WA - Prostitution

The WA Liberal government is planning to legalise brothels in Western Australia.
If you live in WA, it is urgent that you contact your MP to ask them to vote AGAINST this proposed legislation.

The Bill had its' Second Reading on Nov 3, and a vote was expected in the week beginning 7 November, 2011.
This didn't happen. The last sitting day for 2011 was on 1 December - the Bill was scheduled for debate for 1 hour - but no vote was taken. See Update below.

PLEASE KEEP contacting your MPs over the summer break - the Bill will 're-appear' in February 2012.

If the legislation is passed, the brothels will be legal in 'non-residential' areas and prostitutes (or 'sex workers') will have to register.

Read the text of the Prostitution Bill 2011 - click here.

We oppose the Bill, since prostitution exploits both the prostitute and the user - it exploits men and women and demeans society, relationships and marriage.

ACTION:

If you live in WA, please act NOW - contact your MP - ask them to vote against the Prostitution Bill.

Click here for MP contact details.

UPDATE: 15 November - The WA Parliament didn't debate the Bill in the week of 7 Nov.
It was eventually scheduled for debate for 1 hour on 1 December 2011 - the last sitting day for the year.
It was considered by our colleagues in WA that the government may have chosen not to have the Bill debated this year and to out it off until 2012. This could be influenced by the fact that many MPs are asking questions and are 'undecided' about the Bill.
If you live in WA, please keep contacting your MPs - and ask them to oppose this Bill.

________________________________________________________

Government proposes amendments
The government has offered a couple of amendments - in order to get more support for the Bill.

One is to establish a fund to help people leave prostitution if they want to, and also to only require those working on their own to register as 'sex workers' (not those working in brothels). (Source - also information on the progress of the Bill here)
These are totally inadequate.
Prostitution and brothels should not be legalised at all - they exploit both women and men.

Legalising prostitution does not control it
In Victoria, there were about 50 illegal brothels prior to legalisation in 1994 - a few years back when we did the comparison, there were about 100 legal ones, and somewhere between 100 and 400 illegal ones (it depends who is doing the counting)! There were also 1,500 registered 'sex workers'.
Read our article - click here.

There is still crime and corruption in prostitution in Victoria - one of the claims was that this would be 'cleaned up' if prostitution was legalised. There have been criminal charges of underage girls in brothels and an increase in street prostitution as well.
Recently an ABC Four Corners report said that there was 'sex slavery' occurring in brothels in Melbourne and Sydney.

MPs opposing prostitution
Two Liberal MPs in the Legislative Assembly have said they will oppose the Bill - Congratulations to Peter Abetz and Graham Jacobs. We need more MPs to oppose it!

Vic - Review of Charter of Rights by SARC

Victoria's new Coalition government has ordered a parliamentary inquiry into the controversial Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, which was passed by the Labor-controlled parliament in 2006. The Coalition parties opposed the introduction of the Charter of Rights.

UPDATE - The date for submissions to the Inquiry has been EXTENDED to July 1, 2011.

What's wrong with the Charter?

Soon after the Liberal/National Coalition won the election in November 2010, Attorney-General Robert Clark said the Charter was "riddled with flaws" and promised to make changes.

Of course, we would like to see the Charter totally abolished, since it really undermines the law and doesn't add extra protection for citizens. The Sunday Herald Sun editorial pointed out (24/4/2011) that "the Charter has been hijacked by criminals". They noted that "Killers, drug dealers, pedophiles and terrorists have all attempted to use it in long-running legal fights". It is also being used by various activists to promote their causes.

This Inquiry is the first step in rectifying the problems in the Charter. The Charter legislation requires the parliament to review the Charter and its operation after four years. However, we can also give our views on the Charter itself, and express our concerns about having ANY such Charter.

The Inquiry

The Inquiry will be conducted by the Victorian parliament's Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee.
The Committee is asking for submissions - they close on Friday June 10, 2011.

The majority of members on the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee are from the Liberal/National Coalition government.

The terms of reference ask the Committee to inquire into the first four years of operation of the Charter.

The Committee is asked to inquire into "2. the effects of the Charter on

(a) the development and drafting of statutory provisions,

(b) the consideration of statutory provisions by Parliament,

(c) the provision of services, and the performance of other functions, by public authorities,

(d) litigation and the roles and functioning of courts and tribunals and

(e) the availability to Victorians of accessible, just and timely remedies for infringements of rights.

The Committee also has to consider matters referred to in Section 44 (2) of the Charter:

o whether additional rights should be included in the Charter, including economic, social, cultural, children's, women's and self-determination rights.

o whether further provisions should be made regarding public authorities' compliance.

The Committee will investigate the "overall benefits and costs of the charter Act" and "options for reform or improvement of the regime for protecting and upholding rights and responsibilities in Victoria".

Terms of Reference - click here.

Call for Submissions by SARC: click here.

ACTION:

Please make a submission!

ALL the pro-Charter groups will be making submissions, saying the Charter is 'wonderful' and that they want 'additional rights' covered.

It is VITAL that we have our say, opposing the Charter!

Submissions can be posted or sent by email to
Mr Edward O'Donohue,
Chairperson, Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, Parliament House, Spring Street, EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002.
Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

South Australia - euthanasia and 'medical defence'

Labor MP Steph Key pushed through the second reading of her bill [Criminal Law Consolidation (Medical Defences-End of Life Arrangements) Amendment Bill 2011] which is aimed at providing 'medical defences' to doctors who might be accused of ending a patient's life prematurely by giving medication.

The Bill was debated ONE sitting day after the Bill was put into Parliament and was passed "on the voices". Ros Phillips of FamilyVoice reported that, on 7 April 2011, when the Bill came to be considered in the 'Committee stage', Steph Key asked for debate to be adjourned until Thursday 5 May, 2011.

The media coverage the day before highlighted the concerns many people have about the flawed Bill. A number of prominent Adelaide doctors have opposed the Bill.

The Bill has since come back into the SA House of Assembly for further debate.

The Bill was put again and passed 'on the voices' at the 'Second reading' stage, without a vote, around the beginning of August.

The Bill will return for the Committee stage, where each part is debated and amendments are put, at the end of September, 2011.

A third reading vote will then be taken.

ACTION 

Please pray that the Bill is defeated.

If you live in South Australia, please contact your MPs (1 in House of Assembly and ALL in the Legislative Council).

Ask them to oppose this Bill.

Click here for SA MP details.  

Click here for more information on opposing the legalisation of euthanasia.

---

Background...  

The current situation regarding 'euthanasia' in SA...
Several euthanasia bill have been put into the SA parliament over the past few years but none have passed.

The current Bill is aimed at getting support on a seemingly 'lesser matter' of people dying from medication given and giving doctors some form of legal 'defence.

An article in The Advertiser in March 2011 was about the Health Minister, John Hill, saying how palliative care assisted his sister in her last week of life when she was dying from cancer...

BUT Palliative Care is NOT euthanasia.  

The current Bill, on a 'medical defence', is being promoted by people who support full euthanasia - it is the 'thin end of the wedge'!

This statement from the article reveals all... "Labor MP Steph Key, author of the proposed laws, said this proposal was receiving more support than similar previous proposals."  

'Previous proposals' were actually about euthanasia - by describing this new Bill as 'similar' we see the real intention of the proposed law - to introduce a law that leads toward the legalisation of euthanasia.

A Poll was run along with the article: it had the question: "Should euthanasia be legalised?"
At April 27, 2011 the vote was 49.6% 'Yes' and 48.5% 'No'.
Please click here and vote 'NO'!
The Poll is about half way down the article on the left side...
Send this to all your friends and ask them to vote 'NO' as well!

In February 2011, an article about the proposed Bill carried a Poll with the SAME question:
The result in that Poll (still open to vote) is 75% saying 'NO'.

It shows how important it is for us to vote - as well as the influence that a 'soft story' has on the vote (see details below). Although these polls are not 'scientific' they are often taken as being indicative of public sentiment on an issue...

ACT - Transgender Inquiry

The ACT government has asked the ACT Law Reform Advisory Council to conduct an Inquiry into "the legal recognition of transgender and intersex members of the ACT community".

Attorney-General Simon Corbell "asked the Council for detailed advice on whether any changes to the Territory's current law are needed to ensure the protection of human rights".

Of course, that means they're looking to see if they have missed giving them some rights. Their obvious intention is to change the law if they think all 'rights' have not been given to them.

We must remember that there is a huge difference between intersex conditions, where people are born with a physical condition that has led to some ambiguity of knowing whether the person was male and female, and transgenderism, where the person thinks they should be the opposite gender.

ACT transgender rights group Gender Agenda say they want the Inquiry to consider a wide range of issues: "recognising changes of sex, but also broader issues relating to discrimination protection and protection on the basis of gender expression rather than gender identity."

Read the Attorney-General's Media release - click here.

Visit the Law Reform Commission's Inquiry page - click here.

Read the Terms of Reference for the Inquiry - click here.

Now we know - this Inquiry is all about 'rights'!

Yes, the Attorney-General is also looking into these 'broader issues'...

The Attorney General has also asked the Law Reform Commission to "broadly inquire into the scope and operation of the Territory's primary anti-discrimination legislation, the Discrimination Act 1991." This will be conducted as a separate Inquiry.

Multiculturalism - federal Inquiry

The Federal Parliament's Migration Committee (Joint Committee of both Houses) has launched an inquiry into multiculturalism in Australia.

The Chair of the Committee, Maria Vamvakinou MP, has called for people to make submissions but submissions close on April 8.

We encourage you to write a short letter/submission - some comments are made below to help with framing your response.

Her Media Release states that she "welcomes the inquiry and the opportunity to hear directly from migrant communities."

This may suggest she does not want to hear from you, but we think she ought to, because she should want to hear from all those who do not consider themselves 'migrants' but think of themselves as "Australians"?

ACTION -
Please make a submission. Read on for more information, contact details etc.

The principle of 'multiculturalism' was introduced by the Whitlam government in 1973. It was continued by Malcolm Fraser and endorsed by Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. The Howard government eventually dropped the term 'multiculturalism' from the Dept of Immigration name in 2007.
The word 'multiculturalism' was reinstated by Kevin Rudd as part of a parliamentary secretary role - then dumped by Julia Gillard in September 2010 - then re-instated by her in February 2011 following criticism and complaints from ethnic groups!

The current Labor government has strongly defended 'multiculturalism' this year, following recent criticism of multiculturalism by European governments. This has clearly prompted this Inquiry - and so it gives those opposed to 'multiculturalism' an opportunity to show we are not racists, that we are happy for people to come to Australia, as long as they want to fit into, and not change, our culture to suit the very culture they have moved away from.

For details on sending your letter/submission - and the Inquiry homepage - see ACTION section below!

COMMENTS for submissions...

Maria Vamvakinou states, "It is timely to consider whether a new policy on multiculturalism is needed, and how to ensure the Government's social inclusion agenda also meets the needs of migrant communities.

We could ask what is meant by, "the Government's social inclusion agenda"?

Is this different to assimilation?

Does this suggest that this inquiry is more about 'accommodating the needs of migrants', rather than requiring migrants to actually assimilate into our existing Australian 'culture'? 

There is a great deal of difference between 'immigration' and 'multiculturalism'.
A country can welcome people from across the world and invite them to become Australians and while some of their ways will certainly permeate society, we want our culture to stay basically Australian, underpinned by our Christian heritage.

We must point out the importance of Australia remaining based on, and underpinned by, the Christian values this nation was founded on.  Multiculturalism invites people to bring their 'culture' / 'worldview'  with them, suggests all cultures are equal, and that people never really need to become 'Australians'.  

Yes, of course we can invite people to share the good parts of their particular ethnic culture with us so that we can learn how others live, but that does not mean we have to agree with their values or share their worldview. If they want to change this nation to suit their values then that crosses the line and becomes unacceptable. That is not racist - it is a fact that all cultures are not equal as all nations' laws and values are not equally good.

There is a lot of talk from our media at the moment about the "battle for democracy" in the Middle East, but we need to ask "what do the people on the ground in the Middle East, as opposed to the Western media, really mean by democracy"?
We have little doubt that their idea of 'democracy' is very different to the type of democracy we are supposed to have in Australia. Many of them see Islamic Sharia Law as 'democracy' - yet Muslim Imams have stated that western democracy is an offence to Islam. That said, we could well ask 'what do Australians mean by democracy?' but that is another issue altogether   Many people thought 'Multiculturalism' originally meant that we accept people from other countries because they want to come here and 'be Australian'. Sadly, that perception has been changed. Multiculturalism today is generally accepted, especially by the so-called 'left' of politics, as meaning that all cultures are equal and we should adjust to accommodate all cultures and all values which ultimately means losing the Australian 'identity' and blending it into... Into what?  That is the problem, what does it become?  

Evidence from Europe is now so clear that we should all know what the results of today's multiculturalism really are.   Multiculturalism has also led to 'multi-faithism' where all religions are promoted as good and equally valid.  

Evidence from NSW in the last few days gives us a stark picture of what 'Multiculturalism' means. 

The NSW Council of Imams reported that it had held meetings with the ALP Premier Kristina Keneally and the Coalition Leader Barry O'Farrell prior to the Election. 
The Council Secretary, Sheik Tarek El-Bikai, said "The Hon. O'Farrell has made it clear that his party would not support any legislation that was "anti-Islam. He also firmly maintained his strong support of multiculturalism and social justice for all. The Council of Imams were pleased with the Liberal Party leaders' commitments on these matters which are of great importance to the Muslim community"   The NSW State Election also saw an increase in the number of Muslim candidates nominated by the Liberal Party and the ALP as well as Independent Muslim candidates.

Clearly, the more Muslim MPs there are the more likely it is that they will support the modern idea of 'Multiculturalism' and the Islamic idea that the whole world needs to be Islamic and live under Islamic Sharia law. The reason many people come here is because Australia is based on Christian values. The freedom we have comes from believing that ALL people are equal but that all cultures and lifestyles are not. 

Action

Please write a short letter stating some of the points above or any others you believe are important to keep Australia a Christian Nation. Please be positive rather than negative. Suggest there is no better nation in the world to live today and that you want it to stay that way!!!!

If you have migrated to Australia please share your positive reasons for doing so.   

Information about the Inquiry - click here  

Send submission by email: to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Please Remember - submissions close on 8 April!

Marriage under threat

The preservation of marriage as being between a man and a woman could well be the biggest issue we face during 2011.

MPs seeking 'views' of constituents

Late in 2010, the Greens MP in the House of Representatives, Adam Bandt, put forward a bill supporting same-sex 'marriage'. The Labor government amended it to essentially get all MPs to ASK their constituents what they thought of same-sex 'marriage'.

The homosexuals have been actively encouraging their people to contact their MPs.

We need to tell them our views!

With Parliament starting on 8 Feb, now is the time to contact your federal MPs.
For more details and links, see the ACTION section.  

Sen Barnett's petition

Liberal Senator Guy Barnett (Tas) has launched a petition calling on the Senate to support the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Click here for the petition document - and here for Sen Barnett's media release.
PLEASE print out multiple copies, get your friends and church to sign it - and post the petition sheets to Sen Barnett.

---

Action

We MUST contact our MP in the House of Representatives, our 12 Senators, as well as the MPs listed below.

Please POLITELY ask them all to oppose same-sex 'marriage' and endorse marriage as only between a man and a woman.
You can write to them - even better, visit them yourself or with a small group of friends or people from your church!

All details on our Federal MPs/Parliament page - click here.

Or use these direct links:
1. MP in House of Representatives - click here for names/details.
Click here to find your electorate/MP.

2. Senators - click here for names/details. [12 in states, 2 in ACT and NT]  

Then contact  ...

3. Prime Minister Julia Gillard - click here to send message online.

4. Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott - This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

5. Independents:
Bob Katter - This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Tony Windsor - This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Rob Oakeshott - contact form - click here.  
Independent Senator - Sen Nick Xenophon (SA) - This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it