Marxist Roz Ward now Victorian school LGBTI adviser

4cm Newsfeed Master feature
 Safe School’s Roz Ward.

Roz Ward, the hardline Marxist behind the contentious Safe Schools program, has been ­appointed to a high-level committee advising the Victorian govern­ment on education issues.

With the taxpayer-funded sexual and gender diversity ­program having become a hot election issue, after the Greens and Labor pledged to boost funding, the Andrews Labor government appears increasingly committed to pushing an LGBTI agenda in the schoolyard.

Ms Ward, already a director of the Safe Schools Coalition Victoria, has joined the education reference group set up to provide advice on the government’s LGBTI education priorit­ies and identify new ways to improve equality for gay and transgender youth in schools.

The group comes under the mantle of the government’s LGBTI Taskforce, co-chaired by leading transgender activist Brenda ­Appleton, which provides direct advice to Equality Minister Martin Foley.

While the taskforce membership was announced in September, the make-up of its education reference group has not been publicly disclosed. But Ms Ward’s role is detailed on the website of La Trobe University’s Australian Research Centre in Sex Health and Society, where she works.

Ms Ward, an academic with a degree in gender studies, has ­become the controversial face of the Safe Schools movement, largely due to her extreme Left political views; including publicly linking the program to a broader Marxist push to liberate society from “gender constructs”.

She has also shown some contempt for parents who ­harbour concerns about the prog­ram, which preaches a polit­ically correct approach to sex education and an extreme and contested gender ideology.

Ms Ward has previously ­conceded that Safe Schools was not an anti-bullying program, but rather a means to promote sexual and gender diversity.

She has advised school princip­als that they could dismiss parental concerns about the program with a “tough luck”.

And despite having no education qualifications, she has taught elements of the program, designed for the Years 7 and 8 curriculums, to Year 3 children.

A communique from the LGBTI Taskforce’s meeting last month, which was posted on the Victorian government’s website last week, reveals that the education reference group recently met for the first time.

It discussed aspects of the school curriculum, including the contentious Respectful Rela­tionships program and the implemen­tation of the Catching on Early resource.

Written with input from the La Trobe University research centre, Catching on Early is a 200-page guide for primary schools that touches on gender theory and contains a lesson on “IVF, surrogacy and other ­assisted-conception treatments”.

A government spokeswoman confirmed Ms Ward’s appointment to the group, which is still being finalised.

A spokeswoman defended the Catching On Early program as “an ­evidence-based and optional ­resource, founded on research into sexuality education”. She said it was not compulsory in any school.

Ms Ward did not respond to a request to comment.


Could children today benefit from a smack?

Starts at Sixty (60)

A South Australian judge has ruled that smacking a child does not make you a criminal.

This landmark ruling has prompted an interesting discussion about whether children today could benefit from this traditional discipline.

Supreme Court Justice David Peek overturned a man convicted of aggravated assault for smacking his 12-year-old child on the thigh. The judge found that disciplining a child does not “transform” a parent into a criminal.

A smack left the child with redness but no bruises. “Some temporary pain and discomfort by the child will not transform a parent attempting to correct a child into a person committing a criminal offence”, Justice Peek said.

Supreme Court Justice David Peek

“Indeed, the very suffering of temporary emotion may be calculated to impress the child and correct the behaviour, just as much as the accompanying physical discomfort”, he added.

Whilst there are some modern parenting experts who say that smacking a child is wrong, Justice Peek found that a disciplinary action is often required.

“Some level of pain is permissible, and in the present case there was little… The mere existence of red marks caused by the punishment does not prove unreasonable correction”, he ruled.

This judgement has been welcomed by most families online. “I have the right to raise and discipline my kids how I think is best, we threaten smacking and mostly that’s enough”, mother Natalie Paradowski wrote on Facebook.

“If others choose not to then that’s their kid and their business, but don’t try to control me and our family because you think differently”, she added.

Others agreed that a smack on the bottom is sometimes what modern children need. “A smack reminds them that there’s boundaries in what they choose to do, consequences for their actions”, Leanne Butler said on Facebook.

4cminews welcomes your thoughts on this polarising topic.

Do you think that some children today need a smack? Do you discipline your grandchildren using a different method? Or do you think smacking is wrong?

4cminews votes:   

March 22, 2016 | Starts at Sixty Writers | Source: "Let’s talk: Could children today benefit from a smack?"

In Jerusalem’s Kidron Valley, a warning to disobedient children

Meme: Israel and Absalom

Absalom rebelled against his father King David and was run through with a javelin. Still, his tomb is by far by the most magnificent structure on this walk beneath the Mount of Olives

The tomb of Pharaoh's daughter, Kidron Valley, Jerusalem (Shmuel Bar-Am)

In 1952, a unique 2,000-year-old copper scroll was discovered deep inside a cave near the Dead Sea. When British scholar John Marco Allegro translated the scroll a few years later, he was astonished to learn that over 100 tons of gold and silver treasures from the Second Temple had been hidden in dozens of different locations. One such location, he believed, was the area surrounding the alleged Tomb of the prophet Zechariah in the Kidron Valley beneath Jerusalem’s Mount of Olives.

A few years later, Allegro led an expedition to the Kidron Valley – at the time under Jordanian control – in an attempt to recover hidden treasure. Financing the expedition was no problem, for it was to take place under the auspices of Britain’s Daily Mail tabloid newspaper and Jordan provided workers and transportation. There was just one hitch: dozens of Jews were buried around the tomb. The problem was solved when the Kingdom of Jordan granted Allegro permission to clear away the graves.

While he didn’t uncover even a single treasure, Allegro did expose a cave beneath the monument to Zechariah. Steps leading to and from the cave led archaeologists Boaz Zissu and Avraham Tendler later to surmise that the cave was actually a crypt — apparently from a church that early Christians had constructed next to Zechariah’s Tomb.

Excited by the story of Allegro’s adventure, we decided to take an afternoon walk in the Kidron Valley. We were accompanied by tour guide Danny Herman (aka Danny the Digger), whose expertise as an archaeologist imparted an extra added dimension to our jaunt.

We began at an observation point just across the road from the Old City’s eastern wall. From here we had a wonderful view of the ancient tombs and the glittering Church of St. Mary Magdalene, towering above the valley.

Below us and to the right, at the end of a row of houses in the Silwan neighborhood, stood a cube-shaped one-story building that, at one time, was undoubtedly topped by a pyramid. Legend has it that this is the tomb of Pharaoh’s daughter, the only one of King Solomon’s many wives that rated a specific mention in the Bible. Maybe she received this special treatment because she brought the Canaanite city of Gezer with her as her dowry.

Zechariah’s tomb, and possible crypt, Kidron Valley, Jerusalem (Shmuel Bar-Am)

We began at an observation point just across the road from the Old City’s eastern wall. From here we had a wonderful view of the ancient tombs and the glittering Church of St. Mary Magdalene, towering above the valley.

Below us and to the right, at the end of a row of houses in the Silwan neighborhood, stood a cube-shaped one-story building that, at one time, was undoubtedly topped by a pyramid. Legend has it that this is the tomb of Pharaoh’s daughter, the only one of King Solomon’s many wives that rated a specific mention in the Bible. Maybe she received this special treatment because she brought the Canaanite city of Gezer with her as her dowry.

The tomb of Pharaoh’s daughter, Kidron Valley, Jerusalem (Shmuel Bar-Am)

We then descended steps to Absalom’s Tomb, by far the most magnificent structure in the Kidron Valley. A lofty 22 meters in height whose bottom portion was hewn out of the rock, it is completely separate from the slope behind it. Semi columns and capitals decorate the massive lower part of the monument, which is distinguished by a round top ending in a long, thin point.

The Bible tells us that during his lifetime Absalom, King David’s third son, “had taken a pillar and erected it in the King’s Valley as a monument to himself… He named the pillar after himself, and it is called Absalom’s Monument to this day.” [2 Samuel 18:18]. Despite that fact that the shrine dates back to the end of the Second Temple period — nearly a millennia after Absalom rebelled against his father and was run through with a javelin by the King’s captain – tradition places that monument here, identifying the Kidron Valley with the King’s Valley.

Detail from Absalom’s Tomb, Kidron Valley, Jerusalem (Shmuel Bar-Am)

In earlier centuries, passersby of all religions would throw stones at Absalom’s mammoth structure. Indeed Muslims, who revere King David, almost covered it with rocks. It is said that Jewish parents would bring disobedient offspring to the almost hidden monument, point out the stones, and warn them that “this is what happens to children who behave badly to their fathers.”

Iron bars block the entrance to a structure on one side of Absalom’s Tomb. Uncovered in 1924, and thought by some to be the tomb of 9th-century B.C.E. King Jehoshaphat, it contains several chambers and a splendidly ornamental lintel.

Entrance to possible tomb of King Jehoshaphat, Kidron Valley, Jerusalem (Shmuel Bar-Am)

The prophet Zechariah’s Tomb on the other side of Absalom’s Tomb is the only pyramid-topped structure in the valley. Herman pointed out that unlike Absalom’s Tomb, all of Zechariah’s Tomb was carved out of the slope’s rock face and yet is completely detached from the mountainside.

Over 10 meters high, it dates, like Absalom’s Pillar, to the Second Temple period with a lovely façade covered by ionic pillars. Only the front is carefully chiseled: whoever erected this shrine didn’t find it worthwhile to go to the trouble of continuing the beautiful work on its back and sides.

Zechariah’s Tomb, with the Hezir complex to the left, Kidron Valley, Jerusalem (Shmuel Bar-Am)

Jews so revered Zechariah that over the centuries they asked to be buried as close as possible to his grave. At one time the Jews of Jerusalem offered eulogies here and would come to Zechariah’s Tomb to mourn the destruction of the Temple on the ninth day of the Hebrew month of Av.

One year Jerusalem suffered from a terrible drought. Legend has it that the city’s Arabs prayed to Allah, but rain didn’t fall. They then sent a delegation to Jerusalem’s Jewish inhabitants, warning them that if they couldn’t make it rain, they would be in deep, deep trouble. According to this oft-repeated story, the Jews immediately declared a fast and on its third day made a pilgrimage to the tomb of Zechariah. Throwing themselves upon the ground next to the tomb they prayed, then walked around it seven times while singing psalms. By evening the sky was black. Heavy rain, accompanied by thunder and lightning, fell on the Holy City. The Jews were saved, the city’s cisterns filled with water, and the sanctity of Zechariah’s Tomb was reaffirmed.

Behind the shrine, graffiti was scratched on the walls by family members of Jews who were buried next to Zechariah’s Tomb but whose graves were lost when Allegro had them cleared away.

But two tombstones were recently restored and lie there in state.

They belong to Avraham Shlomo Zalman and his wife, grandparents to pioneer Moshe Yoel Solomon who founded the Nahalat Shiva neighborhood and great grandparents to Haim Solomon, co-founder of the flourishing Teva pharmaceutical company.

Shlomo Zalman, who was prominently involved in the construction of the 19th-century Hurva Synagogue, was murdered in 1851 by an Arab. He is often called Israel’s first victim of Arab terror.

The death of Absalom, hanging from a tree by his hair. 14th-century German miniature (Wikipedia)

Only a few meters from Zechariah’s Tomb, a gate leads into a large burial complex featuring several interior chambers. A barely legible ancient Hebrew inscription, found on the exterior of the complex, relates that the six sons of the priestly Hezir family are buried within. And not just any priestly family, says Herman: one of the Dead Sea Scrolls mentions that the Hezirs operated the Temple on Yom Kippur.

A close look at the façade of the burial complex reveals a Greek design called “Distylos in antis”: two columns between two walls. Herman explained that it was such a popular architectural motif at the time, even the Jewish Temple Façade incorporated its motif.

Looking down into the Kidron Valley, Jerusalem (Shmuel Bar-Am)
February 6, 2016 | By Aviva and Shmuel Bar-am | "In Jerusalem’s Kidron Valley, a warning to disobedient children"

Same-sex adoption bill could leave birth mothers with emotional scars

There has been a whirl of activity on the adoption front in Australia this week.

Adopt Change has scheduled a busy program of events as part of National Adoption Awareness Week; there’s a new book out on adoption by Jeremy Sammut; and the Victorian Legislative Council is due to debate the Adoption Amendment (Adoption by Same Sex Couples Bill) 2015 this Thursday.

It is true that Australia desperately needs adoption reform at both bureaucratic and community levels. What we don’t need is poorly-conceived adoption legislation that ignores the real issues and promotes the interests of one sector of the community at the expense of the most vulnerable — in this case the child and the birth parents. Good legislation fixes problems without creating new ones. The proposed legislation does not meet this standard.

The real problem with the current system is that adoption is so difficult in this country that it has almost become impossible. Last year there were only 317 adoptions in Australia, of which only 89 were of children from care – 84 in NSW and just five from other states and territories. This is despite the fact that there are more than 43,000 children languishing in the out-of-home care system, nearly 70 percent of whom have been in the system for two or more years. These are children who have been removed due to physical abuse, sexual abuse and/or neglect with no hope of being reunited with their birth parents.

Because adoption simply isn’t a choice, there are also thousands of women facing a difficult or unplanned pregnancy who go down the path of abortion if they are unwilling or unable to parent their own child. Women’s Forum Australia’s research report, Adoption Rethink, shows that adoption, if appropriately and sensitively managed, can work out well in by far the majority of circumstances and should be a realistic choice for these women.

But despite the fact that the current adoption system fails comprehensively to provide an adequate response to these most vulnerable members of our community, the Victorian government has chosen to focus its efforts almost exclusively on the perceived rights of prospective adoptive parents, in particular same-sex couples.

Adoption should, first and foremost, be a response to the needs of the vulnerable and not simply a means by which families can be created for those who are unable to have children. While prospective adoptive parents should be encouraged to open their homes and hearts to those in need, children are not commodities and we must avoid any situation that leads to the creation of a “market” for children.

Section 15(1) (b) of the Adoption Act 1984 currently provides for birth parents to express a preference in relation to the religion, race and ethnic characteristics of the proposed adoptive parents who are required to have been in a (heterosexual) marital or de facto relationship for two or more years. This is entirely appropriate.

Our research demonstrated that an open adoption where the birth parents feel they have some control over the decisions and process results in the most favourable long-term outcomes for all involved. Key to a successful open adoption process is the involvement of the birth parents, where possible, in the selection of adoptive parents.

The proposed bill will change the Adoption Act so that anyone involved in a “domestic partnership”, heterosexual or otherwise, will be eligible to adopt. However, it makes no attempt to update Section 15(1)(b) to include reference to marital status and gender although these may be just as important as religion, race and ethnicity to the birth mother and even her child.

This is line with the recommendation of the Adoption by Same-Sex Couples Legislative Review that birth parents not be allowed to express a wish about the domestic relationship of any prospective adoptive parents as “to do so would open up an avenue for same-sex couples to be discriminated against”.

Yet, irrespective of religious views, there will be birth parents who want their child to be raised by a mother and a father and they should not be forced to place their child in an adoptive situation that is contrary to their personal beliefs. The experiences of earlier decades left many women psychologically and emotionally scarred because they felt forced or coerced into giving up their children in a closed adoption process over which they had little control. History is set to repeat itself if birth parents are allowed no say in whether their child goes to a traditional married couple or a same-sex couple.

This not only privileges the rights of one group over another; it is not even necessary. If Australians are as open to gay marriage as polls suggest, the majority will also approve of same-sex adoption. This is how public opinion has trended in the United States. So it brings into question why the current government refuses to allow for different preferences among birth parents in the adoption process.

Perhaps they are quietly concerned that, given the choice, many, if not most, members of the community might want their child to be raised by a mother and a father in practice if not in principle.

The proposed Bill goes even further and also seeks to remove exemptions for faith-based organisations in the provision of adoption services to same-sex couples. Again, this provision seeks to prioritise the desires of the adoptive parents over the needs of the birth parents.

Birth parents have a right to work with an adoption agency of their choice, including an organisation that aligns with their religious preferences. Removing exemptions for faith-based organisations means that these adoption agencies which do not support same-sex marriage, will be forced to close, narrowing the options of birth and adoptive parents.

If the Victorian government proceeds with these reforms it must do so on the basis of equality and non-discrimination for all the parties involved. Faith-based exemptions will not hinder same-sex couples’ access to adoption since they are free to seek out the services of another agency. It will, however, protect the rights of birth parents who for religious or other reasons wish to work with a faith-based agency and the consciences of those who believe that children deserve a mother and a father.

The optimal situation for women and their children occurs when children are raised in a safe, loving and stable environment under the care of their birth parents. However, the sad reality is that this is not always possible. Therefore, as a community we need to provide viable alternatives.

Open, respectful and regulated adoption provides an appropriate response to the situation of vulnerable children in need of a loving, permanent and stable home. Adoption also provides an appropriate response to the situation of women who feel unable or unwilling to parent their own child.

The last thing thousands of vulnerable Australian women and children need is laws that make the adoption system even less effective than it is by removing legitimate pluralism and choice.

Kristan Dooley is the Managing Director of Women’s Forum Australia. She writes from Melbourne, Victoria.

Kristan Dooley | Nov 11 2015 | Source: "MercatorNet: Same-sex adoption bill could leave birth mothers with emotional scars"

84yr old True Crime Writer Ann Rule’s Sons Charged with Forgery and Theft!

Washington state authorities have accused two sons of best-selling true crime writer Ann Rule of theft and forgery, alleging they swindled their mother out of more than $100,000.

King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office charged Michael Rule, 51, with first-degree theft and forgery. His brother Andrew, 54, was charged with first-degree theft.

Both remain out of custody on their own recognizance, according to Dan Donohoe, a spokesperson for the prosecutor’s office.

Since October of 2013, the once-prolific The New York Times best-selling author – best known for The Stranger Beside Me

a book about her friendship with serial killer Ted Bundy – has required 24-hour, in-home care at her home in Normandy Park, Washington, after she broke her hip in a serious fall.

The author and mother of five, 84, “has been largely confined to a wheelchair” since then, according to court documents obtained by PEOPLE. “She is on oxygen all of the time.”

The report states that Rule suffers from “periods of extreme confusion” and is “unable to perform many activities of daily living without assistance.”

Authorities claim her two sons took advantage of her condition so they could forge checks from her bank account and demand more money than the $25,000 monthly salaries they were receiving from her.

Rule’s son Michael is accused of writing himself and his wife over $85,000 in checks from his mother’s bank account. Authorities say he would become “increasingly insistent that he needed the extra money to pay his mortgage and other expenses.”

Fits of Rage

“He would yell at his mother demanding money as she cowered in her wheelchair,” the document says. He became so angry once that “he screamed at her and threw a cell phone across the room, smashing it into pieces.”

According to the charging document, Rule allegedly discovered in February of 2015 that her signature was being forged on her checks: “The signature was clearly not Ann’s signature, and instead was virtually identical to that of Mike Rule.”

Ann allegedly confronted her son, who “admitted that he had forged the checks, and stated he shouldn’t have done it. He then said something like, ‘Remember, we talked about this?’ Ann Rule said that she didn’t remember that and did not give him permission to forge checks from her account,” the documents say.

In an interview, Rule alleged that her son “often goes into rages where he throws things across the room and sweeps a counter clean with his arm.”

Rule’s bookkeeper, Donna Anders, allegedly told authorities that Mike Rule would hide his mother’s bank statements from her. “Anders reports that Mike Rule would either not provide the statements to her at all, or provide statements that were missing pages of transactions,” the document says.

Second Son Accused

Andrew Rule, 54, was arrested on March 27 after police allege he violated a restraining order filed by his mother in January.

“By every witness’s account, Andy would pester and bully Ann relentlessly for money, sometimes threatening suicide, sometimes trying to make her feel guilty,


sometimes screaming obscenities at her, until she would finally give in and write him a check. To put distance between her and Andy, Ann Rule arranged for him to pick up his salary checks from her attorney’s office, but this did not stop the persistent financial harassment,” the report states.

During an interview, Andrew Rule allegedly told police he “has battled with drug and gambling addictions for years, and that he used the money provided to him by his mother on gambling and strip clubs.”

Authorities allege he bullied his mother into forking over $23,000.

Ann Rule could not be reached for comment. Michael and Andrew Rule also could not be reached for comment, but Andrew denied charges to a reporter with KIRO-TV, stating, “Basically, I used to have a gambling problem, but I don’t anymore, and I have absolutely no idea why I was pulled in at the same time my brother was.”

Both men will be arraigned in King County Superior Court on April 30.


Ann Rule Theft Case

04/22/2015 | by Christine Pelisek | Source: "True Crime Writer Ann Rule's Sons Charged with Forgery and Theft :"

ACT TODAY: A message to MP’s or Senators “Marriage Definition” traditional definition of marriage

A message to MP’s or Senators “Marriage Definition”

ACT TODAY: Can we encourage you to print it off, (see PDF below) and call in at your Federal MP or Senator’s office and drop it in to them as soon as possible.  Just go unannounced to the office, and tell the receptionist that you would like to drop this document in for the MP to read.  Make sure you leave your name and address and a contact phone number and email address so he can respond. 

ACT TODAY: Write a Letter to Australian MP’s or Senators re: Proposed Marriage Definition vs. Traditional definition of marriage HOW TO WRITE


Original Source: Open Email from Peter Abetz (Member of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly) 13 June 2015

ACT TODAY: Write a Letter to Australian MP’s or Senators re: Proposed Marriage Definition vs. Traditional definition of marriage


Christians should never be the “silent majority” Speak Up Today”

Letter Argument Ideas

Further Notes:

Future Action:

Coalition Members

Email Address: Contact List

Postal Address: Contact List

Labor Members

Email Address: Contact List

Postal Address: Contact List


Letter Argument Ideas

Rights of the Children

Same-Sex Marriage dismisses any possible impact on children where the State deliberately intervenes and forces children to be raised either without their mother or father.
There are different and complementary attributes that a mother and father bring when parenting children.

The United Nation on Rights of the Child states in article 9 “Children should not be separated from their parents unless it is for their own good. For example, if a parent is mistreating or neglecting a child. Children whose parents have separated have the right to stay in contact with both parents, unless this might harm the child.”

The convention also states that “Children also have the right to know their parents and, as far as possible, to be cared for by them.”

Tradition of Marriage always being between a man and woman

Marriage has always been the relationship between a man and a woman. Even in ancient Greece or Rome where homosexuality existed the term marriage was reserved for relationships between a man and a woman.

Marriage is unique as it recognises the important of marriage between a man and woman that provides opportunities for the raising of children.

Religious Freedom

Many people have argued that any bill to change the definition of marriage would include clauses to give religious exemptions. Jurisdictions such as the United States of America and Canada have shown that even with these clauses in place businesses, schools etc are forced to teach that same-sex marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage and that fines can apply for conscientious objections.

Do not Change Legislation for only a few

This debate is not about the right for homosexuals to have relationships with one another. It is about changing the definition of marriage to cater for only a small percentage of the population. We should not change something as significant as marriage for just a few.

No to a conscience vote for the coalition (this is the most important point when writing to coalition members – not relevant to Labor)

The Liberal Party has always held a position to support the family unit. Something as significant as the institution of marriage is something that a political party should have a position on and in the case of the Liberal Party, continue to support the traditional family unit.

I will be looking at how things progress in the future and hope that you support traditional marriage both individually, and that there is no conscience vote. If a motion comes to the party room, it is very important that you vote against the conscience vote! This is the way to uphold the party policy on marriage. This was the policy that the coalition took to the last election and it must be maintained.


Further Notes:

  • Lots of emails are good and phone calls are good. Please go ahead with them.  Hand written letters are the most powerful.  Please write several hand written letters and encourage friends to write as well.
  • A good idea is to invite a group of friends over and have everyone write three short letters each, thus multiplying your efforts.
  • It is critical that coalition MPs on the above list receive as many hand written letters as possible in the second week of June (8 to 12). These letters must urge them to oppose a conscience vote.
  • If you are a member of the relevant party it is a good idea to mention this on your letters.
  • If your local member is not on the above lists, it is a good idea to write to them as well.


Future Action:

This is but the start of action on this front. An organisaton is being created ensure that the definition of marriage remains as it is. In order to be up to date please register your interest at With questions contact Christian Ellis on 0416 012 503.

Than you for being involved on such an important issue!


Coalition Members Contact List
(2015 Australian Government)

 Email Address:  
Name Party State Electorate Contact Number email
Alexander, John Lib NSW Bennelong (02) 9869 4288
Brandis, George Lib QLD QLD (07) 3862 4044
Briggs, Jamie Lib SA Mayo (08) 8398 5566
Griggs, Natasha Lib NT Solomon (08) 8928 0180
Hawke, Alex Lib NSW Mitchell (02) 9899 7211
Hockey, Joe Lib NSW North Sydney (02) 9929 9822
Howarth, Luke Lib QLD Petrie (07) 3284 8008
Hunt, Greg Lib VIC Flinders (03) 5979 3188
Hutchinson, Eric Lib TAS Lyons (03) 6398 1115
Ley, Sussan Lib NSW Farrer (02) 6021 3264
Pasin, Tony Lib SA Barker (08) 8531 2466
Pitt, Keith Lib QLD Hinkler 0417 771 435
Porter, Christian Lib WA Pearce (08) 9294 3222
Price, Melissa Lib WA Durack (08) 9964 2195
Ruddock, Philip Lib NSW Berowra (02) 9980 1822
Scullion, Nigel Lib NT NT (08) 8948 3555
Smith, Tony Lib VIC Casey (03) 9727 0799
Stone, Sharman Lib VIC Murray (03) 5821 5371
Sudmalis, Ann Lib NSW Gilmore (02) 4423 1782
Taylor, Angus Lib NSW Hume (02) 4822 2277
Wicks, Lucy Lib NSW Robertson (02) 4322 2400
Hogan, Kevin Nat NSW Page (02) 6622 7253
McKenzie, Bridget Nat VIC VIC (03) 5441 4251



Coalition Members Contact List
(2015 Australian Government)

 Postal Address: 
Name Party State address 1 address 2 suburb State Postcode
Alexander, John Lib NSW Federal Member for Bennelong PO Box 872 Epping NSW 2121
Brandis, George Lib QLD Senator of QLD PO Box 143 Albion QLD 4010
Briggs, Jamie Lib SA Federal Member for Mayo PO Box 1601 Mount Barker SA 5251
Griggs, Natasha Lib NT Federal Member for Solomon PO Box 43300 Casuarina NT 811
Hawke, Alex Lib NSW Federal Member for Mitchell PO Box 1173 Castle Hill NSW 2154
Hockey, Joe Lib NSW Federal Member for North Sydney PO Box 1107 North Sydney NSW 2059
Howarth, Luke Lib QLD 40 Hornibrook Esplanade Clontarf Beach QLD 4019
Hunt, Greg Lib VIC Federal Member for Flinders PO Box 274 Hastings VIC 3915
Hutchinson, Eric Lib TAS Federal Member for Lyons PO Box 50 Perth TAS 7300
Ley, Sussan Lib NSW Federal Member for Farrer PO Box 672 Albury NSW 2640
Pasin, Tony Lib SA Shop 17, Murray Bridge Market Place South Terrace Murray Bridge SA 5253
Pitt, Keith Lib QLD Federal Member for Hinkler PO Box 535 Bundaberg West QLD 4670
Porter, Christian Lib WA Federal Member for Pearce PO Box 1005 Midland WA 6936
Price, Melissa Lib WA Federal Member for Durack 2B/209 Foreshore Drive Geraldton WA 6530
Ruddock, Philip Lib NSW Federal Member for Berowra PO Box 743 Pennant Hills NSW 1715
Scullion, Nigel Lib NT Senator of Northern Territory Unit 1, 229 McMillans Road Jingili NT 810
Smith, Tony Lib VIC Federal Member for Casey Suite 1, 1 East Ridge Drive Chirnside Park VIC 3116
Stone, Sharman Lib VIC Federal Member for Murray PO Box 884 Shepparton VIC 3632
Sudmalis, Ann Lib NSW Federal Member for Gilmore PO Box 1009 Nowra NSW 2541
Taylor, Angus Lib NSW Federal Member for Hume PO Box 700 Goulburn NSW 2580
Wicks, Lucy Lib NSW Federal Member for Robertson PO Box 577 Gosford NSW 2250
Hogan, Kevin Nat NSW Federal Member for Page 61-63 Molesworth Street Lismore NSW 2480
McKenzie, Bridget Nat VIC Senator of Victoria PO Box 2047, Delivery Centre Bendigo VIC 3554



Labor Members Contact List
(2015 Australian Government)

 Email Address:  
Name Party State Electorate Contact Number email
Rowland, Michelle Lab NSW Greenway (02) 9671 4780
Byrne, Anthony Lab VIC Holt (03) 9796 7533
Thomson, Kelvin Lab VIC Wills (03) 9350 5777



Labor Members Contact List
(2015 Australian Government)

 Postal Address: 
Name Party State Electorate address 1 address 2 suburb State Postcode
Rowland, Michelle Lab NSW Greenway Member for Greenway PO Box 686 Seven Hills NSW 1730
Byrne, Anthony Lab VIC Holt Shop HM 2B 8-10 Overland Drive Fountain Gate VIC 3805
Thomson, Kelvin Lab VIC Wills Federal Member for Wills 3 Munro Street Coburg VIC 3058
Original Source: Open Email from Peter Abetz (Member of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly) 13 June 2015

Poll asking: Is same sex marriage is inevitable | Make your NO vote count Today! “Closes Saturday 13 Jun”

No Gay Marriage Button


Open Letter from Catch the Fire Ministries

Fri, 12 Jun 2015 14:26:38

Dear Family and friends,


Please urgently click on the link below, scroll down and vote NO, that you do not think the legalisation of same sex marriage is inevitable. We have until Saturday to show the media how bible believing Christians feel about this matter.

Please urgently click on the link below, scroll down and vote NO, that you do not think the legalisation of same sex marriage is inevitable. We have until Saturday to show the media how bible believing Christians feel about this matter.


Your vote really counts.

Thanks very much and may God bless you.

Love in Christ

Elizabeth Ryan

Catch the Fire Ministries

30 Star Crescent
Hallam 3803
Ph 9703 1620
Fax 8786 3062

“Marriage equality in Australia” Open Letter: to incumbent Local Federal Member

No Gay Marriage Button

Subject: Bill Shorten’s bill “Marriage equality in Australia”

Dear “Name of Local Federal Member of Parliament“,

The Liberal Party should vote as one to defeat Bill Shorten’s bill “Marriage equality in Australia”. The Morality of Marriage is no different than Defining what Murder is a process I’m sure the incumbent political party would not classify as a conscience vote issue or just as issues like Asylum Seekers or Climate Change Policies are not considered a conscience vote issue.

Hetrosexual Marriage is indisputably a rightly, natural timeless and sustainable foundation for our society dating back to the earliest records of mankind. Any alternative will erode the environment of our society for the raising and nurturing of the next generation and others to follow.

Failure to vote as one to defeat the same-sex marriage bill will be an action to “FAIL AUSTRALIA’S BEST INTERESTS AND FUTURE” and an act of betrayl to Hetrosexual Marriage which is the absolute core to any civilised society.

Such Failure will not be forgotten by many like myself who believe in these fundamental core values at the next election and many more to come.


Gary Green
dated: 31st May 2015

acl_logoYour voice is needed now to preserve marriage
On Monday Opposition Leader Bill Shorten will introduce a bill to redefine marriage in Australia.

Marriage is the union of one man and one woman, voluntarily entered into for life.

It provides a natural, timeless and sustainable foundation for our society.

Marriage secures a better future for society by providing the best environment for raising society’s next generation.

Redefining marriage would redefine family.

By definition same-sex parenting means intentionally removing a child from either their mum or dad.

Experience overseas has demonstrated that people who disagree with same-sex marriage are often punished by law.

Please email your MP today and ask them to vote against Bill Shorten’s same-sex marriage bill.

We’ve made it very easy for you to Email your MP and Senators: Do this  today HERE