Hmmm, interesting, a lot of item it is hard to disagree with.
I just wonder how balanced their basic proposals are as far as
producing enough income for their spending.
Too early in their life to worry about that.
I agree the monorail will never be a mass transport system.
I like their transport policy anyway, but when they face election will
they wilt in front of the electors when they have to propose getting
commuters out of their cars, introducing petrol rationing, congestion
taxes and the mass of other unpalatable measures ?

I don't know anything about Russian military equipment, but I must
ask do any of the founding members know more ?

Do their energy policies amount to freezing in the dark intermittently ?

are they going to issue the defence forces with white gloves so that any invaders can see that our troops have their hands up?

Policies need work.

1. Maintaining trade balances is not always possible as there are external entities over which Government has little or no control. The Opium Wars were over Britian being unable to balance its trade with China.

2. Non-rural businesses would create primary provider SBUs to avoid tax. Total receipts would fall. To some extent small business in country do this already. Besides the rural sector is less productive than industry and commerce. Incentive should go to the most able.

3. Politicians should look to Defence Experts for advice on materiel acquition. No more Brendan Nelson's please. Aquisitions are only a part of the picture. There are also industry off-sets and standardisation of materiel across alied platforms to be considered.

- A very rough draft, but I guess one needs to start somewhere.

Dear 'New Australia Party,'

If you want to be taken seriously -
you're going to have to do better
then simply make up a list on the
web - and ask people to join
your party.

When are you going to give us your
Budget proposal

Foxy,
I think you're jumping the gun. After reading the site thoroughly I get the clear idea that the idea is that everyone joins the discussion group then decides on the detail of the policy.

Ludwig
I think you're a little too cynical with the selfishness of Australian voters.But I believe their problems will be the natural inertia to anything new.

NPA

I do think that standing in every seat is a bit over ambitious. I would suggest that the Dems ran out of puff once it tried to do the seeming impossible with too few resources due to the nature of the party.

The public will accept a balance of power party but you are up against entrenched self interests and 'galloping inertia' fear of the new.

Clear evidence is that neither major is trusted hence 30 yrs + or - of Dems monitoring the extremes of either party i.e. "keep the Bs honest".
The current safety net has a hole 'Family First' in that he is a loose cannon.
I wonder if your party shouldn't offer the the Dems in the real world.
I'll get on the chat line and discuss in details

@ASymeonakis: Actually our preferences are to the Greens and Democrats and any other environmental parties and then probably the Coalition. The Greens would probably preference us and the Democrats and then Labor. This is explained here: http://www.newaustralia.net/about.html.

@Kulu: The key point with NewAustralia is that it promotes a REVENUE NEUTRAL green tax shift. This means a high taxes on carbon, methane, water, logging, etc in exchange for big tax cuts elsewhere. E.g. You pay more for fuel but there is no rego. (Rego is a flat tax irrespective of how much you drive so not really a green tax)

Note the top 30% tax rate comes with no tax free threshold & no negative gearing so not as generous as it seems. Farmers would be hit hard with Green Taxes which is why we suggest they pay no income tax.
See: http://www.newaustralia.net/tax.html.

If you want a green tax INCREASE the Greens are your party.