VID001 - Taxes for Political Parties

The Senate Wrap-Up

A big thank-you to all of my supporters and people who voted for my efforts for freedom and a limited government.

It looks like the 6 senators from South Australia will be:

2 Cory BERNARDI (Liberal)
3 Nick XENOPHON (Independent)
4 Penny WONG (ALP)
5 Simon BIRMINGHAM (Liberal)
6 Sarah HANSON-YOUNG (Greens)

In July 2008 when the new Senators take there place, there will be a close balance:

Liberal/National Coalition : 37
Australian Labor Party : 32

The Greens : 5
Family First : 1
Nick Xenophon : 1

Source: ABC

All-in-all we could have done worse. If the Greens and Labor join on a bill and Liberal oppose, they will still have to rely on Family First or Xenophon to get it through.

I will still be active in politics, particularly harassing the State Government on land supply and home unaffordability, and commentary on various issues.

Cheers to all supporters of liberty out there!

Stewart Glass

PS You can get updates by subscribing to this blog on my website www.stewartglass.net


The Sunday Mail - Journalism with an Agenda

Commentry on the Article in The Sunday Mail:
Why Mr X does not deserve your vote 11 Nov 2007

I was very disappointed to see the Sunday Mail discard even the appearance of media impartiality recently when it called for voters to reject rival Senate candidate Nick Xenophon.

This was not an editorial, not did it name the article's author. It was talking on behalf of the newspaper:

"The Sunday Mail firmly believes South Australians should not vote for him [Xenophon] this time around."


"For all these reasons, the Sunday Mail cannot endorse Mr Xenophon's bid to be elected to the Senate"

This is not a case of my support of Mr Xenophon (as he is a rival candidate for the Senate), this is a case of a newspaper with an agenda.

Newspapers should present the facts to the public without intention to persuade. Too much media coverage is commentry on the news, rather than the news itself.

This one article has tarnished the reputation of this paper. How many other news items also have an agenda, when we really think they are unbias and impartial?

The Road to Serfdom (in Cartoons) by Hayek




Festival of Light

Responds to Festival of Light Questionaire and Reasoning

1. Prayers in parliament
Prayers in parliament are an important daily reminder that we must all ultimately answer to the higher authority of Almighty God. The prayers, which consist of the Lord's Prayer and a request for God's guidance, are an expression of the Christian foundation and character of our nation. According to the latest census, 64% of Australians identify as Christians.
Do you support the current practice of opening each day of parliament with Christian prayers?
Probably. I have no problem with Christian prayers in parliament, nor with the occasional prayer by members of non-Christian beliefs. I assume these would be proportial to the percentage of parlimentarians from different beliefs.

2. Relationship registers
In 2004 the Parliament amended the Marriage Act 1961 to reaffirm that marriage is between a man and a woman and to prevent courts recognising same sex marriages. The homosexual lobby is now seeking to gain legal recognition for same sex relationships through state or territory legislation setting up civil unions or registered relationships. The Commonwealth's constitutional marriage power enables it to further amend the Marriage Act 1961 to invalidate these state laws in order to protect and defend the unique status of marriage.
Would you vote to amend the Marriage Act 1961 to prevent states from giving legal recognition to couple relationships other than marriage, including homosexual, lesbian and de facto relationships?
Probably. It depends what implications come from the legal recognition. I oppose adoption by gay couples as I feel this infringes on the right of the child.

3. Abortion funding
A national opinion poll conducted in 2005 by Market Facts (Qld) found that 67% of Australians are opposed to Medicare funding of abortions performed in the second trimester (14-26 weeks). Children born as early as 21 weeks are now surviving thanks to the wonderful advances in modern medicine. Second trimester abortions can result in a live born child who is then left to die. 49 such abortions were recorded in Victoria alone in 2005. Some second trimester abortions are performed by the partial birth abortion method which has now been banned by the US Congress, a ban upheld by the US Supreme Court. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for these abortions.
Would you support a change to the Medicare schedule so that taxpayers are no longer forced to pay for second trimester and late term abortions?
Yes Definitely. I am totally opposed to abortion (except in rare circumstances) particularly when funded by tax.

4. Illicit drugs
Harm minimisation has been one of the key principles of Australia's drug strategy since 1985. Harm minimisation measures include needle and syringe exchanges, injecting rooms, heroin prescription, methadone substitution, liberal cannabis laws and drug testing kits. In 2003 the House of Representatives "Roads to Recovery" report called for the replacement of the current focus of the National Drug Strategy on harm minimisation with a new focus on harm prevention and treatment. This recommendation has not yet been implemented. Sweden has shown that "drug free" policies can dramatically reduce the use of illicit drugs.
Would you support the replacement of the current focus of the National Drug Strategy on harm minimisation and harm reduction strategies with a new focus on achieving a drug free society?
Probably. Firstly I think drug problems should be address by charities instead of governments. I don't support taxpayer funded harm minimalisation measure like injection rooms.

5. Internet filtering
The internet provides many benefits but also carries many dangers. Unfiltered, the internet can bring explicit pornography and material that promotes terrorism, crime or suicide into the family home. Voluntary PC based filtering systems will not protect children in vulnerable situations such as the 9-10 year olds reported by the Canberra Hospital for sexually abusing even younger children after exposure to internet pornography. Mandatory filtering at the ISP level is essential for the protection of Australian children and for a healthy society.
Would you support mandatory filtering of the internet at ISP level to exclude all explicit pornography as well as material which promotes crime, suicide or terrorism?

Definitely Not. I oppose any government control of information. Child pornography, specific terrorism activities should of course be pursued by police. It is the parents role to filter and watch out for what children access via the internet, not the governments.

6. Benefits supporting marriage
Over many centuries, governments have granted marriage a privileged status not given to other types of relationships, for two key reasons. Only marriage provides the best environment for raising children with stability plus complementary male and female role models (Mum and Dad). Men and women complement each other in marriage, benefiting each other and society. Homosexual and lesbian relationships do not have these characteristics and should not be given the benefits given to married couples.
Would you oppose any measure which seeks to extend to homosexual and lesbian couples the benefits currently given to married couples?

Yes Definitely. I believe that the family is the fundament unit of society, though I should say that I don't believe in government welfare for anyone.

7. Cloning
In 2002 federal parliament unanimously banned all forms of human cloning. In 2006 a private member's bill lifted the ban on the creation of human embryos by cloning for use in destructive research. It is wrong to create a human life with the intention of using him or her for research and then destruction. Cloning for research is scientifically unnecessary as the hoped for benefits from cloning are being more effectively and more safely obtained using stem cells derived in an ethically uncontroversial way from adults or from umbilical cord blood.
Would you vote to repeal those laws which permit the creation of human embryos by cloning for use in destructive research?

Yes Definitely. I believe human life, in whatever form, should be protected from others.

8. Child care benefits
Surveys indicate that a large majority of parents would prefer one parent (usually the mother) to care for their children full-time at home if they could afford it. Current child care benefits are much more generous to mothers who place their children in child care centres than to those who care for their own children at home. All parents should be treated equally, receiving the same childcare benefit. They should be free to spend it as they choose - on childcare or on helping one parent stay at home.
Would you support legislation requiring equal child care benefits to be paid directly to all parents of young children, whether the children are cared for at home or in a child care centre?

Yes Definitely. If child caring benefits are to be paid, we should not discriminate against stay at home Mums and Dads. Once again, I don't believe in government subsidies.

9. Access Card
A mandatory smart card for access to all government social services including Medicare is an unjustifiable intrusion into individual privacy and a possible step towards a national identity card. While there may be a need to rationalise the processes used to access social services, there is no need to include Medicare in this scheme. For millions of Australians, Medicare is the only Commonwealth benefit they access. Once billions of dollars are invested in a smart card which will be mandatory for any Australian unwilling to opt out of the Medicare system and forego any entitlements to social services, there will be a natural 'function creep' until the access card becomes a de facto national identity card.
Would you oppose the introduction of a mandatory smart card for access to all government social services including Medicare?
Yes Definitely

10. Vilification legislation
Laws which prohibit vilification on the grounds of religious belief or sexuality are an unwarranted interference with free speech and religious liberty. Those who point out the health risks of homosexual behaviour, or who question claims and practices of a particular religion such as Islam, should not be penalised.
Would you vote to oppose laws which would prohibit vilification on the grounds of religious belief or sexuality?

Yes Definitely. I oppose discrimation laws from the private sector. Some discrimation is definately immoral, but this is best resolved within society rather than government.