Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Women’s legal centre gets a budget boost

johnboy 4 June 2012 42

Simon Corbell is joining in the good news budget pre-announcement fiesta (imagine the whiteboard work on this lot) with an ABC friendly $666,000 for the women’s legal centre.

Attorney General, Simon Corbell, has announced $666,000 in the 2012-13 Budget to help the Women’s Legal Centre find new and more suitable accommodation so it can continue to provide important services to the community.

“Havelock House in Canberra’s Inner North is currently home to three community legal centres, and it has been a concern of the Women’s Legal Centre (WLC) about the space available to them to provide their service to the women of Canberra,” Mr Corbell said.

“The $666,000 funding, over three years, will also have positive flow-on effects by allowing more space in Havelock House for the community legal centres that reside there, like the Welfare Rights and Legal Centre, and the Tenants Union.


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
42 Responses to
Women’s legal centre gets a budget boost
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Tomorrow_is_Yesterday 11:05 pm 06 Jun 12

Just for the record, the Womens legal centre doesn’t only deal with child support & custody issues.

Mysteryman 12:00 pm 05 Jun 12

greyswandir said :

gooterz said :

These days women earn less than men because they choose too.

I fail to see where i’ve drawn an inference to your gender. I dislike male misandrist’s as well as female misandrist’s.

1. Simply not true. Women earn up to 20% less than men *doing the same jobs*. What would be the point of any statistics drawing comparisons between women working 2 days a week as secretaries and men working 80-hour weeks as CEOs (or vice versa)? Apples and oranges..

I don’t think that’s accurate at all. The reports and stats I’ve read suggest that women earn less because they tend to choose employment in positions that pay less. The report I’ve linked to, for instance, says”

“Men often put in longer hours, are mentored at crucial stages of their careers, and generally hold positions for longer than women, leading to their dominance of senior positions”

This throws the earnings figure in favour of men. As far as women “less than men *doing the same jobs*” – I’m yet to see reports or studies that suggest that’s true. Anecdotally, I’ve not seen it either. I’m more than happy to be corrected if you can show me evidence of it.

http://www.reportageonline.com/2010/04/why-women-earn-less-than-men/

VYBerlinaV8_is_back 10:05 am 05 Jun 12

Diggety said :

greyswandir said :

Sorry about my silly woman’s brain!

And on that note, I propose we take the vote back off them.

Giving them the vote certainly didn’t improve their manners.

Dilandach 9:53 am 05 Jun 12

greyswandir said :

chewy14 said :

I thought we were all equal now?

I give up. *sigh* You all win, I’m wrong, we’re equal, the funding should go into the Welfare Rights and Legal Centre instead, abolish the WLC, there’s not a single reason for keeping it running. I’ll now dedicate my life to rectifying imbalances in the family law system just for you Henry. After all, street harassment’s just a bogan’s way of telling me he likes the cut of my jib! And hell, if I get assaulted it’s probably my fault because I was wearing a short skirt and didn’t say “no” early enough. Sorry about my silly woman’s brain!

…of course when men’s rights and real equality are bought up it isn’t met with sarcasm and scorn. Of course not.

Diggety 9:36 am 05 Jun 12

greyswandir said :

Sorry about my silly woman’s brain!

And on that note, I propose we take the vote back off them.

greyswandir 9:17 am 05 Jun 12

chewy14 said :

I thought we were all equal now?

I give up. *sigh* You all win, I’m wrong, we’re equal, the funding should go into the Welfare Rights and Legal Centre instead, abolish the WLC, there’s not a single reason for keeping it running. I’ll now dedicate my life to rectifying imbalances in the family law system just for you Henry. After all, street harassment’s just a bogan’s way of telling me he likes the cut of my jib! And hell, if I get assaulted it’s probably my fault because I was wearing a short skirt and didn’t say “no” early enough. Sorry about my silly woman’s brain!

HenryBG 8:09 am 05 Jun 12

greyswandir said :

Put simply, government-subsidised assistance services will stop being gendered when the people who need to utilise those services are no longer biased to one gender..

Firstly, it’s not gender, it’s sex.

Secondly, what are you doing to try to change things so that 50% of custody is awarded to men, and 50% of maintenance is paid *by* women?

If you’re interested in equality, then this is where you would start. Once 50% of maintenance was being paid to the 50% of custodial dads, then 50% of the deadbeat parents would be of either sex, rendering a discriminatory legal aid service unnecessary.

Dilandach 6:15 am 05 Jun 12

greyswandir said :

gooterz said :

These days women earn less than men because they choose too.

I fail to see where i’ve drawn an inference to your gender. I dislike male misandrist’s as well as female misandrist’s.

1. Simply not true. Women earn up to 20% less than men *doing the same jobs*. What would be the point of any statistics drawing comparisons between women working 2 days a week as secretaries and men working 80-hour weeks as CEOs (or vice versa)? Apples and oranges..

You’ll find that is exactly how they come up with the figure.

chewy14 9:52 pm 04 Jun 12

greyswandir said :

1. Simply not true. Women earn up to 20% less than men *doing the same jobs*. What would be the point of any statistics drawing comparisons between women working 2 days a week as secretaries and men working 80-hour weeks as CEOs (or vice versa)? Apples and oranges.

Sorry, although its completely off topic I can’t let that through.

The actual figure in Australia is 17% and includes all jobs and workers. So no, it isn’t comparing the same jobs.

On topic, I still don’t know and no one has yet provided a valid reason why we can’t just have a legal service that can be accessed by need.

Sure if the majority of people using it are women, then you’ll have people who may specialise in women’s needs but why the need for inbuilt discrimination in what should be a general service? I thought we were all equal now?

greyswandir 9:12 pm 04 Jun 12

gooterz said :

These days women earn less than men because they choose too.

I fail to see where i’ve drawn an inference to your gender. I dislike male misandrist’s as well as female misandrist’s.

1. Simply not true. Women earn up to 20% less than men *doing the same jobs*. What would be the point of any statistics drawing comparisons between women working 2 days a week as secretaries and men working 80-hour weeks as CEOs (or vice versa)? Apples and oranges.

2. I don’t know that it was you; someone made a comment about ‘the women in this thread’. I am female, for the record, but calling me a ‘misandrist’ just because I support a women’s legal service is, again, equating “A” with “Not-B”.

Put simply, government-subsidised assistance services will stop being gendered when the people who need to utilise those services are no longer biased to one gender. If the issue here is simply men’s visibility then that’s obviously a problem that needs to be addressed; but saying “Nope, we’re not going to deal with the problem we know exists just because we suspect an equally distressing problem exists elsewhere” is counterintuitive.

gooterz 8:55 pm 04 Jun 12

greyswandir said :

gooterz said :

[snip] I would also point out that 666 is the devils number! [snip]

Yeah, okay. your argument lost all credibility at that point. Well actually it lost credibility when you said court costs more for men than women. Since filing fees are the same irrespective of gender, I can only assume you mean legal costs. And perhaps legal costs are less for women because they *earn less than men* and therefore have to *hire cheaper lawyers*.

I also love that you’ve drawn an inference as to my gender on the basis that I’ve expressed an opinion contrary to yours (and therefore can’t be a man). What if I’m just a dude who’s comfortable illustrating the many, many logical fallacies ascribed to by misogynists?

These days women earn less than men because they choose too. Many women choose not to work, have kids and live off the childsupport. Other women choose to do jobs where there less working hours. Yes men do earn more on average but that also includes men who work 18 hour days. Work in coal mines or out in the middle of nowhere away from their families.

Also if you hadn’t noticed 90% of shops in malls are designed for women. Most ads target women. Most things target women because women tend to spend most of the income even though they earn less than men.

I fail to see where i’ve drawn an inference to your gender. I dislike male misandrist’s as well as female misandrist’s.

greyswandir 8:23 pm 04 Jun 12

gooterz said :

[snip] I would also point out that 666 is the devils number! [snip]

Yeah, okay. your argument lost all credibility at that point. Well actually it lost credibility when you said court costs more for men than women. Since filing fees are the same irrespective of gender, I can only assume you mean legal costs. And perhaps legal costs are less for women because they *earn less than men* and therefore have to *hire cheaper lawyers*.

I also love that you’ve drawn an inference as to my gender on the basis that I’ve expressed an opinion contrary to yours (and therefore can’t be a man). What if I’m just a dude who’s comfortable illustrating the many, many logical fallacies ascribed to by misogynists?

HenryBG 7:42 pm 04 Jun 12

greyswandir said :

. But as I said, and as has been substantiated by study after study, women make up the vast majority of domestic violence victims.

Not true.

The vast majority of domestic violence victims are children.
And the majority of perpetrators are women.

Obviously this doesn’t suit feminist dogma, so the feminists tend to exclude children when they talk about “domestic violence”. Such caring people.

HenryBG 7:19 pm 04 Jun 12

pajs said :

As someone who did two years of volunteer work at a Community Legal Centre in south-west Sydney in the early 90s, I can say that offering friendly, supportive services (mostly staffed by women) made an enormous difference to a lot of people who would otherwise have stayed stuck in some apalling circumstances.

Yep.
And yet …… a majority of the homeless and a majority of the suicides in our society are men.

But it’s the women who need all the extra gender-specific help of course.

Welcome to feminism 101.

gooterz 7:04 pm 04 Jun 12

greyswandir said :

aceofspades said :

greyswandir said :

aceofspades said :

I take half custody of my children, something fathers have only had the right to do in recent times. Why should I pay?

And so we get to the truth of it.

“I am under the impression that I had a bad experience at the hands of the family law system and will therefore spit vitriol about any and all initiatives I see associated with it.”

Step off, buddy. Irrespective of what’s happened to you personally women are still far more likely to be the victims of domestic abuse (whether physical, emotional or otherwise) and having a community legal service dedicated to addressing their specific needs is worthwhile.

But lets not worry about any men that might be getting abused by women, as not only does that never ever happen but they are big enough and tough enough to look after themselves so they can just suck it up right?

*eyeroll* Your logic is very flawed. Not-A doesn’t necessarily imply B. Of course men can be subject to domestic violence, and those who are are absolutely entitled to the same level of assistance as female victims. But as I said, and as has been substantiated by study after study, women make up the vast majority of domestic violence victims.

Thats incorrect, for one pretty much no study ever included men until just recently, as everyone thought that men are big and ugly enough and nobody cares about any of them that are abused.

All recent evidence suggests that both men and women are equally responsible for domestic and physical violence. Women are far more likely to report it, even without anything happening due to the nice benefits. Men are far less likely to report it, and many studies by feminists treat men differently in terms of abuse, equating a hitting a man with a verbal taunt with a women.

Currently threatening to leave a relationship is domestic violence, but only if its a man thats threatening. If a mother threatens the father not to see the child again, thats not abuse at all.

Sexist government sexist laws

TheDancingDjinn 7:03 pm 04 Jun 12

chewy14 said :

greyswandir said :

aceofspades said :

I take half custody of my children, something fathers have only had the right to do in recent times. Why should I pay?

And so we get to the truth of it.

“I am under the impression that I had a bad experience at the hands of the family law system and will therefore spit vitriol about any and all initiatives I see associated with it.”

Step off, buddy. Irrespective of what’s happened to you personally women are still far more likely to be the victims of domestic abuse (whether physical, emotional or otherwise) and having a community legal service dedicated to addressing their specific needs is worthwhile.

Why is gender a determinant of need?

Surely we could just have a legal centre that helped people in need? I can’t understand why women need a specific service?

They have free legal advice here for men too – there is not just one for women
http://www.lonefathers.com.au/

Also this place is great for some women who really need it, i know a woman who’s husband took off overseas, took all the money paid nothing toward the kids. then tried to sue her for all of the house. He left her and the kids with nothing, she worked her ass off while battling colon cancer and still to this day he tries to make her pay, she just wants to be left alone but he wont stop – this place has helped her.

gooterz 6:56 pm 04 Jun 12

The abuse that some women are producing in this thread is just the same as they get in the relationship in the courtroom.
The government is still trying to fix up the 1950’s domestic housewife yet we are far moved on from that.

Women may be slightly more likely to suffer domestic abuse in the order of 5% more, men also suffer from domestic abuse too, although in different forms.
The abuse that they claim is massively overstated, (depending on your definition of domestic violence). The current version of domestic violence includes derogatory comments. I’m sure 99% of people would have experienced that, both being male and female.

Women instant get all the rights in the world to look after children where as men get practically none.
If a father wants to see his child then its upto him to pay and start the process. She will likely get legalaid or other services and get extra money because she has the child.
So it would seem like men need a legal service more than women from the very beginning.

Futher there is an enourmous rate of false accusations in the family legal system, and these predominantly come from women. And alas.. if a male is able to prove one of these deliberate accusations wrong, he wont see a cent of the money he spends fighting it. Will likely miss out on bonding time with his child, and this be at a huge disadvantage to the mother.

I would also point out that 666 is the devils number!

* Men have much fewer places of support.
* Men will likely suffer the most emotionally, not being able to see their children as much.
* Men will likely have to out earn and work harder than most women to get the same level due to all the extra benefits of being a lady.
* The court costs for men are far higher than women.

There is absolutely no reason that government funding should be allocated on gender. Its pure discrimination, if you argue that women get abused more etc. Then shouldnt it just be that the majority of the clients of a gender neutral body are then female.

You also then have the memoriam of understanding with the CRCC a purely feminist (sexist) organisation that only believes that men are the sources of all domestic violence.

How much money does the government give to the mens groups? last time i checked most of them you had to pay to use because they were so broke!

greyswandir 6:30 pm 04 Jun 12

aceofspades said :

greyswandir said :

aceofspades said :

I take half custody of my children, something fathers have only had the right to do in recent times. Why should I pay?

And so we get to the truth of it.

“I am under the impression that I had a bad experience at the hands of the family law system and will therefore spit vitriol about any and all initiatives I see associated with it.”

Step off, buddy. Irrespective of what’s happened to you personally women are still far more likely to be the victims of domestic abuse (whether physical, emotional or otherwise) and having a community legal service dedicated to addressing their specific needs is worthwhile.

But lets not worry about any men that might be getting abused by women, as not only does that never ever happen but they are big enough and tough enough to look after themselves so they can just suck it up right?

*eyeroll* Your logic is very flawed. Not-A doesn’t necessarily imply B. Of course men can be subject to domestic violence, and those who are are absolutely entitled to the same level of assistance as female victims. But as I said, and as has been substantiated by study after study, women make up the vast majority of domestic violence victims.

As pajs pointed out (less sarcastically than me, thank you pajs), centres like these are established because studies conclusively show women have difficulties accessing the justice system compared to men. Your experience is not indicative of the way the system works. Your experience is not even indicative of a trend. Mounting the argument that every woman who has ever been in receipt of assistance from a women’s legal centre/won sole custody of her children/receives child support benefits from her ex-partner is a lazy, welfare-sponging alcoholic is laughable, ignorant, and dangerous.

Anecdotal instances to the contrary are not evidence in the face of overwhelming historical and social trends. Please educate yourself before spewing hateful, incorrect opinions in public.

dundle 5:45 pm 04 Jun 12

aceofspades said :

Not only do I pay more than half, I go to work and I pay off a huge mortgage so my children not only have a stable home environment but also may one day have something to inherit. Their mother did not go to work and was handed a government house that she has now moved her boyfriend and whenever appropriate his kids into. None of this really bothers me except that CSA expect me to pay her also because I earn more. Why is it that only mothers need legal assistance and the more hopeless and lazy a mother is the more assistance she gets. Shouldn’t we be helping those that at least look like they are trying to help themselves?

I’m sure you know that looking after the kids half the time doesn’t automatically mean you don’t have to pay. The idea of the complicated formula is so the kids don’t have to go from one really well-off house one week to nearly starving the next week. It’s to try and keep their life consistent. It’s got nothing to do with gender. I’m sorry it is not working out well for you. It is designed to be fair but obviously that can’t happen to everyone. However, due to your hyperbolic comments on an unrelated thread it’s hard to really comment on your situation anyway.

dundle 5:43 pm 04 Jun 12

aceofspades said :

Well that is only fair. The only work the mothers have to do is line up at Centrelink and DHCS to get paid and housed. May as well do the same for the fathers. Hang on, if the fathers are all in detention, whos wallets will the mothers target after they have finished putting their Centerlink money through the pokies?

Dude your issues are epic! Please get help

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site