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