EDITORIAL WEDNESDAY 17.06.09.
I have never had direct dealings with the New South Wales Department of Community Services, but I have been told by those who have that it is something which should be avoided at all costs. The series of adverse reports over the past few days, beginning with the eight disadvantaged and disabled children who were farmed out to neighbours because no suitably qualified foster carers could be found, through to the revelation today that a 12 year old girl who was found to have a sexually transmitted disease has been given what was described as a party pack of twenty condoms, highlights the apparent inability of the Department to effectively function. Of course, if a young person is already sexually active, it may be appropriate to provide assistance with health and contraception, but the problem is that this has apparently been done without any consultation with the parents.
Whenever young kids go off the rails in any way, one of the first things to be asked by the public is “where are the parents?” Politicians, community groups, and even DOCS workers themselves all talk about the importance of parental responsibility, and the need for that to be an integral part of dealing with child safety issues. Society expects parents to be in charge of and responsible for their children, both in terms of their behavior and their wellbeing. But, for some reason, those same authorities are so often found to be either ignoring parents, or even working at cross purposes to them.
In the other highly publicized case this week, another 12 year old girl has been found to be pregnant to her 15 year old live in boyfriend, despite repeated attempts by her father to have DOCS intervene in her case. If parental responsibility is so important, why is it that a genuinely alarmed parent is denied help by the very authorities which are supposed to work with parents for the best interests of the child’s wellbeing. Is it because some parents are considered to be either irrelevant, or even a threat, simply because they are not the custodial parent? Is it because the DOCS workers spend so much of their time dealing with bad parents that they just assume that all parents are the problem?
It’s not just parents however who are suffering the wrath of DOCS. There is increasing evidence that one of the reasons it is so hard to find suitable, qualified people to become foster carers is because they too are so badly treated by the Department. The allegation is made by frustrated volunteers, who have dedicated themselves to caring for other people’s children in difficult circumstances, that they cannot deal with DOCS in the best interests of the children. Instead, they claim that if they report a problem to DOCS, seeking assistance, or heaven forbid actually criticize the Department or its procedures, then they are treated as being the cause of the problem and the children are removed. It appears that if any one dares to bring the Department bad news, the response of the department is to shoot the messenger.
There are many parents who are struggling to cope with behavioural problems with their children or with the consequences of other adversity, and what they want, what they need, what they are begging for is help from the Department. They want someone to work WITH them, not AGAINST them. Desperate fathers do not want to be ignored when they have genuine concerns about their daughters, especially when all of society is screaming at them that they should be “responsible parents”. Frantic mothers who have trouble coping don’t want their kids taken away, they want help in teaching them how to be better behaved, or in addressing their health or financial problems.
Sadly, there are some parents who simply are not able to care properly for their children, but even in those cases, the Department needs to have a better process for providing them with alternative care, than the current system which sees kids shifted around a series of foster homes leaving them with no better chance of a decent life than they would have had anyway. For all the other cases, DOCS workers need to be able to hear the concerns of parents who are doing the best they can to be “responsible”, but find that the system simply shoves them onto the sidelines.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
The Would Be Prime Minister Who Never Actually Mounted A Challenge
EDITORIAL TUESDAY 16.06.09.
It’s almost an anticlimax. After all of the speculation over the last eighteen months about a possible leadership challenge by Peter Costello, and indeed the frustrated ambitions for the best part of a decade before that, it’s almost a disappointment that he has finally announced his retirement from politics. There is almost a sense that we have been denied the thrill and spectacle of the blood-letting associated with a leadership contest, and the often associated collateral damage to the party itself. But, it is not to be.
Despite considerable criticism at times that he was destabilizing his own party by keeping his options open, it would now appear that many people were working themselves into a lather for nothing. The timetable for pre-selection always meant that Mr. Costello would have to make his intentions known well before the next election is due. And even though he has dragged it out until the last possible moment, there has been no lasting damage e to his colleagues. In fact, it could be said that keeping them all on their toes has been good for them, although the truth is that much of the consternation was not of Mr. Costello’s making. It was simply the product of feverish speculation on the part of his colleagues, his opponents, and outside observers. All Peter had to do was to sit back, keep his own council and watch it all happen. All along, he insisted that nothing had changed since his remarks on election night in 2007, and now we see that he has been true to his word.
In making his announcement to the Parliament yesterday, Mr. Costello observed “It is just possible that both sides of the dispatch box are happy with the announcement I’ve made.” It is an ironic observation, but at the same time I suspect that will be some of his supporters who are sorry to see him go and lament the missed opportunities of things that never came to pass. Would he have made a good Prime Minister? Perhaps, but the fact is that it is a question which by its nature will forever be unanswered. In order to be judged a success or otherwise as Prime Minister, first you must become Prime Minister. Peter Costello was denied what he believed was a gentlemen’s agreement, and never had either the opportunity or sufficient support to force the issue. Harsher critics would say that he didn’t have the political courage, but that would perhaps be unkind.
So now, the way is clear for Malcolm Turnbull to lead the Liberal Party in his own right, without the shadow of Peter Costello looming over him, a true changing of the guard. Coincidentally, the latest opinion polls have also indicated improved support for the opposition, providing Mr. Turnbull with even more impetus. However, there is still a long way to go before he must confront the voters, and unless the Senate provides the Government with the opportunity for a double dissolution, that won’t be for about another eighteen months.
Peter Costello will be remembered as the treasurer who introduced the G. S. T., while enjoying the period of prosperity which flowed from the resources boom. He will also be remembered as the would be Prime Minister who never actually mounted a challenge. I wonder if he will come to regret that, especially if Malcolm Turnbull actually manages to win next year.
It’s almost an anticlimax. After all of the speculation over the last eighteen months about a possible leadership challenge by Peter Costello, and indeed the frustrated ambitions for the best part of a decade before that, it’s almost a disappointment that he has finally announced his retirement from politics. There is almost a sense that we have been denied the thrill and spectacle of the blood-letting associated with a leadership contest, and the often associated collateral damage to the party itself. But, it is not to be.
Despite considerable criticism at times that he was destabilizing his own party by keeping his options open, it would now appear that many people were working themselves into a lather for nothing. The timetable for pre-selection always meant that Mr. Costello would have to make his intentions known well before the next election is due. And even though he has dragged it out until the last possible moment, there has been no lasting damage e to his colleagues. In fact, it could be said that keeping them all on their toes has been good for them, although the truth is that much of the consternation was not of Mr. Costello’s making. It was simply the product of feverish speculation on the part of his colleagues, his opponents, and outside observers. All Peter had to do was to sit back, keep his own council and watch it all happen. All along, he insisted that nothing had changed since his remarks on election night in 2007, and now we see that he has been true to his word.
In making his announcement to the Parliament yesterday, Mr. Costello observed “It is just possible that both sides of the dispatch box are happy with the announcement I’ve made.” It is an ironic observation, but at the same time I suspect that will be some of his supporters who are sorry to see him go and lament the missed opportunities of things that never came to pass. Would he have made a good Prime Minister? Perhaps, but the fact is that it is a question which by its nature will forever be unanswered. In order to be judged a success or otherwise as Prime Minister, first you must become Prime Minister. Peter Costello was denied what he believed was a gentlemen’s agreement, and never had either the opportunity or sufficient support to force the issue. Harsher critics would say that he didn’t have the political courage, but that would perhaps be unkind.
So now, the way is clear for Malcolm Turnbull to lead the Liberal Party in his own right, without the shadow of Peter Costello looming over him, a true changing of the guard. Coincidentally, the latest opinion polls have also indicated improved support for the opposition, providing Mr. Turnbull with even more impetus. However, there is still a long way to go before he must confront the voters, and unless the Senate provides the Government with the opportunity for a double dissolution, that won’t be for about another eighteen months.
Peter Costello will be remembered as the treasurer who introduced the G. S. T., while enjoying the period of prosperity which flowed from the resources boom. He will also be remembered as the would be Prime Minister who never actually mounted a challenge. I wonder if he will come to regret that, especially if Malcolm Turnbull actually manages to win next year.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Fair Shake Of The Sauce Bottle On Free Trade
EDITORIAL MONDAY 15.06.09.
It has been reported that tomorrow’s state budget will include a plan requiring government agencies and state owned corporations to give preference to buying goods and services from Australian companies. It is apparently to be called the “Local Jobs First Plan” and it reflects the view that part of the role of government is to support local business by offering them government contracts where possible. It has the support of unions, and is likely to be seen by the wider community as a positive plan to bolster Australian, and New South Wales jobs. The only problem is that it could also be seen as the beginning of a new era of protectionism which could have undesirable consequences.
As unpopular as free trade is among some quarters, the whole point of free trade is to not only allow Australians to buy foreign goods and services, but also for Australian producers to sell to overseas customers. Without free trade, many of the benefits of our mining and primary industries would be reduced. Without free trade it would be more difficult to sell Australian goods to other countries, and without free trade Australians would pay more for the goods they purchase, including the ones we produce here ourselves.
The downside of free trade, and the reason so many people see it as a threat, is that it can cause significant dislocation of jobs. It can cause downward pressure on pay and conditions as companies compete directly with offshore operations where wages are substantially lower. The idea of a level playing field is a fantasy so long as there are significant differences in living standards between different countries. That’s why the benefits of free trade come at a cost, and if we wish to preserve the Australian way of life it is necessary to find a balance.
While it would be a mistake to try to close the borders and attempt to become completely self sufficient, the idea of protecting Australian jobs by using Australian taxpayers money to buy Australian goods and services rather than imported ones, is a legitimate defence against the economic downturn. Of course, when taxpayers’ money is spent, it is right and proper to expect that it will be spent in a way which delivers value for money. The mistake that sometimes has been made is the assumption that lowest cost equals best value. Common sense should tell us that is not the case, as value depends upon much more than just cost alone.
When it comes to government expenditure, the spending of taxpayers’ money, there is an additional factor. That is the return to the community, in both economic and social terms. It might be cheaper to buy a consignment of firefighters’ uniforms from China, but it may not necessarily be better. Aside from the questions of quality and durability and utility of purpose, there is also the question of where the money goes, where the jobs are, and where the investment is. When you add those considerations into the equation, suddenly those cheap Chinese goods are not quite so cheap.
Despite all of the arguments in favour of free trade, the reality is that the United States is implementing a “buy American” policy to support its economy, and you can bet your bottom dollar that the Chinese government is buying its uniforms and office supplies and such from Chinese companies, so why should Australian governments not put Australian jobs first, and buy Australian goods. I’m sure even Kevin would have to admit that’s a “fair shake of the sauce bottle”.
It has been reported that tomorrow’s state budget will include a plan requiring government agencies and state owned corporations to give preference to buying goods and services from Australian companies. It is apparently to be called the “Local Jobs First Plan” and it reflects the view that part of the role of government is to support local business by offering them government contracts where possible. It has the support of unions, and is likely to be seen by the wider community as a positive plan to bolster Australian, and New South Wales jobs. The only problem is that it could also be seen as the beginning of a new era of protectionism which could have undesirable consequences.
As unpopular as free trade is among some quarters, the whole point of free trade is to not only allow Australians to buy foreign goods and services, but also for Australian producers to sell to overseas customers. Without free trade, many of the benefits of our mining and primary industries would be reduced. Without free trade it would be more difficult to sell Australian goods to other countries, and without free trade Australians would pay more for the goods they purchase, including the ones we produce here ourselves.
The downside of free trade, and the reason so many people see it as a threat, is that it can cause significant dislocation of jobs. It can cause downward pressure on pay and conditions as companies compete directly with offshore operations where wages are substantially lower. The idea of a level playing field is a fantasy so long as there are significant differences in living standards between different countries. That’s why the benefits of free trade come at a cost, and if we wish to preserve the Australian way of life it is necessary to find a balance.
While it would be a mistake to try to close the borders and attempt to become completely self sufficient, the idea of protecting Australian jobs by using Australian taxpayers money to buy Australian goods and services rather than imported ones, is a legitimate defence against the economic downturn. Of course, when taxpayers’ money is spent, it is right and proper to expect that it will be spent in a way which delivers value for money. The mistake that sometimes has been made is the assumption that lowest cost equals best value. Common sense should tell us that is not the case, as value depends upon much more than just cost alone.
When it comes to government expenditure, the spending of taxpayers’ money, there is an additional factor. That is the return to the community, in both economic and social terms. It might be cheaper to buy a consignment of firefighters’ uniforms from China, but it may not necessarily be better. Aside from the questions of quality and durability and utility of purpose, there is also the question of where the money goes, where the jobs are, and where the investment is. When you add those considerations into the equation, suddenly those cheap Chinese goods are not quite so cheap.
Despite all of the arguments in favour of free trade, the reality is that the United States is implementing a “buy American” policy to support its economy, and you can bet your bottom dollar that the Chinese government is buying its uniforms and office supplies and such from Chinese companies, so why should Australian governments not put Australian jobs first, and buy Australian goods. I’m sure even Kevin would have to admit that’s a “fair shake of the sauce bottle”.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Stun Guns Are Still Dangerous Weapons
EDITORIAL FRIDAY 12.06.09.
New South Wales Police have long been campaigning for the more widespread introduction of the Taser stun gun to provide officers with a non lethal option in dangerous confrontations. For many, it would seem obvious that it would be preferable to be shot with a stun gun than with a real gun, but there are others who still hold concerns about the use of such weapons. Critics warn that while Tasers are considered non lethal there have been significant numbers of controversial deaths associated with the devices in the United States. Today, a man died in Queensland after reportedly being shot with a Taser three times.
This is not the first death in Australia, and it has yet to be established whether or not there were other contributing factors, but it would appear that there is enough evidence to warrant concern that Tasers may not always be non-lethal. Previously a man in the Northern Territory has died last month after being hit with a Taser, and another man died two weeks after he was subdued by a Taser in New South Wales in 2002. While other factors are almost certainly involved, it has yet to be established just exactly what the risk of death is when somebody is subjected to the electric shock of a Taser.
The real question is not whether or not a Taser is a better option than a standard issue Police pistol, because obviously the bullet is far more likely to kill a person than the Taser. The real question is the protocol to be applied to the use of the Taser, and under what circumstances. The problem is that when such a device is commonly assumed to be non-lethal it tends to promote a different attitude to its use. It becomes far easier to become more casual, more complacent about the possible risks. It becomes far easier to draw a Taser when an officer might hesitate to draw a pistol.
Recent stories from the United States would seem to support this view. For example, a 72 year old great grandmother is threatening to sue police in Texas after she was “Tased” for resisting arrest. She had been stopped for speeding and was arguing with the officer. When she was threatened with the Taser she said “Go ahead, I dare you!” so that’s what the officer did. In another case, a small chihuaha dog was tasered by police officers in Ohio. The problem is that the idea that the Taser is safe can promote the careless, casual, and even reckless misuse of the weapon.
Simply describing it as “non lethal” is enough to give people the wrong idea. It is still a dangerous weapon and must be described as such. If police are to be entrusted with its use, they must be trained to treat it the same as a pistol, and consider it to be a measure of last resort. If the operational use of such a weapon is not properly regulated there is too much opportunity for it to be misused and abused as a means of depriving people of their rights. To treat it as anything other than a weapon is to trivialize the power that it permits the user to wield.
Having said that, I still believe that both the police and the community would be better served by having Tasers available as an alternative to pistols, under suitably appropriate regulation.
New South Wales Police have long been campaigning for the more widespread introduction of the Taser stun gun to provide officers with a non lethal option in dangerous confrontations. For many, it would seem obvious that it would be preferable to be shot with a stun gun than with a real gun, but there are others who still hold concerns about the use of such weapons. Critics warn that while Tasers are considered non lethal there have been significant numbers of controversial deaths associated with the devices in the United States. Today, a man died in Queensland after reportedly being shot with a Taser three times.
This is not the first death in Australia, and it has yet to be established whether or not there were other contributing factors, but it would appear that there is enough evidence to warrant concern that Tasers may not always be non-lethal. Previously a man in the Northern Territory has died last month after being hit with a Taser, and another man died two weeks after he was subdued by a Taser in New South Wales in 2002. While other factors are almost certainly involved, it has yet to be established just exactly what the risk of death is when somebody is subjected to the electric shock of a Taser.
The real question is not whether or not a Taser is a better option than a standard issue Police pistol, because obviously the bullet is far more likely to kill a person than the Taser. The real question is the protocol to be applied to the use of the Taser, and under what circumstances. The problem is that when such a device is commonly assumed to be non-lethal it tends to promote a different attitude to its use. It becomes far easier to become more casual, more complacent about the possible risks. It becomes far easier to draw a Taser when an officer might hesitate to draw a pistol.
Recent stories from the United States would seem to support this view. For example, a 72 year old great grandmother is threatening to sue police in Texas after she was “Tased” for resisting arrest. She had been stopped for speeding and was arguing with the officer. When she was threatened with the Taser she said “Go ahead, I dare you!” so that’s what the officer did. In another case, a small chihuaha dog was tasered by police officers in Ohio. The problem is that the idea that the Taser is safe can promote the careless, casual, and even reckless misuse of the weapon.
Simply describing it as “non lethal” is enough to give people the wrong idea. It is still a dangerous weapon and must be described as such. If police are to be entrusted with its use, they must be trained to treat it the same as a pistol, and consider it to be a measure of last resort. If the operational use of such a weapon is not properly regulated there is too much opportunity for it to be misused and abused as a means of depriving people of their rights. To treat it as anything other than a weapon is to trivialize the power that it permits the user to wield.
Having said that, I still believe that both the police and the community would be better served by having Tasers available as an alternative to pistols, under suitably appropriate regulation.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
The Kangaroos Have Got Loose In The Top Paddock
EDITORIAL THURSDAY 11.06.09.
Crikey! First, our Prime Minister was in hot water over calling for a “fair shake of the sauce bottle, mate”, and now he’s being dragged over the coals because he also said that “Blind Freddie could see that…” Turn it up, bluey, what’s happened to the dinki di Aussie spirit of a fair go? Apparently some dingbats have taken offence because it’s supposed to be derogatory of blind people, but surely the drongos have missed the boat. The good oil is that the original “Blind Freddy” wasn’t a blind bloke at all. He was probably a rozzer called Frederick Pottinger, who had trouble finding the whiskers underneath his nose, let alone the infamous bushranger Ben Hall.
Whether or not that’s ridgy didge isn’t 100% certain, but either way it’s bleeding obvious that the expression isn’t supposed to offend anyone. Blind Freddie has been a proud Australian icon for generations and has been immortalized in literature, music and was even the name of a blues band from Canberra. He has been mentioned by countless politicians in the past, not just our Kev. But as we gradually become a nation of pikers, whingers and nongs, it seems that nobody is fair dinkum anymore, and we are all expected to start talking like the Yanks, or worse, the bleeding Poms.
Fair suck of the savaloy, Sheila! Is nothing sacred? Can’t a bloke call a spade a bloody shovel anymore? Strewth, Ruth, common sense is becoming as scarce as hen’s teeth. What’s next? No more dead horse on the meat pie? No more lizards flat out drinking at the billabong? No more jolly swagmen snatching jumbucks on the road to Gundagai? Isn’t it enough that we have to get permission from the thought police before we sing Christmas Carols at Christmas time?
Strike a light, the kangaroos have got loose in the top paddock, as this politically correct nonsense spreads like cane toads, and with just as much poison. We might cringe at the adventures of Barry McKenzie, who really was a Barry Crocker in more ways than one, but he was our Barry, and as much a part of who we are as lamingtons and pavlovas. Our Kev is guilty only of preserving our national heritage, not of perpetuating prejudice. Blind Freddy isn’t derogatory of blind people, only of stupid ones, and Australians have always enjoyed poking the stick at them. So fair shake of the sauce bottle mate, our lingo might not always be pretty, but it is colourful and entertaining, and if taking a shot at the tall poppies is no longer acceptable, then we have lost something worth more than all the tea in China.
And I’m pretty sure even Blind Freddy could see that.
Crikey! First, our Prime Minister was in hot water over calling for a “fair shake of the sauce bottle, mate”, and now he’s being dragged over the coals because he also said that “Blind Freddie could see that…” Turn it up, bluey, what’s happened to the dinki di Aussie spirit of a fair go? Apparently some dingbats have taken offence because it’s supposed to be derogatory of blind people, but surely the drongos have missed the boat. The good oil is that the original “Blind Freddy” wasn’t a blind bloke at all. He was probably a rozzer called Frederick Pottinger, who had trouble finding the whiskers underneath his nose, let alone the infamous bushranger Ben Hall.
Whether or not that’s ridgy didge isn’t 100% certain, but either way it’s bleeding obvious that the expression isn’t supposed to offend anyone. Blind Freddie has been a proud Australian icon for generations and has been immortalized in literature, music and was even the name of a blues band from Canberra. He has been mentioned by countless politicians in the past, not just our Kev. But as we gradually become a nation of pikers, whingers and nongs, it seems that nobody is fair dinkum anymore, and we are all expected to start talking like the Yanks, or worse, the bleeding Poms.
Fair suck of the savaloy, Sheila! Is nothing sacred? Can’t a bloke call a spade a bloody shovel anymore? Strewth, Ruth, common sense is becoming as scarce as hen’s teeth. What’s next? No more dead horse on the meat pie? No more lizards flat out drinking at the billabong? No more jolly swagmen snatching jumbucks on the road to Gundagai? Isn’t it enough that we have to get permission from the thought police before we sing Christmas Carols at Christmas time?
Strike a light, the kangaroos have got loose in the top paddock, as this politically correct nonsense spreads like cane toads, and with just as much poison. We might cringe at the adventures of Barry McKenzie, who really was a Barry Crocker in more ways than one, but he was our Barry, and as much a part of who we are as lamingtons and pavlovas. Our Kev is guilty only of preserving our national heritage, not of perpetuating prejudice. Blind Freddy isn’t derogatory of blind people, only of stupid ones, and Australians have always enjoyed poking the stick at them. So fair shake of the sauce bottle mate, our lingo might not always be pretty, but it is colourful and entertaining, and if taking a shot at the tall poppies is no longer acceptable, then we have lost something worth more than all the tea in China.
And I’m pretty sure even Blind Freddy could see that.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Shared Care Principle Sound, But Decisions Are Not
EDITORIAL WEDNESDAY 10.06.09.
There are never any simple solutions when it comes to marriage and relationship breakdown, but when it comes to child custody arrangements the complexity is magnified by an exponential factor. One of the legacies of the Howard government was a reform of family law and child custody arrangements which for the most part has been successful and generally beneficial. The starting principle is that the best interests of the child should be paramount, and that encompasses the concept that any child should be entitled to a relationship with both parents. Unfortunately, that’s where the complexity can reach the point where those good intentions can actually deliver a paradoxical situation which fails to serve the best interests of anybody.
The concept of “shared care” sounds like a good one, and it is intended to not only provide the child with that opportunity for a relationship with both parents, but also to engender a sense of responsibility in those parents to remain engaged with the process of caring for the child. However, there is increasingly widespread concern among both the legal profession and health professionals that the impact on very young children may be the reverse of what is intended, undermining rather than promoting their wellbeing.
A study conducted at Flinders University has found that shared care arrangements ordered by the Family Court are forcing infants under the age of 12 months to spend one week with Mum and one week with Dad. On the surface of it that might not appear to be a problem apart from the logistical inconvenience of shuttling back and forth, but when you consider that many of these infants are breast fed the problem should become immediately obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature. While there is no particular cut off point recommended for weaning a child from the breast, the conventional wisdom is that anywhere up to 12 months is reasonable, and some mothers prefer to breast feed even longer than that. Most health experts recommend a minimum of six months for the child to experience the health benefits of natural feeding.
This is such a blatantly fundamental issue that it is difficult to understand how the law was drawn up without recognizing this simple truth. But that’s not the only concern. There is also evidence to suggest that sending very young children to spend one week with one parent and the next week with the other is also destabilizing and can undermine their emotional and psychological wellbeing. It can erode the sense of security that comes from having an established home base. Whether or not it causes any lasting psychological damage is less clear, but surely common sense should tell us that such an arrangement is less than ideal.
There has been much concern in recent years about men’s rights and the importance of fathers remaining in contact with their children, and rightly so. Fathers should also have both rights and responsibilities, and when there is a requirement for financial support to be provided it can be seen as grossly unjust if the mother tries to restrict or even refuse access to the child. But that’s why this is so complicated. And that’s why it is sometimes easy for those involved to forget that the whole thing is supposed to be about the best interests of the child. The basic principles of shared care are correct, but the practical application has unfortunately resulted in decisions that seem to defeat their own purpose.
There are never any simple solutions when it comes to marriage and relationship breakdown, but when it comes to child custody arrangements the complexity is magnified by an exponential factor. One of the legacies of the Howard government was a reform of family law and child custody arrangements which for the most part has been successful and generally beneficial. The starting principle is that the best interests of the child should be paramount, and that encompasses the concept that any child should be entitled to a relationship with both parents. Unfortunately, that’s where the complexity can reach the point where those good intentions can actually deliver a paradoxical situation which fails to serve the best interests of anybody.
The concept of “shared care” sounds like a good one, and it is intended to not only provide the child with that opportunity for a relationship with both parents, but also to engender a sense of responsibility in those parents to remain engaged with the process of caring for the child. However, there is increasingly widespread concern among both the legal profession and health professionals that the impact on very young children may be the reverse of what is intended, undermining rather than promoting their wellbeing.
A study conducted at Flinders University has found that shared care arrangements ordered by the Family Court are forcing infants under the age of 12 months to spend one week with Mum and one week with Dad. On the surface of it that might not appear to be a problem apart from the logistical inconvenience of shuttling back and forth, but when you consider that many of these infants are breast fed the problem should become immediately obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature. While there is no particular cut off point recommended for weaning a child from the breast, the conventional wisdom is that anywhere up to 12 months is reasonable, and some mothers prefer to breast feed even longer than that. Most health experts recommend a minimum of six months for the child to experience the health benefits of natural feeding.
This is such a blatantly fundamental issue that it is difficult to understand how the law was drawn up without recognizing this simple truth. But that’s not the only concern. There is also evidence to suggest that sending very young children to spend one week with one parent and the next week with the other is also destabilizing and can undermine their emotional and psychological wellbeing. It can erode the sense of security that comes from having an established home base. Whether or not it causes any lasting psychological damage is less clear, but surely common sense should tell us that such an arrangement is less than ideal.
There has been much concern in recent years about men’s rights and the importance of fathers remaining in contact with their children, and rightly so. Fathers should also have both rights and responsibilities, and when there is a requirement for financial support to be provided it can be seen as grossly unjust if the mother tries to restrict or even refuse access to the child. But that’s why this is so complicated. And that’s why it is sometimes easy for those involved to forget that the whole thing is supposed to be about the best interests of the child. The basic principles of shared care are correct, but the practical application has unfortunately resulted in decisions that seem to defeat their own purpose.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Ramsay Is The Nightmare
EDITORIAL TUESDAY 09.06.09 .
This is not the first time that I have suggested that it is wrong for Gordon Ramsay to be so handsomely rewarded for behavior which would be punished in anybody else. He makes millions of dollars out of appearing on television and abusing people. That’s it. It’s not about the cooking, it’s not about helping others to improve their cooking skills, it’s all about the confrontation and the shock value of viciously abusing people who are unable or unwilling to stand up for themselves. The foul language and the temper tirades directed at people in subordinate positions is supposed to be some kind of “tough guy” act, but it is not tough at all. In fact it is pathetic and vile. And yet people watch the shows and buy the books.
The trouble with rewarding bad behavior is that it encourages the behavior, and so long as acting like a spoilt brat earns him serious money, Ramsay will keep on doing it, and it will progressively get worse. The inexplicable, pointless and just downright nasty attack on Tracy Grimshaw is an illustration of this. It’s as if he thinks he’s just a cheeky boy, and as long as he’s cute enough he can get away with saying anything. So he becomes more and more outrageous until the point is reached when it goes too far, it’s not funny anymore, and then he might wonder why he’s getting criticized for doing what he has always done.
In some respects it is similar to the antics of drunken footballers, revered as heroes one moment, and then castigated for not knowing when to stop. Or the Chaser’s War On Everything, a television show built on the idea of targeting sacred cows, and unapologetically daring to say and do the unthinkable, but which lost its mojo by failing to understand that a joke actually has to be funny before we can forgive the offense it might cause. In the same way, Gordon Ramsay has been rewarded for breaking the rules, and has forgotten that there is a difference between being comical and being a brat.
The worst of it is the fact that this man gets paid to be a bully at a time when we are struggling with the challenge of bullying in schools, bullying in the workplace, and anti-social behavior generally. It’s not his fault that other people are rude and obnoxious, but as long as it is seen to be a passport to success we will continue to struggle with those problems. Rewarding him for that behavior is not just wrong for him, and unfair to the people he attacks, but it is also an insult to the rest of us who are trying to tell out kids not to use bad language and not to push people around.
I don’t know whether or not he is any good at cooking, because I don’t care to watch his show. But I suspect that anyone who needs to rely on such tactics to aggrandize himself most be severely deficient in his abilities in other areas. Certainly, such behavior in anybody else would prompt questions about his mental stability. I don’t care what he does in his private life, I just don’t think we should have to put up with him in public any more.
This is not the first time that I have suggested that it is wrong for Gordon Ramsay to be so handsomely rewarded for behavior which would be punished in anybody else. He makes millions of dollars out of appearing on television and abusing people. That’s it. It’s not about the cooking, it’s not about helping others to improve their cooking skills, it’s all about the confrontation and the shock value of viciously abusing people who are unable or unwilling to stand up for themselves. The foul language and the temper tirades directed at people in subordinate positions is supposed to be some kind of “tough guy” act, but it is not tough at all. In fact it is pathetic and vile. And yet people watch the shows and buy the books.
The trouble with rewarding bad behavior is that it encourages the behavior, and so long as acting like a spoilt brat earns him serious money, Ramsay will keep on doing it, and it will progressively get worse. The inexplicable, pointless and just downright nasty attack on Tracy Grimshaw is an illustration of this. It’s as if he thinks he’s just a cheeky boy, and as long as he’s cute enough he can get away with saying anything. So he becomes more and more outrageous until the point is reached when it goes too far, it’s not funny anymore, and then he might wonder why he’s getting criticized for doing what he has always done.
In some respects it is similar to the antics of drunken footballers, revered as heroes one moment, and then castigated for not knowing when to stop. Or the Chaser’s War On Everything, a television show built on the idea of targeting sacred cows, and unapologetically daring to say and do the unthinkable, but which lost its mojo by failing to understand that a joke actually has to be funny before we can forgive the offense it might cause. In the same way, Gordon Ramsay has been rewarded for breaking the rules, and has forgotten that there is a difference between being comical and being a brat.
The worst of it is the fact that this man gets paid to be a bully at a time when we are struggling with the challenge of bullying in schools, bullying in the workplace, and anti-social behavior generally. It’s not his fault that other people are rude and obnoxious, but as long as it is seen to be a passport to success we will continue to struggle with those problems. Rewarding him for that behavior is not just wrong for him, and unfair to the people he attacks, but it is also an insult to the rest of us who are trying to tell out kids not to use bad language and not to push people around.
I don’t know whether or not he is any good at cooking, because I don’t care to watch his show. But I suspect that anyone who needs to rely on such tactics to aggrandize himself most be severely deficient in his abilities in other areas. Certainly, such behavior in anybody else would prompt questions about his mental stability. I don’t care what he does in his private life, I just don’t think we should have to put up with him in public any more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
