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?