Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Human Services (Senator Ludwig) to a question without notice asked by Senator Siewert today relating to men’s health ambassadors.

Minister Roxon unfortunately has only done half the job of dealing with the issues around some of the men’s health ambassadors. She has quite rightfully sacked Mr Marsh from the Fatherhood Foundation as a men’s health ambassador. Unfortunately, as I said, only half the job has been done.

Mr Williams’s comments should, I think, draw equal concern from the minister in terms of his ability to effectively be a men’s health ambassador. He repudiated the comments in and his association with the document entitled 21 reasons why gender matters. He virtually said that he did not know what he was signing on to. But I am wondering whether he knew what he was signing on to when he spoke at a forum, Dads4kids, at the New South Wales parliament just recently, where, again, Mr Marsh spoke and made some quite strong statements. Mr Williams was present and I have not heard of him repudiating those comments.

So, for a start, we continue to have anti-gay comments made formally by the association that he is associated with. Then we come to the issues concerning domestic violence and his continuing campaign to downplay the role of domestic violence against women. He keeps trying to put the proposal that it is in fact men who are getting bashed by women. There is also the matter of comments that he made, which I quoted when I asked the question of the minister earlier, about his signing of an international petition opposing the UN report on violence against women. Also, he seems to question the use of domestic violence programs. Very finely, Australian governments have moved to fund domestic violence programs to try to raise awareness of this issue and actually get it out in the open. To try to downplay the impact of domestic violence on women and on children is to my mind outrageous.

Then of course we come to examples on the Lone Fathers Association website, an example of which I have with me. In it the Lone Fathers Association advises men that, upon entering into a permanent relationship, they should insist on a prenuptial agreement. It states: ‘Remember, if she is not prepared to sign such an agreement’—meaning a prenuptial agreement—‘there must be a hidden agenda.’ Again, this is clearly an anti-women agenda being run by the Lone Fathers Association. One wonders just what diversity of views the government is trying to achieve by having as a men’s health ambassador someone with these views, which oppose the government’s program on domestic violence, which are blatantly anti-women and which are blatantly anti-gay. What diversity of views is the government trying to promote through this particular ambassador? And what particularly does the government think it will achieve from somebody who has views that, I suggest, are not consistent with promoting an effective men’s health agenda?

That is why I was seeking advice from the government as to what selection criteria the government used to determine who were to be the men’s health ambassadors. I have searched around to find where the role of men’s health ambassadors had been advertised or where the government sought nominations or submissions for the role and I have not been able to find any. Nor have I been able to find the selection criteria. I accept that Minister Roxon has taken responsibility for the appointment of men’s health ambassadors, but I am wondering why, while Mr Marsh was sacked, Mr Williams was kept on when he has blatantly anti-gay feelings, which I do not think can be ignored just because he repudiated and dissociated himself from the document 21 reasons why gender matters. Since this was printed he has continued to appear in other forums with Mr Marsh and also where similar issues were raised. For him to be campaigning against domestic violence and trying to downplay the issue of domestic violence against women, I simply cannot understand this. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.