WAIT! What? This isn't an impartial blog?!
No.
I don't really care if you agree with me or not. In fact it makes no difference to me at all! This is NOT meant to be an impartial blog - it's a result of my discussions with these candidates.
If you don't like it, go read something else.
Below, I will provide my position on the same questions I sent to each of the candidates. I've done this so that when I post my discussions with candidates you can see the context behind my other questions and their responses.
Q1. Hardening up Border Protection Laws
- I am against this.
The key word here is "hardening" - WTF does that mean?
Q4. Gay Marriage
Everyone is talking about it, but harden? Against what? Where's our threat? What's the real risk?
From what I've read, most 'illegals' immigration figures are buried amongst the millions of legitimate tourists who arrive at an air port, with a plane ticket short stay visas, and *poof* vanished!
You don't need a high percentage of 'visa overstayers' to completely dwarf the numbers of 'boat people' arriving.
Seriously think rationally about this for a minute! Who in their right mind risks dying at sea, on an overcrowded leaky boat? No one, only people in the wrong mind, running away from a REALLY shitty situation would go to such lengths!
Enough with the scare campaigns!
Process arrivals on-shore, humanely, with access to due process. If they're legitimate refugees give them a hug and a shovel and send em to work. If they're economic refugees or "illegals" send them home.
Politicians are making intolerant rednecks out of well meaning and generally fair minded Australians by feeding them bullshit about the dangers "these people" present, or how "these people" are getting it easy or an unfair advantage.
Q2. The Internet Filter
- I am against this.
It simply wont work, it will do nothing to reduce the transmission of 'refused classification' material. It's going to cost a shit load, it'll slow things down a little (not as much as the nerds what you to think), it might block legitimate sites, but worst of all it will have an unintended consequence.
It will make real criminals harder to catch - with 3-4 clicks, it is possible to install legitimate software that will totally bypass the filter with commercial or military grade encryption - completely masking the tracks of these evil-doers.
"FINE" you say, "Make the software illegal".
Sorry buddy, it ain't that simple, the architecture of our networks is such that making THAT software illegal will also mean you can't do your banking securely. Plus there are millions of legitimate users of the software, including some governments around the world! Maybe even our own!
Q3. A Price on Carbon / ETS
- I support this
- I support this
It's a tough one. But I don't believe the rhetoric about how it will destroy our economy, I have seen no proof of that. I don't think good will and technological improvements are going to be enough to change our planet "in time".
I am in business, I have staff, I have a mortgage and bills to pay. I understand the fear of "this great big new tax". From most of the reports, by leading economists around the world, the fear is generally unfounded.
I'll note here that I am also a climate change skeptic (only a little bit) - BUT (it's a HUUUGE BUT), we need to do this:
- If scientists are wrong and we move to a low carbon - better still a low pollution - economy will improve our energy security, decrease all sorts of atmospheric pollutants, and generally make the world a better place.
- If scientists are right and we do nothing - then the consequences could be catastrophic.
I'd actually like to see the carbon taxed at the source, when you dig it farm it, produce it or import it. Use the price to calculate the tax, and stick that cash in to some good renewable energy investments.
I'm happy for politicians and most crucially scientists and economists to get together and work out what this will REALLY cost us if we do nothing for another 10 years - then provide alternate policies and laws on that.
But FFS! Stop talking and start doing something!
Q4. Gay Marriage
- I support this
Actually I don't really care all that much, I'm not passionate about it. But I do believe in the full separation of church and state. I also believe that being inclusive is better than being inclusive in almost ALL circumstances, I think it strengthens our society.
I am an atheist-agnostic - who cares?
Exactly! Australia currently recognises civil unions - Contracts that exist without ANY involvement from any religious body whatsoever.
i.e. I don't have to be religious or believe in god to have one of these unions, and that's my point!
If we believe in the separation of church and state, we need to have equal laws for everyone within the state. Further, these laws should not be dictated by any religious institutions.
What happens when some redneck scholar discovers some secret bible text that dictates that only whites should be able to marry, do we change state laws to reflect that particular church's views? (Ok, I'm drawing a long bow, but it is an example out of the pages of not-too-distant history).
My point is that the state should no be allowed to discriminate.
My point is that the state should no be allowed to discriminate.
As I said, at the start, I present my views so a reader can understand the basis and context for any ongoing correspondence I have with these candidates.
It should work well either way:
- If you agree with me, you can see how the candidates handle my follow up discussions.
- If you disagree, you can see how the candidates handle my follow up discussions.
If these guys respond, then we are all wieners!
