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.

VID01 - Taxes for Political Parties

Did you know the Australian Taxpayer funds some political parties and candidates?

Policy: Tax

Tax doesn't get much flatter than "TaxOnce"

Every government requires funds to perform it's functions.

I propose a vastly simplified, but radical departure to the system, which for ease of reference I call TaxOnce: It is a once-per-year-only, fixed-amount tax for all electors (ie those eligible to vote), with a mercy clause for those unable to afford it.

Annual Fixed Tax

• Each elector (barring the mercy qualifiers) pays the exactly same dollar amount.


• There are no tax deductions, exemptions or rebates.


• No business activity is taxed.


• Your TaxOnce replaces all other federal taxes including income tax, GST, import and export taxes, Medicare levy, company taxes, petrol taxes 1 etc


• under current spending (which probably should be reduced) each elector would pay approximately $6,000 each (see "Questions about TaxOnce" below)
  

Mercy Clause

This applies if paying the tax would mean an elector would forfeit the basic necessities of life.

• Unpaid taxes accumulate, though the mercy clause may apply to some electors for their entire life.


• Tax debt cannot be transfered to other electors or posterity, though it may voluntarily be paid on an elector's behalf by a charity, relative or friend.


• Assets left upon the death of an elector would be used for any tax debt

What are the advantages to "TaxOnce"

1. Simple - there are virtually no loop holes to be exploited by dishonest people or crafty accountants. Your tax return could be done in 10 mins.


2. Fair - every one uses the services of defence, courts, police, roads and every equally pays


3. Incentive - once your annual tax is paid there is no penalty for working harder and earning more. Every extra dollar is 100% tax free.


4. Cheap - The ATO would be dramatically reduced in size. Administration costs that are currently paid by Australians would be saved by Australians


5. Accountable - because the tax is greatly simplified it will give the public an amount to latch onto. Come election time you are going to want to know how much tax candidates propose, and it will be obvious if that promise is not kept.

Questions on TaxOnce:

What about single income families?
Both parents would be liable for tax, though the mercy clause would consider the fact of dependants on a single source income. You might consider that this would disadvantage young families as they have the extra burden of children, yet also consider that those without children will need to save for their retirement (as they will not have children to support them in their old age).

What is the tax used for?
Since I oppose government welfare (vs private charity), the tax would be used only on the basics (including - defence, national roads, education of minors, police and courts). Let the citizens keep their money and decide which causes they will support themselves. The main focus is keep government small so you can keep the tax as low as possible.

No businesses tax? Won't this advantage big business?
Make no mistake - businesses pass on all costs to the end consumer, hence, all taxes that businesses pay are ultimately passed onto the consumer (who are taxpayers). If the market is free and open, industries that are making high returns will always attract competition, so extended profiteering is unlikely. (see Free Market Essentials)

How much would TaxOnce likely be?
I use this simple formula:

Services divided by Taxpayers (= Electors minus Mercy Clause Electors)

Though I am not an economist, this gives me approximately $6,000 each. (See Footnote 2)

Basic Government Services: $42,693,000,000 (footnote 2)
Population of Australia: 20,743,371
Approximate Electors: 10,000,000
Probable Taxpayers: 7,000,000

A likely trend is that most young families will be exempt under the mercy clause early in life, while many people later in thier careers will be paying the annual tax plus older debt.

.

Why not tax those below 18?
To quote the mantra "no taxation without representation". It is unfair to tax youth when they cannot help choose the government who tax them. This grace period will also give minors some opportunity to study, save, travel etc.

see also: Price Linking
Related Keys: 02-EQU, 15-LIM, 17-PRO, 20-TRN

Footnotes:
1. Events or products that are damaging to others, if they cannot be immediately disbanded, should be taxed to make amends for their damages. See Price Linking
2. Referencing the 2005/6 Part 1: Australian Government Budget Outcomes Table 3 and including: Legislative and Executive Affairs, General Services, Government Superannuation Benefits, Defence, Public Order and Safety, Education, Agriculture Forestry and Fishing, Transport and Communication

Policy: Education

Simplify. Simplify. Simplify.

Education's very important to our society. I support the totally free education of minors in Australia. Like many of my policies, I want to see the power given back to the people.

Simply Education

The solution is incredibily simple. Take the entire education budget and divide it by the number of students (in Years 1 to 12). If my figures are correct this would currently be $7870 per student per year. ( $26 billion + 3.3 mil students 1)

Schools are then paid directly from the education department according to the students enrolled. Simple. The power is then essentially transferred from the government and bureaucracies to the parents. Schools would need to provide good service and keep trust with the parents to keep the students - and hence the funding. Schools would need to adapt to the priorities of parents to stay viable.


What are the benefits of this plan?

• the bureaucratic parts of the Education Departments are avoided
• no jumping from program to program according to new ideas from politicians or interest groups
• the money stays at grass roots level (ie via the parents)
• incredible flexibility - schools can adapt directly according to the priorities of the parents
• competition - good schools are rewarded by more students, bad schools loose students and the money that goes with them
• the parents values, rather than the States, are taught in the schools
• schools can co-operate or network with other schools, as they please, to run joint programs
• schools are directly rewarded for thier own frugality or ingenuity

What about students in remote areas?

Students or schools that require additional help due to special needs will need to be assisted from thier communities, charities or parents, as is the case with all welfare. I believe though, as there is to be a minimal government administration, there will be more money available. A lower tax regime will also mean that more discretionary money is available for citizens to donate. Remember, after the Irish, Australians are the most generous people with regards to charitable donations.

You oppose tax for welfare, then why not education?

I think education for minors should be federally funded for 2 main reasons.

No 1 Education is a great equaliser. It helps break the poverty cycle. No people or minority will perpetually stay oppressed when they have access to education.

No 2 For democracy to work, literacy is required. The people cannot make informed decisions and keep the government accountable if information cannot be accessed by most of the citizenry.

Related: Key 04-EDU: Education for Minors

References:

1. Dept Education Science and Training: Budget Information 2005 at a Glance > Schools

Policy: Environment

We only get one earth. Human habitation and nature need not be opposite sides of the spectrum. A sustainable balance is acheivable. We can respect the environment we live in and still keep civilization.

Six of the 20 keys form my environmental policy.

06-C+R - Choice and Responsibility
People and companies are responsible for their own actions (pollution, waste products, noise etc)

05-LIB - Liberty
People and companies are free to do as they wish, on the condition it does not affect others.

11-SUP - Support
By unifying, citizens can effectively support specific environmental causes. These groups can purchase lands, create sanctuaries for fauna, buy old growth forests, promote education on the environment etc.

16-JUS – Reparative Justice
Companies and people should be accountable for reparation of environmental damages. This could range from responsibility for the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill to adding a tax for petrol relative to proven damage to air quality.

17-PRO – Property Rights
Landholders, both large and small, are able to use their land as they see fit – providing it does not directly affect their neighbours. For example, a land owner could cut down a patch of trees near the edge of his property, but if this causes eroded soil to wash all over his neighbours property the first land owner would be liable to fix the problem.

20-TRN – Transition
I anticipate some measures should start immediately, with all implemented within 5 – 20 years.

Examples of policy

- Growers of Genetically Modified foods would be required to provide barriers (depending on the plant type) to ensure that neighbours crops are not infected.

- A tax on fuels that cause environmental damage. This tax should be kept separate to other revenue and be used only for the reparation of the damage. This will help fuels reflect their true cost, making other cleaner fuels more cost effective. If a company introduces measures so pollution is not created this tax should not apply.

Nature
Nature, by it’s very nature, does not require human help. It only requires us not to impose on it.

Government should not interfere with natural cycles of species.

Human Impact
Humans, just by the fact of their existence, will impact on the surrounding land. What is required is to minimize damage. You can’t have 1 million people living on the Adelaide Plains and not expect more water usage or lands to be used to grow foods. I believe though, there is a right way and a wrong way to live with the earth. The right way becomes obvious, because it is sustainable.

Property rights in agriculture are important because it holds farmers accountable. I believe most people living on the land are aware of this. They want to farm and make a profit, but they also want their grandkids to be able to do the same - on that same piece of ground. It doesn’t do them any good to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

Waste
Bill Mollison, a co-founder of Permaculture said “You don’t have a snail problem, you have a duck deficiency!” and “waste is an unused resource”.

Businesses are adaptable by their very nature. I envision that if make industries accountable for their own waste they will find ways and partners to whom this waste is a resource. Hence businesses will develop a symbiotic relationship with other businesses.

International Obligations
Australian companies should be accountable for their overseas management in these areas.

Policy: Price Linking

All taxes should be kept within their own sphere.

For example:

• petrol taxes should be used to clean up or prevent damage to the environment (ie air pollution or the development of solar technologies). It might also be used for roads, but should not be used for welfare as this is totally external to it's sphere.
• poker machine taxes, if they must be charged, should be used solely for rehabilitation of gambling addicts
• taxes on cigarettes, if they must be charged, would be used to fund lung cancer research or treatments.
• Red Light Camera fines would be kept for victims of car crashes, or for education in safe driving

The goal of the price linking is to create more closely a user-pays system. This stops governments from profiteering with hidden tax regimes. You can only put so much into Gambling Rehabilitation before extra money will not make extra difference, thus taking away the government's incentive to approve or disapprove extra poker machines - as they are not gaining revenue from it.

The two beauties to price linking are:

1. Flexibility - a 5 % increase in driving with a particular fuel would create 5% extra revenue for roads, or cleaner fuel research etc. It self regulates.
2. Accountability - because funds are drawn from with in it's own sphere, it creates internal accountability. This prevents a "false economy". (ie cheap fuel that causes damage to the environment does not reflect it's true cost compared to another fuel slightly more expensive which is clean)

In brief, price linking means effectively that smokers pay for the possible consequences of smoking, dangerous drivers pay for the damage they cause, and so forth.

Related: Key 06-C+R, Key 16-JUS

Policy: Child Care

The government should not be involved in child care – either subsidies or institutions.

A parent makes the choice to have a child, and so should be responsible for it’s upbringing. (see Key 06-C+R)

Those who struggle to care for children or are required to work to live should seek assistance through other sources – particularly family, friends or charitable institutions. (Key 11-SUP and 19-FAM)

Policy: Abortion

I am totally opposed to abortion except in very special circumstances.

The key to the issue is if the fetus is living. To me it seems sufficiently clear that an unborn baby is a living human, and because of this a mother or any other person does not have the right to kill the baby. It seems irrational that a fetus suddenly takes on life because it is on the outside of the womb rather than inside the womb.

A woman does have a right over her own body, but that right ends when it impedes the right of the unborn human to live.

I acknowledge there may be rare cases where an abortion may be a necessary – for example if having the baby will risk the life of the mother.