“Lesbians are setting the Federal Government’s Family Law reform agenda”,

MEDIA RELEASE, 20th January, 2006

Anti Family Forces Hi-jack New Family Relationship Centres

Men’s groups can’t say what they really believe, but Social Worker and
Family Counsellor, Ms Matilda Bawden, today did. “Lesbians are setting the
Federal Government’s Family Law reform agenda”, she said.

Labelling the Federal Attorney General Phillip Ruddock’s new Family Law
Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill as ingenuine and a betrayal
of the trust and hopes placed by Australian families in the Federal
Government and the Liberal Party, at large, Ms Bawden said, “Non custodial
parents have wrongly been led to believe that, unlike many since the 1995
Duncan amendments under the Keating Labor government, these reforms would be
meaningful and convincing”,she said.

Ms Bawden’s comments come in response to complaints by non-custodial parent
groups that they have been frozen out by the Attorney General’s Department
from fair and proper representation on the Community Services and Health
Industry Skills Council (CSHISC) Steering Committee.

Non-custodial parent groups have had their expectations for shared parenting
outcomes in the Family Court raised with the promise that the Industry
Skills Council's, Family Counselling, Family Dispute Resolution & Children's
Contact Services Project Steering Committee will be developing the
professional standards and competencies for working with families undergoing
dispute, separation and divorce. As part of the promised reforms, many of
these mediators and counsellors will be employed within the newly touted
Relationship Centres, however, Ms Bawden believes that the standards and
competencies have not covered the critical issues the Federal Government
promised they would.

Ms Bawden said, “I am deeply concerned that we now have a predominantly
lesbian, anti-father culture and world-view of families determining the
competencies and standards towards which family counsellors and mediators
will aspire when working with children and their parents during the family
breakdown process. Sadly, most hetero-sexual women are probably blissfully
ignorant of this influence. There is almost no father-friendly
representation on this Committee and certainly NO evidence to show it is
even sympathetic to genuine shared parenting or joint residency outcomes or
ideals.”

Ms Bawden points out, “Of the 60 modules contained in The First Draft
Industry Qualifications and Validations not one contains so much as a
whisper (must less passing reference to) shared parenting. What is more,
the Committee is saturated with representatives of organizations which are
on the record as being opposed to shared parenting.”