Men's Rights Agency -
Feminism
A. How Influential has the fathers' rights agenda been?
One of our intentions in carrying out this research was to assess the impact the groups have had in Australia. This has proved more difficult than we imagined.
1. Media coverage
Our impression is that the groups and/or their views have a strong presence in the media. We certainly found that when media sources were commenting about non-custodial parents or family law issues generally, it was very common to include interviews or comments from at least one fathers' rights group spokesperson.17 Other media commentators 'might not actually use interviews with the groups, but will espouse views sympathetic to theirs,18 and might even detail interviews with "family law practitioners' or "individuals' who have strong contacts with at least one of the groups.19 Not surprisingly, perhaps, the existence of the groups is powerfully felt on talk back radio programs. However, other more news oriented programs are also devoting attention to the groups. For example, the ABC radio station, Radio National, played a track from the recently released compact disc "Displaced Dads" produced by Dads Against Discrimination.
Dads Against Discrimination outlines its opinion on the reason for the media interest as follows:
DADs Queensland is one of the first organisations that the media call when they want an unbiased, non-sexist, balanced and concerned view on the rights of non-custodial parents and the welfare of their children.21
Indeed this view seems to be shared by the media, for many of the programs and articles that we have listened to, watched, and read for this piece do not present a counter perspective on these issues. The fact that the views of fathers' rights groups are considered unbiased is reminiscent of "the subliminal message" in law which has been critiqued by Naffine and other feminists, "that reasonable people are men, not women".22
17 Some notable examples an: A Horin, "Fathers Angry at Move to Cut Child Access", Sydney Morning Herald,22 June 1995; C Allisson, "Inquiry told of 'Grossly Unfair' Child Support Laws”, Sydney Morning Herald, 22 September 1993; M Brown, -There are a Lot of Angry Men out There", Sydney Morning Herald, 6 July 1984; L Lamont and N Jamal, "Getting Their Orders", Sydney Morning Herald, 12 February 1997; D Bagnall, 'Divorced from Reality", The Bulletin:, 12 November 1996, 16 at p 18.
18 Sex/life, Fathers and Family Law Courts, Programs 19 and 20.
19 B Arndt, "I want my Daddy", Sydney Morning Herald, 12 October 1996.
20 Life Matters, 19 December 1996.
21 DADs newsletter (communication from DADs, QId).
22 N Naffine, Law and the Sexes Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1990.
2. Political influence
We would argue that the rhetoric and views of the groups, and the significant media attention they have received, have affected the atmosphere in which legal and political changes are being debated in Australia. This is particularly so given that many of their views are in alliance with those of the "pro-family" New Right.23 However, the intention of this paper is not to overstate the political influence of the groups, which we have found very difficult to assess. Indeed, the groups vary in their own opinions on this. At times, they suggest that they wield enormous political influence. For example, fathers' rights campaigner Ian Monk entitled his compilation of newspaper clippings on his campaign efforts, How I initiated three Parliamentary Inquiries into Family Law and Reformed the Family Court. Barry Williams, the National President of the Lone Fathers Association, has stated that:
The previous government was advised that, if the extreme inequities in the present formula were not fixed, them would be a very large defection of male NCP voters from the Labor party at the next election. The (then) government ignored that warning.24
In a similar vein, Barry Williams writes:
I had a very positive and sympathetic hearing in Parliament House with Tim Fischer [the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia] on 5 February. He is going to back us all the way for quick and positive changes. He stated the system and especially the Child Support Scheme is stacked against the man. A special sub-committee has been set up to look into the Child Support Scheme.25
There are other suggestions or evidence of influence. For example, Barry Williams asserts that the Joint Select Committee into the Operation of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) was established after a petition signed at the 1990 conference of the Lone Fathers Association called for a parliamentary inquiry into the Family Law Act.26 Additionally, together with other fathers' rights groups the "LFAA is now called to sit on family law advisory panels and discussion groups”.27 One obvious example of influence occurred when the Australian Family Court was bombed. The then Commonwealth Attorney-General, Gareth Evans, wrote to groups, such as the Lone Fathers Association, stating that he was "very concerned about the Family Court and in particular the recent violent incidents" and would welcome any suggestions for change which they might rnake.28
A new strategy to increase their political influence and gain credibility is the establishment of political parties to represent the groups' concerns. Peter Brown, of the Family Law Reform Party stated, "We have to fix the [family law] system. And the only way to do this is through a political solution".29 He discusses the advantages of registration as a political party as follows:
I rang Canberra . . and asked for a meeting with the Attorney-General to discuss [the Liberal Party's position on family law issues). I was asked what group we were from, I told them FLR, and what sort of group is that, when I replied that we were a registered political party we had an appointment within two hours... All this for 135 votes.
23 See Smart and Sevenhuijsen, above n 9, L Harne and J Radford, "Reinstating Patriarchy: the Politics of the Family and the New legislation" in A Mullender and R Morley (eds), Children Living with Domestic Violence: Putting Men’s Abuse of Women on the Child Care Agenda, Whiting & Birch, London, 1994; see further; P Abbott & C Wallace, The Family and the New Right, Pluto Press, London, 1992.
24 LFAA Conference, 1997.
25 Lone Fathers' Noos, the newsletter of the LFAA (undated, 1997).
26 Ibid.
27 M Abernethy. above, n 3 p 38. B Arndt, "When School's Out for Fathers", Sydney Morning Herald, 4 May 1996, suggests that "family law reform groups"' complaints about the treatment of non-custodial parents by school authorities have resulted in new policies in NSW and Queensland which attempt to offer non-custodial parents more involvement in their children's schooling.
28 T Taylor, "Australian Terrorism: Traditions of violence and the Family Court Bombings" (1992) 8 Australian Journal of Law and Society 1, argues that the Attorney-General's consultation with fathers' rights groups and his apparent desire to appease them had the effect of legitimising the bombings and delegitimising their target (the court).
29 LFAA Conference, 1997.
3. Law reform
It is difficult to assess the extent to which the groups' political clout has translated into law reform. In a Penthouse article, written prior to the changes made by the Family Law Reform Act 1995, it was said that:
People like Mike Ward [Men’s Confraternity], Barry Williams [LFAA] in Canberra and Ken Pierce [LFAA NSW] in Sydney all know they have a long way to go. They have the numbers but no financial support; their actions can lead to Joint Committees, Family Court reports and Ombudsman inquiries but they can't turn recommendations into law; they have the sympathy of politicians but many of those politicians am afraid to upset the woman vote.30
On the other hand, in a letter to our research assistant, Barry Williams said of Lone Fathers Association, “This organisation has been credited with success in many changes to the Family Law Act...". It is uncertain which changes Mr Williams is alluding to, but the most wide-ranging amendments to the Family Law Act in relation to disputes over parenting were made by the Family Law Reform Act 1995. It has been claimed by sources outside the groups that "a driving force in effecting these reforms has been the recent and persistent voice of fathers' rights groups.31 Certainly aspects of the reforms would appear to satisfy some of the groups' concerns.32 However; lobbying by women's groups had a significant impact on the final version of the bill, and these changes would not have been to the liking of the fathers' rights groups.33 Hence, even if the “driving force" behind the changes was fathers' rights groups, the actual Act passed by parliament could not..be said, to be one which purely panders to those groups. A similar comment could be made about the recent proposals for law reform in relation to the Child Support Scheme.
It seems fair to comment that fathers' rights groups are increasingly effective in making, and in galvanising their members to make, submissions in respect of family law reform references. This is an ability which obviously has the potential to impact the law reform process. Concerns about the public submission process in relation to family law reform have been expressed by a number of writers. Regina Graycar has commented that "public submissions may not present an accurate picture of the current operation of the family law system".34 The public submission process favourably reflects "organised, self-interested and more vociferous groups"35 such as fathers' rights 'groups. Women may be disadvantaged in the ability to participate effectively in public inquiries. For example, Martha Fineman has written in relation to a legislative committee in Wisconsin that, "[t)he fact that the custodial mothers were not organized meant that their side of the story - their problems, perceptions and issues - were incompletely and, in a political sense, ineffectively articulated" 36
Echoing these concerns, Linda Hancock37 argues that the report produced by the Joint Select Committee on Certain Aspects of the Operation and Interpretation of Family Law on Child Support 38 narrowly focused on issues raised by fathers' rights groups,39 as opposed to equally addressing the concerns of resident parents and remaining cognisant of the broader aims and objectives involved in the introduction of the Child Support Scheme.40 She suggests that this outcome was a natural result of relying on submissions as evidence rather than independent non-partisan research. She found that 53 per cent of the submissions made to the committee were made from non-resident parents predominantly men), and 5 per cent were from their spouses. By comparison only 32 per cent of the submissions were from resident parents (predominantly women).41
It has been suggested that fathers' rights groups would have more of an impact if not for the fact that they tend to be badly organised and dominated by "egos". 42 As we have noted above,43 at least one key individual in each group is often responsible for the survival of the group and is the key media spokesperson for the group.44 These individuals are not necessarily particularly articulate or media savvy.45 Our opinion, derived from studying internet websites and overseas materials, is that the groups in Australia are not as well organised or as sophisticated in the presentation of their views as those in the United States, Canada or the United Kingdom. However there are currently moves in Australia to organise into one national umbrella group:46 'This single organisation would carry the weight and lobby power that the smaller groups individually lack...”.47 If well organised (perhaps by second wives who according to some within the groups48 seem to have many of the organisational skills in the movement), this umbrella group could also provide a focus for the development of necessary skills, as well as greater cohesion and continuity in the Australian fathers' rights movement.
30 M Abernethy, above, n 3 at 107.
31 L Young, "Parenting Disputes under the Family Law Act 1975: the New Regime" (1996)1 Sister in Law 93 at p 101.
32 For example s 60B(2) introducing the child's right of contact, on a regular basis, with both parents; the increase in "alterative dispute resolution" (now called primary dispute resolution) and private ordering generally; the fact that a residence parent will not automatically have the rights to make decisions concerning the children (cf "old" custody orders). See J Behrens, "Shared Parenting: Possibilities and Realities" (1996)21 Alternative Law Journal 213.
33 Note in particular the work of the National Women's Justice Coalition who lobbied for changes to the Family Law Reform bills. Amendments were made so that s 60B(2) clarifies the child's 'right' of contact so that it exists "except where it is or would be contrary to the best interests of the child". See also the ending of the "silence about violence" in the Act in ss 43, 68F, 68J, 68K, 68R, 68S and 68T, although many would argue that these changes did not go far enough. See J Behrens, "Ending the Silence, But... Family Vio1ence under the Family Law Reform Act 1995” (1996) 10 AJFL 35.
34 R Graycar, Submission to the Joint Select Committee on Certain Aspects of the Operation of the Family Law Act, Part Two, National Committee on Violence Against Women, 1991 at p71.
35 L Hancock, "Reforming the Child Support Formula: Who Wins?”, forthcoming in Just Policy.
36 M Fineman, "Illusive Equality: On Weitzman's Divorce Revolution" [1986] American Bar Foundation Research Journal 781 at p 788.
37 Hancock, above, n 35.
38 An Examination of the Operation and Effectiveness of the Scheme (1994) Canberra.
39 For example she notes that in chs 16-19, which deal with issues concerning the child support formula, the submissions of non-resident parents are cited or quoted 81 per cent of the time by the committee, as opposed to submissions made by resident parents.
40 See also K Funder, "Changes in Child Support" (1997) 48 Family Matters 36.
41 The remainder of submissions were from organisations (which included a number of fathers' rights groups), grandparents and divided custody parents. Graycar, above, n 9, found that of the oral submissions to the ALRC, Reference into Contempt, Report No 35,1987 (hereafter ALRC, Contempt) 46 out of 71 were from identified “fathers' rights" groups or from individuals sympathetic to their position. See also M Harrison and R Graycar, “The Australian Family Law Reform Act: Can Changing Legislation change Legal Culture, Legal Practice and Community Expectations?" (forthcoming).
42 B Arndt, Getting the Message Across about Injustice to Men, Conference Paper, LFAA Conference, 1997.
43 Text to n 14.
44 Many of these individuals perform key roles for one or more group. For example, the Child Support Action Group (CSAG) research paper entitled Parents are Forever: A Reply by the Disposable Parent was jointly written. One of the writers, Y Joakimidis, wrote the recent LFAA Submission to the ALRC reference on Children and the Legal Process, Issues Paper 18, AGPS, Canberra, 1996 (hereafter ALRC, Children).
45 Arndt, above, n 42.
46 Cheryl Gregory (DADs) speaking at LFAA conference, 1997
47 See, D Ward Guidance for the Unification of Associations and Groups seeking Changes to Family Related Legislation in Each State, information leaflet, 1996.
48 Cheryl Gregory (DADs) speaking at the LFAA conference, 1997.
Continue on to The Agenda of the Fathers' Rights Movement