New mobile phones are all about extended user functionality and social integration. The social media craze that has taken over the internet has also had quite a drastic effect on mobile technology, and connecting with others has become one of the basic tenants of new mobile phones. One of the most exciting forms of new mobile technology is the ability to video chat with contacts. Apple’s fourth generation iPhone is the first to explore this new capability, which will likely find it’s way to all competing phones within a short period of time.

Of course, smart phones have changed the way we use the internet and check email, and these features will definitely be improved upon with new mobile phones. Phone companies and service providers are constantly looking for new methods to increase both speed and overall performance of internet and email, and with the increasing popularity of tablets, browsing the web in the palm of one’s hands is becoming the preferred method. Users should expect internet and email capabilities to only improve in performance as new mobiles phones hit the market, to the point where integration is completely seamless.

Unfortunately, our world is full of accident possibilities around every corner. According to a statistical report commissioned by the Government of South Australia, in 2008 there were almost 9000 people injured and 99 people killed as a result of motor vehicle accidents in South Australia alone. Those numbers can’t be ignored. What about other unforeseen accidents like falling off the roof whilst fixing the tiles, falling down the stairs or being injured at work? Human beings are mortal and therefore subject to injury and death and that can change lives very quickly for the worse. Besides death, injuries that can occur as a result of accidents are: quadriplegia, paraplegia, hemiplegic, blindness, deafness or even a loss of limb or limbs. 

A good accident insurance policy or accidental death insurance policy will financially cover those accidents that you can’t predict and aren’t prepared for. It will cover serious injuries from accidents such as quadriplegia or loss of limbs. For as little as $3 a week, you can get coverage for yourself and your spouse or partner if you are between the ages of 18 and 69 and an Australian resident. Just think of the relief you will feel when you receive $50,000, $100,000 or even $500,000 after an accident, depending on the coverage amount you select.

There are several risks to be aware of when purchasing accident insurance and serious injury cover which include:
1) Not choosing the right insurance product or not selecting the right level of coverage, which might cause you or your loved ones to suffer further financially even though you tried to do the right thing.
2) Not understanding the terms and conditions of a new policy when replacing an existing policy and as a result not having the level of cover you need.
3) Cancelling your policy 30 days after purchasing it and not getting a refund unless you paid over 30 days in advance.

These risks can be reduced if you research insurance products thoroughly before buying and properly assess your coverage needs in advance.

Family Insurance Coverage is one way for you to make sure that your entire family will have full coverage, where younger drivers would not be able to afford it otherwise. With Family Car Insurance it is best to list all drivers in the household on all vehicles in the family so that all members of the family will be fully insured. Most insurance companies will offer some multiple discounts to people that are insuring more than one car on a policy lowering the rate.

There is a variety of different discounts available to those taking advantage of family care insurance, some being; good drivers, good students drivers, and for people of certain ages.

Inquire with your current insurance company as to whether they offer family package policies or not. If you current car insurance company does not, you can search the internet to look for a company that offers Family Car Insurance.

The ABOLISH CHILD SUPPORT/FAMILY COURT PARTY was registered federally on 25 July 1997 and will give Australians a CHOICE AND A VOICE at the next Federal elections as to the future direction of Australia and Australian families.

In 1995, 65 year old Peter Johnson submitted into Federal Parliament 247,000 petitions (collected over 3 years) calling for the Family Court and the Child Support Agency to be abolished. THESE WERE IGNORED!

This Party is dedicated to all those children, parents and others who are suffering and have suffered legalised abuse at the hands of:
the Family Court, the Child Support Agency/Scheme, State Human Services/Community Services the Children’s Court and other associated professions and organisations.

Approximately one million divorces have occurred since the Family Law Act was passed in 1975, with 1 in 2 marriages currently ending in divorce.

420,000 non-custodial parents currently pay child support through the Child Support Agency and this figure is predicted to rise to 600,000 by the year 2000.

Approximately 1,500,000 children have lost a parent through divorce since 1975.

“In Australia vast areas of the bureaucracy and the law are now dependent for their survival on the continuation of the trend towards family breakdown” – NEWS WEEKLY, AUGUST 9,1997 P4

FORM YOUR OWN OPINION

FAMILY COURT JUDGES are selected from the legal profession. A Herald Sun phone-in poll indicated that prostitutes have more respect in our society than do the legal profession.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES – Mrs WEST MP “Over a period of many years, a vast array of support networks associated with family breakdown have grown up–a growth akin to an industry, but an industry feeding off the emotional hardship and trauma of vulnerable, distraught individuals unaccustomed to the experiences about to beset them as they enter the labyrinth of the Family Court and Child Support Agency. GRIEVANCE DEBATE Hansard for 10th February 1997

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES – Mr ROCHER MP (Curtin) “Non-custodial parents often regard their children as having been stolen from them by Family Court sanctioned judgements and rulings. It is open to wonder if in adulthood some of those children might come to believe that they were indeed stolen from one of their parents by government edict. They might even think they are entitled to compensation.”. Hansard, Monday 16 June 1997 P5199

Peter Duncan, parliamentary secretary to the Attorney-General in the Keating Government: “…there is nothing explicit in the 1975 Family Law Act indicating a preference for sole custody over joint custody. It has been an interpretation by the Family Court that has led to extraordinary overempowerment of the custodial parent – often to the exclusion of the non-custodial parent from the child’s life, with hurt, frustration, anger and sometimes violence as a consequence.” JUDGES IN THE DOCK, THE AGE Thursday 17 October 1996

“FAMILY COURT RESEARCH shows that, within a few years of the divorce, less than a quarter of non-custodial parents have regular contact with their children, and more than half have contact only twice a year or not at all. Justice Walshe (ex Family Court Judge) explained the ‘freedom to move’ has long been part of the powerful package bestowed on the custodial parents. “The right of the custodial parent to establish a new life has been regarded as all important” he says. The Age Saturday 12 October 1996 p.A17
“TAXATION ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY) Richard Bear says ‘the Child Support System is very fair’. Herald Sun, Wednesday January 22 1997 P.19

“JUDGE SUSAN MORGAN, of the Family Court, said equality was not always equity when it came to settling a divorce.” THE AGE Tuesday 15 October 1996 A2

“THE COURT HAS NOT HESITATED TO PUNISH MEN for non-payment of maintenance orders or absconding with their children – in the past men have been imprisoned for such offences. But when it comes to taking sanctions against custodial parents who deny access to their children, judges have traditionally gone to water.” The Age Tuesday 15 October 1996

JUSTICE WARNS AGAINST ACCESS RIGHTS EXPECTATIONS Alastair Nicholson (Chief Judge of the Family Court), “Neither children nor their parents should expect access visits to be granted by the Family Court as a given right. Children are not the property of their parents – we have moved beyond such an attitude and I hope we never shift back again.” Herald Sun, Friday September 8 1995 P.9
THE CHANGE “Former Court Chief Judge Elizabeth Evatt said, “The Family Court is a remote and expensive organization…. So, this expensive resource can’t be used by the average person because they can’t afford to pay the money. What is the use of that?”. THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH, October 1, 1995 – p135

NEW WIVES ALSO LOSE: “…there is another group of “losers” in family break-ups – the new wives of the non-custodial parents. She struggles to maintain the budget while her spouse keeps up his payments to his ex-wife. Until there is a fairer system of deciding maintenance payments there will always be resentment from ex-partners trying to establish a new family life with no funds to do it. – Step Mum, Mildura”. Herald Sun, Tuesday, June 8, 1993 p16

HUMAN FRAILTY ‘FAULTS THEORY’: “Family Court specialist and a past family law division chairman of the Law Institute, Mr Paul Staindl, told the Herald-Sun: “The no-fault concept is admirable, however, our system isn’t a no-fault one. When it comes to property and custody there is just as much fault in there as always. Custody is primarily determined upon what is in the best interests of the child. Who the children should be living with is determined on the moral standing and the fibre of the parent. That obviously goes to how they have behaved during the marriage. That doesn’t mean because you are the person who had the affair that broke up the marriage, you are automatically excluded as a custodial parent. Where are the children best going to be served? What are the attitudes to law and order, the social expectations, education and religion?” Herald-Sun Saturday 13 March 1993 (1st edition) p.24
MAX BURR, former MP for Lyons 1992, “We need a procedure that allows a marriage to be dissolved with dignity, fairness and equity and that takes proper account of the emotional and physical needs of all parties, which particularly includes the children. I do not believe the Family Court fulfils such a role.”

ACT QUICKLY TO ENFORCE ACCESS “Professor Chesterman’s report, urging the Family Court to enforce access orders ….” THE AGE’, 23 July 1987 JUDGE HALL SLAMS FAMILY COURT: “Sir Edward Williams, former Supreme Court Judge, said that if he had his way, he would tear up the Family Law Act which, he said, helped break up families, putting more young people onto the path that led to drug addiction”. Daily Sun BRISBANE Saturday 3 May 1986

Written and authorised by Justice ABOLISH CHILD SUPPORT AND FAMILY COURT B.Eng.(Civ), Dip Ed

Federal secretary

ALASTAIR NICHOLSON (Chief Judge of the Family Court), “Alastair Nicholson branded his crits dysfunctional malcontents, claiming they most belonged to fathers groups unhappy with access and custody decisions. Herald Sun, Thursday, September 21 1995 (Melbourne).

HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION,

“Advocacy for children – Taking account of the child’s wishes in applying the ‘best interest’ principle 3.15 The credibility and weight given to children’s wishes is a matter for the court and will vary from case to case. A legal representative acting on instructions from an adult client must generally follow those instructions even where it appears to be against the client’s interests. A lawyer’s assessment…. of the merits of his client’s case are irrelevant and it is left to the judge to make a decision upon the cases presented to him’. In many cases involving children, however, the representative for a child may discount, editorialise or reject his or her client’s wishes and argue the case in accordance with his or her own views of the child’s best interest. “Speaking for ourselves – children and the legal process ISSUES PAPER 18 MARCH 1996.

ALASTAIR NICHOLSON (Chief Judge of the Family Court), “children are not the property of their parents – we have moved beyond such an attitude and I hope we never shift back again”. CHILDREN ARE NOT THE PROPERTY OF THE STATE, Herald Sun, September 8 1996 (Melbourne).

ALASTAIR NICHOLSON (Chief Judge of the Family Court), “We’ve emphasised time and time again there is on preference to the mother in our decisions”. NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS: males 91.6%, females 8.4% Herald Sun, Wednesday, January 22 1997 P.19 (Melbourne).

Nevil ABOLISH CHILD SUPPORT AND FAMILY COURT (Secretary) B Eng(Civil), Dip Ed

If one parent forfeits time with the children, that parent will be liable to pay pro-rata maintenance to the other parent. The amount of maintenance should be a flat rate, calculated on the actual living expenses of the child(ren) rather than a percentage of the liable parent’s gross income which financially prevents some people from being able to form another family. At present, the Child Support Act discriminates against families which are not first families. Article 16(1) of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides: “Women and men of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.” Article 16(3) of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides: “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”

Abolish the Family Court and replace it with a competent Divorce Tribunal where discretion of the arbitrators is limited and legal representation is prohibited (unless in exceptional circumstances). Article 7 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides: ” All are equal before the law and are entitled without discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Orders of the Divorce Tribunal to be strictly enforced by that Tribunal and the State and Federal Police. Article 8 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides: “Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunal for acts violating the fundamental rights granted her/him by the constitution or by law.

50/50 division of assets acquired during the marriage/relationship (assets owned prior to the marriage, inheritances, superannuation and compensation to be exempt from any property settlement). Article 16(1) of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights also provides: “They (women and men) are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.” Article 17(2) of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides: “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of her/his property.”

Intervention and restraining orders are not to be issued without just cause whereas at present they are liberally issued. Article 11 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides: “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which she/he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.”

The establishment of a Compensation Tribunal to enable retrospective claims, by children and non-custodial parents, against the Family Court, divorce practitioners and others involved in perpetuating the current practice of sole custody/residence which amounts to legalised child-stealing and kidnapping. Article 5 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”