Roscop - Firstly read carefully what is written before jumping to wildly inaccurate assumptions.
1) I only said I have known many children who were abused, and said nothing about who may have been the offenders in those cases. In many cases I had no idea who the offenders were;
2) I referred to laws which are necessary to protect children (civil law). It is criminal law which deals with the offenders. Do you actually know the meaning of `summary justice' and the difference between civil and criminal law?.;
3) Clearly you know very little about `maltreaters of children’. Or the meaning of `not substantiated’ in the context of child abuse. What I am referring to is a publicly available National Register of persons who have committed acts of violence, whether in the street or in the home. This would then alert the public, potential employers, and potential spouses/partners to the violent history of that person and their potential for future violence. We have no need for such people in our society and they are a scourge to the wellbeing of others.
Bowspearer – it is public attitudes and concerns which have led to this proposed legislation to provide some level of protection for them. Their concerns are at the large numbers of children who have been and are being abused and even killed, as a direct consequence of determinations of residency and contact under the 2006 Family Law (Shared Parenting) Act and of intimate partner violence. There is no stereotyping in such proposed legislation.
You have not said you are doing nothing, but neither have you said you are doing something about child abuse, except to criticise the efforts of others in trying to protect children, from the comfort of your armchair in the shed.
When I say you are making allegations that you have been abused means they are not proven fact in the way I have already described. That is not claiming you are a liar. An allegation is not a proven fact, as you well know from your own past comments.

The Father’s Rights groups have announced publicly that they were largely the architects of the current legislation and that its purpose was to fulfil their ambitions to give fathers an advantage in Family Law hearings. (or in their terms `Equality’). Yet you claim there are ‘crucial problems” with such laws and the system. Perhaps your real argument is with the Father’s Rights groups.
But then, the recent submission of Dads On Air states of the 2006 Family Law Act -“HISTORICALLY, TOO MANY INNOCENT LIVES HAVE BEEN RUINED, BECAUSE TOO MANY BAD LAWS WERE DRAFTED, BY TOO MANY WHO WERE INCOMPETENT OR UNPRINCIPLED, RELYING ON TOO MUCH MIS-INFORMATION, PROVIDED BY TOO MANY LIARS”. We, along with every thinking Australian, consider this to present a very strong case for our Federal Parliament to initiate an urgent investigation into the obvious need for major reforms. What we continue to see instead however, is the ongoing tinkering around the edges of this destructive legislation, by successive Governments.“
In other words, a law designed by fathers, is now severely criticised by fathers – Please Explain!.
I have now read three of the submissions of Father's Rights groups regarding the proposed legislation, and none of them mentions how they would protect children from harm and exploitation which is occurring under the Family Law (Shared Parenting) Act 2006. They are all about ME!, ME!, ME! and MY (father's) RIGHTS and how they should continue to be paramount in Family Court proceedings. Any concerns they may have expressed in the past regarding the safety and wellbeing of children are clearly a sham.

ChazP, I did read carefully what you wrote. You made many sweeping statements therefore I felt at liberty to make some assumptions based on your attitude and character which you have revealed to us.

In one statement you said "I have known children who have been abused in ways which you could never imagine" then in a subsequent statement you say you don't know who many of the offenders are. Seems to me that you don't know much about the abuse suffered by the children you talk about. I asked you had any biological fathers been convicted of maltreating any of these children children. You didn't answer the question but that was to be expected because the main abusers of children are mothers (actually witnessed an incident today at the supermarket...young kid touching lollies at the checkout...mother in full glare kicks the kid hard in shins whilst trying not to lose her place in the queue...kid doubles up in pain and howling on the floor).

With respect to this National Register of Violent Offenders you talk about, can you tell us more about how you see that working apart from as you say it should be like the one for paedophiles? Would it include reported alleged offenders who don't have a conviction relating to violence against their name or who are party to cases that have been deemed “not substantiated”. My understanding is that those on the paedophiles register have been convicted of a paedophilia offense. So would it be possible if you had a resentment against someone, to report him or her for child abuse and that would be good enough to get that person on the register (with the person not being informed that they are on it) and have a lasting impact on that person's ability to interact with children in society? I can tell you that is the way it works in the jurisdiction in which I live.
…cont’d

Any law which is written in such a way to cause unequal discrimination against any one group of people is a bad law. It is shown by various societies throughout history and around the world that a laws need not be completely equal to be acceptable: if laws give rights and privileges of one kind to a group at the same time as giving rights and privileges of a different type to another group, it can be perceived as being unequal but fair. Laws perceived to be unequal AND unfair will always cause problems for the society.

Any application of a law written to be generic but applied in a way to cause discrimination against any one group of people is indication of a sick society. Sometimes a society might try drawing up a law to help the discriminated group but see the first paragraph: it's like putting a plaster on someone with measles. The sickness must be addressed, and must be applied equally.

Any law and legal behaviour which does not fully endorse the principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty is a bad law. While repression has worked in past societies, global communication and proletariat sophistication means that the society is almost certainly doomed, possibly in a violent manner.

No society in history has lasted for long that has not fully supported the caring parenting of children. This statement could even be extended to include the caring grand-parenting. The family unit must be considered vital in a healthy society. Where anyone, of any gender or age or relationship, abuses children or the unity of the family they need to be held accountable by society and (if possible) cured or (maybe as well as) held at distance from the family to minimise whatever damage they might do.

Cont’d
And yes I do know what summary justice is. It is what happens in District, Local and Magistrates courts right around this country in the handling of family violence matters involving children, right from the very start of things. It is in the contrived manner in which the respondent to allegations is dealt with. The process fails to meet any reasonable standards of justice. Respondent is not given transcript of ex parte hearing…not told in papers served or on website, of right to access court file...not forewarned that the primary purpose of the unrecorded directions hearing or conference the respondent is directed to attend some weeks down the track, is not to hear the respondents side of the story or progress the case to a hearing in which that can be done, but to get the respondent to agree to an order being made on the basis of "no admission" being made. The parties to the matter are taken to separate parts of the court so that the respondent has to rely on a court official who behaves as a go between to learn what the other party’s position is.

The court gives over the top assistance to the plaintiff (no problem with that) but fails to give anywhere near adequate information to the respondent. The whole process has been carefully crafted to blind side the respondent and is extremely effective in separating respondents from their children.

In the court that I am more familiar with, family violence matters are heard in secrecy. At the Family Court I can walk in on just about any case being heard except when that is in chamber…but if I go across the road to the court where family violence matters are heard I discover that it is closed to the public. I think most reasonable people if they got to know about the process would agree that the court meets the definition of being a star chamber court.

A National Register of violent offenders will not eventuate for some of the following valid reasons;

(a) As a result of the Privacy Act and all it entails [be happy to list some of those reasons]relating directly to childrens' future wellbeing

(b) It is recognised by the legal fraternity and police that in some cases allegations made by spouses, charges laid and convictions made, do not necessarily prove the allegations. In those cases, a national register [publicised]listing every offender, that have had charges laid against them and convicted, is wrong, grossly unfair and would have the potential to totally ruin childrens lives and the innocent person's life.

(c) It is unfair and wrong that an individual after having been charged and convicted for a 'one off' offence during a separation or prior to a separation, has their name listed on a National Offenders List [publicised] for every Australian to view. There are validated reasons as to why an individual may strike another person or spouse on the one off occasion, some of these being validated medical reasons, self defence, standing up to a spouse who has injured their child or threatened their child. The list of reasons are endless within domestic environments relating to both Male and Female genders.

(d) The faith you hold in the legal system ChazP [and clearly you do not] is the same faithlessness that the Government and the people of Australia hold, of the legal system, in many respects. Therefore, by creating a national offenders list, would be placing blind faith in a belief that all of the national offenders are in actual fact 'offenders' or repeat 'offenders'.

The primary reason a national offenders list [publicised] does not exist is to protect children and their future interests from the associated publicity.