A Bad Apple's Partial Guide To Voting

The South Australian Election will be held on Saturday, and it’s shaping up to be a nail biter. While I would love nothing more than for the hubris of Rann’s Labor Government to be deflated like a pair of poorly constructed silicon knockers, the only other option as we all know is a Liberal Government.

Now, the Liberal Government in SA is not wholly bad – new candidate John Gardner (who, full disclosure, is a university friend of mine) is the type of social progressive that I think all our Governments need more of, regardless of political allegiance. Similarly, Michelle Lensink (Liberal Member of the Legislative Council) is someone for whom I have a lot of admiration.

But the ALP also has reasonable representatives in the form of Gail Gago, Steph Key and Jay Weatherill. 

Decisions.

This election has been fought on the fairly aggressive battlegrounds of water and health. Unbelievably, a lot of airtime has been taken up over whether or not it’s a wise decision to build a new stadium. People, surely there are more important things to worry about?

Looking through the preference lists today (which can be found here), I was disturbed by a few things. Firstly, the ALP has preferenced Family First third on their ticket, after the Greens (who I currently work for but am not a member of). Family First’s website lists, among other things, the following treatise on marriage:

“The marriage of a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, is much more than a private emotional relationship - it is also a social good.


While not all marriages thrive, research confirms that married people live longer and are healthier, wealthier and more satisfied with their lives than their cohabiting or single peers. Their children also have better health, they do better at school and are less likely to abuse drugs and alcohol.


At Family First we are committed to promoting and preserving marriage as the essential foundation of strong marriages and communities.”

At the recent YWCA of Adelaide Election Forum, I asked Robert Brokenshire (FF’s lead candidate for the Legislative Council) to explain how Family First could actively promote the mental health benefits of marriage while denying those same benefits to the non-heterosexual portion of the community. Unsurprisingly, he didn’t have a very clear answer except to say that it was Family First policy.

Under their ‘Life’ platform, Family First says:

“The most basic human right is the right to life.


In Australia today this fundamental right is tragically denied with more than 100,000 unborn babies being aborted each year. The right to life is also under threat for the aged, infirm and vulnerable with a growing chorus advocating euthanasia.


At Family First we passionately believe that human life is precious. Armed with this belief, we are committed to the preservation and protection of life from the womb to the grave.”

 "While I still have breath and a brain cell in my brain, I will fight for him..."

I would say that the most basic human right is the right to clean drinking water and education, but to each their own. Whichever way you look at it, Family First has a regressive agenda which includes, but is not limited to, policing the reproductive rights of women and denying equal rights to non-heterosexual Australians.

And the ALP has preferenced them third on their ticket.

The Liberal Party has gone one step further and preferenced Family First second, meaning that all of the bunk they’ve tried to spread this election about being a more progressive, modern party is just that – bunk. Family First is a divisive, anti-choice, anti-homosexual, anti-society political party whose highest representative in political office openly trumpets his views on creationism and has astoundingly denied the fact that his religious beliefs influence his politics.

If you want even more proof that Family First stand not for family values but an assault on human rights, equality and a progressive Australian society, just look at their own preference deals.

They’ve preferenced Save the RAH second (who have reciprocated the favour in what seems to be a straight deal). After Save the RAH though, Family First have preferenced the Democratic Labor Party candidates. I think this page perfectly sums up the DLP’s views on things.

I quote:

“Legislative measures that will uphold and protect the inalienable and fundamental rights of every person (1) [my emphasis] - to life, to the essential liberties of conscience, to equal treatment under the law (2) [my emphasis], to the ownership of property and to a livelihood that enhances the dignity and security of each person.

The DLP unequivocally supports legislation that will preserve and protect marriage as the voluntary union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others, in a commitment for life. 

Absolute opposition to legislative or administrative measures that undermine or degrade marriage by conferring on homosexual, lesbian or transsexual pairings any form of legal recognition of their relationships, per se, whether through "civil unions", "relationship registers" or other legal device. (3)

Abolition of the Family Court of Australia, exposure of its destructive ideology and its harm done to children through easy divorce and the court-instigated break-up of their families and recision of all court rulings that serve to undermine marriage or degrade it by conferring on homosexual, lesbian and transsexual pairings equivalent standing with marriage…. (4)

Statutory recognition of the principle that no child should be conceived to be borne and reared deliberately deprived of a mother or father as in the cases of single women, lesbians and homosexual couples accessing artificial reproduction technologies including IVF and surrogacy or adoption overseas or within Australia (5).

 An acknowledgement in all legislation affecting families of the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage and of the need to maintain the moral, social, legal and economic support of the traditional family unit as the most effective (including cost-effective) means to safeguard children from the harm of exploitation, violence, pornography, drugs and crime.

The DLP upholds the traditional family as the ideal for all to aspire to (6).   This is not to condemn others who may find themselves in other family models through no fault of their own (7).  We admire and support single parents for example, and recognize their particular needs and difficulties in raising children alone."

(1)   Note the word ‘every’. Not ‘some’. Not ‘most’. Every.

(2)   Equal treatment under the law. Not ‘moderately equal’. Not ‘almost equal’. Not ‘somewhat equal’. Equal.

(3)   Homosexual, lesbian and transsexual people should be denied equal access to not just marriage but legal recognition of their relationship under the law, meaning only that the DLP does not consider homosexuals, lesbians and transsexuals to fall under the banner of ‘every person’…

(4)   …and in fact that the assumption that they MIGHT be equal to heterosexuals and deserving of equal rights is in fact ‘degrading’. 

(5)   Equal treatment under the law? Well, only if you are…

(6)   …a member of the kind of traditional family which we all should aspire to…

(7)   …but their sympathies are with you if you happen to find yourself in a degrading different family model ‘through no fault of your own’, ie being a godless homosexual.

The DLP’s outrageous views continue:

“The DLP proposes a permanent embargo on all tax funding for procured abortions, destructive human embryo experiments, and the artificial reproduction of human life for any utilitarian end.

We also propose a substantial increase in the allocation of funding for palliative care facilities for the terminally ill, and the active promotion of public policy in opposition to the legalisation of euthanasia (1).

We also recommend enforcement of the criminal law with respect to procured abortions and euthanasia through the prosecution of medical professionals who violate human life (2).

Establishment at Federal State and Territory levels of an office of Advocate for the Unborn Child with all the functions, powers and duties necessary to promote and protect the life of the unborn, to afford legal voice or representation in all pertinent forums, to investigate impending medical and other threats to the child's natural right to be born and to instigate prosecutions for offences under relevant laws (3).

1.      They want to use government funds to actively oppose the legislation of euthanasia.

2.      THEY WANT TO PROSECUTE MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS WHO DELIVER ABORTIONS. Unlike what Family First SAYS they won’t do, the DLP are open and honest about wanting to recriminalise abortion, and…

3.      …make it a prosecutable offence.

The Democratic Labor Party are, despite their claims to the contrary, very much in favour of denying equal rights to sections of the community. They also seem intent on reintroducing backyard abortion alleys to Australia and actively using public money to campaign against reproductive and medical rights.

They are number 3 on Family First’s ticket.

****EDIT****

I had said that right behind them, at number 4, was Trevor Grace, but I missed one. Right behind the DLP, at number 4, is One Nation.

And right behind THEM, at number 5, is Trevor Grace.

Family First is preferenced second on the Liberal ticket, and third on the ALP’s. We have to vote for one of them, but I’d advise everyone to ask some pretty searching questions of representatives at the polling booths on election day.

To help you further in some of the decision you’ll have to make if you vote below the line – which you absolutely should – are some of the results from Family Voice Australia’s (formerly the Festival of Light who famously campaigned against allowing equal recognition for same sex de facto couples under SA law) survey given to all candidates.

Most did not respond, but those who did are listed below in the order I will be preferencing them.

These were 4 of the 10 questions asked. The rest can be found here.

1. Prayers in Parliament

Christian prayers in parliament is part of our Australian heritage - reminding MPs, like all other people, that they are imperfect and need guidance. This tradition recognises that most South Australians identified themselves as adherents of Christianity in the 2006 Census. Opening each day of parliamentary proceedings with prayer is a helpful reminder that members of parliament are accountable for their actions.

Q. Would you support the continued opening of parliament each day with Christian prayers?

2. Abortion Law

Recent gold standard research in NZ and elsewhere has shown that abortion is more likely to lead to mental health problems than to alleviate them. The current South Australian law, in Section 82A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, which allows for abortions to be performed on mental health grounds, may therefore be contributing to mental health problems.

Q. Would you support the removal of mental health grounds as an excuse for abortion?

3. Same sex relationship registers

In South Australia, the only couple relationship registered by the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages is true marriage – between a man and a woman. Some other states have laws allowing same-sex relationships to be registered, thereby giving them equal status with marriage. Only marriage provides public benefits by creating the best environment for raising children. Its unique status should be preserved.

Q. Would you oppose any bill to allow the registration of same sex relationships?

4. Euthanasia

Euthanasia means the intentional killing of a person who is suffering pain or mental distress – instead of providing medical treatment or palliative care. It does not mean ending treatment that is futile or burdensome, since treatment can always be declined. Where euthanasia has been legalised, patients have been killed even in the absence of an explicit request for euthanasia, instead of providing treatment and care.

Q. Would you oppose any bill to legalise euthanasia?

THE WORST OFFENDERS, I'M PREFERENCING THEM LAST:

Family First and the DLP candidates all answered “DEFINITELY” as did Independent candidates Trevor Grace and Joe Enco.

Independent candidate Peter Pengaris answered DEFINITELY to everything except Mental Health and abortion, to which he answered “PROBABLY”.

Independentsr Mark Aldridge and Helen Aldridge answered DEFINITELY to introducing prayers to parliament and opposing same sex marriage, PROBABLY to mental health and abortion and UNSURE to euthanasia. I find Mark’s stance on abortion particularly interesting as he used the anti-Trevor Grace protest as a platform to talk about reproductive rights. Does this make him a political opportunist with no policies? PROBABLY.

Independent John Michaelmore answered DEFINITELY to prayers and opposing same sex marriage, and UNSURE to abortion and euthanasia.

MID RANGE AWFUL:

Robert Hudson of the Shooters Party (5^th on the Family First ticket) answered DEFINITELY to prayers in Parliament, UNSURE to abortion and PROBABLY to same sex marriage opposition and euthanasia.

GETTING BETTER, STILL WORRISOME:

Neil Armstrong (Independent) answered DEFINITELY to prayers, UNLIKELY to abortion and euthanasia and PROBABLY to same sex marriage opposition.

NO APPARENT CONVICTION BUT DON’T WANT TO BE MURDERED IN THEIR BEDS:

Liberal candidates David Ridgeway and Terry Stephens and Labor’s Bernard Finnigan and Paul Holloway answered UNSURE to everything except opposing euthanasia, to which they answered DEFINITELY.

NO APPARENT BELIEFS AT ALL:

Liberals Sarah Jared, Peter Salu, Rita Bouras and Jing Lee, and Labor’s Tung Ngo answered UNSURE to everything. Why are you running for Parliament?

SKERRICK OF BELIEF:

Liberal’s Stephen Wade and Labor’s John Gazzola are UNSURE about everything except euthanasia, which Wade would be UNLIKELY to oppose and Gazzola would be DEFINITELY NOT.

MORE PEOPLE LIKE THIS IN PARLIAMENT PLZ:

Independent Craig Devos is UNLIKELY to support prayers in Parliament, UNSURE about the gayz, and would DEFINITELY NOT seek to repeal the mental health excuse in abortions or oppose a euthanasia bill.

Labor’s Gail Gago (Minister for the Status of Women) is UNSURE on prayers in Parliament and Same Sex Marriage, but would DEFINITELY NOT repeal laws on abortion or oppose a euthanasia bill.

Independent Michael Noack would DEFINITELY NOT introduce prayers, oppose abortion or same sex marriage and would be UNLIKELY to oppose euthanasia.

******EDIT:

I had listed Chris Prior of Gamers4Croydon as replying UNSURE to everything. This was incorrect. He was given a score of 1 for all questions, translating to NO COMMENT. Kat Nicholson, Gamers4Croydon candidate for Croydon, informs me that Chris didn't reply to the survey at all. So why was he listed as giving a NO COMMENT answer (and point scores of 1) when other candidates who didn't reply were given scores of 0? Gamers4Croydon, I'd advise you to take this up with Family Voice. I have also fixed the broken link to the survey results page.*******

It can be notoriously difficult trying to figure out which independents to preference when there’s no information available (readily), so I mostly end up putting them around the middle somewhere. Now I can happily say I will be putting many of those who answered the Family Voice Australia survey favourably LAST – and, as a side note, I wish hateful, regressive organizations who would seek to discriminate against large sections of the community would stop giving themselves names like “Family Voice” and “The Australian Family Association”. I have a family and YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME.

Happy voting.