Australia is a wonderful place and as a true blue Aussie i am rightfully proud of the country of my birth. but the heartlessness of government's in the great country often make me wonder, who do they serve, the people or other vested interests. The political process has degenerated into such a mess that it is beginning to make the USA congress look angelic. There is the deliberate fanning of flames, the continual misuse of terms and most of all the legislation where the most damaged and emotionally traumatised people are faced with massive court imposed fines for daring to follow their heart.
Australia is a mixed economy whereby we accept taxes are higher but they will provide a minimal level of support for those in need. One of the greatest advances was the introduction of the supporting mothers pension back in the early 1970's. It never was a great amount but at least it ensured the children would have a roof over their heads and a feed. However, over time these mothers have been slowly portrayed as having kids to have welfare by those who could never raise children on them and this year the government decided that all mothers with children over 8 would be placed on the newstart allowance (about 100 dollars per fortnight less than the supporting mothers pension) The newstart allowance is a fancy name for the dole or susso and the purpose of which is to provide basic support for the unemployed. The principal of a mother with a 8 year having to work in this day and age is not an idea i object to BUT the level of the susso is so low that not even a dog or cat could pay for their meaty bites on it. The government pours funds into car manufacturers like Ford who take the money send it to Detroit and then announce the closing down of the factory in Australia throwing thousands out if work but will not let the single mothers with children 8 years or over to have a poverty lone level of support, they reduce it even further. Corporate welfare is in their view much more important than people.
Now the Asylum seekers who travel to this country by means other than normal ports of entry. In the late seventies there was a tide of refugees coming to this country from Vietnam and Cambodia. Mostly they were coming via boat. To it's credit the Fraser conservative government saw that these people were in need of help and allowed them to enter and prove their refugee claims. They often stopped over at transit countries like Malaysia and Indonesia.The vast majority of these people and their descendants have taken to our way of life and are good and honourable Australian citizens. proof indeed that investment in people in need will benefit the country economically and also cultural wise. Today both sides whip up personal stereotyping of today's refugees leaving places where their lives are at risk and calling them ILLEGAL's which they are not. They trumpet claims that they should wait in the transit countries like Malaysia and Indonesia like good servile peasants. The fact there is no real line of progression in these countries is a fact that is conveniently forgotten. They claim they cant be real refugees if they had paid 10,000 to get on a creaky overloaded fishing vessel to take to treacherous waters and say they are wealthy. but then the same people would think nothing of booking up a 5 or 6 thousand dollar TV then cry poor. They shamefully call it a Islamic invasion yet your Islamic population is only 1.7 percent of the total population. They say we must be hard to save their lives and stop the people smugglers. but how moral is to punish the victim. Such treachery of human rights can only occur when the population has closed their eyes to the truth much like Germany under Hitler
But the cold hearted approach is also affecting hundreds of people who , not having done anything wrong, in fact society and governments in the past have done massive injury to their lives and wellbeing, are liable for massive financial punishment for just seeking out their own natural kinfolk. I am talking here about the veto and contact systems that apply that apply to the older closed adoptions when state's legislation were amended to crate the open adoption system. The following penalties apply around the country to deter and punish persons who have been severely damaged and traumatised by the adoption tragedy caused by the the adoption practises from 1920 to 1985
SA $10000 (they have information veto's)
Many of these penalties are in the form of penalty units which increase each year by the Consumer price index or other government legislation
The governments of the states are using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut and is contrary to the spirit of the Senate recommendations in that no penalty was recommended. Anyone who knows understands that i believe in contact statements reviewed every three years. I have lived on this earth long enough to understand that nothing is black and white and very few people would impose veto's without what they see is good reason. Saying a person has a right is not good enough when we are talking about human nature albeit traumatised humans or emotionally damaged. BUT the very same reason why there is a need for contact statement is the very same reason why the legal system should never ever be involved in the application of penalising good decent people whose only sin was to get caught up in a draconian adoption system that created havoc in the community. How much has the state had to pay out in additional mental health and other services costs because a person was threatened by this huge stick and and possibly taken before the courts . In fact we may never know the numbers because in some places like WA, the courts that hear these are closed courts, Star Chambers for want of a better word.
Why would they close the court for these,probably because they do not want the pubic knowing how evilly they treat vulnerable people. Much like what they were doing back in the closed adoption era.
Governments have a major problem in relation to credibility i just don't mean the politicians but the administration of government is seen as uncaring cold hearted and not willing to serve the public who employs them. They seem like a law upon themselves. The Victorian government for example refused to speak to ordinary adoptees during the negotiation of the apology. This would have been at the behest of the DHS department who believe that they know what is best. from what i can gather NSW was not much better, At least Tasmania and SA did listen and Qld I am not too sure about.
So how can we trust them when it comes to looking at the human side of a person whose yearns and longs for contact with kinfolk and it becomes a obsession. And the legal system has to rely on a magistrate to have compassion.
IT is imperative that the legal sledgehammer currently in place within all states be removed, that laws banning publicly mentioning the name of your kinfolk separated by adoption be repealed so that good decent folk can eventually attempt to create a late life together. Humans played god with us all and this was intolerable. And yet they still continue to play god with our lives. WHAT ARE THEY SCARED OF!