BROCK,

we are all aware that the major parties are crooked to the bone, and that they will sell the soul of our democracy for favourable soundbites.

Steve Fielding is different but, his support for the legislation indicates that he is simply a moron, in his speech to parliament he admitted that he didn't really understand the implications for the major media players.

So basically we are paying him $112,000 a year to 'not fully understand' the implications of this extremely important legislation.

Maybe the Senator thinks he has something to gain from this, but as soon as he is of no further use they will burn and bury him (just ask Ms Hanson), and frankly I cant wait.

Steve Fielding,as far as it concerns me and my family,is not even cosidered,we will put him and his party at the bottom of the list,they sold the working family to John Howard to do as he pleases,the IR,AND NOW WE HAVE TO TOW THE LINE,OR ELSE

Fielding is a theocrat and the mass media support theocrats because religion has a ready made manufactured audience which follow the orders of theologians.Count the references to Jesus in any large newspaper if you stepped of the boat you would think Australia is not a secular society. I personally have stopped reading two major news papers because of this, I regard superstition a sign of low credibility for a news provider.

Certain Tv shows depend on the ratings created by those told what to watch by their pastors.

The down side is the same are also told what to complain about by their pastors.

Fielding represents only members of the Pentecostal cult. Karsoon your working families are not gods chosen who will be raised up by the rapture (suspiciously over due since the 1880's).

The definition of the "Family" in the title Family First refer to the Family of the cult of pentacostalism , not those damned heathens the mum and (or) dad families.

Hmmph. When I saw the title, I assumed the article would be looking at how effectively Fielding has used the numbers in the senate to boost his profile.

Barnaby Joyce and Fielding are two of the most powerful politicians in Australia at the moment - Joyce, because he's willing to cross the floor and with the senate numbers it means he is a key player in negotiations.
Fielding is capable of neutralising Joyce's power.

From my perspective it's a shame both of these players have such strong evangelical views, a more balanced status quo would be nice... if we had to have a rebel coalitionist, why couldn't it be a more liberal liberal?

Turnrightthenleft, yes it is a real pity that there aren't more liberals (labour or greens) in politics who seem capable of holding independent, perhaps even rebellious views. Why do liberals toe party lines? Isn't it ironic that the "evangelicals" who are supposedly incapable of thinking indepedently are the only ones who ever offer alternative points of views. Perhaps the liberals ought to engage in some self examination to abandon dogma in favour of real thinking through the issues.