@Chaz- there's your answer right there- the fact that judges had such a heavy hand in this. For someone who claims to see the corruption in the justice system, the fact that you would put such blind faith in judges on this matter, especially with what is needed, makes the credibility of your argument, questionable at best.

Judges are not infallible- they are human beings. As the old saying goes; "power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely". There was never any chance of this process leading to increased accountability for judges, because there was no way that any judge was going to open themselves or their colleagues up to prosecution, any more than a doctor is likely to testify against another doctor in a medical malpractice case, or a politician voting against giving themselves a pay rise.

This proposed legislation is the predictable outcome- a set of legislation which not only ignores judicial culpability, but which allows the extent of it to be covered up. As for your claims regarding the system currently putting men first, I challenge you to read that article Roscop linked to, and prove how that judge was "acting in the best interests of the child" as they claimed, or how they were supposedly putting the father's interests and well being above those of the child. Good luck.

Prevention of parents (usually dads) from having a meaningful relationship with their children, unless there is a very good, proven reason for doing so, is nothing less than domestic abuse. It is also a particularly damaging form of child abuse.

As yet this form of abuse is not included in domestic abuse statistics.

@Roscop - I'm not in favour of Court cases being televised - as it's probably impossible to either view the whole case(or even if the whole case is televised)unless you're unemployed and/or don't have other obligations, because you can't get ALL the facts unless you view them all! Did you watch it all, or just a 'grab'?Big difference!

There are the exceptions to almost every rule in the world, whether it's to do with DV or growing wheat? There are bizarre or perceived bizarre court cases etc, but as a person on a jury once in relation to an attempted murder charge, I realised that there's a big difference between being in the courtroom each day, and what's reported in the media. We found him not guilty on the serious charge, but guilty of being in possession of the weapon - this was almost 30 yrs ago.
There's a major point that is consistently either ignored or glossed over, and that's the role of the police. As mentioned earlier, I'm part of a committee dealing with DV in my area. The bloke who liases with all interested bodies/members works out of a large police command centre. There's recently been 2 people added who accompany women to court - men too if applicable. This person is on the 'front line' of these crimes. Don't you think he'd know, if the situation was 50/50?All members and/or visitors work on the 'front line' also!

We have guest speakers from Sydney who either work closely in govt, or are professional people on the 'front line'. I went to a conference last year, where the speakers were from other countries, including Australia. One woman was a Psychiatrist from NSW, whose speciality is children, including toddlers. The total of all the people I've heard or read over the years, particularly in recent times, only adds weight to the stats of that recent survey(VIC health) and others.

1/2
There's a great deal of irony to the system when it comes to DV. On one hand the claim made by those in the industry is that it is committed to the elimination of the violence in relationships.

Yet constantly the industry, including WRD and government departments have been guilty of listing fraudulent data, even refusing to post correct data once it has been pointed out to them.

There are constant mentions of studies which have been done, yet the vast majority of these tend to be qualitative studies rather than quantitative, while the Dulith model has become the ideology of DV groups, as opposed to trying to uncover what abuse actually exists.

Furthermore, factors such as the police are brought up, while issues such as "primary aggressor laws" which immediately prejudice the police against men, even if they are the victim. In fact a study done during the past few years found that battered men were 3 times more likely than their abusive partner to be arrested when the police were called out to a domestic disturbance.

The resulting claims are that these groups almost never encounter male victims, however how can this be anything but logical. When the entire industry creates a social stereotype that men are perpetual perpetrators, where it's "physically impossible for a woman to rape or beat their male partner" or if it happened it "must be self defense", then how can anyone be surprised that most men who are abused would dismiss their abuse as "not really being abuse", or be too scared to report their abuse when they do recognise it? It should be little wonder that a recent South Australian study found that only 7.5% of men report their abuse- less than a third of the percentage of abused women.
(to be continued)

2/2 (continued)
The reality is that the industry and those involved with it are too caught up in their own scars, egos, opportunism, chivalry and/or misandry to recognise that they're as much a part of the problem as they are a part of the solution- justifying it constantly along the grounds of it supposedly harming and diminishing the plight of battered women, while giving rise to false allegations by abusive men to discredit their victims.

So what if men are abused as much as women- that does not change the nature, severity or frequency of the women who are abused.

So what if half of all abused women turn out ot be in mutually abusive relationships. Not only does it change the abuse that they're the victims of, but surely helping them to recognise their own abusive behaviours while helping them heal from their own scars at the same time can only be a good thing.

So what if there are some fraudulent claims in there by some men. The same will be (and as recent court cases have shown, is) true of some women. Surely discovering ways to identify fraudulent abuse claims at the same time creating ways to make reporting less scary for people would only be a good thing in uncovering legitimate cases of abuse.

All of these points SHOULD be clear as crystal to people in the DV industry.

However, I guess it's just far easier to claim to oppose abuse enabling attitudes while actively perpetuating them along the most vile and sexist lines possible, than it is to actually challenge ALL social beliefs which condone violence and send a message that ALL abuse is wrong "while trying to leave no stone unturned" in discovering every abuser out there and bringing them justice and healing.

We are unique - setting up a register is the first step. Access can be determined later. There should not be a problem with convicted violent offenders, nor where DVOs, and AVOs are in place.
Roscop/Bowspearer: There were at least three reported cases last year where convicted or known paedophiles were given joint custody of children (Tasmania and Sydney). In one case the Judge remarked concerning two small girls, "Well if they lock their bedroom door at night they should be safe" and another commented because the father had only molested girls in the past, then his small son should be safe in his care. DUH!. In the third case the children were ordered back to the father who had raped the mother when she was 13 years old - child sex abuse and paedophilia.
Chief Justice Bryant, has said very clearly that Family Courts do not have the expertise and resources to investigate domestic violence and child abuse, therefore allegations in such cases have universally failed because of the Courts' inadequacies and shortcomings.
Douglas: How is it that over 240,000 `Dads' in Australia don't want a "meaningful relationship" with their children because it will mean they will have to financially support the child?. However when they are found by CSA and have to pay Child Support they rush to the Family Court and demand `Sharia Parenting', because then they can continue to evade any financial costs of having a child. In many cases such `Dads' then dump the kids with their Mums, or girlfriends, while they go off for fishing weekends or to the pub. How then do they enjoy this `meaningful relationship' with their children, and how do children enforce contact with such Dads, if that is their right.?. Conversely what if children don't want to have a `meaningful relationship' with their Dad. It is clearly just a one-way street for Dads to get out of paying for their kids, under a pretext that they actually care about their kids. Its all so transparent.