Why the marriage debate is just the beginning
Win or lose the marriage debate (and I think we are in with a real chance of winning), the need for continued and bold Christian witness in the public policy discourse will not go away.
That is why ACL has assembled a world-class line-up of speakers for our national conference and it is why we have called it Embolden.
Read moreMeet the real heroes of the marriage campaign
I flew in to Adelaide yesterday for marriage speaking engagements and, importantly, for tonight’s South Australian launch of the Coalition for Marriage.
Read moreChildren are never too young to learn about rainbow sex
With preparations for the plebiscite on marriage shelved until well after the July 2 election, the Turnbull Government clearly wants voters to focus on the jobs and growth narrative outlined in this week's budget.
But one of the big consequences of any possible change in the definition of marriage – homosexual sex education in schools – is already proving a major distraction from the government's election agenda.
Hardly a week goes by without revelations of a new program designed to teach children that their gender is fluid or that they might be same-sex attracted.
It seems that children are never too young to be inducted into the bright new world of rainbow sexual concepts.
An avalanche of homosexual and transgender material is flooding into the curriculum from high school to pre-school – all without parents' knowledge.
This rainbow sexual indoctrination is even starting before pre-school. Day care centre workers are being taught to see the toddlers in their care as sexual beings.
A new manual produced by Early Childhood Australia (ECA) for early childhood educators mentions masturbation 21 times in 36 pages.
ECA's "start early" program resource also examines cross-dressing, thanks to funding from the Baird Government in New South Wales.
Encouraging child care workers to see toddlers as sexual beings is creepy.
And in Victoria, a Melbourne University academic, Kylie Smith, wants pre-schoolers taught about gay marriage and the idea that their gender is fluid, not biological.
These controversial ideas which are contested by leading feminists and paediatricians are all being implemented with state and federal government funding.
The Safe Schools Coalition of Australia resource, The Gender Fairy story book, tells four-year-olds that "…only you know whether you are a boy or a girl. No one can tell you." Not your teacher and certainly not your mummy or daddy.
Junior high brings more teaching on masturbation and the introduction of anal sex to the classroom through the Victorian Government's Building Respectful Relationships program.
Guides for sexualising role-playing exercises advise teachers on how to "de-role" children to help them avoid falling into "a state of distress or disassociation" which the program author obviously considered a real risk.
The Safe Schools Hub, a website funded by the Commonwealth Department of Education and Training, now hosts controversial Safe School Coalition resources.
These resources tell schools to allow boys identifying as girls to use the girls' toilets and provide schools with step by step guides on "Supporting a Student to Affirm or Transition Gender Identity at School."
Imagine an 18-year-old man identifying as a girl using the same toilets, showers and change rooms as your 13-year-old daughter. This scenario is now envisaged via a Turnbull Government-funded website.
Special facilities for transgender students are okay, the Safe Schools hub says, but they should never stop a student from using the toilet facility of their "gender identity" as this would be demeaning.
The Safe Schools hub also encourages schools to celebrate the International Day Against Homophobia.
There is no international day against bullying over body image – the most rampant form of bullying in schools by a long way.
The Safe Schools Coalition is far from "gutted", as many thought it was after the review of it by University of Western Australia Emeritus Professor Bill Louden.
The Andrews Government in Victoria has point blank refused to abide by the recommendations of the Louden review to prune Safe Schools.
The pre-Louden version of Safe Schools will be compulsory in Victorian public high schools by 2018.
Premier Andrews labels anyone who questions his rainbow programs as "bigots".
In Queensland the Palaszczuk Government has refused a Right to Information request from ACL to release the secret list of schools running the Safe Schools program.
Federal Education Minister Simon Birmingham's insistence that Safe Schools be transparent for parents is being ignored, making him look weak in the face of rainbow activists.
Never mind that research shows that up to 80 per cent of girls and 90 per cent of boys struggling with gender identity issues will be entirely comfortable with their biological gender by the time they get through puberty.
Never mind that 10 years after a sex change operation, a person is 20 times more likely to commit suicide than the non-transgendered population.
Never mind that hospitals like John Hopkins in the United States now no longer perform gender reassignment surgery because it was found not to be helpful.
None of this information features in the resources.
Bigot, homophobe and hater are the bullying words deployed against anyone asking questions. They protect these programs making politicians and the community too scared to challenge them.
Queensland-style secrecy is the other enabler.
Any government program that relies on slurs and secrecy for its currency, should sound warning bells and pique journalists' curiosity.
Now a coalition of rainbow groups is calling on Australia's corporate sector to sign a letter of endorsement of Safe Schools.
The leader of one of these groups, Rodney Chiang-Cruise, took to social media after Mr Turnbull ordered the review of Safe Schools to label the Prime Minister a "C…t".
Apart from aligning their brands with dubious company, does corporate Australia really want to declare war on the biological gender of Australia's children?
Rainbow politics is taking captains of industry and politicians down a very strange path.
Most Australians would prefer to let boys be boys and girls be girls and get on with arguing about the economy.
Originally published in Online Opinion
But one of the big consequences of any possible change in the definition of marriage – homosexual sex education in schools – is already proving a major distraction from the government's election agenda.
Hardly a week goes by without revelations of a new program designed to teach children that their gender is fluid or that they might be same-sex attracted.
It seems that children are never too young to be inducted into the bright new world of rainbow sexual concepts.
An avalanche of homosexual and transgender material is flooding into the curriculum from high school to pre-school – all without parents' knowledge.
This rainbow sexual indoctrination is even starting before pre-school. Day care centre workers are being taught to see the toddlers in their care as sexual beings.
A new manual produced by Early Childhood Australia (ECA) for early childhood educators mentions masturbation 21 times in 36 pages.
ECA's "start early" program resource also examines cross-dressing, thanks to funding from the Baird Government in New South Wales.
Encouraging child care workers to see toddlers as sexual beings is creepy.
And in Victoria, a Melbourne University academic, Kylie Smith, wants pre-schoolers taught about gay marriage and the idea that their gender is fluid, not biological.
These controversial ideas which are contested by leading feminists and paediatricians are all being implemented with state and federal government funding.
The Safe Schools Coalition of Australia resource, The Gender Fairy story book, tells four-year-olds that "…only you know whether you are a boy or a girl. No one can tell you." Not your teacher and certainly not your mummy or daddy.
Junior high brings more teaching on masturbation and the introduction of anal sex to the classroom through the Victorian Government's Building Respectful Relationships program.
Guides for sexualising role-playing exercises advise teachers on how to "de-role" children to help them avoid falling into "a state of distress or disassociation" which the program author obviously considered a real risk.
The Safe Schools Hub, a website funded by the Commonwealth Department of Education and Training, now hosts controversial Safe School Coalition resources.
These resources tell schools to allow boys identifying as girls to use the girls' toilets and provide schools with step by step guides on "Supporting a Student to Affirm or Transition Gender Identity at School."
Imagine an 18-year-old man identifying as a girl using the same toilets, showers and change rooms as your 13-year-old daughter. This scenario is now envisaged via a Turnbull Government-funded website.
Special facilities for transgender students are okay, the Safe Schools hub says, but they should never stop a student from using the toilet facility of their "gender identity" as this would be demeaning.
The Safe Schools hub also encourages schools to celebrate the International Day Against Homophobia.
There is no international day against bullying over body image – the most rampant form of bullying in schools by a long way.
The Safe Schools Coalition is far from "gutted", as many thought it was after the review of it by University of Western Australia Emeritus Professor Bill Louden.
The Andrews Government in Victoria has point blank refused to abide by the recommendations of the Louden review to prune Safe Schools.
The pre-Louden version of Safe Schools will be compulsory in Victorian public high schools by 2018.
Premier Andrews labels anyone who questions his rainbow programs as "bigots".
In Queensland the Palaszczuk Government has refused a Right to Information request from ACL to release the secret list of schools running the Safe Schools program.
Federal Education Minister Simon Birmingham's insistence that Safe Schools be transparent for parents is being ignored, making him look weak in the face of rainbow activists.
Never mind that research shows that up to 80 per cent of girls and 90 per cent of boys struggling with gender identity issues will be entirely comfortable with their biological gender by the time they get through puberty.
Never mind that 10 years after a sex change operation, a person is 20 times more likely to commit suicide than the non-transgendered population.
Never mind that hospitals like John Hopkins in the United States now no longer perform gender reassignment surgery because it was found not to be helpful.
None of this information features in the resources.
Bigot, homophobe and hater are the bullying words deployed against anyone asking questions. They protect these programs making politicians and the community too scared to challenge them.
Queensland-style secrecy is the other enabler.
Any government program that relies on slurs and secrecy for its currency, should sound warning bells and pique journalists' curiosity.
Now a coalition of rainbow groups is calling on Australia's corporate sector to sign a letter of endorsement of Safe Schools.
The leader of one of these groups, Rodney Chiang-Cruise, took to social media after Mr Turnbull ordered the review of Safe Schools to label the Prime Minister a "C…t".
Apart from aligning their brands with dubious company, does corporate Australia really want to declare war on the biological gender of Australia's children?
Rainbow politics is taking captains of industry and politicians down a very strange path.
Most Australians would prefer to let boys be boys and girls be girls and get on with arguing about the economy.
Originally published in Online Opinion
Budget means Australia remains among world's worst givers
Budget 2016 statement from Lyle Shelton, Managing Director, Australian Christian Lobby
Given Australia is one of the world’s wealthiest nations, it is deeply disappointing that tonight’s budget sees Australia’s overseas aid cut to the lowest in our history.
We are spending just 22 cents per $100 of national income to help the world’s poor.
There is no quarrel with the idea that countries, like families, need to live within their means.
But most of us have mortgages and yet still manage to sponsor a child through child sponsorship and give to our local church’s mission programs helping the poor in developing countries.
Just as we are encouraged to be generous as individuals, so too should our nation.
ACL will use the election campaign period to encourage both sides of politics to begin re-building our aid program.
It remains a great shame to both sides of politics that they walked away from the Millennium Development Goal promise to increase aid to 0.7 per cent of GNI.
ENDS
Given Australia is one of the world’s wealthiest nations, it is deeply disappointing that tonight’s budget sees Australia’s overseas aid cut to the lowest in our history.
We are spending just 22 cents per $100 of national income to help the world’s poor.
There is no quarrel with the idea that countries, like families, need to live within their means.
But most of us have mortgages and yet still manage to sponsor a child through child sponsorship and give to our local church’s mission programs helping the poor in developing countries.
Just as we are encouraged to be generous as individuals, so too should our nation.
ACL will use the election campaign period to encourage both sides of politics to begin re-building our aid program.
It remains a great shame to both sides of politics that they walked away from the Millennium Development Goal promise to increase aid to 0.7 per cent of GNI.
ENDS
Iraq: churches and govt agree...sort of
In this week's Politics In Focus, ACL's Managing Director Lyle Shelton comments on the groundswell of support for military action against Islamic State. But there's less agreement on how to support the thousands fleeing the conflict zones of Iraq and Syria. Watch the video below.
Iraq: churches and govt agree... sort of from InFocus on Vimeo.
Iraq: churches and govt agree... sort of from InFocus on Vimeo.
Get a Christian perspective of news and politics with the latest political commentary from ACL on “The Politics in Focus”. This TV segment airs fortnightly on the Australian Christian Channel as part of Seventh Day Adventist Media’s weekly InFocus program. Tune in on Fridays at 7pm or Saturdays at 12pm.
Why we should re-think surrogacy
In this week's edition of Politics In Focus, ACL's Managing Director Lyle Shelton talks about the World Congress of Families event in Melbourne, and weighs in on the current surrogacy debate in Australia. Watch the video below.
World Congress of Families; surrogacy issues in Australia - Politics InFocus from InFocus on Vimeo.
World Congress of Families; surrogacy issues in Australia - Politics InFocus from InFocus on Vimeo.
Get a Christian perspective of news and politics with the latest political commentary from ACL on “The Politics in Focus”. This TV segment airs fortnightly on the Australian Christian Channel as part of Seventh Day Adventist Media’s weekly InFocus program. Tune in on Fridays at 7pm or Saturdays at 12pm.
Politics in Focus
Get a Christian perspective of news and politics with the latest political commentary from ACL on “The Politics in Focus”. This TV segment airs fortnightly on the Australian Christian Channel as part of Seventh Day Adventist Media’s weekly InFocus program. Tune in on Fridays at 7pm or Saturdays at 12pm.
In this week's edition, ACL's managing director Lyle Shelton welcomes the Australian Government's announcement of 4,400 refugee places for Christians and Yazidis fleeing ISIS violence. He also weighs in on the debate regarding legalising cannabis for medicinal use.
Iraqi refugees; legalising cannabis - Politics InFocus from InFocus on Vimeo.
In this week's edition, ACL's managing director Lyle Shelton welcomes the Australian Government's announcement of 4,400 refugee places for Christians and Yazidis fleeing ISIS violence. He also weighs in on the debate regarding legalising cannabis for medicinal use.
Iraqi refugees; legalising cannabis - Politics InFocus from InFocus on Vimeo.
ACL's Lyle Shelton's address to Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples inquiry
ACL's Managing Director Lyle Shelton appeared at the Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples inquiry today in Melbourne. Below is a copy of his opening statement to the inquiry.
----------------------
[caption id="attachment_32906" align="alignright" width="300"]
ACL's Lyle Shelton, far right, prepares to give evidence at senate inquiry[/caption]
Mr Chairman and Senators, thank you for the opportunity to present today.
The recognition of foreign same-sex marriages bill is an attempt to further pressure Parliamentarians into capitulating to the same-sex political agenda to change the definition of marriage.
There is no discrimination in Australian law against same-sex couples. But for some reason, it is important to some political campaigners to see marriage changed from what it is to something else.
And in doing so, they dismiss concerns about the consequences.
This issue continues to be privileged with extraordinary amounts of Parliamentary time and public resources devoted to it.
A bill to recognise foreign same-sex marriages was defeated in the Senate just last year.
There have been at least 11 attempts at State or Territory level to legislate a new definition of marriage. All have failed. A House of Representatives committee in 2012 declined to support it while this is at least the third Senate inquiry into changing the definition of marriage since 2010. There have been numerous State parliamentary inquiries in the past two years, all followed by votes opposing changing the definition of marriage.
The exception was the ACT Legislative Assembly where nine people voted to set a precedent for the nation, later overturned by the High Court as unconstitutional.
ACL facilitated 42,000 signatures on a submission to this inquiry. There is plenty of grassroots opposition to changing the definition of marriage.
[caption id="attachment_32907" align="alignright" width="225"]
ACL's Managing Director Lyle Shelton (left) gives evidence at the inquiry in Melbourne[/caption]
Such is the politically correct orthodoxy surrounding this issue, few are willing to stand publicly against the political agenda it represents.
No one wants to be accused of prejudice but this is what Australian Marriage Equality asserts is the basis for opposing their political objective is (see page 8 of the AME's Supplementary Submission).
This is of course deeply offensive to Muslims, Christians and Jews and countless other Australians of nominal or no religion who will always believe the truth about marriage and will want to teach it to their children.
We do not have fear or hate in our hearts, we simply have a view about marriage that we wish to see upheld in public policy. We will want to uphold this through the institutions of civil society such as schools, charities and churches that we create and participate in.
The recent Crosby Textor poll mislead people by framing the questions as if no one but the same-sex couple would be affected and that there would be no impact on religious freedom.
Our submission references a florist in Washington State, a photographer in New Mexico and a baker in Colorado who have all faced or are currently facing serious legal sanction because of their conscientious objection to participating in same-sex weddings. There are many more.
When the ACT was legislating last year, the Attorney General Simon Corbel wrote to me to confirm that businesspeople who exercised their conscience in declining to participate in same-sex weddings would be in breach of the anti-discrimination act. I'm happy to provide a copy of the letter.
Australians don't want to see their fellow citizens being fined or perhaps even jailed for acting on their belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
A child such as baby Rhyley lying in a Thai hospital ward, featured on page three of yesterday's Age, is also affected by same-sex marriage ideology.
He is denied both his surrogate mother and his biological mother because the rights of two men to acquire a baby are allowed to trump the International Covenant on the Rights of the Child which says that all children have the right to be raised, wherever possible, by their biological parents.
Sure James and Steve are capable of showing Rhyley love, and I'm sure they will. But neither can be his mum.
Marriage is not just about the emotional needs of adults. The definition of marriage references a biological reality which helps protect the rights of children. That is why governments regulate marriage.
Governments have no interest in other forms of romantic relationships. They are simply none of our business.
Rhyley is denied his human right to a mother not because of tragedy or desertion but because of a deliberate social engineering decision taken by two men.
We have to ask ourselves whether this is ethical. We have to ask ourselves do we want a new definition of marriage to set these practices in cultural cement. The law is of course a teacher.
Our submission references polling which shows 73 per cent of Australians believe wherever possible a child should be raised by her or his biological mother and father.
We can't have it both ways and we desperately need an honest and mature debate about the consequences of changing the definition of marriage.
If we think removing children from their biological parents is fine, then go for same-sex marriage.
But "marriage equality" is a slogan whose meaning should be unpacked.
If equality is the principle, how can we deny other definitions of marriage already recognised legally by other foreign jurisdictions?
What makes the gay lobby's definition morally superior to those defined legally in other jurisdictions and cultures?
One of the many overseas examples of the legal harassment of dissenters to same-sex marriage is t
he story of Washington florist Baronelle Stutzman who is being sued by the State Attorney General. I table her story in a seven minute electronic format and seek the chair's permission to provide a copy to each committee member.
I challenge anyone to watch her story and continue to uphold the idea that legislating a new definition of marriage has no consequences for freedom
I challenge anyone who thinks there are no consequences to changing the definition of marriage to look a child in the eye and tell her she is not allowed to be raised by her biological mother or father.
Thank you.
----------------------
[caption id="attachment_32906" align="alignright" width="300"]
ACL's Lyle Shelton, far right, prepares to give evidence at senate inquiry[/caption]Mr Chairman and Senators, thank you for the opportunity to present today.
The recognition of foreign same-sex marriages bill is an attempt to further pressure Parliamentarians into capitulating to the same-sex political agenda to change the definition of marriage.
There is no discrimination in Australian law against same-sex couples. But for some reason, it is important to some political campaigners to see marriage changed from what it is to something else.
And in doing so, they dismiss concerns about the consequences.
This issue continues to be privileged with extraordinary amounts of Parliamentary time and public resources devoted to it.
A bill to recognise foreign same-sex marriages was defeated in the Senate just last year.
There have been at least 11 attempts at State or Territory level to legislate a new definition of marriage. All have failed. A House of Representatives committee in 2012 declined to support it while this is at least the third Senate inquiry into changing the definition of marriage since 2010. There have been numerous State parliamentary inquiries in the past two years, all followed by votes opposing changing the definition of marriage.
The exception was the ACT Legislative Assembly where nine people voted to set a precedent for the nation, later overturned by the High Court as unconstitutional.
ACL facilitated 42,000 signatures on a submission to this inquiry. There is plenty of grassroots opposition to changing the definition of marriage.
[caption id="attachment_32907" align="alignright" width="225"]
ACL's Managing Director Lyle Shelton (left) gives evidence at the inquiry in Melbourne[/caption]Such is the politically correct orthodoxy surrounding this issue, few are willing to stand publicly against the political agenda it represents.
No one wants to be accused of prejudice but this is what Australian Marriage Equality asserts is the basis for opposing their political objective is (see page 8 of the AME's Supplementary Submission).
This is of course deeply offensive to Muslims, Christians and Jews and countless other Australians of nominal or no religion who will always believe the truth about marriage and will want to teach it to their children.
We do not have fear or hate in our hearts, we simply have a view about marriage that we wish to see upheld in public policy. We will want to uphold this through the institutions of civil society such as schools, charities and churches that we create and participate in.
The recent Crosby Textor poll mislead people by framing the questions as if no one but the same-sex couple would be affected and that there would be no impact on religious freedom.
Our submission references a florist in Washington State, a photographer in New Mexico and a baker in Colorado who have all faced or are currently facing serious legal sanction because of their conscientious objection to participating in same-sex weddings. There are many more.
When the ACT was legislating last year, the Attorney General Simon Corbel wrote to me to confirm that businesspeople who exercised their conscience in declining to participate in same-sex weddings would be in breach of the anti-discrimination act. I'm happy to provide a copy of the letter.
Australians don't want to see their fellow citizens being fined or perhaps even jailed for acting on their belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
A child such as baby Rhyley lying in a Thai hospital ward, featured on page three of yesterday's Age, is also affected by same-sex marriage ideology.
He is denied both his surrogate mother and his biological mother because the rights of two men to acquire a baby are allowed to trump the International Covenant on the Rights of the Child which says that all children have the right to be raised, wherever possible, by their biological parents.
Sure James and Steve are capable of showing Rhyley love, and I'm sure they will. But neither can be his mum.
Marriage is not just about the emotional needs of adults. The definition of marriage references a biological reality which helps protect the rights of children. That is why governments regulate marriage.
Governments have no interest in other forms of romantic relationships. They are simply none of our business.
Rhyley is denied his human right to a mother not because of tragedy or desertion but because of a deliberate social engineering decision taken by two men.
We have to ask ourselves whether this is ethical. We have to ask ourselves do we want a new definition of marriage to set these practices in cultural cement. The law is of course a teacher.
Our submission references polling which shows 73 per cent of Australians believe wherever possible a child should be raised by her or his biological mother and father.
We can't have it both ways and we desperately need an honest and mature debate about the consequences of changing the definition of marriage.
If we think removing children from their biological parents is fine, then go for same-sex marriage.
But "marriage equality" is a slogan whose meaning should be unpacked.
If equality is the principle, how can we deny other definitions of marriage already recognised legally by other foreign jurisdictions?
What makes the gay lobby's definition morally superior to those defined legally in other jurisdictions and cultures?
One of the many overseas examples of the legal harassment of dissenters to same-sex marriage is t
he story of Washington florist Baronelle Stutzman who is being sued by the State Attorney General. I table her story in a seven minute electronic format and seek the chair's permission to provide a copy to each committee member.I challenge anyone to watch her story and continue to uphold the idea that legislating a new definition of marriage has no consequences for freedom
I challenge anyone who thinks there are no consequences to changing the definition of marriage to look a child in the eye and tell her she is not allowed to be raised by her biological mother or father.
Thank you.
Politics in Focus
Get a Christian perspective of news and politics with the latest political commentary from ACL on “The Politics in Focus”. This TV segment airs fortnightly on the Australian Christian Channel as part of Seventh Day Adventist Media’s weekly InFocus program. Tune in on Fridays at 7pm or Saturdays at 12pm.
In this week's edition, ACL's Lyle Shelton weighs in on the international response to the exile of Mosul's Christians and a policy kerfuffle over religious activities in Victoria's schools.
Politics InFocus - 08.08.14 from InFocus on Vimeo.
In this week's edition, ACL's Lyle Shelton weighs in on the international response to the exile of Mosul's Christians and a policy kerfuffle over religious activities in Victoria's schools.
Politics InFocus - 08.08.14 from InFocus on Vimeo.
Time to fall in love with all of the baby Gammys in the world
Should baby Gammy have been born? Australians who raised $220,000 for the Thai-born Down syndrome baby’s medical costs think so.It has been heartening to see the outpouring of compassion for him.
But the sad fact is not enough of us are willing to do what is needed to create the political environment in which public policy can be created that will protect such babies.
In Australia, if pre-natal testing reveals Down syndrome, the baby’s life is routinely ended through abortion.
Reflecting society, a majority of Australian parliamentarians long ago abandoned the idea that a Down syndrome baby was worth saving.
Our collective lack of compassion for the baby Gammys’ of the world was demonstrated during Senate hearings into the Medicare funding of abortion in 2008.
The Parliamentary Group on Population and Development told the Senate that Medicare funding of abortion was necessary because disabled babies might be born and become a drain on the disability services budget.
The submission was a word-for-word cut and paste of the submission of the radical pro-abortion group, the Australian Reproductive Health Alliance.
The short statured senator from Western Australia, Dr Alan Eggleston, resigned from the group in protest.
Several other parliamentarians, who didn’t know a submission advocating aborting the disabled to save money was lodged in their name, wrote letters saying they disagreed.
The former Nationals veteran Senator Ron Boswell told the Senate the views expressed by the PGP&D were akin to the ‘Hitler regime’ which began killing the disabled before it did the Jews.
I think our society can do better.
A Toowoomba-based organisation seeking to help us in this is Emily’s Voice. They have produced a number of heart-warming stories about courageous people who have saved the lives of babies.
Here’s just one.
In Western Australia, ACL is supporting the Upper House MP Nick Goiran’s campaign to stop the practice of aborting babies post 20 weeks.
Mr Goiran has uncovered shocking statistics which show that since 2001, 474 babies were aborted after 20 weeks.
If you live in WA, please use our online campaigning website to send an email to your local member of parliament.
In the same way we have fallen in love with baby Gammy abandoned by his biological parents in Thailand because he was disabled, we need to fall in love with the baby Gammys in our own backyard.