"people have a choice" about what? labor backs the terror/sedition laws, tweedledum,tweedledee. people are disappearing into secret prisons without charges or judicial supervision, and ozzians keep referring to 'our democracy' as though they had any, or knew what it was.

i actually don't mind oz falling into the hands of 2nd rate would-be fuehers as long as you know what's going on, and choose to submit.

but i wouldn't want it to happen just because you're dim, and or lazy and or ignorant.

James, Which religious group condoned both you describe it may well be the same Church behind the Union of thugs who wear blue shirts, control the fiction courts, the politicians and the public service, NSW, Qld not much different.
I have formed my opinion from personal experience and I think DEMOS knows more then he is prepared to admit. I pleasing to see that he is not prepared to submit as I will never acquiesce. Read my comments on the terror related matters and any of my other posts it will not be difficult to realise what my concerns are.
We have no choice, we are processed like pieces of meat in the personae designata jurisdiction Courts that are not compatible with Chapter 111 of the Australian Constitution and the Doctor was in the same position and not allowed to speak, Counsel spoke for him in the legal proceedings, not judicial proceedings and paid very well by the Tax Payers for his eloquent words.
DEMOS is absolutely correct, there is no judicial supervision over any of the so called courts or the administrative decisions made by the executive arm of Govt. Ex NSW Chief Justice conducts faux review of the Qld DPP, where is our Supreme Court that has jurisdiction under the Judicial Review Act 1991.
The Supreme Court Qld has the function to provide this judicial review process but it is not made available to anybody other than Lawyers receiving their practicing certificates and your relatives after your dead.
I note that you did not respond to the comment about the agreement you entered into when you applied for your TFN.
All the terms and conditions have changed since then, do you agree to these changes being made without your express consent ?
Before you attempt to get elected I suggest that you start reading and the High Court site on Constitutional cases would be an appropriate place to start, Kable, Grollo, The Boilermakers case, Forge and the list goes on. Search words, kangaroo courts, Palm tree justice, personae designata jurisdiction.

This is not the year to be a small party candidate, its full of heat and even the Greens may not do as well as in the past.
I think it will be very much a them or us election.
By the way we would in my view be better with one house than a senate full of small party's.

there is a charming simplicity about you, belly-

your principle is: "gang rule is good, as long as it's my gang."

my own choice would be: "gang rule is good, as long as i am the gang."

that way there's no internal factionalism. but other people disagree with both of us, so i advocate democracy, instead. recommend it to you.

One house vs Two houses, the eternal debate.

For my money I prefer two houses. It allows for a level of checks and balances that just doesn't exist in a one house system.

A one house system might work if the party system wasn't as tight as it is now. With members able to vote the way that they wish, however with voting along the party lines being the heavily enforced norm, I don't see that happening.

James, I think Belly is right about this not being a good year for small parties and independents, but if you can afford it give it a go anyway and good luck to.

Most of us, including me, are happy to sit around whining but never put our hands up to actually do anything. Good on you, whether I agree with your policies or not.