MR: ACL looks to post-Greens future for Tasmania
MEDIA RELEASE
Thursday, January 16th 2014
Labor’s broken election promise on governing with the Greens has been disastrous for Tasmania and voters now had the opportunity to create a post-Greens future for the state, according to the Australian Christian Lobby.
ACL’s Tasmanian Director Mark Brown has welcomed the announcement today that Labor would split from its power-sharing alliance with the Greens.
Mr Brown said it was an absolute breach of trust for Labor to enter into an alliance with the Greens after the 2010 election and people would rightly be wary of today’s announcement, given how easily the same promise was breached in 2010.
“The decision by former Labor Premier David Bartlett to enter into an alliance despite clearly declaring before the election that he would “never do a deal with the devil” damaged Labor’s credibility and its ability to deliver good government,” he said.
“The state government of the last four years has focused a disproportionate amount of time on repeated attempts at radical social policy reform, due in part to the Greens influence, while the economy continues to suffer.
“This has not gone unnoticed by the electorate which walked away from the Greens at the last federal election. The Greens’ primary vote in Tasmania fell by around nine per cent in both the House of Representatives and senate from the 2010 election results.
“Voters last year indicated the desire for a post-Green era where governments could get on with the business of driving key areas like the economy and jobs unhindered by the Greens anti-industry handbrake and its obsession with redefining marriage.
“The end of the alliance in Tasmania provides Labor with an opportunity to start rebuilding its tarnished credibility. There are a substantial number of swinging voters in the Tasmanian Christian community who are looking for genuine options when it comes to who they vote for in March,” he said.
ENDS
Thursday, January 16th 2014
Labor’s broken election promise on governing with the Greens has been disastrous for Tasmania and voters now had the opportunity to create a post-Greens future for the state, according to the Australian Christian Lobby.
ACL’s Tasmanian Director Mark Brown has welcomed the announcement today that Labor would split from its power-sharing alliance with the Greens.
Mr Brown said it was an absolute breach of trust for Labor to enter into an alliance with the Greens after the 2010 election and people would rightly be wary of today’s announcement, given how easily the same promise was breached in 2010.
“The decision by former Labor Premier David Bartlett to enter into an alliance despite clearly declaring before the election that he would “never do a deal with the devil” damaged Labor’s credibility and its ability to deliver good government,” he said.
“The state government of the last four years has focused a disproportionate amount of time on repeated attempts at radical social policy reform, due in part to the Greens influence, while the economy continues to suffer.
“This has not gone unnoticed by the electorate which walked away from the Greens at the last federal election. The Greens’ primary vote in Tasmania fell by around nine per cent in both the House of Representatives and senate from the 2010 election results.
“Voters last year indicated the desire for a post-Green era where governments could get on with the business of driving key areas like the economy and jobs unhindered by the Greens anti-industry handbrake and its obsession with redefining marriage.
“The end of the alliance in Tasmania provides Labor with an opportunity to start rebuilding its tarnished credibility. There are a substantial number of swinging voters in the Tasmanian Christian community who are looking for genuine options when it comes to who they vote for in March,” he said.
ENDS
MR: A sad day for the unborn in Tasmania
MEDIA RELEASE
21st November 2013
The Australian Christian Lobby has expressed disappointment Tasmania’s upper house has passed legislation which will make it easier to obtain an abortion in the state.
The ACL’s Tasmanian Director Mark Brown said abortion is already legal in the state but the passing of today’s Reproductive Health Bill, which removes abortion from the criminal code and puts it in the health code, means abortion in the state will no longer be seen as taking another life by our government but as a mere medical procedure.
“The rights of children are less protected under this framework then being in the criminal code which acknowledges this is not just another medical procedure,” he said.
He said women will have less restrictions to accessing abortion now that they didn’t have to get doctors' consent for medical or psychological reasons until after 16 weeks.
“This means there’s less likelihood of a woman having informed consent about her decision. The majority of women and girls who have abortions do so because of a lack of support from partners, parents and friends. Research shows 70% of women say they felt they had no alternative to abortion ,” he said.
Mr Brown said although aspects of the bill are less objectionable than originally, freedom of conscience hasn’t been upheld.
“The law requires doctors with a conscientious objection to pass on a pamphlet with the options. But many doctors who are opposed to abortion say that they still feel complicit in the process by handing someone a document with a pamphlet of services,” he said.
“Freedom of speech has also been a casualty in this bill with the introduction of fines and the possibility of 12 month jail term for those who might hold a silent vigil outside an abortion clinic,” he said.
Mr Brown has praised those MLCs who voted against the legislation – Windemere MLC Ivan Dean, Launceston MLC Rosemary Armitage, Elwick MLC Adriana Taylor, Montgomery Liberal MLC Leonie Hiscutt and Rumney MLC Tony Mulder.
ENDS
21st November 2013
The Australian Christian Lobby has expressed disappointment Tasmania’s upper house has passed legislation which will make it easier to obtain an abortion in the state.
The ACL’s Tasmanian Director Mark Brown said abortion is already legal in the state but the passing of today’s Reproductive Health Bill, which removes abortion from the criminal code and puts it in the health code, means abortion in the state will no longer be seen as taking another life by our government but as a mere medical procedure.
“The rights of children are less protected under this framework then being in the criminal code which acknowledges this is not just another medical procedure,” he said.
He said women will have less restrictions to accessing abortion now that they didn’t have to get doctors' consent for medical or psychological reasons until after 16 weeks.
“This means there’s less likelihood of a woman having informed consent about her decision. The majority of women and girls who have abortions do so because of a lack of support from partners, parents and friends. Research shows 70% of women say they felt they had no alternative to abortion ,” he said.
Mr Brown said although aspects of the bill are less objectionable than originally, freedom of conscience hasn’t been upheld.
“The law requires doctors with a conscientious objection to pass on a pamphlet with the options. But many doctors who are opposed to abortion say that they still feel complicit in the process by handing someone a document with a pamphlet of services,” he said.
“Freedom of speech has also been a casualty in this bill with the introduction of fines and the possibility of 12 month jail term for those who might hold a silent vigil outside an abortion clinic,” he said.
Mr Brown has praised those MLCs who voted against the legislation – Windemere MLC Ivan Dean, Launceston MLC Rosemary Armitage, Elwick MLC Adriana Taylor, Montgomery Liberal MLC Leonie Hiscutt and Rumney MLC Tony Mulder.
ENDS
MR: Abortion report ignores the rights of babies
MEDIA RELEASE
Wednesday, 13th November 2013
The Australian Christian Lobby said it’s disappointed a Tasmanian parliamentary report on abortion missed the key issue in the debate over decriminalising abortion – the baby.
ACL’s Tasmanian Director Mark Brown said the finding by the upper house standing committee report into the Reproductive Health (Access to Terminations) Bill 2013 failed to make an adequate case to remove abortion from the criminal code.
“Abortion should remain in the criminal code. It is an appropriate place when the life of a child is at stake,” Mr Brown said.
Mr Brown said whilst ACL welcomed the committees’ finding that the $32,500 proposed fines for counsellors who have a conscientious objection to abortion and refuses to refer a woman onto a service is excessive, there shouldn’t be fines at all.
Mr Brown said the committee has failed to realise that the bill suppresses free speech through supporting jail time for those who might protest outside abortion clinics.
“A free and democratic society should allow those who may disagree with the practice of abortion to express their views in visible displays such as prayer vigils and silent protests,” he said.
He said it was equally disappointing the report findings failed to give doctors with a conscientious objection the freedom from being compelled to refer a woman onto someone else.
“If a doctor or counsellor is opposed to abortion on the moral grounds of not taking innocent life, they must have the freedom not to be complicit in the process,” he said.
“The issue of conscientious objection is one that Victorian doctors are currently fighting to change in their state laws,” he said.
Mr Brown said there were several reasons terminations weren’t being performed at public hospitals beyond the one identified by the committees’ findings.
“The report concludes that fear of criminal prosecution is a barrier to terminating unborn babies at public hospitals. This may be the case but it is not the only reason abortions are not routinely performed in the public system – staff had strong conscientious objections for religious and other reasons. However, this wasn’t included in the findings.
“The issue of fear of criminal prosecution from doctors should be addressed via education rather than legislation,” he said.
Mr Brown said ACL would continue to advocate for the rights of the unborn and urge supporters to contact their members to vote against this bill.
ENDS
Wednesday, 13th November 2013
The Australian Christian Lobby said it’s disappointed a Tasmanian parliamentary report on abortion missed the key issue in the debate over decriminalising abortion – the baby.
ACL’s Tasmanian Director Mark Brown said the finding by the upper house standing committee report into the Reproductive Health (Access to Terminations) Bill 2013 failed to make an adequate case to remove abortion from the criminal code.
“Abortion should remain in the criminal code. It is an appropriate place when the life of a child is at stake,” Mr Brown said.
Mr Brown said whilst ACL welcomed the committees’ finding that the $32,500 proposed fines for counsellors who have a conscientious objection to abortion and refuses to refer a woman onto a service is excessive, there shouldn’t be fines at all.
Mr Brown said the committee has failed to realise that the bill suppresses free speech through supporting jail time for those who might protest outside abortion clinics.
“A free and democratic society should allow those who may disagree with the practice of abortion to express their views in visible displays such as prayer vigils and silent protests,” he said.
He said it was equally disappointing the report findings failed to give doctors with a conscientious objection the freedom from being compelled to refer a woman onto someone else.
“If a doctor or counsellor is opposed to abortion on the moral grounds of not taking innocent life, they must have the freedom not to be complicit in the process,” he said.
“The issue of conscientious objection is one that Victorian doctors are currently fighting to change in their state laws,” he said.
Mr Brown said there were several reasons terminations weren’t being performed at public hospitals beyond the one identified by the committees’ findings.
“The report concludes that fear of criminal prosecution is a barrier to terminating unborn babies at public hospitals. This may be the case but it is not the only reason abortions are not routinely performed in the public system – staff had strong conscientious objections for religious and other reasons. However, this wasn’t included in the findings.
“The issue of fear of criminal prosecution from doctors should be addressed via education rather than legislation,” he said.
Mr Brown said ACL would continue to advocate for the rights of the unborn and urge supporters to contact their members to vote against this bill.
ENDS
Please thank Tas parliamentarians for protecting marriage
A motion to reintroduce last year’s same-sex marriage bill in Tasmania’s upper house was this week defeated eight votes to six. During a long day of speeches, those supporting the motion tried in vain to convince those who had opposed the bill last year that new information presented was reason enough to bring back the bill for debate.
Much of the argument centred on legal opinions. Preeminent constitutional lawyer Bret Walker SC had given his legal opinion that Tasmania’s same-sex marriage legislation was constitutional and could withstand an inevitable High Court challenge. This advice was backed by a Law Reform Institute Paper. ACL had provided a counter opinion from highly credentialed lawyers/professors which helped many MLC’s to conclude that opinion was just as divided now as it was in 2012, some even using the term “lawyer shopping” to describe events since last year.
Sadly, as was the case in the previous debate, there were moments when the passion on the part of those supporting the motion crossed a line into what could be best described as manipulation for those unwilling to show “leadership” and support the motion. Such subtle pressure is also being applied to the general public via the media. This was clearly illustrated outside parliament immediately after the debate when a reporter from a well known national media outlet was uninterested in getting any opinion from anyone other than the gay lobby.
As was the case last year, it is likely that MLC’s who rejected the motion will be the targets of abuse and therefore will need our prayers and encouragement. Please send them a short letter of thanks (Note: although Legislative Council President Jim Wilkinson did not vote, he made it clear that he would not support such a motion should he have the casting vote).
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
We are grateful to God that attempts to introduce euthanasia and same-sex “marriage” legislation this month have been thwarted. Our attention is now focused on the issue of abortion with debate on a bill to decriminalise abortion in Tasmania likely mid November. Please keep Tasmania in your prayers.
Mark Brown, Tasmanian Director
PO Box 89
Riverside TAS 7250
0408 850 629
MR: Nothing new in Tas law report on same-sex marriage
MEDIA RELEASE
Thursday, 10th October 2013
The Australian Christian Lobby said today’s research paper released by the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute does not shed any new light on the legal complexities surrounding same-sex marriage.
“The report tells us what we already know – that there is much diversity of opinion in the legal fraternity about the constitutionality of a state-based same-sex marriage law,” said ACL’s Tasmanian State Director Mark Brown.
“This comes after last week’s news reports about advice the Solicitor-General’s Office gave to the federal government that the ACT Marriage Equality Bill would be unconstitutional if passed,” he said.
“This report highlights the uncertain constitutional validity of state-based legislation and the high probably that such legislation will have to be ruled upon by the High Court.
“When given the opportunity to pass a same-sex marriage bill in Tasmania last September, the Tasmanian parliament voted it down.
“Nothing in the report is likely to sway Tasmania’s Legislative Council Members (MLCs) to pursue the unprecedented move to reintroduce an already defeated bill.
“It simply repeats and summarises the arguments on both sides, including many arguments given to the Tasmanian Parliament last year, and emphasises the uncertainty of the issue,” he said.
Mr Brown questioned why disproportionate resources are being devoted to this issue.
“Legislative Council President Jim Wilkinson said Ruth Forrest’s motion to reintroduce last year’s failed bill was a first in his 18 years in parliament and he would not be supporting it. Other MLCs have commented about the huge backlog of existing legislation before the upper house.
“Legislation by attrition is not good democracy. Parliament had debated this issue a year ago notwithstanding the bill put before federal government last year which was also voted down,” he said.
ENDS
Thursday, 10th October 2013
The Australian Christian Lobby said today’s research paper released by the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute does not shed any new light on the legal complexities surrounding same-sex marriage.
“The report tells us what we already know – that there is much diversity of opinion in the legal fraternity about the constitutionality of a state-based same-sex marriage law,” said ACL’s Tasmanian State Director Mark Brown.
“This comes after last week’s news reports about advice the Solicitor-General’s Office gave to the federal government that the ACT Marriage Equality Bill would be unconstitutional if passed,” he said.
“This report highlights the uncertain constitutional validity of state-based legislation and the high probably that such legislation will have to be ruled upon by the High Court.
“When given the opportunity to pass a same-sex marriage bill in Tasmania last September, the Tasmanian parliament voted it down.
“Nothing in the report is likely to sway Tasmania’s Legislative Council Members (MLCs) to pursue the unprecedented move to reintroduce an already defeated bill.
“It simply repeats and summarises the arguments on both sides, including many arguments given to the Tasmanian Parliament last year, and emphasises the uncertainty of the issue,” he said.
Mr Brown questioned why disproportionate resources are being devoted to this issue.
“Legislative Council President Jim Wilkinson said Ruth Forrest’s motion to reintroduce last year’s failed bill was a first in his 18 years in parliament and he would not be supporting it. Other MLCs have commented about the huge backlog of existing legislation before the upper house.
“Legislation by attrition is not good democracy. Parliament had debated this issue a year ago notwithstanding the bill put before federal government last year which was also voted down,” he said.
ENDS
Paul Russell on the Political Spot about Tas euthanasia bill
Paul Russell is from Hope: preventing euthanasia and assisted suicide. In this interview with the ACL's Katherine Spackman he talks about the private members bill introduced by the Premier and Greens leader to legalise euthanasia in the state.
Tas abortion inquiry begins
This week a standing committee of the Tasmanian Upper House began hearing evidence regarding proposed changes to Tasmania’s abortion laws. Abortion is currently lawful in Tasmania (up to full term) if two medical practitioners agree that the continuation of the pregnancy would involve greater risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman than if the pregnancy were terminated. The laws relating to abortion are contained within the Tasmanian Criminal Code.
The key changes which the Reproductive Health (Access to Terminations) Bill 2013 seeks to make include: Removing abortion from the criminal code and placing it in health related legislation; removing all hurdles (eg doctors assessments) prior to 16 weeks gestation; widening the criteria doctors will need to use in assessing mothers with post 16 week old babies; penalising those who would hinder the process of those seeking an abortion.
There were wide ranging contributors giving evidence at this week’s hearing. Local Constitutional Law Lecturer Michael Stokes suggested parts of the bill were unconstitutional and others parts likely to increase the likelihood of doctors performing live birth late-term abortions being convicted of homicide. Victorian Obstetrician Lachlan de Crespigny, who campaigned successfully campaigned to liberalise Victoria’s abortion laws in 2008, encouraged Tasmanian legislators to do likewise, arguing abortion should not be singled out as a crime.
The topic of abortion is always emotionally charged and it appears this rang true during evidence presented to the committee this week. ACL is particularly troubled about this radical legislation as it goes further than any other of it kind and would likely have ramifications for laws in other jurisdictions. In contrast, America is seeing a tightening of abortion laws with some States even looking to ban abortion once a foetal heartbeat is detected (5-6 weeks). Some of the key provisions of most concern in the proposed Tasmanian legislation are:
• There is no legitimate mandate to remove abortion from the criminal code i.e. it is not just another operation, another life is at stake.
• There is no acknowledgment of the existence, or rights of, the unborn child.
• The lack of safeguards for women to ensure that 1. Truly informed consent is obtained, 2. Independent advice is given, and 3. Lack of coercion in decision making in assured.
• The subjectivity of doctors’ need to consider current and future economic and social circumstances of women they are assessing.
• Freedom of conscience issues – compulsion of doctors and counsellors to refer patients on to those without a conscientious objection to abortion.
• Freedom of speech issues – prosecution of protestors around abortion providers.
Please pray for those giving evidence highlighting the problems with the bill and for those on the committee hearing evidence, that they would have wisdom to see through the half truths and see clearly what is in the best interests of both mothers and babies.
The key changes which the Reproductive Health (Access to Terminations) Bill 2013 seeks to make include: Removing abortion from the criminal code and placing it in health related legislation; removing all hurdles (eg doctors assessments) prior to 16 weeks gestation; widening the criteria doctors will need to use in assessing mothers with post 16 week old babies; penalising those who would hinder the process of those seeking an abortion.
There were wide ranging contributors giving evidence at this week’s hearing. Local Constitutional Law Lecturer Michael Stokes suggested parts of the bill were unconstitutional and others parts likely to increase the likelihood of doctors performing live birth late-term abortions being convicted of homicide. Victorian Obstetrician Lachlan de Crespigny, who campaigned successfully campaigned to liberalise Victoria’s abortion laws in 2008, encouraged Tasmanian legislators to do likewise, arguing abortion should not be singled out as a crime.
The topic of abortion is always emotionally charged and it appears this rang true during evidence presented to the committee this week. ACL is particularly troubled about this radical legislation as it goes further than any other of it kind and would likely have ramifications for laws in other jurisdictions. In contrast, America is seeing a tightening of abortion laws with some States even looking to ban abortion once a foetal heartbeat is detected (5-6 weeks). Some of the key provisions of most concern in the proposed Tasmanian legislation are:
• There is no legitimate mandate to remove abortion from the criminal code i.e. it is not just another operation, another life is at stake.
• There is no acknowledgment of the existence, or rights of, the unborn child.
• The lack of safeguards for women to ensure that 1. Truly informed consent is obtained, 2. Independent advice is given, and 3. Lack of coercion in decision making in assured.
• The subjectivity of doctors’ need to consider current and future economic and social circumstances of women they are assessing.
• Freedom of conscience issues – compulsion of doctors and counsellors to refer patients on to those without a conscientious objection to abortion.
• Freedom of speech issues – prosecution of protestors around abortion providers.
Please pray for those giving evidence highlighting the problems with the bill and for those on the committee hearing evidence, that they would have wisdom to see through the half truths and see clearly what is in the best interests of both mothers and babies.
MR: ACL urges Tasmanian Government to reject proposed changes to adoption laws
MEDIA RELEASE
Wednesday, 26th June 2013
Amendments to adoption laws in Tasmania would deny children the right to be raised by a mother and a father, according to the Australian Christian Lobby.
Proposed changes to the Adoption Act 1988 - likely to be debated in the upper house on Thursday - would allow those registered with a significant relationship, including unmarried and same-sex couples, to adopt an unknown child.
ACL’s Tasmanian Director Mark Brown has urged the government to reject the changes in order to protect the rights of vulnerable children.
“Children’s interests are best met, where possible, in the stability of a married relationship with the complementary love of a mum and dad,” he said.
“Every child should have the right to be raised by both a mother and a father – each parent differently and subsequently provide a diversity and balance in a child’s development,” he said.
Under current law, only heterosexual couples married for more than three years are eligible to adopt.
“Governments who are considering the ‘rights’ of same-sex couples wanting to adopt should first and foremost consider whether allowing them to do so will serve the best interests of children.
“A large number of heterosexual couples have waited years for the opportunity to adopt, so it is difficult to understand how placing an adopted child in a home where they will be denied the benefit of having a mother and a father could ever be in a child’s best interest,” Mr Brown said.
- ends -
Wednesday, 26th June 2013
Amendments to adoption laws in Tasmania would deny children the right to be raised by a mother and a father, according to the Australian Christian Lobby.
Proposed changes to the Adoption Act 1988 - likely to be debated in the upper house on Thursday - would allow those registered with a significant relationship, including unmarried and same-sex couples, to adopt an unknown child.
ACL’s Tasmanian Director Mark Brown has urged the government to reject the changes in order to protect the rights of vulnerable children.
“Children’s interests are best met, where possible, in the stability of a married relationship with the complementary love of a mum and dad,” he said.
“Every child should have the right to be raised by both a mother and a father – each parent differently and subsequently provide a diversity and balance in a child’s development,” he said.
Under current law, only heterosexual couples married for more than three years are eligible to adopt.
“Governments who are considering the ‘rights’ of same-sex couples wanting to adopt should first and foremost consider whether allowing them to do so will serve the best interests of children.
“A large number of heterosexual couples have waited years for the opportunity to adopt, so it is difficult to understand how placing an adopted child in a home where they will be denied the benefit of having a mother and a father could ever be in a child’s best interest,” Mr Brown said.
- ends -
Time to act on pokie machine reform: ACL
MEDIA RELEASE
Wednesday 22nd May, 2013
The Australian Christian Lobby has backed calls for the Tasmanian Government to introduce $1 bet limit on pokie machines in the state.
ACL’s Tasmanian State Director Mark Brown said problem gambling is an issue that affects many Tasmanian families.
“The 2011 Social and Economic Impact Study of Gambling in Tasmania found that nearly 50 per cent of all electronic gaming machine takings are from problem gamblers or moderate risk gamblers,” he said.
“Of course there will be a cost to the bottom line when the government pockets $100 million in taxes from the industry. Economics, however, should be a secondary consideration to the social toll incurred on the community.
“The Government needs to plot a road map to weaning itself off poker machine revenue,” Mr Brown said.
ENDS
Wednesday 22nd May, 2013
The Australian Christian Lobby has backed calls for the Tasmanian Government to introduce $1 bet limit on pokie machines in the state.
ACL’s Tasmanian State Director Mark Brown said problem gambling is an issue that affects many Tasmanian families.
“The 2011 Social and Economic Impact Study of Gambling in Tasmania found that nearly 50 per cent of all electronic gaming machine takings are from problem gamblers or moderate risk gamblers,” he said.
“Of course there will be a cost to the bottom line when the government pockets $100 million in taxes from the industry. Economics, however, should be a secondary consideration to the social toll incurred on the community.
“The Government needs to plot a road map to weaning itself off poker machine revenue,” Mr Brown said.
ENDS
MR: Tasmania’s election results do not support same-sex marriage
MEDIA RELEASE
Monday, 6th May 2013
The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) says it is disingenuous of Greens leader Nick McKim and Marriage Equality’s Rodney Croome to see the weekend’s upper house election results as showing majority support for same-sex marriage.
ACL’s Tasmanian Director Mark Brown says it’s presumptuous post election commentary for Mr McKim and Mr Croome to claim the public want to redefine marriage in the state after the weekend results because “a majority of voters across the three electorates voted in support of marriage equality candidates”.
“It’s nothing but spin to turn the weekend’s results, which were a disastrous result for same-sex marriage advocates because the three candidates elected don’t support same-sex marriage, into a ‘positive news story’,” he said.
“The facts are self-evident: candidates with a more conservative stance on social issues won comfortably in all three electorates. This is a clear message from the community to the upper house to reject another likely push to introduce same-sex marriage legislation later in the year,” he said.
“Furthermore, it is insulting to Tasmanians to suggest that marriage dominates people’s voting preferences. A range of issues including the economy, health services and the environment influence a person’s vote,” he said.
Mr Brown said the fact remained that candidates supporting radical social reform were not elected.
“Saturday’s election saw Liberal Vanessa Goodwin re-elected in Pembroke, independent Jim Wilkinson returned to his seat in Nelson, and Liberal Leonie Hiscutt elected in Montgomery,” he said.
- ends -
Monday, 6th May 2013
The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) says it is disingenuous of Greens leader Nick McKim and Marriage Equality’s Rodney Croome to see the weekend’s upper house election results as showing majority support for same-sex marriage.
ACL’s Tasmanian Director Mark Brown says it’s presumptuous post election commentary for Mr McKim and Mr Croome to claim the public want to redefine marriage in the state after the weekend results because “a majority of voters across the three electorates voted in support of marriage equality candidates”.
“It’s nothing but spin to turn the weekend’s results, which were a disastrous result for same-sex marriage advocates because the three candidates elected don’t support same-sex marriage, into a ‘positive news story’,” he said.
“The facts are self-evident: candidates with a more conservative stance on social issues won comfortably in all three electorates. This is a clear message from the community to the upper house to reject another likely push to introduce same-sex marriage legislation later in the year,” he said.
“Furthermore, it is insulting to Tasmanians to suggest that marriage dominates people’s voting preferences. A range of issues including the economy, health services and the environment influence a person’s vote,” he said.
Mr Brown said the fact remained that candidates supporting radical social reform were not elected.
“Saturday’s election saw Liberal Vanessa Goodwin re-elected in Pembroke, independent Jim Wilkinson returned to his seat in Nelson, and Liberal Leonie Hiscutt elected in Montgomery,” he said.
- ends -