In regard to "practice what you preach", I was WA Wheatbelt manager for the insurance company in the 1970s. We were expected to "relate to our clients and prospects". Well, I was calling mainly on farmers, shearers, farm contractors, owner drivers etc, none of whom were wearing suits. So what was I supposed to do, try to impress them with my sartorial splendour or dress logically under the circumstances in lightweight pants and short sleeved, open neck shirts?

When the state manager found out and tried to stand over me, I let him know, with a few well chosen words, that I would make my own decisions on dress and that was the end of the matter. Can you imagine me getting away with that in Parliament, where logic, reason and common sense habitually come a poor last to officially sanctioned stupidity?

And, apart from all that, I'm 72. I'm 90% retired, but have a home based business, which I run from my office, which overlooks my [sort of] Balinese style, very private back garden and pool. It's really no contest, is it? But thanks all the same LOL!

More power to you Rex!

And you're a Sandgroper on top of it all.

With all that going for you you'd never stand a chance in Australian politics... you'd still be a shoe-in for my vote though! : )

Tapp,
ty very much for the url. There is a lot to absorb on it. It may take me a day or two to digest it all fully but from initial readings you may find the following helpful - or not. As you see it.

I'm guessing you have thought this all out by yourself, possibly discussing it with the Missus and a couple of mates for some extra input?

No man is an island, but no-one man can represent a party's (a successful political party's) entire policy program in Australia.

Your ideas undoubtedly will resonate with some in the community (i've even expressed similar thoughts to some of your Policy on Crime) but if you seriously want to pose a threat to LibLab you should consider having your policy's reviewed and perhaps amended to meet with a wider view than just one person can supply. (Creating documents with a spellchecker can't hurt either!) :-)

Also, I appreciate funding might be a bit tight in your current circumstances but i suggest you find a backer who can fund you a website dedicated to your party on it's own and not be associated with some of the more 'unconventional' ideas and opinions expressed on the first page the url directs us to.

I would be distrustful of any financial input that did not come with 'expectations' from the backer, but hopefully you could ensure any conditions are limited and do not restrict your personal objectives in any serious fashion.

I do agree we need better from our politicians than we are getting and hope your plan can achieve that, but i truly believe you need additional outside input to 'capture' sufficient numbers of members.

Good luck once more.

How can we ask our immigrants to pledge allegiance to our values when we do not have any? To do that we need to have a bill of rights, then we could ask them to pledge to something.

Only, almost anything worth including in a bill of rights has been flagrantly undermined by the Howard government. We would be left with no more than, I pledge to obey the laws of this country regardless of whatever changes maybe made to those laws. Or we could throw in all the typical liberty/fraternity platitudes and slot in an exemption for anything deemed to be a matter of national security.

Unfortunately, every protest can be seen as a matter of national security?

I think the above is a little disingenuous. After all, our right to work hard and acculmulate wealth is still sacrosanct.



The Australian Bill of Rights:

You have the right to obey the law, as determined from time to time and with the proviso that anything you do is not deemed to be a matter of national security.

You have the right to work and accumulate wealth.

You have the right to winge impotently.



There is more than a little chance this values pledge crap will backfire in Howards' face. This is not only a bridge too far, to borrow Rudds'phrase, but also a poorly constructed bridge. It will not see the light of day. It would fuel enough ridicule to be terminal to even the imperial Howard.

“How can we ask our immigrants to pledge allegiance to our values when we do not have any?”

Utter rubbish

I have “values” and I had them before I became a citizen.

I am also a migrant and have pledged allegiance to Australia through citizenship, such an action did not deprive me of my “values”.

I would suggest declaring “our values when we do not have any” merely reflects your own personal deficiency.

I would also point out

USA requires all applicants for citizenry to undergo lessons in and be tested on their understanding of

English.
The processes of US Government and its institutions.
The American Constitution.

Similar processes exist in some individual states in Europe.

Further, citizenship (and residency) are barred to those with criminal records (those who have demonstrated a absence of “values”, like the slime ball who was recently deported back to Serbia after completing his prison sentence and deserved to stay there) and those with certain diseases (eg tuberculosis).

I would also remind you that the “Howard Government” was elected to office under the full rigor of due democratic process.

I value my right to vote and accept the will of the majority through the ballot box.

Your cynical whining would suggest you do not share similar “values” and are intent on doing your utmost to spoil things when you do not get your own selfish way.

Is which case I can only hope you have a long, miserably frustrated life as a lesson to learn from for your next reincarnation (up the evolutionary scale, as a cockroach).

As of July 2005, the requirements for grant of Australian citizenship (in force since 1984) are that the applicant:

holds permanent resident status
has been present in Australia as a permanent resident for a total of 2 years in the 5 years before application, including a total of 12 months in the 2 years before application
understands of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship (except for applicants aged 60 or over)
is able to speak and understand basic English (except for applicants aged 50 or over)
understands the nature of the application
intends to reside in Australia, or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia

So whats new in Howards proposal except 4 years, mateship and fair go !

Col Rouge,

You have the right to entrap yourself in the narrowest of paradigms and yell what ever abuse please you.

Col we do not live in one of your favourite western movies, where the charging Yankee cavalry will always save the day. This is precisely, the delusion Howard and you share.

If the only value you have any confidence in citing is our right to vote, aren't you conceding my point - we are bereft of values right now.

Finally, if you familiarised your self with some history. If you occassionally tossed your views aside and looked at things from a different perspecive, you may actually experience an authentic moment. You may then have the courage to admit the undeniable: Howard has seriously fractured the trust between the government and its citizens. No amount of marco economic figures or j curves, change this one iota.

Is there a PM who has sent australian troops to as many foreign places? Howard has been out of control for some time. When he laughs, I can see Beezlebub!

In time, this will be clear to you