By Australian Newsletter

An online petition by former Kambala student Chanel Contos that is calling for better sex education has resulted in thousands of young women sharing their stories, and has demonstrated “rape culture” is still very much a problem in the teenage circles of elite single sex private schools in Sydney. Dr Tim Hawkes is a leading expert on the education of boys. He was the Headmaster of The King’s School in Parramatta for many years and is also an advocate for The Fathering Project, a group who equip and train dads to step up in their parenting role. Dr Hawkes commended the petition, “I think it’s terrific and I really think it’s important for society to wake up on this”. “As a collective, we call for sexual consent to be at the forefront of educational issues in every school, from a young age.”

He said surveys have revealed 55% of boys in the upper years of high school said they had a friend who had engaged in sexual assault. Dr Hawkes said a combination of factors are contributing to the problem. “I think we need to improve the sex education in our schools, I think we need to improve the quality of our parenting, and this is obviously where the Fathering Project comes in,” he said.  “I think we also need to look at issues such as the pornification of contemporary society. We’ve got to look at the fact that governments through their current laws are giving free and unfettered access to pornography, and this often breeds inappropriate feelings of entitlement and dominance among boys, and an expectation that their sexual partner should perform as seasoned professional sex workers. There’s a whole combination of factors that are contributing.”

Dr Hawkes said it is harder for fathers to influence their son’s values today, because they are spending so much more time online than with their own fathers. He said recent surveys have shown meaningful interactions between fathers and their teenage sons are as little as 18 seconds a day. “Whereas that same son will spend between two to five hours in front of a screen and on the net. And so therefore, we’re getting rather too many of our sons being cyber-parented. And we’re getting a large number of sons who adopt values that are antithetical to the values in the home. Because the influence of the home on their values formation has been minimal.”

Dr Hawkes said it is important for fathers to teach their sons all of the essential elements of consent. While it is important to teach young people the essential elements of consent, it is also crucial that young people know how to deal with unwanted sexual advances. Adolescent psychologist Collett Smart explains that some girls feel pressure to be “nice” and it’s important for them to understand that they don’t always have to be nice.

Source: Hope 103.2FM

Print This Post Print This Post


By Australian Newsletter

One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts has stepped up and put forward a motion in the federal senate to ensure the protection of gendered language. He moved a motion that the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) our fundamental biology and relationships are represented through the following descriptors – mother, father, son, daughter, brother, sister, boy, girl, grandmother, grandfather, aunt, uncle, female, male, man, woman, lady, gentleman, Mr, Mrs, Ms, sir, madam, dad, mum, husband, wife,

(ii) broad scale genuine inclusion cannot be achieved through distortions of biological and relational descriptors,

(iii) an individual’s right to choose their descriptors and pronouns for personal use must not dehumanise the human race and undermine gender,

(iv) Dr Lyons from Logan (Queensland) reports incidences of young children feeling stressed and panicked about whether it is okay to use the words boy and girl, and

(v) pushing gender-neutral language is no replacement for appropriate emotional and psychological support for children while growing up; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to:

(i) reject the use of distorted language such as gestational/non-gestational parent, chest-feeding, human milk, lactating parent, menstruators, birthing/non-birthing parent, and

(ii) ensure all federal government and federal government-funded agencies do not include these terms in their material, including legislation, websites, employee documentation and training materials.

The motion was passed with the support of the Coalition.

Source: Binary

Print This Post Print This Post



By Australian Newsletter

Fiona Patten tabled her Anti-Vilification Bill in 2019, seeking to amend the existing Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 to include a few protected attributes such as gender identity and sexual orientation, while lowering the bar to define vilification. The bill did not pass the Upper House but went into Committee inquiry. After months-long consultation and hearings, the Committee released its report on March 3. In the Committee’s recommendation, sexual orientation, gender identity and/or gender expression, sex characteristics and/or intersex status are adopted. To add salt to the wound, the Committee recommends to lower the bar to define vilification and incitement from ‘conduct that incites’ to ‘conduct that is likely to incite’.

Like the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020, the Committee has recommended to give the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission the power to oversee these new regulations. If these recommendations are adopted by the Andrews Government and made into law, the religious freedom and free speech of Victorians will be put at greater risk. Christians and people of various faiths and cultural communities could be restricted in expressing their beliefs about gender identity and sexual ethics, both verbally and online. Additional restrictive legislation is also on the horizon, including the Gender Equality Act 2020 and the Victorian LGBTIQ Strategy.

Source: Australian Christian Lobby

Print This Post Print This Post


By Feature Articles

by Richard E Simmons III a Christian author, speaker, and the Executive Director of The Centre for Executive Leadership.

The following article is based on his latest book “Reflections on the Existence of God” available on Amazon or at

It seems as though “wokeness” ideology is taking over our society with everyone from churches, to schools, to giant corporations seeing who can be the most “woke.” Generally, “woke” ideas emphasize feelings over facts, pretend that individuals determine reality for themselves (i.e. your “truth”), put a priority on affirming feelings, ideas, or behaviours rather than willing someone’s actual good, and often deny even the ability to know objective truth. Being “woke” means you have become enlightened to the alleged systemic oppression of various groups and you vow to fight for “social justice” which usually means working for equal economic and social outcomes in a given context.

In reality, the current popular understanding of “social justice” that undergirds the “woke” movement is the opposite of the good all humans should pursue and is anything but just (i.e. giving someone their due). Historic Christianity, and even things like logic and science, are seen as oppressive, racist, bigoted, etc. Today’s “woke” culture is tearing our society apart and erecting barriers to people considering the true Gospel and the freedom it provides.


We live in a time where people are truly perplexed over what has gone wrong with our world. There seems to be so much instability in people’s lives. When you look into what’s happening within our culture and world, there seems to be so much moral confusion. How does a modern person determine what is right or wrong?  Max Hocutt, professor of philosophy at the University of Alabama says: “The fundamental question of ethics is, who makes the rules? God or men? The theistic answer is that God makes them. The humanistic answer is that men make them. This distinction between theism and humanism is the fundamental division in moral theory.” Hocutt is correct. The problem then becomes if morals and ethics are determined by men, who makes these decisions? Who determines how we ought to live? How should we conduct our lives?

To personalize it, how do we determine what is moral if there is no God who reveals to us what is right or wrong? Is it determined by our feelings, by our ability to reason? If there is no God, who or what is a guiding force in our lives? We must conclude what Richard Dawkins rationally describes in his book River Out of Eden: “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference, DNA neither knows or cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”

Think about what he said. If God does not exist, then what are we as human beings? We are purposeless products of biological evolution, which means all morality is subjective. It is based on your opinion. This has such an impact on a culture when there is no moral compass. You just follow your DNA, wherever it leads you. Richard Dawkins admitted this in a radio interview with radio host Justin Brierley, as Dawkins makes it clear that human morality is nothing more than the outcome of the evolutionary process: Brierley asked “When you make a value judgment, don’t you immediately step yourself outside of this evolutionary process and say that the reason this is good is that it’s good? And you don’t have any way to stand on that statement.”

Dawkins replied “My value judgement itself could come from my evolutionary past.” Brierley responded “So therefore it’s just as random in a sense as any product of evolution.” Dawkins said “You could say that. Nothing about it makes it more probable that there is anything supernatural.” Brierley “Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six” to which Dawkins responded “You could say that, yeah.” This is astonishing that the world’s most prominent atheist could not emphatically say that rape is immoral. Though he may not believe this is true within his heart, he seeks to be a consistent Darwinian atheist. However, Dawkins does believe that it is not good for a society always to follow Darwinian morality because it is “ruthless.”

He says, “I have always said that I am a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to the way we should organize our lives and morality. We want to avoid basing our society on Darwinian principles.” Dawkins, on the one hand, says that we live our lives based on our DNA, but then introduces a moral code by telling us not to follow our DNA. The more I read of Richard Dawkins, the more I recognize how inconsistent he can be. The individual who has had the most to say about atheism and morality is the great German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. He clearly stated that there is no absolute right or wrong. For this reason, he had much contempt for Christianity, because it elevated such beliefs as love, morality, and humility. You can’t build a civilization of power on these beliefs.

Nietzsche predicted that the English-speaking world would seek to abandon a belief in God, but would attempt to hold on to Christian values. However, he predicted correctly that when societies reject God, Christian morality itself will eventually disappear. The reason is because it will be more difficult to motivate people to be moral, for they will naturally follow their selfish instincts and desires. Dr. Arthur Leff, now deceased, was a brilliant professor at Yale Law School. Back in 1979, he published an article in the Duke Law Journal titled “Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law.” Today, it’s considered a very important and prominent essay. It is uncertain what Leff believed about God, but what troubled him was that if there is no God, then there’s no way that one can make any kind of case for human morality, particularly human rights.

Here is a paraphrased summary of what he said:  You can say it is wrong for a majority to take advantage of any minority by force, but that is an opinion and not an argument. You can assert all sorts of things, but what you cannot do is say one point of view is morally right and all others are not. If someone says it is all right to enslave a minority, and you say no, it is wrong, who is to say your view of morality is right and theirs is wrong? Maybe it helps to frame it this way: if there is no God, who among us gets to impose their will on everyone else? Who gets to establish the moral laws that people are to follow? These questions are so intellectually troubling that you would think there would be more legal and ethical thinkers trying to come to grips with this.

Leff’s words suggest that if there is a God, then He would make the law for us to follow. We’d base our law on Him. And this, by the way, is how Western civilization was built, with biblical truth as its foundation. We require a moral foundation on which to build a culture. As T.S. Eliot penned many years ago: “It is in Christianity that our arts have developed; it is in Christianity that the laws of Europe… have been rooted.” Returning to Leff’s argument, his words also suggest that if there is no God, then moral law has to be grounded in human opinion. So, we must ask, who gets to establish their human opinion as law so that everyone has to obey it? Why should your view of morality have privilege over my view? Ultimately, what you end up with is that those in power will make sure their moral values prevail.

Of course, that’s what happened in Nazi Germany. I close with this quote from Charles Malik, Former Lebanese Ambassador to the United States, President of the United Nations General Assembly:  “There is truth, and there is falsehood. There is good, and there is evil. There is happiness, and there is misery. There is that which ennobles, and there is that which demeans. There is that which puts you in harmony with yourself, with others, with the universe, and with God, and there is that which alienates you from yourself, and from the world, and from God…The greatest error in modern times is the confusion between these orders.”



By Australian Newsletter

Former Nationals leader, Deputy Prime Minister, and committed Christian, John Anderson, will put his name forward for pre-selection to become the party’s Senate candidate at the next federal election. The National Party in NSW is expected in coming days to announce the Senate pre-selection to be held in April. The Nationals have one sitting senator in NSW, Perin Davey, who is not up for re-election. If on a joint ticket, the Nationals get the number two position on a joint coalition ticket, their senate candidate is overwhelmingly likely to be elected. Mr Anderson’s candidacy was prompted by a range of people asking him to run. “Last year I was asked to consider how I could best help the Party and I undertook to carefully and honestly consider what I could do,” Mr Anderson said.

“After careful thought, and much encouragement from others, I feel it is right for me to at least offer to play for the team that I once captained for another season.” Mr Anderson is adamant that he would not seek the leadership of the party or a senior cabinet position. He wants to make a contribution from the backbench. Mr Anderson will seek to emphasise the role of the National Party in representing regional Australia, but also its historic position as a full partner in national Government. “Given that we live in times of great danger and that the nation faces serious challenges and many difficult decisions in the next few years, the role the Party plays in Australia is and will remain as important as it ever has been.”

Mr Anderson said that Australia’s “freedom and prosperity” are “under enormous pressure from those who seek to denigrate or even attack them, from both within and without.” “Yet at the very time when we need more than ever to pull together in pursuit of our common interests, we are deeply divided by the poison of identity politics which so powerfully pits us against one another and denigrates our past. “I believe that the times we live in are such that each of us must now ask ourselves what we can and should do rather than simply what we would like to do.” Mr Anderson, 64, retired from parliament in 2005 after a successful stint as Deputy Prime Minister. He was held in the highest esteem by John Howard and by his National Party colleagues.

In recent years he has re-entered public debate through newspaper columns, television appearances, public addresses and a highly successful web site in which he interviews prominent conservatives in Australia and overseas. He has expressed concern about Australia’s defence preparedness and the growing strategic challenges the nation faces. A pre-selection for a winnable Senate seat could well attract a substantial field of contenders in the National party. But none would have Mr Anderson’s pedigree.

Source: National Alliance of Christian Leaders

Print This Post Print This Post



By Australian Newsletter

FamilyVoice Australia has launched its National Mother of the Year Awards in recognition of International Women’s Day (March 8). “FamilyVoice has always supported the belief of recognising the maternal service and sacrifice mothers make as an integral part of the traditional* family unit. In this regard, they have chosen to fill the void left by Barnardo’s Australia given that they will sadly no longer offer the Mother of the Year Award,” said Greg Bondar, national coordinator for the awards. Mothers are an amazing group of people, changing the world in a variety of ways every single day. From volunteering in classrooms to testifying in the public arena, mums are making a difference in their communities, workplace, churches, and beyond.

“FamilyVoice wants to continue the tradition of recognising outstanding mothers who are passionate about making the world a better place for children and families and for the benefit of the next generation,” added Mr Bondar.

Details of the Awards:


FamilyVoice will announce the winners in each category during the week of Mothers’ Day each year commencing Sunday 9 May 2021.


  • Young Mother of the Year – up to 25 years of age
  • Mother of the Year – Open age
  • Grandmother of the Year Award – Open age


  • To honour and recognise mothers through the ‘Mothers of the Year Awards’
  • To highlight the importance mothers play in the development of the child and family
  • To recognise that mothers make a positive impact at home, work, church and in the wider Australia community


  • A Certificate and sponsored Prizes to each winner and presented by a Sponsor/Supporter

Applications & Nominations:

Nominations are now open. Go to to complete a nomination and to pay the administration fee.

Mother of the Year Awards eligibility requirements:

  1. A nominee for FamilyVoice Mother of the Year must be the mother of one or more children.
  2. She should embody those traits highly regarded in mothers such as loyalty, fidelity, community spirited and display the ability to strengthen family relationships.
  3. She should exemplify in her life and conduct the power of a mother’s inner strength to deal with the successes and challenges in life.
  4. She should also exhibit an interest in her community by participation in programs and services that enrich mothers, children and/or families.
  5. There is a $10.00 administration fee which is refundable to the winner(s).

Source: FamilyVoice Australia

Print This Post Print This Post


By Australian Newsletter

A Queensland IVF clinic receives 2 to 3 inquiries every week about gender selection, with some patients reportedly aborting their preborn baby after a blood test revealed the baby was the “wrong sex”.  Fertility Group director Dr David Molloy said that dozens of IVF patients support his legal push for IVF gender-selection. “I think couples come to me because they know I have always been an advocate of gender selection, but the National Health and Medical Research Council upheld the ban on non-medical gender selection in its 2017 review,” Dr Molloy told The Courier Mail. “This move disappointed a lot of Queenslanders and we are still lobbying for change,” he said. Part of Dr Molloy’s argument for change is that parents who have an all-consuming desire for a boy or a girl can become so disappointed with the outcome that they end up in psychiatric care.

Molloy said “I have seen hundreds of patients who are disappointed when they hear of the gender of the child they are expecting but it doesn’t mean they don’t adore the baby when it arrives. For most, the disappointment passes quickly however some do end up broken and in psychiatric care,” he said. FamilyVoice Australia spokesman Darryl Budge says that sex-selection abortion is a further attack on the sanctity of life. “All Australian states have legalised abortion that is allegedly justified for the mother’s mental health or because tests on the baby point to an unwanted disease or abnormality,” Darryl Budge said.  “This legally translates to the erasure of a preborn baby’s right to life by the mother’s own preference for her quality of life.”

Source: FamilyVoice Australia

Print This Post Print This Post