fighting for equal rights FOR ALL).

Should MEN now speak for society, the future, our children, our nation, our history, our international standing - because WOMEN have got so caught up with themselves they have forgotten to CARE ABOUT anything else.

Just some ideas.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Following on from how to cause change, I have submitted to a Senator and the Senate Petitions Officer a partition for a number of results some on this site will not like.

Two of the results I have sought are as follows:

1. Recommend to Parliament section 112AP of the Family Law Act be amended by adding the words "A person is guilty of a Commonwealth offence if:" to the start of subsection (1). Therefore read as follows; "Section 112AP Contempt (1) A person is guilty of a Commonwealth  offence if, subject to subsection (1A), this section applies to a contempt of a court that:"

2. It be recommended to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia that the High Court Rules 2004 Reg 41.10.6, after the words "given under rule 41.10.5" the words "within 3 months of the date of the written case being filed," be insert. Therefore rule 41.10.6 would read as follows; "Where no direction has been given under rule 41.10.5 within 3 months of the date of the written case being filed, the Court or a Justice shall direct the applicant to serve a copy…" In keeping with Rule 41.13, to undo the prejudice to an Unrepresented Applicant of long delays to Appeals of subject matter not held in favour by the Judges.

Constructive comments would be appreciated.

Note my thought for the change to s.112AP would dispense with the confusion of whether or not it is s.112AP or s.35 of the Act that creates the crime of Contempt. To date the High Court claim s.112AP is a rule and s.35 creates the crime rather than only the power to prosecute the crime.

It would I think, make Contempt of a Court Order a criminal offence rather than quasi-criminal. I think that would make judges think twice about refusing to hear and determine such an application by a party because that would be a clear "attempt to pervert justice". At present judges claim a right to not prosecute on the basis such is not a Commonwealth criminal offence.

SRL applicants to the High Court (HC) for "Special Leave to Appeal" a Full Court decision of the FamCA have to wait for "Leave" to serve their application on the other party.

My experience has been the lack of a time limit on the granting of "Leave" allows HC judges to not make any decision, thereby cause great harm to the applicant of a denial of justice. My first required a complaint to the AG before it was claimed as incomprehensable, and the one I have in there now has taken more than 6 months so far. Why because both are reliant on "Proving Judicial Misbehaviour" pursuant to s72 of the Constitution and s22 of the Act.

Legal Reps are required to serve the other party within 3 months to limit the harm to the other party so why should judges be allowed to cause such a delay and harm for a matter they do not like.
It's hard to simplify the complexities of what is trying to be achieved as it has different levels with in differing groups and many have separate approaches to the problem.

This in its self is not made easy by " The Machine " that protects itself at all costs, it will contrive the data to what best suits itself until it ha no choice to accept it must change and even then it will hold on to what it knows fearing change. Change is dangerous for the machine as it risks damage and may force a break down.

So the adage " If it isn't broken don't fix it " allows for a situation where things may no longer work but in the whole society does work.

Although the basic law and regulations may well be structurally sound the open interpritation of the law may well leave something to be desired. The use of situation judgments to determine how this law is perceived or presedent, only shows the need to re-asses to reduce interpritation due to bias. If you have to extensively debate and convince a judge how their opinion should fall then subsequently the meaning of that particular law should show this descriptively and not rely on multiple hours searching for judgments with presedent, rather it should simply be accepted that this is the interpritation.

I don't think the general public do not care I simply think they are exploited by media spin and governments that influence what they care about.

To this point many women do what they think is best for the child due to the picture that has been painted as they have grown. There are many women out there who do their best and try and establish a good relationship for their children with their father.

I have known women and children who have been deserted and I have known men who have been denied a relationship with their children. I have known men too scared to have a father child relationship as well as those who just give up.

Perhaps groups need to concentrate on not changing the system for the men but adapting the system for the children, to which I think many groups do.

We have to look at society today and not when the womens movement changed things in the early 1900's and adapt the situation to this which I think is being done. Everyone thinks the womens movement happened overnight but this is not true it has been happening ever since women were repressed and it's cause for the normal woman is just to what they were fighting for. To reduce it to the vocal minority that exists today is to not merit all those good women and mothers who are trying to support children and fathers.

Personally I think the approach for those who fight for change is the one best suited to todays society as a mass movement as in the early century will no doubt lead to a negative rebuttal and not a positive change.

Forums and web sites are the new sources of information that has never been supplied to others and seeing as those who are active in the womens movement rely on blind faith and an altered perception of reality, those who rally for the rights of the children need to compensate this with education and support realistically.

With out education, support and help their is nothing but blind faith and anger so we need to fight smart and assure support for those who seek relationships with their children. For the kids not for men.

just an opinion. ( on the second part of your post which dealt with the social aspect )
D4E said
We have to look at society today and not when the women's movement changed things in the early 1900's and adapt the situation to this which I think is being done. Everyone thinks the women's movement happened overnight but this is not true it has been happening ever since women were repressed and it's cause for the normal woman is just to what they were fighting for. To reduce it to the vocal minority that exists today is to not merit all those good women and mothers who are trying to support children and fathers.

With out education, support and help, there is nothing but blind faith and anger - so we need to fight smart - assure and support for those who seek relationships with their children. For the kids not for men.
Could not agree more; we need not a men's movement nor a women's movement - we need a parents movement; a movement that puts aside the prejudices that exist, based on your sex, be it in law, research or in society it self. We as parents do not own the children; they are on loan to us, until they become part of the society that we hope to improve.

The words "children are our future" are still very true.

The SPCA is working towards this goal - it is slow process, but times are a changing.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas. 
monteverdi said
we need not a men's movement nor a women's movement - we need a parents movement; a movement that puts aside the prejudices that exist, based on your sex, be it in law, research or in society it self. We as parents do not own the children; they are on loan to us, until they become part of the society that we hope to improve.
Well said!!  The pendulum has swung both ways - we have had patriarchial societies and feminism to extremes. It's time for it to settle and focus on people as a whole.

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
No problems - must be totally inclusive - BUT STILL thats step one.  

One of the most successful (and still going strong) movements of the last century was the women's movement. It was not inclusive. It was not for all and it sought to redress what it saw as historical inbalances - YET it made great changes (and still does). These change even were clearly at the disadvntage of others. They still inhabit all parts of the organisation, universities, government - to the extent of being funded and supported in a number of ways.

So obviously a model of inclusiveness DOES NOT NECESSARILY lead to success. It may even be a hindrance (even though fair,right and sensible).

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
There is no doubt that the " Womens movement " is still effecting modern society and influencing aspects of our lives, that can not be argued but they do this as victims a great deal of the time and have media reporting on them because the topic sells. This helps keep alive aspects of injustice they over campaign.

The spin for domestic violence is that males are the perpetrators totally national figures are used to back this up but we do not know the realistic facts of the mechanics or in fact if this is truth.

No an inclusive model would not guarantee success nor does it guarantee failure it is just a start point and like every other aspect of life it will have those supporters who have their own agenda that would see them as radicals and there is no doubt it would hinder in certain situations but so does a government of a country, never the less I would suggest it would have more merit and effect than a singular mens movement that would lose it's wheels before making it up the hill due to human nature.

Many organizations have made changes and working hard at it they simply do not have media support, as quiet achievers for positive moral change for families they are not often perceived as news worthy yet they change everyday life for I'd approximate 20% of the population.

Modern society requires different rules and the spin plays a big part, the womens movement is out of date and fighting for it's existence basically clutching at straws, even with in it's ranks are those who appose their positions on certain aspects. It requires blind faith and a premeditated reality that does not rely on truth or fact.

Do we really need a movement akin to this ???  
The main problem I see is apathy - the women's movement probably was so successful because at the time it was a huge percentage of the population, a huge percentage of whom were repressed due to the laws, attitude of society etc at the time. It was probably helped by the two world wars when women proved their worth in the workplace and weren't going to go back to domesticity so easily.

Add to that the percentage of men who agreed with the womens movement and you have a powerful number of people effecting change.

Family law doesn't affect the huge numbers that the womens movement did, and lets face it once you have gone through the mill of courts etc life goes on, kids grow up and the benefits of change aren't being enjoyed by those who effected it.

We here as a group see the need for and want change, but the majority of Australians that aren't touched by these issues don't want to know unless it does affect them.

I bet if we had a movement to decrease taxes for families we would have a stronger following. Sad really.

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
An honest appraisal of what needs to be done. What are the blockers? If its because a man say something about equality and fairness  - and its ignored - then maybe the first step is to get the same level of  value for what a man thinks to what a woman thinks. Many have said to me - "what you say is good but it would be better coming from a woman"

Or in other words - such is the nature of debate that the opinion of any man - no matter how sensible - is devalued - in favour - in many cases of nonsense from other speakers.

Even worse - men recognise this and REFUSE TO SPEAK UP - because they see the futility in it all or HAVE LEARNED to be quiet and contrite.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Jon I just can't see you as a man who is not able to speak up if it is required, many men I know of do this on a regular basis with men and women, when a female activist speaks tripe many just turn off the volume or reacted as it offends them both male and female.
 
I am certainly allowed my opinion in the company of the people I keep and the broader community. I really don't think the gap in society is as big as perceived. Don't forget a lot of the services for women are directly affected by governmental budgets and need to prove they are needed for funding etc so I would expect they have some part to play in creating the statistical picture required for funding.

It just not as easy as "let's all rebel".
I look at Germaine Greer and other feminists that are now past their useby date as their anger has turned to bitterness.

I am reminded of Ghandi and how much he acheived with a different approach.

I think doing things the right way takes longer - but then, it lasts longer.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 

Germaine Greer!

Isn't she on record as saying the Feminist movement has lost the plot, or words to that effect.

That the ideal was to has society treat women as the true equal of men. Not a bad ideal either.

That women's lib has moved beyond that to get caught in the victim mentality which was never the idea idea in the first place.

For a person who defines themselves as a victim will never achieve their goal (to have their power given back to them) for it is their to give away and to take back, in the first place.

For me - Shared Parenting is a Reality - Maybe it can be for you too!
What I have found is amongst people who have not thought (or been given the chance to think) about some of this stuff - that they are unable to expose their thinking or rationale for their position . I have found this with public servants, some friends and work mates.

So one barrier for change is a lack of thought or willingness to think.

I have been concerned with the role the government and media play with encouraging thought and discussion.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
You may well have hit a big nail on the head there Jon, we really depend on information to base an opinion and if that information is not being sort or provided then I guess we all get stuck in a groove.

Many places in the world as well as history free thought and speech is punished heavily especially if is against the ruling matriarchs be it religion or government. The average Joe or Joess has little opportunity to discuss, rationalize or form an opinion of. On the positive side Forums seem to be the new speak easies where debate can encourage a mind to be challenged.

This is something the government and media is restricted in and do not hold monopoly of thought and those who have lived experiences can share information. Perhaps this will be the way of change that some early thinkers projected onto the Internet such a long time ago.   
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets