Hi all,

To be totally upfront, I've joined this forum with the purpose of researching policy and promoting a new federal minor political party.

FREE Party Australia
www.freepartyaustralia.org

We need people who are willing to become foundation members, who support the our primary objective: to make policy FREE

*Facts and evidence inform policy making *Reason, unbiased and professionally informed, is used to assess policy *Ethics of policy is assessed to ensure outcomes of greatest good / least harm *Engagement of policy in the public arena where interested parties and relevant professionals are invited to comment.

If you're interested, please look into the web site & I'm available to respond to any questions...

Cheers,

Roger Brisbane

Roger no a definite no, and no thanks involved.
The current hung parliament reinforces my view, such party's damage democracy.
It NSW two shooters party members, in the useless upper house, get favors to let legislation go through the house.
Greens, your party is unlikely ever to match their vote, make fun of majority views and do a great deal more harem than good.
Room exists in major party's, ALL of them, for all views, if you can out vote the power brokers contaminating both, ALP most.

Ok Roger Brisbane,
If you tell me up front that you'll denounce & forfeit the superannuation lurks that are presently the main incentive for people entering politics then you have a good chance for a vote from me.
all the best !

"Ok Roger Brisbane,
If you tell me up front that you'll denounce & forfeit the superannuation lurks that are presently the main incentive for people entering politics then you have a good chance for a vote from me"
all the best ! "

I can't tell you what % super upper house politicians receive, but I can assure you there is a negative financial incentive in my case.

To address the first response, I've tried expressing a voice in other parties and hit all sorts of barriers (not least of which are ideology, bias and personal ambition). We are not satisfied with the status quo.

Regards,

Roger

(not least of which are ideology, bias and personal ambition)
Roger Brisbane,
I'm with you on status quo needing to be addressed urgently. It is my view that unless people are actually required by Law to start thinking final collapse will sneak up on us at break-neck speed.
Status quo is not only accepting stupidity & incompetence it is being defended by our authorities & the learned are perpetuating it.

Roger, I read through your proposed party's policies and find myself agreeing to them all.
I have never been closely involved in politics and was wondering how a new political party is funded?

Hi Suseonline,

Myself and a few others have funded us thus far. We will keep membership free, and hope to get AEC tax deductible status when we reach 500 members. When we come to publicising etc & running campaigns, we are hoping those that are able may donate a few $. Candidates will be required to fund their own running fee ($2k).

The running fee all but precludes small parties fielding candidates (it was $1k last election).

Cheers,
Roger

Another protest party. Where specifically do you differ from the feckless Greens, with whom you will be competing for votes?

Hi onthebeach,

We are not a "protest party", by which I'll take you to mean a "single issue party" such as the sex party, greens, secular party et al. These are often not single issue, but suffer from that perception, and unfortunately all policy is tainted by the founding idea. This is exactly what we're trying to avoid... A real and credible alternative as much as can be provided by a party in its infancy.

Please refer & compare our policy to others if you have specific questions.

If you are unwilling to compare and contrast your policies with another party you seem to have a lot in common with the answer is 'No' then.

He did not sat that on the beach.
Clearly a post above yours clears it up, read the web page see the policy,s.
I still, think it is doomed Democrats made it work.
But generational change to its leaders turned it in to other than its birth was.
Greens are by now over ripe and on the way out.
A party like Katter,s mad Hatters, will not be around long, short term it will be Liberals greens.
And do more harm than good,unless you are a Labor voter.

Rodger, I think Belly has summed it up pretty well, as the mess we have had to endure in the last term is evidence enough for me that small parties/independents etc are more a hindrance than anything.

As I see it, it's all about preferences, as small parties are just that, small. Too small to achieve anything on their own, so they support one of the major parties, something that in the last term has made many small/ind voters dissatisfied with their choice and will most likely make many think twice come this election.

Well that's my view anyway.

I guess I'd have to counter with: we are seeking policy change, not power. We will never align ourselves with any party, but assess policy on its own merits. This may find us aligned with any party on any given policy, or none... I argue that plurality of Australia's democracy is not sufficiently served by 2 all powerful parties. There is not a diversity of views in a race to the bottom - asylum seeker policy is the clearest example that springs to mind.

Independents hold the balance of power in the lower house - 1 of which subsequently formed a party. The Greens (largely) hold the balance in the upper house.

Checks and balances are a positive, at least policy can be publicly discussed rather than railroaded through; and without which an increasing concentration of power ensues. Liberties are already being lost...

Roger,there are lots of little Parties starting up,so you have to get these under one banner to give the major parties real competition.

Neither of the major parties or the Greens represent the people and we don't have real democracy.

The central core I think to a new party should be reform of the RBA; ie get it to start creating new credit for the people of Australia and open up at least one Govt Bank that can use the fractional Reserve System of Banking to again create new credit for infrastructure etc.

Other issues are secondary to reform of our Banking system.

I see nothing about banking reform and your party assumes that AGW caused by man is real.The planet has not warmed for 16 yrs even expoential increases in CO2.Therefore in my mind this is not free thinking.There should be at least some reservation about CO2.

I see nothing about Aust having a proper constitution or repealing Johns Howard's Sedition Laws.

I won't be joining since this is just another status quo party dressed up as liberty.

Wait a minute Roger,what's going on here?
Are you responsible for this site as well or are they a different mob?
http://freeaustralia.org/

In a word NO, I wouldn't be interested in joining a party which campaigns solely on a bourgeois, "Doctor's wives" platform,there are too many of these micro parties as it is and none of them represent the views or the interests of working Australians.
The idea of a National Front or a Popular Front for micro parties is fine but since there's no way a group like FREE could work with say, One Nation, the Pirate Party or the Communist Party there's no point in starting. Within the nominal left and right groupings there's no consensus and much animosity and jealousy even among people who are ideologically similar, it's been tried and it's failed enough times that we know that neither working to build a front group or a micro party is a productive use of one's time.

Jay,
That is not us. I believe "free Australia" is a SA state (not AEC registered) organisation with some fairly extreme views IMO.

Please refer to www.freepartyaustralia.org to review our policies.

I agree it is too difficult to form an umbrella of small parties, although posit that FREE Party casts a broad net with the potential to become a significant party where the others IMO don't.

We don't claim to represent a particular social set, and our current membership is remarkably diverse in this respect. FREE is not a party that will push an ideological barrow.

What would you call a productive use of one's time? If you have constructive criticism, we're willing to listen!

Arjay,
I'm not sufficiently well versed In Sedition law or RBA goverence to provide any meaningful comment. There is a form on the web site where policy proposals can be made. If you're willing to submit a policy, I'll ask the lawyers, accountants & economist members to peer review & see if its something we feel the party should address at this point.

Roger.
Looking at your manifesto it's clear that your first and really only priority is helping illegal aliens and making it as easy as possible for them to freeload, that places you dead in the water from the start. Whether or not they're tolerant of Third world migrants (99% are tolerant) working Australians hate refugee advocacy and groups who seek to put the interests of illegal aliens ahead of those of the local population. We don't like people who advocate special rights and privileges for minorities at the expense of the native born majority, you'll find that this is a common view across all Australian ethnic groups (except perhaps the WASP bourgeoisie).

To be frank your gun control idea is silly,like your refugee policy it's ridiculously bureaucratic, on the one hand you seem to advocate greater personal liberty but have you stopped to think about the effect of all your rules and regulations on the liberty of citizens?

Gay marriage. Are you advocating the abolition of the marriage act? If so you are going to run smack bang into a confrontation with the Gay lobby, they want the government to empower and protect their version of marriage, they definitely don't want people to have the freedom to decide what a marriage is or is not.

Religion. If you tried to put any of those ideas in practice you'd be steamrolled by Jewish groups and if you tried to resist you'd be tied up in court for years. I don't mean to sound harsh but they have the power and the money to do whatever they want and they'd bring all the other faith groups into a coalition and flatten you, your name would be mud, you'd be branded and "anti Semite" and you'd most likely end up in jail as an example to others who might think about following your lead.

I could go on, judging by the way the policy outline is written you're very young, politics doesn't work the way you think it does, I'll leave it there.

Roger Our Sedition Laws do much the same as Bush's Patriot Act.They suspend Habeas Corpus ie If our Govt classifies you as a terrorist they can jail you indefinitely without trial or legal council.

Prof Michael Hudson in 2009 visited our RBA and asked them why they don't create new money for our growing economy and got no response.Even our inflationary money which is the depreciation of our currency gets expressed as debt by private banks.

No new party that does not address these two areas is worth supporting.Google also our Prof Steven Keen.He is one of the few who who predicted the GFC.The debt cannot be repaid because increases in our productivity get expressed as debt by private institutions.We no longer have Govt banks to even take some of the pressure off taxes.

Hi Roger
Some good policies outlined on your website, the challenge will be to move from what are essentially well intentiond motherhood statements to workable policies that will achieve those aims. It is not as easy as it might appear and when in power you will no doubt know that there are many pulls and pushes on government in the form of lobby groups.

I like minor parties for the reason that the dominant two-party system tends to take their place for granted and the result is the status quo which leads to cynical attitudes about politics (mostly deserved). Minor parties tend to raise issues that the majors avoid for fear of asking the difficult questions or questioning the status quo eg. the inequalities and problems with aspects of free trade/globalisation, or issues of national security vs privacy vs big brother government.

What a dominant two-party system equals is lots of pork barrelling and promises during elections but little in the way of real substance. That is not to deny some good policy decisions from both parties at times. Look what happened when the Howard Government enjoyed majority power, we ended up with Workchoices, a policy that was not shared with the voters prior to election. Labor did similar with the Carbon Tax reversal albeit in different circumstances.

Minor parties spring up usually in response to disatisfaction with the two major parties. eg. KAP and the Pirate Party. The PP have some good transparency and FOI policies as well as the anti-censorship stance. I can even find some good policies in KAP although they tend to attract the loony right amongst them (not all).

Even better would be to include all Australians in some important areas of policy making through referenda. This could be achieved with little bureacratic wrangling and little cost by including referenda at every major election so that the policy direction is truly decided by the people.

Naturally it is not practical for every issue, small and large, but it is possible for some areas of policy particularly those that impact on all Australians.

Arjay,
You're right, protest parties are either not interested in fundamental change or they have no idea of the way the "system" actually works.
If an individual or group publicly express any ideas which would radically alter the status quo or which could potentially threaten the ruling castes then they very quickly find ASIO and Federal Police goons on their doorstep, or worse, private "investigators" and vigilante thugs from minority and special interest groups...then of course there's the media, the other enforcement arm of the ruling castes.
The idea of using issues like gun control, human rights,homosexuality and illegal immigration as front line tactics to "fight the power" or even to "keep the bastards honest" is ludicrous. "Human rights" is as much a fundamental part of the system as usury or the state monopoly on the use of force, the widely accepted notion that you can "fight fire with fire" is completely wrong, you fight fire with WATER, anything else only increases the intensity of the fire.

Thanks for the references Arjay, I'll do some more research into the RBA. Re sedition, my ex was involved with (the defence of) the first use of sedition laws in Australia (against a group in Dubbo) I'm aware, just not a constitutional lawyer myself...

Jay, the site is deliberately laymans. Please support your assumptions with facts where appropriate.

Jay of Melbourne.We can tell the agenda's of these new parties by what they omit.Yes they can become quickly corrupted especially by intelligence plants and media manipulation of the truth.

The Citizens Electoral Council is the only group that confronts these issues but I don't like La Rouches' style.

They really did a number on Pauline Hanson and Tony Abbott got really dirty.When they got back into power they adopted some of her policies.

Unless we wake up and all get politically active,then I don't see real change happening soon.The West has become fascist in its laws since Sept 2001.It will only take another terrorist attack to make the fascism real.

Roger.
Do you want information on controlled opposition groups who might try to undermine, infiltrate or intimidate you? Apart from the overtly state controlled security agencies there are dozens more, some of which for my own safety I won't be naming on a public forum, here are a few.
http://www.natalt.org/ (Neo Nazis/ Fake Radical Right)
http://ausfirst.alphalink.com.au/ (Neo Nazis/ Fake Nationalists)

http://www.qsociety.org.au/ (Israel First/Islamophobic)

http://www.protectionist.net/ (Israel First/Islamophobic)

http://theantibogan.wordpress.com/ (Israel First/ Anti Racist)

The state and the elite/minority groups which it serves has all bases covered, your policy ideas are a mish mash so you could expect attacks and infiltration from multiple angles but if you were to press ahead with your "secularisation" ideas things could become very ugly. Bear in mind though that the real heavies probably won't appear unless you do reach the point of AEC registration, then they'd have to take you seriously, you'll mostly get low level harassment from vigilantes and professional wreckers like the groups listed above.

Dear Roger,

It is insulting to call yourselves "The FREE thinkers Party" as if all those who do not agree with your views are not free thinkers!

I have been thinking about the issues you attempt to address, all on my own with no coercion, not once and not twice, then ended up agreeing with some of your policies and disagreeing with others.

Beware that it is common for political parties to claim to operate on principles (the FREE principles being no exception), but more often than not they end up basing their policies on personal preferences instead - that's human nature. The following pitfalls afflict every political party, not just yours:

<<*Facts and evidence inform policy making>>

Which of the facts are used and which discarded?

<<*Reason, unbiased and professionally informed, is used to assess policy>>

Whose reason? Who are to be deemed "professionals"? How can you tell that you are not biased?

<<*Ethics of policy is assessed to ensure outcomes of greatest good / least harm>>

What is good? What is harm? What to do when someone's greatest good is another's harm?

<<*Engagement of policy in the public arena where interested parties and relevant professionals are invited to comment>>

What kind of parties are likely to be interested? What sort of professionals are you likely to consider "relevant" and engage?

Dear Roger,

Executive having final say over policy rather than the members?

Just how 'Free' are you?

Seems you are making the same mistake that other parties make.

Rodger, we don't just have two major parties as we have these smaller parties, the independents and the greens.

Now I am sure there are some deals done on preferences, so if we bring more minor parties into the mix, ome would assume that would also mean more deals.

We have also seen that for the PM,deals are only words, used to her advantage at the time, as she renegged on her pokie deal.

Now as for policy, policy means little if the implementation fails, as we have seen time after time from this labor government. Surely we domt want more of the same.

If we were to change the system, my tip is we should bee looking for affordable ways to gibe the voters more say, as the current system removes our democratic rights the moment we exit the polling booth.

Axing compulsory voting would be a good starting point, as that would them mean this who care would have the say, while those who don't care, which is many, wouldn't bother.

A bit off topic, a guy I know received a phone call from a polling mob, and the first question they asked was his age group.

When he told them he was 50+ they hung up.

Politics is a very dirty game.

Roger,
I may consider joining a new political party, but not yours.

Disagree with many of your policies. Illegal entrants, gun control, gay marriage, AGW, for example. You don't even mention immigration.

I read your site and you're no better than wacko's we've got now. I don't like you already!

Did you even bother to read any of the myriad of discussions on this site alone? You would have noticed that all you preach has been thrashed out a million times over and your policies are one in the same with what we already have. I saw nothing to convince me I would obtain better representation or more liberty under you! Just the same ol' same ol'!

Are you just another wing of the Fabian society?

And, what about multicultural ideology, thats important?

Hi all,
Just a quick note to say I'll try to respond to these tomorrow, had power out etc today & no charge on the battery...
Cheers,
Roger

Roger Brisbane, love your name, reminds me of “Flying High”.

As for your technocrats-on-steroids party, sounds like my worst Orwellian nightmare come to life.

It's the Democrats, only the comfy sofas has been replaced with steel pews.

“If you're willing to submit a policy, I'll ask the lawyers, accountants & economist members”

Shockadelic has left the building.

Since there's already another “Free” party, you may have difficulty registering the name. Might want to rethink that one.

I myself am attempting to start a party.
I know it's futile, but I feel I must at least try.

It's classical liberal (not “progressive”), pro-direct democracy, moderately ethnic nationalist (yes, you can be moderate).

It's very “right” (but *not* authoritarian/fascist), so diehard lefties needn't apply.

http://takeitoffaustralia.blogspot.com.au/

Jay Of Melbourne, I respect your opinions, so please take a look and tell me what kind of “fake” Take It Off is.

Belly, only the Sharia Law Party will “do a great deal more harem than good.”

Dear Shockadelic,

I am no nationalist, but in practical terms, from the little I could read, your new party looks better than what any other Australian party currently has to offer.

Ruling over others without their consent is violence.
Your new party will not uproot violence altogether,
but it will to some degree reduce the government's violence against the people of the land.

Come elections, I may be voting for you.

---
A technical point:

Do you actually mean that voters on issues will be selected at random? A statistocratia?

That is unfair, but with existing technology, nothing prevents direct democracy where everyone who wants can vote - either in person, online, or through a proxy-tree (should one fail to vote by the deadline).

Axing compulsory voting would be a good starting point, as that would them mean this who care would have the say, while those who don't care, which is many, wouldn't bother.
rehctub,
I think exactly the opposite would ensue. Why ? Because those who don't care are actually the ones with the most to lose & would therefore ensure they keep getting their way.
Just look at your average Labor voter. They don't or don't know how to care about others & how much they ruin the country yet they are vehement in their defence of the Labor Party. They are out in full force at every election more so than any other.

To be an extreme right wing party there are 3 things you must have. Firstly some kind of 'insignia' a symbol for the faithful to rally around, the swastika worked well for some, but its a bit on the nose theses days, so design your own.
Then to be a true blue extreme right wing party, you need to deny you are a extreme right wing party, by stating:
"Take It Off supports nationalism, and even a moderate ethnocentrism, we will inevitably be labelled "fascists" and "Nazis". then go on to deny the obvious, we are not "fascists" and "Nazis". Out of power these people like to paint themselves as 'moderate'. When in power and given half a chance you would see how 'moderate' they really are, when its too late.
Oh! the third thing you need, 500 members to form a political party, this usually puts the kibosh on them.

Paul,
Loking at his policies, me thinks Roger is hoping to get membership from the lost souls of the Democrats and the failing support for the Greens. His policies on AGW and illegal entrants would make you feel at home.

Australia is a muticultural society with diverse views on law and compassion. The only way to make a difference is to gain leadership in the two major Parties and convince the rank and file of your views. It is a fact that any policy will conflict with others views even within the Party.

The future of Australia is going to be more politically volitile because of multicultural requirements and ethenic sensitivities and the rise of self interest groups who feel the Govt owes them.

Currently to many lawyers, accountant and career politicians rather than people with vision like Business leaders, suppliers of food and sucessful Employers.

Josephus,
While i agree our politics will become more volitile in future, you make the common mistake of thinking we are now a multicultural society.

We are multi-racial but not multicultural as we do not have seperate laws for different cultures. We expect all to comply with our laws and social standards, which are based on the Westminster system. We allow some other cultural activities that fit within our system and there are a few, like FGM, where we turn a blind eye to.

There are some here that want to introduce polyogmy, child marriage, forced marriage, female oppression, strange foods and Sharia law which is not lawfull, YET.

We must guard against and resist the gradual introduction of such as it compromises the culture we now have.

But to claim we are multicultural is a misnomer.

"The only way to make a difference is to gain leadership in the two major Parties and convince the rank and file of your views." Josephus are you referring to the 'Protectionist' and 'Free Trade' parties LOL. People change and so do political parties, I don't understand "gain leadership in the two major Parties" become the love child of Gillard and Abbott?
For a political party to be successful it needs to have ideals and principles, established by a foundation of like minded people which then attracts a growing members. Through internal democracy, policy is determined on a range of issues, related to the parties core ideals and principles. By articulating policy a party develops a constituency. If that constituency is large enough, the party will obtain political power through the ballot box. One issue parties will eventually fail, or at the very least, remain small, as they are unable to gain mass appeal. Abandoning ideals and principles and embracing populism might be successful to a degree in the short term, but a party based on populism soon looses direction and falls out of favor as votes (and the membership) no longer understands what the party stands for. No political party can be "all things to all men."

Jay,
To say that our only priority is "helping illegal aliens" is simply wrong. When you say "We don't like people who advocate special rights and privileges for minorities at the expense of the native born majority", whom exactly is this "we" you speaking for? I wonder how you would feel about the "special privileges" if the situation was reversed?

Notwithstanding, the "special privileges" you speak of appear to be financially based (correct me if I'm wrong). If you take the time to carefully read Julian Burnside's comments on the web site you will see that these "special privileges" are incurred as a result of discriminatory policy that panders to bigoted attitudes within the Australian community.

Immigrants and refugee's have been shown to be some of the most productive members of the Australian community.

You say: "To be frank your gun control idea is silly" - Personal admonitions have no value. There is ample evidence and research into gun control v's the right to bear arms. I suggest you avail yourself of some data and make a decent argument. I'd suggest starting with Sam Harris as the most logical pro right to bear arms advocate I've come across. He makes valid points pertaining to the pragmatism of gun control in the USA.

To be clear, we are suggesting amendments to the marriage act to remove discrimination against same sex couples, not "the abolition of the marriage act".

On religion, you've made some hefty assumptions. I note there are many advocates that advocate the full and constitutional separation of church and state - search: Marion Maddox for a start. Many recognise the importance that no one religion should hold a dominant political position as this leads to discrimination of minorities.

Pelican,
Thanks for your comments, I agree we have only provided policy directions. I feel this is appropriate to the position we are advocating as we are not in a position to affect legislative change.

With regard to referenda, I would advocate plebiscites at polling booths where relevant as referenda incur far greater cost and have a limited history of success.

Arjay,
I agree that "Unless we wake up and all get politically active, then I don't see real change happening soon." Apathy is the greatest hurdle...

Yuyutsu,
When calling ourselves the FREE thinkers party, it is a useful pun. To spell it out, we are the Facts * Reason * Ethics * Engagement Party. It's unfortunate that you find this insulting, no insult is intended.
We have a clear explanation of how we go about the FREE test on the "policy submissions" page, which attempts to identify the issues you have identified.

Csteel,
We feel it is necessary to have the executive having final say. The bottom-up approach is hamstringing the Greens and we don't want to fall into that trap. Executive positions are subject to election.

Rehctub,

We won't engage in any deals. Each policy will be assessed on it's own merits.

Banjo, RawMustard and Shokadelic,
That's one of the great things about living in a democratic and pluralistic society, we all have the right to disagree and express an opinion (discrimination laws notwithstanding).

Paul1405,
Thanks for the thoughtful comments.

And in general:
Whilst is very easy to attack another's position, it is more challenging to come up with better solutions. Constructive criticism is most welcome.

Cheers,
Roger

Roger Brisbane,
On same sex union, this is not the biological concept of marriage that is accepted by most. It is popularism policy gone mad. I could never support such perversions. The State should only be interested in the births produced by a couple to track population growth and the death of any. Social contracts can be drawn up between people to cover all relationships.

Josephus, it seems your objection is one of title, since you appear to support "social contracts".
So why not marriage & the benefits that are automatically granted to a spouse (medical, financial etc). Who loses if it's called marriage? Other 'contracts' do not convey these privileges. The only difference IMO, is sexual preference.

Roger,
My objection to same sex 'marriage' is entirely on the use of the word marriage. It means a union of a male and female, no ifs or buts about that and spin will not alter that.

Persons of the same sex can find their own word for their union. They have already hyjacked the word 'gay' and now they want the word marriage because it projects a better image for their lifestyle.

Roger,
Please identify the medical and financial benefits that a man and woman have in a marriage that cannot be identified in a contract? The contract that a couple sign and register with the State of itself is not a marriage. The marriage is the actual sexual act, covered by a permanent agreement under law that the couple make to engage lawfully in sex. Anal sex does not fulfil the biological act of marriage. An act of Parliament does not change the meaning of the history of the term. It cannot change the facts of science or biology.

Adopting such a policy might have some popular support, but it is based on ignorance of history and biological fact. Same sex couples should adopt an historical term commonly applied for such sex relationships.

..but I can assure you there is a negative financial incentive in my case.
vs
...hope to get AEC tax deductible status when we reach 500 members
Roger Brisbane,
That's the standard Eh ?

Yuyutsu, it may be technically possible for millions of people to vote on everything.
But you don't want people to tire of direct democracy.

Too many votes too often and people will be begging for “representatives” again, and we're back to Tweedletown.
That's why I think a smaller (but still significant) random vote is better.

Paul1405, I don't deny Take It Off is “extreme” or “right”.
It's fairly obvious it is “right”. And proposes some very radical changes.
But it is truly “Rightist”.
The fascists/Nazis were actually LEFTISTS.
They were the “right wing” of the LEFT.

If you read the entire page (and policies), you'd see how ridiculous it is to call Take It Off “fascist/Nazi”, precisely why I wrote the page.
Take It Off is almost anarchist/libertarian, but not naive enough to be so.

Of course, I don't expect to make an impact on people like you.
I have no hope for people like you to ever *think*.
You only *react*, as programmed by your owners.

There is a symbol, that of red-tape-white-background/object, which can be used in various promotional contexts.
A little more flexible than a static shape, yes?

<<Yuyutsu, it may be technically possible for millions of people to vote on everything.
But you don't want people to tire of direct democracy.

Too many votes too often and people will be begging for “representatives” again, and we're back to Tweedletown.
That's why I think a smaller (but still significant) random vote is better.>>

There is nothing to prevent you enjoying both worlds:

Every citizen may assign any other citizen as their proxy, obviously someone they generally trust and respect, then if one does not vote by the deadline, their vote is counted as their proxy's. Obviously the proxy too can have their own proxy, etc. and of course one can change proxies at any time (or choose to have none).

They were the “right wing” of the LEFT.
Shockadelic,
That's one of the better descriptions of the National Sozialisten or Labor in English.

"..but I can assure you there is a negative financial incentive in my case.
vs
...hope to get AEC tax deductible status when we reach 500 members
Roger Brisbane,
That's the standard Eh ?
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 29 January 2013 9:57:22 PM"

A quick tax lesson for individual's sake:
When a donation is made to an AEC registered party, or a charity, there is a corresponding reduction in taxable income.

Ie: if I donate $1,500 (the max. Amount that can attract a deduction in the case of political parties) and my marginal tax rate is 33.33% (for ease), then my taxable income is $1,500 less. Ie, I pay $500 less tax than I would have otherwise, whilst still incurring a $1,000 cost.

There is no financial benefit, only cost.

Paul1405, I don't deny Take It Off is “extreme” or “right”.
It's fairly obvious it is “right”. And proposes some very radical changes.
But it is truly “Rightist”.
The fascists/Nazis were actually LEFTISTS.
They were the “right wing” of the LEFT. (right oh! sort of ambidextrous people. I can think of a few words to describe the likes of Hitler, but ambidextrous was not the first word that sprung to mind.)

Shockadelic, I am sure you do not know your right from your left, you seem to be getting into a bit of a twist from your statement above. Your whole concept is an unworkable load of nonsense. No matter how you dress it up, bend it, fold it, no matter how you twist it, at the end of the day its just another form of fascism. Put in power the mumbo jumbo would soon be replaced by the storm troopers.
A couple of questions;
Besides you, how many members do you have? I like the way you refer to yourself as a political party, 500 members yet?
What does the red symbol at the top of your page represent? Looks rather corn ball to me, but then again no self respecting fascist 'party' would be caught dead without a corn ball symbol for the army of troglodytes to rally around. No I will not be joining any time soon, I would hate to see your party numbers double, besides it would only lend encouragement, and we don't want that.

Josephus asked:
"Please identify the medical and financial benefits that a man and woman have in a marriage that cannot be identified in a contract?"

Source: http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/wp/faqs/the-legal-benefits-that-come-with-marriage/

"Married partners have immediate access to all relationship entitlements, protections and responsibilities.

This contrasts to de facto couples who must live together for a certain period before they are deemed to have legal rights.

A marriage certificate also allows married partners to easily prove their legal rights if challenged, for example in emergency situations. The capacity to quickly and easily prove one’s relationship status is particularly important for same-sex partners because prejudice against same-sex relationships can mean legal rights are denied.

Another practical benefit of marriage is that it is a widely recognised legal relationship. The criteria for establishing de facto status, and the rights ascribed to de facto partners, are different between the Australian states and between Australia and other nations."

...this applies to succession laws, superannuation, and things like ability to make decisions if your married partner is on life support or similar.

Dear Roger,

Would I consider founding a minor political party?

No. From observation of world politics Nations
that have multiple political parties have major
political and economic problems.

Australia with its current system has a far better
standing compared to these other Nations. As it is,
every time a new Party has made an attempt to establish
itself (One Nation, Democrats, Democratic Labor Party)
had a short existence. Australia, like the US, and
the UK, manages very well with a two major party system.

I pay $500 less tax than I would have otherwise, whilst still incurring a $1,000 cost.
Roger Brisbane,
And so it should be for everyone no exception. I'd much prefer a flat tax, no special benefit for one when the other doesn't get it either. Just think of how much lower insurance premiums could be & how much less we'd have to fork out for a whole range of subsidies.
If people want more money than do it by putting in more effort not take away more from those who already give too much.

"""
Australia, like the US, and
the UK, manages very well with a two major party system.
"""

What planet do you live on. The UK is a basket case and the US is on the brink of financial collapse and civil war.

Both parties in both countries are run by the same despotic, tyrannical, parasites that run ours!

Dear RM,

I'm pleased to see that you agree that we
therefore don't need any more political parties.

Lexi,
I totally agree. No more parties! Just better people as representatives. Lobby the existing Parties with visionary policies on the future development and problems Australia faces.

"I totally agree. No more parties! Just better people as representatives. Lobby the existing Parties with visionary policies on the future development and problems Australia faces.
Posted by Josephus, Wednesday, 30 January 2013 8:26:01 PM"

Josephus,
Please elucidate these "visionary policies" that will bring in "better people as representatives"? And in which ways will the people be "better"?

It seems to me that as time has gone on, the two majors have morphed into a similar entity - under two different titles.

Dear Roger Brisbane,

You wrote;

“We feel it is necessary to have the executive having final say. The bottom-up approach is hamstringing the Greens and we don't want to fall into that trap. Executive positions are subject to election.”

So the members do not have the final say on policy. What are you afraid of? That the great unwashed might come up with something the 'founders' find objectionable?

To me that would seem a little unfair. Actually I searched your entire site for the word FAIR and it was nowhere to be found.

Come on mate, I applaud the effort but the delivery lacks vision. At the moment all you have is a soft utilitarianism and if you think facts are the most important thing in driving policy then you have a problem.

Think about it.

"""
I'm pleased to see that you agree that we
therefore don't need any more political parties.
"""

You think I Agree? Putting words in my mouth? Are you one of these people that believes people shouldn't have choices? The standard argument being that it just confuses people?

Never mind, stupid questions. You're a lefty, you hate that people should have a choice!

Csteel,

Fair is a philosophical word suffering subjective interpretation. One man's fair is another mans tyranny.

If you can show me how the FREE test, used to formulate & assess policy, fails to be 'fair' (in your interpretation) we will have something to discuss.

csteele/RB

“We feel it is necessary to have the executive having final say. The bottom-up approach is hamstringing the Greens and we don't want to fall into that trap. Executive positions are subject to election.”

As a member of The Greens I'll comment on the above. One of the great attractions for me to the party is that The Greens are such a democratic grass roots organisation. I have been a past member of the ALP and its caulk and cheese when it comes to party democracy, I can't speak about other political parties as I have never been a member. Take candidate selection, the recent Peris-Kneebone saga and how she was picked to top the ALP ticket in the NT. This could not happen in The Greens, simply because of party rules which empowers the membership to select candidates. Same applies with party policy, its through the grass roots membership as to what ultimately becomes party policy.
To me the only function of the membership in the Labor Party is to hand out HTV's on election day, not much else. Unless you are a member of the party elite and then you will have lots of say.
The rest of csteele post I agree with.

Paul1405, Sure, a minimalist bureaucracy with direct democracy and a deregulated liberal economy is “just another form of fascism”.

I think you're the one confused.

As for left and right, I know it's confusing, but there is a “left wing” and a “right wing” of both the Left and the Right.
Fascism was Leftist.
Take It Off is not.

“What does the red symbol at the top of your page represent?”

Obviously, you didn't read a word on the website, did you?
It's a woman's hourglass figure wrapped in red tape.
I'm sure Hitler would be thrilled at the decadence.

I already stated I was “trying” to start a party.
You need 500 to register, not to start.
You start with one.

Dear RM,

With all due respect you know nothing about me.
Therefore labeling me is neither logical nor an
encouragement to further intelligent discussion.It's
merely an indication of your own biases.

Of course I believe in choices as my posting
history shows. The point that I was making however
was that going on past history minor political
parties don't have a great success rate - however
that does not mean that they should stop trying.
Merely that I'm not interested in giving them my support.
And that is MY choice.

From the website:
"There are several underlying themes inherent: the "hourglass" indicating a need to act while there is still time (our society is under threat from utopian "extremist liberal" totalitarianism); the notion of "stripping", of removing the excess, revealing the true form underneath ("Stripping" is also a gradual process, not a sudden transformation); and an overt playfulness, in contrast to the boring bureaucracy of other political parties.

Anyone who has a problem with the "sexist" image can save their breath.
I don't want to hear your Windbag Manifesto Diatribe. Go away.

Stay tuned."

Great stuff, that should attract them by the bus loads. Personally I liked Sun's boiled egg. What breed of chicken did it come from? Looks like a black one, there will be party members who will demand all eggs should only come from Aryan (white) chickens.

For clarity, the above quote is NOT from FREE Party Australia.

Rodger

Where does your party stand with regard to democracy? That is one person one vote!

Proportional representation

You live in a state where a party with less than 50% of the vote controls more than 80% of the parliament.

Hi Producer,

I'm not convinced proportional voting is pragmatic in the lower house, although I am personally in favour of it in the upper house. We don't have a party policy, and we have not considered the issue in sufficient depth to have one. Please feel free to make a policy suggestion (preferably via the web site form).
Cheers,

Btw Producer, although we're not State based, I would (personally) prefer to see a Senate in Qld...

My apologies Roger, I did not mean to imply that your party is in any way related to Shockadelic's party. I can see by reading my post that there could be confusion.

Rodger

You said

"I'm not convinced proportional voting is pragmatic in the lower house"

How so?

Surely Proportional representation would favour smaller parties?

Even if it is not pragmatic (I don’t believe it to be the case) surely democracy trumps pragmatism every time?

"Rodger

You said

"I'm not convinced proportional voting is pragmatic in the lower house"

How so?

Surely Proportional representation would favour smaller parties?

Even if it is not pragmatic (I don’t believe it to be the case) surely democracy trumps pragmatism every time?

In my personal view, the legislature has the potential to be (even more) corrupted by populist policy making. Ie: (for over simplified illustrative purposes only), 51% of candidates are elected on policies that would bankrupt the country or persecute minorities. The senate becomes effectively a rubber stamp as they could (hypothetically) be elected on the same premise.

Having the legislature in a first past the post situation reduces (not eliminates) the potential for this type of thing happening...

IMO, populist politicians are less inclined to take unpopular decisions.

Roger (spelt right this time, sorry)

Your assertion that a proportional system is more open to corruption than FPP system is a red herring. I should mention that I consider our current preferential system is superior (although not desirable) to a FPP system. A proportional system rarely in practice hands any particular group or faction power, therefore decisions are a product of compromise and discussion. In any case if a populist party elected by a proportional majority sent the country broke the majority have to pay. Far better than a minority FFP with majority governing power sending the country broke as the majority will still pay without having a say.

Clearly I have more faith in my fellow Australians voting abilities (if given the option) than you have. Without proportional representation your party will be small business playing in the corporate sector and you’re already dead in the water.

Finally all your policies are about spending.

Not one addresses productivity

Producer says: "Finally all your policies are about spending."

Please read the recommendations of the Henry tax review (which we support in our policies) - they are largely about productivity...