Punch on: Open thread 23/02/2012

acotrel says:

07:50am | 23/02/12

German beer should be cheaper in Australia, due to the high dollar ?

semi concerned citizen says:

08:18am | 23/02/12

Acot I guess I could blame the abbotizer, but why can’t I purchase .5 ltr of aus beer for 3.85 on tap?

ibast says:

08:23am | 23/02/12

most of it is alcohol tax.  variations in import cost make little difference.  Many european beer are higher in alcohol than our weak Mcbeers

ZSRenn says:

01:34pm | 23/02/12

Yeh Yeh. But more important things. Does anybody have the code for the tipping comp?

subotic says:

02:00pm | 23/02/12

REAL action would be having the government stop pushing breweries around and making them change alcohol volume content (ie. Tooheys Extra Dry Platinums) and changing packaging quantity (ie. Tooheys Extra Dry Platinums AGAIN).

They were strong for a reason (6.5%), and came in 8-packs for a reason. And if the damn government just made liquor stores require ID then maybe we can even bring prices down to an affordable level again coz kids will have no choice but to show some damn ID. And if you get caught buying grog for minors then it should be mandatory jail time. Wow, how easy subotic. Yea, I know, rite…

Stupid government. Be more smarter…

Bill says:

06:53am | 23/02/12

Something you’re not telling us, gobsmack?  Do you find yourself in this situation?

Tim says:

06:55am | 23/02/12

Of course the men should have to pay child support.

Women should never have to take responsibility for their own choices.

Didn’t you get the memo?

Erick says:

07:08am | 23/02/12

Careful there gobsmack, you’re starting to sound like one of those Men’s Rights Extremists!

What you’ve postulated there is known as Choice For Men (c4M), and the idea has been around for some time. It is, of course, entirely fair and equitable - which is why no government has yet shown any interest in it.

There are some more details here.

EZ says:

07:32am | 23/02/12

why does the woman need to ask the guy to wear a condom? in this day and age with STI’s on the rise wouldn’t you put it on? especially for a one night stand, if you’re in a relationship and have both taken blood tests then yeah if she’s on the pill no need to wrap up. but seriously how stupid do you have to be as a guy to not put on the condom?

Mahhrat says:

07:36am | 23/02/12

@gobsmack:  To first answer your question directly, yes he is liable - he is the father.  That is as it should be.

I see where you’re going, but I think it looks at the issue the wrong way.  Child Support is for the benefit of the child, and is a tool to ensure that parents take responsibility for the children they beget.

The problem is not Child Support: I think very few parents - however they become parents - would object to contributing to their children’s lives.

Rather, it is how it is applied, how it is used (or not used), and how it is administered by the Child Support Agency that is the issue here.

When a parent pays money to an ex, they should have the right not only to ensure it is being spent on the children, but also a commensurate say in things like where the children are educated.

This is simply not done:  For example, I have no control over where my daughter is schooled.

The other thing that’s not done well is enforcing laws around access to estranged parents.  I have seen couples where the custodial parent has actively and knowingly defied court orders, has kept the children home against the direction of the Department of Education, has lied to Centrelink, to the Court and to the DoE, and despite all of that (depriving your kids of education is tantamount to child abuse, IMHO), and despite a crystal clear record from the other parent (who has two other kids who are loved and love dearly), the former is STILL found to be the preferred custodial parent.

That lack of action makes a mockery of “child support” as the concept currently sits in law and legal philosophy. 

It is those things that I feel lead to the arguments you’re putting, Gobsmack, those possible outcomes that are the core concern and need addressing.  Any guy who gets a girl pregnant is responsible.  His choice is either reversible vasectomy or abstinence.

Erick says:

07:44am | 23/02/12

What you’ve postulated there is known as Choice For Men (c4M), and the idea has been around for some time. It is, of course, entirely fair and equitable - which is why no government has yet shown any interest in it.

There are some more details here.

Carz says:

07:48am | 23/02/12

If a man doesn’t want to pay child support then, regardless of what the woman says, he needs to take responsibility to protect himself, either by wearing a condom (and accepting that they aren’t infallible), practising abstinence, or having a vasectomy. It’s about time men stop blaming women for an act that takes two.

Kerryn says:

07:48am | 23/02/12

Consider it stupidity tax in the first instance - even if she didn’t ask you to use one, you’d still risk an STI even if she was on the pill!

the second instance is a bit murky.  As long as he is willing to never, ever, EVER contact or see the child or have anything to do with it or the mother, then he can go without paying.  If he wants anything to do the child, he has to pay.

Bertrand says:

07:53am | 23/02/12

I personally know of one couple where the female wanted to have a baby and the male didn’t, so she simply went behind his back and stopped taking the pill without his knowing.

To me, there is no way he should be liable for child support.

The one night stand is different. Birth control is both people’s responsibility, and the man is equally responsible for not using birth control as the woman.

Elphaba says:

08:01am | 23/02/12

Child support is about supporting the *child* - if it is born, it’s not liable for the parent’s mistakes.

Yes, it is unfortunate that the system is exploited.  But the child is not liable.

Mark G says:

08:05am | 23/02/12

Gobsmack,

Morally:

Scenario 1 - Both are responsible. Contraception is a two way street. If you have sex, you should always accept the risk of an unwanted pregnancy. If you don’t accept this risk then don’t have sex. Particularly with someone you don’t know well. Even with contraception there is a risk. Even if the woman is being fraudulent, you still decided to have sex with her. It’s as simple as that.

Scenario 2 - This is a little more fraudulent but doesn’t remove the responsibilities of the male. Again, you have sex with someone you are accepting the risk of pregnancy. You don’t like that then don’t have sex. If you don’t trust your partner to do the right thing then use your own contraception. If your partner refuses to have sex with you because you are using you own contraception then I would say that you need to be a little suspicious of their intentions.

Legally:

Both scenarios - It is impossible in most of these situations to determine who is telling the truth because most of it comes down to he said/she said. Often men who desire to disown a baby to save themselves from child support will lie about the means in which the women got pregnant. Women will lie to prevent them being accused of fraud. Therefore the most stable and indisputable law is simply to say “you do the crime, you do the time”. If you are the father then you pay child support. No ifs, buts or maybes. You don’t like this then don’t have sex with strange or untrustworthy women. In these cases if there is a dispute then it can be settled but nothing more than a DNA test.

Erick says:

08:13am | 23/02/12

What you’ve postulated there is known as Choice For Men (c4M), and the idea has been around for some time. It is, of course, entirely fair and equitable - which is why no government has yet shown any interest in it.

semi concerned citizen says:

08:22am | 23/02/12

Tell her you had the snip and.want a DNA test at her expense the one nighter. The other one well don’t get in a relationship to start with

gobsmack says:

08:33am | 23/02/12

I’ve had read of at least one feminist whose view is that making a male 50% responsible for an unwanted pregnancy is incompatible with the feminist view that women should have complete control over their reproductive processes (including allowing a woman to have the final say on whether a pregnancy should be terminated).

SimonFromLakemba says:

08:37am | 23/02/12

@Gobsmack

You weren’t listening to 96.1 in Sydney yesterday were you? This was the topic

marley says:

08:39am | 23/02/12

People have to take responsibility for their own sexual choices.  If a woman doesn’t want to become pregnant, she takes the pill or gets an IUD or uses a diaphragm.  If a guy doesn’t want to impregnate a woman, he uses a condom or gets a snip or, in future, takes a male contraceptive. 

If they’re on different wave lengths, if one of them is lying (oh, I’m on the pill, or oh, I’ve had a vasectomy so we don’t need a condom) it still behoves the other person to be responsible for his or her own choices by insisting on that condom or whatever.

Erick says:

08:40am | 23/02/12

@Carz -    If a woman doesn’t want to have a baby then, she needs to take responsibility to protect herself, either by taking a contraceptive (and accepting that they aren’t infallible), practising abstinence, or having her tubes tied.

It’s about time women stop blaming men for an act that takes two.

Carz says:

09:06am | 23/02/12

@Erick, oh bravo. You can change a couple of words and try to turn an argument around. FAIL! A woman can still take responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy and have an abortion. Her body her choice. When a man can have an invasive procedure done to HIS body to end (not prevent) a pregnancy then the arguments will be equal. You’re starting to show how narrow you mindset really is.

Erick says:

09:09am | 23/02/12

@Elphaba - If child support was actually about supporting the child, it would be calculated on the basis of the child’s needs and not the father’s income. Also, the mother would be required to actually spend the money on the child and provide receipts as proof - as well as returning any surplus.

Of course, these things do not happen, because child support is not, and never has been, about the child. It’s about transferring wealth from men to women.

TimB says:

09:13am | 23/02/12

Agree with Bertrad here. Under normal circumstances, both parties can be responsible for their own contraception, and thus both parties bear equal responsibility for any children.

But in any case where the female deliberately lies about her contraceptie status in order to trick the male into getting her pregnant…She should not be able to force him to pay up child support.

That’s where Kerryn’s view comes in. If the father chooses to be involved in his child’s life he should cntribute regardless of if he was tricked or not. But he should have the right to walk away if he so chooses. Sucky for the child of course, but something the mother really should have thought of.

Elphaba says:

09:40am | 23/02/12

@Erick, then the system needs to be reviewed.  Child support needs to be paid into an account that provides vouchers for custodial parents to spend the money on the child’s welfare.

But as you said, it’s an act that takes two - which means both parents, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the child’s birth, should be contributing financially to the child.  It’s not he child’s fault.

Tim says:

09:46am | 23/02/12

Carz,
your comment actually puts more responsibility on the woman because she has the right to end the pregnancy if she chooses as well as choosing to engage in creating the child in the first place.
The man currently has none of the rights but all of the responsibility.

I agree with Erick that if child support is about providing for the child then it needs to be more tightly controlled so that the benefit of the money is shown to be actually going to the child.

John Findlay says:

10:19am | 23/02/12

When will a father have say in abortion ?
When will custodial parents be finacialy penalised for denying access ?
When will parental alienation be recognised as child abuse ?
When will DNA testing be mandatory for every child born to positive ID the father ?
When will a father be seen as a positive influence in a child’s life ?

AdamC says:

10:31am | 23/02/12

I think Mahhrat nailed it here. Paying to support a child should also entitle a non-custodial (usually male) parent to involvement in the care of the child. While that seems to be the idea in theory, it is not how the system works in practice.

More generally, the problem with allowing an unwilling father to refuse to pay child support is that it effectively punishes the innocent child for the acts of its mother. So, while it is obviously a unjust situation, what would be the alternative?

Erick says:

10:36am | 23/02/12

@Carz - All the arguments against Choice for Men can be used with equal applicability against abortion choices for women.

If you support abortion rights for women, but not choice for Men, then you are a hypocrite.

jay-ded says:

10:40am | 23/02/12

This is a really grey area isn’t it?  If a single woman becomes pregnant and both parents want the child then both parents should have equal responsibility.

If the female wants the child and the male doesn’t then the male shouldn’t have any responsibility for the child.  He would also have no contact with the child.

If the male wants the child and the female doesn’t then the female should hand the child over to the male and also have no responsibility for the child and also no contact.

That’s my 2 cents worth.

Now wait for some of the punchers to come out with “it’s my body I should be able to have an abortion if I want to.”

Mahhrat says:

11:12am | 23/02/12

@jay-ded - I can’t agree with you, though it might sound logical. Current research suggests children are ideally raised with two parents.  If there is a change in that thinking, then I’m happy to review that viewpoint.  Even so, you have a responsibility to a life you created; if you want no part in their upbringing then fair enough, but you’re still responsible for their upkeep.  You should have no ability to bring your will to bear on whether the other parent can claim support from you.

Saying that, I see no reason why you couldn’t make a civil case against someone for fraud, if you were deceived into parenthood and could provide sufficient evidence.  That decision could then be weighed into with regards custody of the child and decisions about their upbringing, as well as a possible punitive measure on behalf of the guilty parent.

Regarding abortion, it’s not a question of “fair”, it is right that a woman have and maintain control over her own body.  Unless a child is viable outside the womb, she must maintain the right to carry or not carry that child.  It sucks, it raises questions and moral issues, but it’s the only solution that makes any kind of sense.  You just cannot ascribe more importance to a potential life than an actual one.

As for everyone else, why is this a gender war battleground?  That’s exactly why we have the problems we do.  The genders of each parent should be irrelevant to the wellbeing of the child.  That philosophy is write large in Family Law as it should be, but the actuality is it’s not practiced well.

I would love to see a series of test cases run where the gender of each parent is removed from the equation, just to see what rationality dictates is the best interests of the child.  I would be very, very interested to see how this would change things.

To rant on, I’m also particularly interested in how the impending rights of gay marriage and adoption will impact the Family Court when they are faced with children with two same-sex parents.

masterblaster says:

11:30am | 23/02/12

gobsmack have you always been ericks sockpuppet?

Sarahh says:

11:31am | 23/02/12

@Mahhrat,  in the case of same sex couples who have a child, in the event of a divorce wouldn’t it be a similar situation as it is now?  More often than not the child will be in the custody of the primary caregiver.

Wickerman says:

12:04pm | 23/02/12

IMHO:
Scenario 1: Both are liable for the consequences
Scenario 2: The woman should be liable - breach of contract.

I think of it this way: Scenario - woman falls pregnant & father is assumed.
1. Man & Woman both want the child - child is born & raised
2. Man & Woman both do not want the child - abortion, man & woman get on with their lives
The next two are tricky:
3. Man wants child , but woman doesnt. Woman aborts, with the man having no say. OK its her body etc fine.
4. Man doesnt want child but woman does, child is born. Now in my world the man should NOT be liable for raising costs.

gobsmack says:

01:00pm | 23/02/12

@Bill
No.
@SimonFromLakemba
No, pure coincidence.
@masterblaster
No.  Obviously you are not a regular reader of the comments.

Mark G says:

08:15am | 23/02/12

Frugal

SimonFromLakemba says:

08:38am | 23/02/12

And this coming from a ‘rusted on’ Liberal. Right…

Joel B1 says:

09:32am | 23/02/12

SimonFromLamemba,

Don’t be a lazy boy.

Just head over to the ABC, and do a search for this report: “Rudd, Gillard and the painful death of consensus”.

You’ll find plenty of bizarre, borderline-schizoid, divorced-from-reality, off-the-show, “Abbott-is-the-Antichrist”, tin-foil-hat-wearing ALP supporter comments.

Funny how it is always the ALP supporters isn’t it? (cough* nossy*)

Tim says:

09:50am | 23/02/12

JoelBI,
C’mon you can head over to the A Bolt blog and find just as many loony right commentators talking about world conspiracies, how Juliar is the debbil and how the government is trying to turn us into a socialist state.

Funny how you conveniently leave them out, isn’t it?

SimonFromLakemba says:

10:20am | 23/02/12

Joel B1

What are you on about?

“You’ll find plenty of bizarre, borderline-schizoid, divorced-from-reality, off-the-show, “Abbott-is-the-Antichrist”, tin-foil-hat-wearing ALP supporter comments”

Change Abbott with Gillard and ALP with Liberal and head off to any News Ltd site or Bolt blog and you can see the same thing, neither is more relevant than the other.

PS

Don’t be such a lazy boy and copy and paste my name correctly next time.

James1 says:

12:56pm | 23/02/12

“Funny how it is always the ALP supporters isn’t it?”

No, you are wrong Joel and any reasonable person would have the agree with Simon and Tim here.  You find these nutters on both sides.  Indeed, you needn’t even stray from the Punch to find examples of both.

In any case, I thought the consensus was that Barack Obama was the antichrist…

subotic says:

08:49am | 23/02/12

GOLD, right there…

TimB says:

09:15am | 23/02/12

IMO the time to have an another election was September 2010 .

But yes, the behaviour of the ALP has shown that they are completely unfit for office. Election now.

(BTW Elph, glad you’re still sticking around )

Elphaba says:

09:35am | 23/02/12

Lol TimB, nothing is set in stone.  I blog very little on here these days anyway!

She’s called him on his plans - I suppose the only way he can stuff her up is if he quits and forces a bi-election.  But I don’t think he’d knowingly hand the Libs a victory.

Robert S McCormick says:

10:20am | 23/02/12

Elphaba,
That simply won’t happen.
Why?
Because of the G-G’s close relationship with the ALP. She has a familial interest. Her son-in-law is none other than the ever-increasingly tetchy, Gillard supporter, Bill Shorten.

boganboots says:

10:36am | 23/02/12

you’ll make a fine catch one day.

Elphaba says:

10:45am | 23/02/12

@Robert, good point, I never even thought of that.

It is exciting though!  I probably should be more annoyed and wish they’d just run the country, but I can’t pretend I’m not following it with great interest.

James1 says:

09:47am | 23/02/12

I reckon skinflint.

jay-ded says:

10:29am | 23/02/12

Stingy?

AdamC says:

10:59am | 23/02/12

Parsimonious?

jay-ded says:

11:28am | 23/02/12

Petty?  Not really in the tight-arse category though.

jay-ded says:

11:33am | 23/02/12

penny-pinching?  since it’s hyphenated, it’s only one word isn’t it?

jay-ded says:

11:35am | 23/02/12

Penurious?

That’s enough.  I give up.

jay-ded says:

09:34am | 23/02/12

I’m going on Saturday.  Should be awesome Tim. 

not so fair says:

11:35am | 23/02/12

calm down fairsfair
This is democracy.
What you should be calling for is media that practices journalism.
You know, the kind of journalism that reports FACTS without the bias. That doesn’t seek to create news, but rather reports it?

SimonFromLakemba says:

11:35am | 23/02/12

I was commenting to a work colleague this morning that it feels like I live in some South American country.

Although Russia had a strange system when power changed from Putin to Dmitry Medvedev

bella starkey says:

11:47am | 23/02/12

@simonoflakemba

the power didn’t actually shift from Putin. Not really.

fairsfair says:

11:50am | 23/02/12

I can’t calm down because I am deadset over this bullshit. I agree, the media plays a big part in it - but the shit is coming from somewhere. 

Why is it too much to expect our politicians (both in office and opposition) to be in a position where they are actively discussing policy that will bring benefit to us as a nation? The party system allows for this. This bogus hung parliament only seeks to serve a few individuals who hold the power and it has developed a rediculous stuggle to remain in office at any cost. The ALP had lost their way in 2009 - now they are just done. As a swinging voter (currently swung to the right) they will never win me back. While my arse points to the dirt I will never vote Labor again in any level - council, state, federal.

TimB says:

11:53am | 23/02/12

Poor Badger. All those months of railing at News Ltd and it’s unnamed sources. And now you find they were 100% on the money.

How embarrasing for you.

Agree Fairs. This is a farce. And Windsor is one of it’s principle architects. We need an election.

Jade says:

12:08pm | 23/02/12

I’m with you there fairs. I am embarrassed for them. A group of prepies could probably run the country better at the moment.

not so fair says:

12:09pm | 23/02/12

“Why is it too much to expect our politicians (both in office and opposition) to be in a position where they are actively discussing policy that will bring benefit to us as a nation?”

You don’t think politicians are actively discussing policy?

I suggest the problem for people like yourself who want to understand the implications of policy are that “journalists” are more interested in fomenting dissent and spreading misinformation to achieve regime change for their political masters.

The hung parliament is what it is. Deal with it. We don’t have elections whenever a member of the public doesn’t like the result.

Your beef is better directed at the media. If they did their job, none of this would have happened.

SimonFromLakemba says:

12:10pm | 23/02/12

@Bella Starkey

Putin went the to PM role. Medvedev did a really good job considering, sacked something like 100 officials and Mayor’s around Russia that were Putin’s ‘men’.

Now Putin is back I can’t see too much improving.

fairsfair says:

12:51pm | 23/02/12

Really - it is the media’s fault that that parliament (particularly question time) is what it is? My opinions are mostly formed by watching the manner in which those children conduct themselves in our Nation’s parliament. I can not remember the last QT that was not centered around utter bullshit.

Yes the media plays a part - but you could not make this shit up - therefore what is posited is clearly going on behind closed doors. Our Country deserves better.

And, I just watched Tony Abbott’s presser from Warwick. Dare I say it - it has been the first time I have ever imagined him leading this country. He spoke well, was on topic, made very valid arguments and the media actually asked him decent questions which he answered well. That should be very frightening to the Labor camp.

SimonFromLakemba says:

12:15pm | 23/02/12

Said the same thing on another thread. Gillard ripped him one!

SimonFromLakemba says:

12:25pm | 23/02/12

He used to be relevant back in the day, now he has become power hungry at the determent of the Greens movement.

Ben says:

11:02pm | 23/02/12

The problem is that “back in the day” the greens were the isolated option, a voice that could just speak up with no real influence or authority.  Now there is enough dissatisfaction with major parties that the minorities are benefiting and holding the balance of power.  And with the influence that results, they find they need to make compromises, and suddenly things aren’t so crystal clear as when you could sit in the back row and throw stones.

jay-ded says:

01:03pm | 23/02/12

Winner! 

fairsfair says:

02:01pm | 23/02/12

Your last paragraph is ridiculous Knemon.

How can a person in opposition cause division in the Government if the Government is competent? I am sick and tired of Abbott (someone who I can’t really tollerate, but that means nothing) being blamed for the fact that the ALP can’t get it together.

It is laughable. I am sick of having that rammed down my neck. Even in KRudd and JGillard’s speaches today all they could do was link their own failings back to how scary it would be to have Abbott at the helm.

I’m inclined to believe that it can’t get much scarier than the current sideshow that those two are the architects of.

indie says:

02:13pm | 23/02/12

Knemon
You should have said Abbott, through the financial and media support of Rupert, Clive, Gina other vested interests.
Some still don’t get it.

Anubis says:

02:25pm | 23/02/12

@Knemon - What colour is the sky in your world?

Michael says:

02:34pm | 23/02/12

Idiot.

TimB says:

02:42pm | 23/02/12

@ Anubis, I believe the colour is Green

@ Badger- The ALP have no-one to blame but themselves. Tony Abbott didn’t make them do anything.

Knemon says:

04:35pm | 23/02/12

@ fairsfair - “How can a person in opposition cause division”

Very easily….

His continual negativity and talking down everything and anything regardless of whether merit is due or not (don’t give me shit about that’s the job of opposition, we’re all in this together), he constantly talks down our economy (regardless of the fact that we’re the envy of the developed world), but his major asset is appealing to the ignorant masses, believe me, if he becomes PM of this country then we are well and truly f**cked.

I wasn’t a fan of John Howard but at least he was a leader who understood statesmanship, Abbott wouldn’t be allowed to carry John Howard’s bags into parliament house let alone lead this country. God help us if he does.

I’m hanging out for when Abbott and his economic geniuses start producing policies that can be analysed and costed, as all the conservative’s seem to think an election should be called now, then surely he has these policies and costing’s ready to go, I very much doubt it though.

In all my life I have never seen a more negative or divisive politician than Tony Abbott.

PS - My initial comment was in response to you shouting “call an election now” - WHY?

jay-ded says:

02:49pm | 23/02/12

Makes you wonder doesn’t it?  If he wasn’t there when it happened, was he there when the mother was feeding her soft foods?  Did he ask why?  Was she covered with bruises?  Did he even care?  She should be thrown against the wall a few times and see how she likes it.  Reminds me of my stepmother actually…...