Q: Abortion – What is your stance on abortion?
A: We are completely opposed to abortion of babies in the mother’s womb and after live birth. We acknowledge the infants rights to life, and also acknowledge the infant (even in the embryo stage) as a human life worth preserving. We at RUAP propose, “if a sprouting blade of grass is described as life, how much more a baby embryo”. Where birthing, or the pregnancy process is life threatening to the mother, a consultation with doctors discussing the option and risks of abortion will be necessary, but only as a last resort. In such cases the mother’s right to protection will take precedence. In the case of rape and rape victims claiming they don’t want the baby, the best outcome for such a traumatic situation for both mother and child is for the child to be birthed and given over to the state, not aborted. We believe two wrongs don’t make a right. RUAP supports removing Medicare funding immediately for all abortions.

Q: Child discipline – Should parents in conjunction with school headmasters reserve the right to discipline children within sensible and non-abusive guidelines?
A: The RUA party supports sensible, non-abusive discipline towards children by parents and the school headmaster. The party will endeavour to release a whole host of disciplinary strategies that will benefit children, teachers and parents. It will contribute to the release of decent, principally well-grounded young men and women into a society which is currently full of rebellious teens who lack a sensible approach to many aspects of life. The approach led by Pastor Danny Nalliah is, “why park an ambulance at the bottom of the hill when you can put a fence around the top”. We endorse the biblical doctrine which states, “don’t spare the rod but discipline your children”. It’s better for children growing up to get a smack on the bottom then to face the full force of the law in the way of Taser bullets, capsicum spray and various other weapons.

Q: Children’s rights – What rights do you think children should have?
A: We are in agreement with the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child found on the Australian Government’s website and list below the points 1 to 10.
1)All children have the right to what follows, no matter what their race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, or where they were born or who they were born to.
2)You have the special right to grow up and to develop physically and spiritually in a healthy and normal way, free and with dignity.
3)You have a right to a name and to be a member of a country.
4)You have a right to special care and protection and to good food, housing and medical services.
5)You have the right to special care if handicapped in any way.
6)You have the right to love and understanding, preferably from parents and family, but from the government where these cannot help.
7)You have the right to go to school for free, to play and to have an equal chance to develop yourself and to learn to be responsible and useful. Your parents have special responsibilities for your education and guidance.
8)You have the right always to be among the first to get help.
9)You have the right to be protected against cruel acts or exploitation, e.g. you shall not be obliged to do work which hinders your development both physically and mentally.
You should not work before a minimum age and never when that would hinder your health and your moral and physical development.
10)You should be taught peace, understanding, tolerance and friendship among all people.
This plain language version is only given as a guide. For an exact rendering of each principle, refer students to the original. This version is based in part on the translation of a text, prepared in 1978, for the World Association for the School as an Instrument of Peace, by a Research Group of the University of Geneva, under the responsibility of Prof L Massarenti. In preparing the translation, the Group used a basic vocabulary of 2,500 words in use in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. Teachers may adopt this methodology by translating the text of the Universal Declaration in the language in use in their region. This text is reprinted from the United Nations website at
We further acknowledge every unborn child’s right to life. From day one of conception, a new human life with unique DNA begins, and is to be treated with dignity and respect from this moment onwards.
Every child has the right to be protected from abuse of all types; including protection from exposure to pornographic materials and premature sexualisation under the age of 18.

Q: Declining birth rate – What will RUAP do about the declining birth rate?
A: Currently we are a dying civilisation, with a birth rate of 1.38 which needs to rise to 2.1 to become a sustainable civilisation. We have several strategies to abate such a crisis, one of which is to significantly lower the abortion rate by legalising against abortions for the sake of convenience (which is an unreasonable excuse) and only supporting a move to abortion if pregnancy or birth is life threatening. Policies will be introduced to support and encourage women to consider fostering and adoption as the alternative to abortion. We will encourage and support families to have more children. This will be specifically achieved by creating conditions that support Women.

Q: Divorce – Will you provide free pre-marriage education for couples?
A: Yes we will. Children should have both parents bringing them up as this allows them to grow into well rounded adults. Where, however, the marriage has irreconcilable difference, and there is no alternative to divorce, we will support the presumption of equal parenting after divorce.

Q: Drugs – Will you increase funding for drug harm prevention & abstinance based programs?
A: Yes we will. Drugs are harmfull to all users. Drugs are also a major factor in crime. We will do whatever it takes to assist people in getting off drugs.

Q: What are your views on Euthanasia?
A: Euthanasia will remain illegal under a RUAP government.

Q: Marriage – Will you promote and support marriage over de facto co-habitation?
A: Yes we will. Marriage is by far the best method for bringing up children in a stable environment.

Q: Pornography – What will you do about all the pornography on the internet?
A: We will support the blocking of all pornography at ISP level using an opt in system for adults as proposed in the UK.

Q: Pornography – Will you extend the States ban on X-rated pornography to the ACT & NT.?
A: Yes we will. Where possible all laws should be uniform throughout Australia.

Q: Schools – What will be the foundation of our school curriculum?
A: We want to make a move back to the school teaching of western civilisation and its heritage, especially in Australia. We want to replace teachings orientated around the historical origins of other nations and or peoples. We want our children to understand the heritage of Australia, our ancestors, our people, our law, legal system and the price that has been paid for our freedom (wars and conflicts). We oppose the teaching of Islam in schools as it promotes violence, but acknowledge the right for all languages, cultures and religions to be taught provided they are tolerant of other peoples and religions.

Q: Same sex marriage – What is your stance on homosexuality and legalising homosexual marriages?
A: We are committed to protecting the traditional family unit of Mother, Father and Children as this is the best environment and influence for young growing children. We are completely opposed to homosexual marriage and do not support homosexual relationships, however people have the right and freedom in Australia to practice such relationships so long as they are not imposing on others against their will. We acknowledge the bible as the foundation to good relationships and support the biblical doctrine of the man and the woman together as one flesh.

Q: Same sex marriage – How important is it for children to have a father and a mother?
A: In our view very important, and here is some relevant information:
Love Isn’t Enough: 5 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Harms Children by Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.
Proponents of same-sex marriage believe the only thing children really need is love. Based on that supposition, they conclude it’s just as good for children to be raised by loving parents of the same sex, as it is to be raised by loving parents of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, that basic assumption—and all that flows from it—is false. Because love isn’t enough!
All else being equal, children do best when raised by a married mother and father. It’s within this environment that children are most likely to be exposed to the emotional and psychological experiences they need in order to thrive.
Men and women bring diversity to parenting; each makes unique contributions to the rearing of children that can’t be replicated by the other. Mothers and fathers simply are not interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father.
So here are five reasons why it’s in the best interest of children to be raised by both a mother and a father:
First, mother-love and father-love—though equally important—are qualitatively different and produce distinct parent-child attachments. Specifically, it’s the combination of the unconditional-leaning love of a mother and the conditional-leaning love of a father that’s essential to a child’s development. Either of these forms of love without the other can be problematic. Because what a child needs is the complementary balance the two types of parental love and attachment provide.
Only heterosexual parents offer children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. For a girl, that means she’ll better understand and appropriately interact with the world of men and be more comfortable in the world of women. And for a boy, the converse will hold true. Having a relationship with “the other”—an opposite sexed parent—also increases the likelihood that a child will be more empathetic and less narcissistic.
Secondly, children progress through predictable and necessary developmental stages. Some stages require more from a mother, while others require more from a father. For example, during infancy, babies of both sexes tend to do better in the care of their mother. Mothers are more attuned to the subtle needs of their infants and thus are more appropriately responsive. However, at some point, if a young boy is to become a competent man, he must detach from his mother and instead identify with his father. A fatherless boy doesn’t have a man with whom to identify and is more likely to have trouble forming a healthy masculine identity.
A father teaches a boy how to properly channel his aggressive and sexual drives. A mother can’t show a son how to control his impulses because she’s not a man and doesn’t have the same urges as one. A father also commands a form of respect from a boy that a mother doesn’t––a respect more likely to keep the boy in line. And those are the two primary reasons why boys without fathers are more likely to become delinquent and end up incarcerated.
Father-need is also built into the psyche of girls. There are times in a girl’s life when only a father will do. For instance, a father offers a daughter a safe, non-sexual place to experience her first male-female relationship and have her femininity affirmed. When a girl doesn’t have a father to fill that role she’s more likely to become promiscuous in a misguided attempt to satisfy her inborn hunger for male attention and validation.
Overall, fathers play a restraining role in the lives of their children. They restrain sons from acting out antisocially, and daughters from acting out sexually. When there’s no father to perform this function, dire consequences often result both for the fatherless children and for the society in which these children act out their losses.
Third, boys and girls need an opposite-sexed parent to help them moderate their own gender-linked inclinations. As example, boys generally embrace reason over emotion, rules over relationships, risk-taking over caution, and standards over compassion, while girls generally embrace the reverse. An opposite-sexed parent helps a child keep his or her own natural proclivities in check by teaching—verbally and nonverbally—the worth of the opposing tendencies. That teaching not only facilitates moderation, but it also expands the child’s world—helping the child see beyond his or her own limited vantage point.
Fourth, same-sex marriage will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people. The implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So, even children from traditional homes—influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message—will grow up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries. Holding such a belief will lead some—if not many—impressionable young people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated previously. And children from homosexual families, who are already more likely to experiment sexually, would do so to an even greater extent, because not only was non-traditional sexuality role-modelled by their parents, it was also approved by their society.
There is no question that human sexuality is pliant. Think of ancient Greece or Rome—among many other early civilizations—where male homosexuality and bisexuality were nearly ubiquitous. This was not so because most of those men were born with a “gay gene,” rather it was because homosexuality was condoned by those societies. That which a society sanctions, it gets more of.
And fifth, if society permits same-sex marriage, it also will have to allow other types of marriage. The legal logic is simple: If prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, then disallowing polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage, or any other marital grouping will also be deemed discriminatory. The emotional and psychological ramifications of these assorted arrangements on the developing psyches and sexuality of children would be disastrous. And what happens to the children of these alternative marriages if the union dissolves and each parent then “remarries”? Those children could end up with four fathers, or two fathers and four mothers, or, you fill in the blank.
Certainly homosexual couples can be just as loving as heterosexual couples, but children require more than love. They need the distinctive qualities and the complementary natures of a male and female parent.
The accumulated wisdom of over 5,000 years has concluded that the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and one woman. Arrogantly disregarding such time-tested wisdom, and using children as guinea pigs in a radical experiment, is risky at best, and cataclysmic at worst.
Same-sex marriage definitely isn’t in the best interest of children. And although we empathize with those homosexuals who long to be married and parent children, we mustn’t allow our compassion for them to trump our compassion for children. In a contest between the desires of some homosexuals and the needs of all children, we can’t allow the children to lose.
Dr Trayce L. Hansen is a licensed psychologist with a clinical and forensic practice. She received her Ph.D. from the California School of Professional Psychology, San Diego, in 1997. Dr Hansen’s professional experience is varied and includes work in multiple clinical as well as forensic settings. She is particularly interested in issues related to marriage, parenting, male / female differences, and homosexuality. Dr. Hansen has extensively reviewed the research literature in these areas and occasionally writes commentaries based on her findings that have been published worldwide. She has been heard on local and national radio and interviewed by the web and print media. Dr. Hansen also consults on legal cases and has testified in both deposition and court hearings related to her professional expertise.






Back to Top