Compare Party Responses

16. Marriage

Marriage is clearly defined in the Marriage Act as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. Would your Party commit to support this definition for the life of the Government and beyond?

Our party supports the definition that marriage is clearly defined in the Marriage Act as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

• The Coalition Governement acted in 2004 to define in legislation that marriage is ‘the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life’.

The Coalition believes that this definition reflects the views of the majority of the Australian community and will continue to strongly oppose any action that would alter the status of marriage.  It will also continue to oppose any action which would create confusion over the distinction between marriage and same sex relationships.

The Australian Government does not regulate civil unions and relationship registers.  The regulation of same sex relationships is a matter for the States and Territories.  In that context, the Coalition has no plans to introduce civil unions or relationship registers for same-sex couples.

Yes, we are totally opposed to “same sex” so-called Marriage.

• The Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party would accept a broader interpretation of marriage other than that within the current Marriage Act, which reflects the reality of our society

• Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the Australian Labor Party remain committed to maintaining the definition of marriage as currently set out in the Marriage Act as being between a man and a woman.
• Federal Labor has introduced reforms to remove discrimination from 85 Commonwealth laws.  The reforms remove discrimination in areas of Commonwealth activity including taxation, social security, health, aged care, superannuation, immigration, child support and family law. 
• These reforms extend to same sex couples the same entitlements and obligations that apply to opposite sex couples.  Equal treatment means some same-sex couples will get access to benefits they could not previously access.

The Sex Party has not yet answered this question.

The Secular Party is opposed to discrimination on the basis of sexuality and supports same-sex marriage.

Yes, absolutely and for all time.

• Yes. Marriage is between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.
• Family First opposes homosexual marriage.
• In redefining families and who a child's parents are, radical legislation is putting long standing protections for children at risk.

Marriage is between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. When this definition begins to break down, the family suffers. Recent models being considered in Parliaments around Australia include children having numerous parents and 'co-parents'.

For Family First the key question is not about the rights of the parents. Rather, before any issue of ‘parental choice’ or ‘rights’ are considered we believe the wellbeing of any child born into the new relationships being proposed today should be the paramount consideration. Article 7 of the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child notes that every child has a right to know and be cared for by its parents. In redefining families and who a child's parents are, radical legislation is putting long-standing protections for children at risk.

THE GREENS DECLINED TO PROVIDE AN ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION.

• We would allow a conscience vote on this issue.

17. Parenting

Now that a paid parental leave scheme has been legislated and will begin operation on 1 January 2011, what policies will your Party implement to redress the inequality in Government support experienced by women who work exclusively in the home?

The paid parental leave scheme has not gone nearly far enough. For example, fathers are not provided for (unless agreed by the mother). While parental leave is paid in one hand, it is reduced in the other – no family tax benefits paid and no baby bonus paid. The overall effect is negligible. 

We would support any means to assist in ensuring that one parent is at home when the children return from school, etc.

• The Coalition would like to give stay-at-home mums a better deal but currently the priority is getting Labor's debt and deficit down.

We are very proud of our record of providing help to Australian families. The previous Coalition government introduced Family Tax Benefits (FTB) A and B to help families with the cost of raising children. These reforms ushered in a new and generous era of family assistance in Australia, which continue to benefit families today.

We introduced Family Tax Benefit B to help families with single incomes. We place huge value on mothers who choose to work exclusively in the home. Today Family Tax Benefit B provides more than $4 billion a year in support to Australia’s stay-at-home mums.

The value of family assistance more than doubled under the previous Coalition government, from $12.5 billion in 1995/96 to almost $29.7 billion in 2007/08. In 2004 we introduced the “More Help for Families” package. This was easily the largest family assistance package put forward by any Australian government.

The paid parental leave scheme the Coalition has announced is good for mothers who choose to work because it helps them when they are at their most financially vulnerable. It allows them to spend a significant period of time with their children without having them forgo the option of returning to work later. It is important to remember that our parental leave is a workplace entitlement – not a welfare entitlement.

Our paid parental leave scheme is also good for the economy because it makes it easier for women to stay engaged with the workforce, if they choose to.

We would support fairer treatment for women who work exclusively from home, especially in their child rearing and care priorities.

• Our party would support the important concept of home parenting, and would implement policies which support the family unit. 

• The Gillard Labor Government values the hard work of mothers regardless of whether they are in paid work or not.
• Federal Labor will continue to support families to make their own work and family choices.

The Gillard Labor Government will support stay-at-home mums through a range of measures including the Baby Bonus, Family Tax Benefits A and B and the Health Care Card. 

Even after the introduction of Federal Labor’s paid parental leave scheme, stay-at-home mums who meet the income test can still receive the non-taxable Baby Bonus paid over 13 fortnights ($5,300 from 1 July 2010).

Mr Abbott’s Paid Parental Leave scheme is unsustainable and inequitable.

Under Mr Abbott’s scheme, businesses like Woolworths, Big W and Myer would be taxed so that women earning more than $150,000 can receive replacement wages for six months.

Mr Abbott’s new tax would increase the cost of living for low and middle income families and pensioners to pay for the highest earning women to receive paid parental leave.

Mr Abbott’s scheme would see high income double income families receive up to $75,000 in paid parental leave payments while stay-at-home mums receive no extra support.

The Gillard Labor Government has delivered for both single income families where one parent works in the home and for families where both parents work. We will continue to support flexibility and choice for all families.

The Sex Party has not yet answered this question.

The Secular Party believes that men and women should be treated equally.

The DLP will move to secure identical benefits for women who choose to care and nurture their children full time.

• Family First opposed measures in the recent parental leave legislation that discriminated against 'stay at home' mums.
• Many parents wish to take an extended period off from work following the birth of a child, and this can benefit the child's development.
• Family First will continue to fight to end discrimination against stay at home mums in terms of financial benefits provided.

Family First opposed measures in the recent parental leave legislation that discriminated against 'stay at home' mums. Many parents wish to take an extended period off from work following the birth of a child, and this can benefit the child's development.  Family First will continue to fight to end discrimination against stay at home mums in terms of financial benefits provided.

THE GREENS DECLINED TO PROVIDE AN ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION.

• We believe all children and mothers deserve to be equally supported by government, regardless of income level or employment status.

18. Surrogacy and ART

The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) intends to achieve uniform national surrogacy law. Some States allow surrogacy for single people and same-gender couples to obtain a child, who then has no possibility of having both a mother and a father. In constructing nationally consistent surrogacy laws, will your Party oppose any provision for single and same-gender surrogacy?

Our party would oppose any provision for single and same-gender surrogacy.

• The Coalition believes that, all things being equal, children should have the opportunity for the care and affection of a father and mother.
• States and Territories are responsible for the provision and regulation of health and medical care and treatment.
• While at present, the Federal Government does not have comprehensive powers to legislate with respect to IVF, Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) or surrogacy, the Coalition will not support any measure which might open the door or otherwise give legitimacy to same-sex adoption, same-sex IVF or same-sex surrogacy.”

Our party will oppose any provision for single and same – gender surrogacy.

• Every child is entitled to a father and mother.
• Children are not commodities that can be acquired by commercial means.

The CDP believes that children are God gift to parents and that God instituted marriage to have children.

Whilst CDP is sympathetic to the plight of infertile married couples, and urges them to seek help, CDP opposes the use of reproductive technology by persons other than married couples because every child is entitled to have a father and mother who are publicly committed to each other for life.

• The party would consider the adequacy of the parent, be they single or same gender, more important than the possibility of having both the mother and father, as the realities in our society are that this ideal situation does not occur very frequently with the level of divorce.

• State and Territory governments have responsibility for surrogacy laws. The Australian Government  supports States and Territories working together to create nationally consistent laws as far as this is possible.
• The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) has recently agreed to model provisions and model principles for jurisdictions to apply in this area.
• These principles and provisions are gender neutral. This means that it is up to individual jurisdictions to determine how to regulate surrogacy by same-sex couples, which the Australian Government believes is appropriate.

In March 2008 the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) agreed to develop a unified framework for the legal recognition of parentage achieved by surrogacy arrangements, based on the following principles:

• The rationale for the legislation is to ensure the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration in recognising surrogacy arrangements
• The model regime should aim to minimise scope for dispute between the surrogate mother and the intended parents.
• The model should aim for minimal intervention in people’s lives.

A consultation paper, A Proposal for a National Model to Harmonise Regulation of Surrogacy, was released in January 2009 and attracted a significant number of submissions from a range of stakeholders.

In November 2009 SCAG Ministers agreed to a set of 15 draft principles upon which the model provisions to form the basis of surrogacy laws in Australia could be based.

These principles and provisions are gender neutral. This means that it is up to individual jurisdictions to determine how to regulate surrogacy by same-sex couples, which the Australian Government believes is appropriate.

In May 2010, officials considered a set of draft model provisions based on the 15 principles for surrogacy laws endorsed in their November 2009 meeting and agreed to refer the draft model provisions to Health and Community Services Ministers for their consideration.

The Sex Party has not yet answered this question.

The Secular Party supports equality of opportunity in this matter as far as is practicable.

The DLP opposes surrogacy in all its forms as it constitutes an offence to the dignity of humanity and human life generally.

• Yes. Family First will oppose any provision for single and same-gender surrogacy.
• Family First considers the wellbeing of any child born as a consequence to surrogacy laws to be the paramount consideration. 
• In recent state Reproductive Technology legislation the Government attempted to change the law so that the rights of the child being born through IVF would be diminished. Family First lodged an amendment, which passed, successfully restoring this important children's right. 

In recent Parliamentary sessions, we have seen the rights of the child have been put under threat by those who see the 'right to have a child' as more important than the rights of that child to have both a mum and a dad.

For Family First the key question is not about the rights of the parents. Rather, before any issue of ‘parental choice’ or ‘rights’ are considered we believe the wellbeing of any child born as a consequence of any changes to legislation must be considered.

In recent South Australian Reproductive Technology legislation, the Government attempted to change the law so that the rights of the child being born through IVF would be diminished. Family First successfully restored this important children's right by amending the legislation.

Family First will continue to fight for the rights of the child on this issue and would oppose any provision for single and same-gender surrogacy.

THE GREENS DECLINED TO PROVIDE AN ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION.

• We would allow a conscience vote on this issue.