I have a number of policies, goals and objectives listed here and welcome discussion on these topics. Thank you to all who have taken the time to review my policies in their research of how to best cast their vote.
Have good day!
Sincerely,
Jarrod Wirth.
* Bonner Division Rifle Range Noise Issues
As a licensed sporting shooter I appreciate being able to use the world class facilities of the Belmont Shooting Range, located close to the 'center of mass' of the Federal Bonner Division, which is also close to ear shot to some section of the State Mansfield Division. As a long term resident of both Bonner & Mansfield Divisions, I am more than aware of the noise issues associated with living near an established Shooting Range. Since 1964 there has been dramatic growth of the residential region bordering the Range & as result a rise in complaints relating to firearms noise. I support the right of licensed sporting shooters in their use of the Belmont Shooting Range and its facilities. However many of the people who have nominated me, like myself, are residents affected by noise issues. If you move to live near an airport you shouldn't complain about the noise. Belmont Shooting Range has already implemented many noise reduction projects and constructions. I feel certain I shall act both as a licensed shooter and a nearby resident to liaise to effect optimal noise reduction while continuing to appreciate this world class facility.
Below: The Delta Six Hand Controller
* 'Party(ism)'
'Party(ism)' does not exist as a word, any more than it should exist as a component of governance. The Australian Constitution makes nil mention of the formation of political parties nor mention or concept of an established opposition, an opposition leader, shadow treasurer, etc, within government. The Australian Constitution sanctions the election of a representative from each of the nation’s 150 Lower House (being the House of Representatives) divisions as well as the 76 Upper House (being the Senate) divisions , working together, to form an elected parliament to better the nation and its citizens. I believe major political parties have clearly shown they each place the priorities of their party above working together as a parliament elected by the people to govern across an electoral term. At the election the votes of Australia's citizens determine who shall be the voice of their division in the newly formed parliament. Ideologically, elected division representatives form a parliament which works cohesively to advance Australian interests, yet this does not occur. Candidates of the major political parties need a slap in the face from Australia’s etheric body as they are required to work for the nation, not 'the party', improving Australia with the parliament elected by the people, as a united entity. Political parties should be free to expound their policies during an election campaign however once elected the representatives of each of the nation's divisions should work together as the government elected by the people and not the party. Parliament loyalty to a stable and functional government should be expected to supersede party loyalties.
* Political Advertising
From the date of the 'Issue of writ' parliament is dissolved, which then enables people and parties a short period of time to nominate to run as candidates in the upcoming election. As in previous election campaigns, from that date until the close of votes on election day we can all expect to be inundated by political advertising. Our film theaters, televisions, computer screens, newspapers, magazines, radios, letterboxes, roadside billboards, posters in every direction & intersection, people in political party T-shirts waving at us as we drive by, or knocking on our doors, garnishing our time at the supermarket foyer - all numbly bombarding us with power slogans, glossy images and the smiling facade of political party nominated candidates. During an electoral period, the major political parties will spend exorbitantly excessive amounts of money - all in attempt to influence voters and garnish votes.
The majority of these 'advertisements' will fail to provide any true detail on what the political party's plans, goals and objectives, across the next term of government, actually are. The power slogans, glossy images and the smiling face are there to be seen in every medium available, marketed by each party as if IT is the only credible option.
Already in this election period and during the election campaign I note there was a considerable level of political advertising which did little more than highlight the failings, perceived or otherwise, of a party’s opponents. There is a considerable percentage of advertising that is developed solely to belittle, denigrate and discredit political rivals. All advertising doing little more than denigrating rivals should be constrained by regulatory authority and mandates.
Below: An example of political advertising I object to, advertising designed solely to denigrate a political opponent
*Political Pay Increases
Frequently, we see in the media various sections of our public service calling for deserved and in most cases minimal increases in pay rates. The Qld police service and nurses union, as example, have for many years pursued campaigns calling for modest single digit percentage increases in pay - well deserved in recognition for such services. These protracted campaigns never succeed in their outcomes, with deals made and the resultant increases either being rejected due to budget considerations or increases applied being less than the amounts proposed.
However months later and often more slightly reported, parliamentarians are award substantially greater pay increases, which are approved, under the pretense of keeping in line with the payment scales awarded to compatriots interstate or internationally. I believe that if a politicians pay increase's, this should also be mirrored in all other sections of the public service concurrently. Politicians who do not approve pay rises for other servants should not then be given a rubber stamp to their own pay rise shortly after. An excellent example of this phenomenon occurred only a few years ago in Queensland where a government deeply in debt has had to engage in a variety of cost cutting measures. This has and shall include asset leasing, stripping down 'bulky' infrastructure and services, offering large scale voluntary redundancies to government employees and of course declining to effect the modest percentage pay rises duly requested by the respective teachers, nurses and police services unions. However shortly later it came to light that an apparent oversight allowed the Queensland parliamentarian wage a substantial % increase, far above and beyond the rises provided to other sectors. Another example of what might well be found written across a barn wall at George Orwell's Animal Farm. Parliamentary member pay increases should be structured to increase at the same percentage rate as all within the Nation's ( & specifically my state's ) Public Sector.
* Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) funding of Political Expenditure
As we are now in a election period, all citizens can expect to find themselves exposed to the upcoming election detail, hype, venom, mudslinging & propaganda. Caravans of political parties carrying their candidates, a minion of support crew all closely followed by a pack of media hounds shall now play hopscotch to transverse the state making promises to cut waste, create jobs and reign in expenditure. Yet these 'promises' should be considered surreal and taken with a grain of salt given the facts that follow.
A large percentage of the political expenditure incurred by registered political parties, their candidates and independents, can & is reimbursed to these groups by the AEC, courtesy of the taxpayers.
Currently a candidate may claim election funding if they obtain at least 4% of the formal first preference vote. The rate of funding which can be claimed in the 2016 Federal election is currently set at $2.62 per eligible vote. This funding is paid as a reimbursement for incurred electoral expenditures, although any entitlement in excess of these expenditures is not paid.
We can take a look at how much funding political expenditure cost the Australian taxpayers during the 2013 Federal Election period at the AEC website:
http://www.aec.gov.au/media/media-releases/2013/e10-09.htm
The detail found at the above link itemizes payments made to all eligible political parties as well as independent candidates and amounts to a total payment of $ 56 367 240.38. This is an obscene amount of taxpayers money which is handed back to political parties and candidates – to pay for their expenses. Funding of political expenditure should be scrapped and the resultant savings funneled into spending more conducive to the benefit of the nation's citizenry rather than lining the pockets of Australia's more established political parties.
Relevant election expenditure includes -
- Broadcasting an advertisement relating to the election
- Publishing in a journal of an advertisement relating to the election
- Publishing an advertisement relating to the election on the internet
- Display at a theatre or other place of entertainment of an election advertisement
- Production costs of advertisements relating to the election broadcast, telecast, published or displayed
- Production, including printing, of election materials such as pamphlets, handbills, notices
- Production and distribution of electoral matter that is addressed to particular persons or organizations
- Carrying out of opinion polls or other research relating to the election
The cost of every political advertisement shown on our film theaters, televisions, computer screens, newspapers, magazines, radios, letterboxes, billboards and roadside posters is being paid for with funds from the taxpayer's purse. Taxpayer’s money can be better spent and I am certain many would agree.
This gluttonous attack upon the public purse occurs at both Federal and State levels. Following is a few facts on how much of the taxpayers purse is wasted funding registered political parties, candidates and independents in the Queensland state election - documented in the Electoral Commission of Queensland’s 2012-2013 Annual Report, available here:
http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/34842/2012-13-Annual-Report.pdf
Registered political parties received $12 300 000 in election funding for political expenditure in the 2012 Queensland State election. Independent and endorsed candidates received a total of $2 900 000 in electoral funding. Three registered political parties were also paid in total $1 386 300 administration funding for that period. Information regarding the breakdown of the amount of public funding received will be found on Pages 6-7 of the above mentioned Report. These amounts total to $16 586 300 taken from the taxpayer’s purse to reimburse political expenditure incurred in less than a 2 month period. I believe the taxpayer funding of political expenditure should be scrapped and the resultant savings funneled into spending more conducive to the benefit of the state's citizenry rather than lining the pockets of Australia's more established political parties.
In the world of private enterprise you have to produce profit to survive, with an exception given to Ford and Holden for the generous bail packages they received from the Australian government. In order to interest and attract customers most companies spend considerable amounts on their advertising expenditure. Referring again to the barn wall at George Orwell's Animal Farm, I see no reason why the advertising expenditures of political parties during the election period should be any different or more generous than the 'refunds' afforded to Australia's private sector.
* Consultancy
One of the white elephants that will again fail to gather mention during this election period is the cancer of consultancy. With our Nation, as well as most all of it's States and Territories, saddled with record levels of debt there at this time appears nil political interest in addressing this issue. However across many areas of public service Federal, State and Territory governments employ vast numbers of 'consultants' to assist, and even drive government in many essential aspects. Government employed consultants can & do command hourly rates of pay exorbitantly above and beyond the pay rates of the common man. In many cases I've learnt of consultants 'coming on-board' on a project that is already deeply flawed and ineffective. These consultants often provide no true value of productivity in terms of outcomes achieved and are effectively further bankrupting our Federal, State and Territory systems. The gross costs associated with the employment of consultants charging excessive consultancy fees must end.
* Consultancy
One of the white elephants that will again fail to gather mention during this election period is the cancer of consultancy. With our Nation, as well as most all of it's States and Territories, saddled with record levels of debt there at this time appears nil political interest in addressing this issue. However across many areas of public service Federal, State and Territory governments employ vast numbers of 'consultants' to assist, and even drive government in many essential aspects. Government employed consultants can & do command hourly rates of pay exorbitantly above and beyond the pay rates of the common man. In many cases I've learnt of consultants 'coming on-board' on a project that is already deeply flawed and ineffective. These consultants often provide no true value of productivity in terms of outcomes achieved and are effectively further bankrupting our Federal, State and Territory systems. The gross costs associated with the employment of consultants charging excessive consultancy fees must end.
* Political Integrity
I'd like to use a well known example to better explain exactly what I mean by the term Political Integrity.
We should all be familiar with an interview that occurred during the electoral period of the 2010 federal election, found at the link below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMVc0IbtyAQ
In this 'YouTube' clip clearly records two, at the time, extremely prominent politicians clearly define their stance on a proposed new tax, shortly before the election. Statements are made by these politicians were during the election period. Post election, I like many people felt mislead as these politicians quickly altered their stance on the introduction of a new tax that they stated would not be introduced, during the election period. If both of these candidates had expressed the support they showed for this tax post election, during the election period, I steadfastly believe the election result would have delivered a very different outcome at the 2010 Federal election. In short, the above link provides evidence that during the election period, these candidates made statements which were contrary to goals they established post that election. As such I felt myself and the Australian citizenry where mislead through the use of what I perceived to be false statements.
I'd found the AEC's Candidate's Handbook, noted at this link:-
http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/candidates/candidates-handbook/about.htm#handbook
states - 'it is an offence during the election period for a candidate to 'make a false or misleading statement in any claim for enrolment, or in any declaration'. It also clearly states that to do so is an offence under Part 7.4 of the Criminal Code Act 1995. The penalty being described at the AEC site as 12 months imprisonment.
Take a closer look at the Criminal Code Act 1995, found at this link:-
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2011C00123
I felt the statements made by the candidates in the 'YouTube' link during the election period were in hindsight false, misleading and in my opinion an offence of the following sections of the Criminal Code Act 1995:-
7.3 Fraudulent conduct
7.4 False or misleading statements
134.1 Obtaining property by deception
134.2 Obtaining a financial advantage by deception
135.1 General dishonesty
135.2 Obtaining financial advantage
135.4 Conspiracy to defraud
137.1 False or misleading information
As I thought these candidates had engaged in activity contrary to the AEC requirements of a candidate during an election period, I contacted the member for Bonner, Mr Ross Vasta MP to express my concerns and ask for clarification on this issue. Ross Vasta MP then acted to send my concerns to the Special Minister of State, Gary Grey. The response provided came from the Australian Electoral Commission's Legal and Compliance Branch's Chief Legal Officer, which states:-
____________________________
Dear Mr Wirth
The Special Minister of State formally responded to the letter dated 15 August 2011 that was received from the Member for Bonner, Mr Ross Vasta MP, in a letter dated 23 August 2011. The relevant parts of the letter from the Special Minister of State to the Member for Bonner are as follows:
Thank you for your letter dated 15 August 2011 on behalf of your constituent, Mr Jarrod Wirth of Mansfield, in which a concern was raised about whether media statements made by the Prime Minister prior to the 21 August 2010 general election could constitute a breach of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Electoral Act). As the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) is responsible for the administration of the Electoral Act and operates independently from the Executive arm of Government, I have referred your letter to the AEC to obtain their views.
The AEC has advised me that the short answer to Mr Wirth’s concern is that there is nothing in the material provided that could attract the operation of the criminal law provisions contained in the Electoral Act. Further, the references made by Mr Wirth to the AEC Candidate Handbook are taken out of context as the references to the Criminal Code Act 1995 only apply to statements made on the candidate nomination form that is required to be lodged with the AEC under sections 166 and 167 of the Electoral Act and do not otherwise apply to conduct engaged in as part of an election campaign.
The reasons provided by the AEC for their view is that the offence contained in section 329 of the Electoral Act relating to misleading and deceptive publications has been limited in operation by various decisions of the Courts and could not apply to the circumstances of the statement made by the Prime Minister prior to the election. The detailed reasons are as follows.
First, section 329 of the Electoral Act only applies to misleading or deceptive publications. The fact that Ms Gillard made a statement about not introducing a carbon price in the days leading up to the 21 August 2010 is not sufficient. There must have been some actual publication by her of the statement. It is the act of the publication of the misleading or deceptive material that is prohibited.
Second, the AEC is established under the Electoral Act and has no power to go beyond the scope of what the Parliament has enacted for dealing with electoral advertising. Accordingly, unless the Electoral Act provides a specific power or function to deal with the content of electoral advertising, the AEC is unable to comment or take any action.
Third, when the Parliament considered the Political Broadcasts and Political Disclosures Act 1991 it was specifically determined that the Electoral Act (and therefore the functions given to the AEC) should not regulate the content of electoral advertising but rather to only ensure that electors are clearly informed of the source of that advertising. The continuing debate about truth in electoral advertising clearly indicates that the AEC presently has no power to deal with such matters.
Fourth, the AEC has been given a limited power to address “misleading and deceptive” “electoral advertising” in subsection 329(1) of the Electoral Act. The High Court of Australia in the case of Evans v Crichton-Browne (1981) 147 CLR169 commented that this power is not aimed to regulate the content of political messages directed at influencing the choice of preferred candidates or parties by voters, but merely to regulate publications and broadcasts that are directed at influencing the way in which a ballot paper is actually marked. The AEC is bound by the decision of the High Court in that case.
This High Court case was specifically followed by the Federal Court in several cases last year including Faulkner v Elliott [2010] FCA 884 and Peebles v Honourable Tony Burke [2010] FCA 838. At paragraph 10 of the decision in the Peebles case the Court stated that:
“It is clear from reading the entire reasons for judgment of the High Court in Crichton-Brown that the prohibition in s 329 concerns misleading or deceptive conduct which might affect the process of casting a vote rather than the formation of the political judgment about how the vote will be cast. That is, the section concerns conduct which might, for example, lead a voter either to fail to record a valid vote or to record a valid vote but not for the candidate or candidates of the voter's choice. An obvious example would be information which told a voter how to go about completing the ballot paper which was wrong and would result in the casting of an informal vote.”
The AEC has advised that the issue pointed to by Mr Wirth merely went towards the "formation of the judgment" as to who to vote for, rather than the actual act of marking the ballot paper. The AEC notes that the distinction between these two things is a question of fact and degree, but concludes that in the present circumstances the distinction appears to be very clear.
Accordingly, as this matter does not fall within the scope of section 329 of the Electoral Act and the AEC has no power to take any action in this matter. The AEC is not able to ignore the various Court decisions that have clearly and consistently limited the scope of the offence contained in section 329 of the Electoral Act. The Parliament is clearly aware of the various Court decisions and has not amended this section to take account of those decisions.
I trust that the above information explains why this is not a breach of the Electoral Act and why the AEC has no power to intervene in this matter as suggested in your email.
Yours sincerely
Pxxx Pxxxxx
Chief Legal Officer
Legal and Compliance Branch
Australian Electoral Commission
____________________________
Candidates are prohibited from 'publishing' misleading or deceptive material. The AEC acts to ensure electors are informed of the source of political advertising, however does not regulate the content of advertising. The AEC has no power to deal with truth (as well as false, misleading & deceptive statements) in electoral advertising. This means a candidate can stand before the media and issue statements that are not 'published' objectives. Every day we see politicians and candidates stand before the media and make comments. Politicians and candidates should be held to account for their statements, & statements that mislead, denigrate or deceive should be as prohibited as publications that mislead, denigrate or deceive.
* Political Remuneration available to former MPs
With all levels of our nation's governance suffering record levels of debt, all efforts must be taken to reduce this debt while also not only supplying but improving essential services and conditions. The following statement relates to renmueration available to former Queensland State MPs however similar entitlements are awarded to their Federal compatriots.
The Queensland Independent Remuneration Tribunal’s Determination, provided at the link below, provides a detail of the many remunerations available to former Members of the Queensland Legislative Assembly. Many of the remunerations paid to former members are excessive and a drain upon the taxpayer purse, giving examples –
Resettlement Allowance – a former MP who retires involuntarily, loses at an election, receives three months salary allowance, six months if they have served more than one term.
Commercial Air Travel - former MPs who have been elected on three occasions & served a minimum of seven years are entitled to within return flight each year, these can be first or business class tickets where flight time is in excess of three hours. The spouses of eligible former MPs are also entitled to one return flight & can use this to travel independently of the former MP.
Australia & Queensland Railways Gold Passes are provided to eligible MPs. The widow, widower or spouse of eligible former MPs are entitled to an annual Queensland Rail first class pass and four return interstate rail trips per year.
With the state suffering massive debt the above three remunerations should abolished and the money otherwise spent should be channelled for more effective measure. An indication of how much these remuneration expenses are costing the taxpayer will be found on Page 39 of a 2014 Remuneration Report issued by the Queensland Independent Remuneration Tribunal:
http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/tableOffice/TabledPapers/2014/5414T6040.pdf
This report states that the average cost to the Parliament, i.e. the taxpayer’s purse, for former MP travel (commercial air & rail) for the financial year 2012-2013 was $2116+gst (based on 138 eligible former MPs). This amounts to around $292 000 of taxpayers money that can be saved and better spend. There are many areas in government where similarly styled benefits can and should be abolished while the state remains floundering in debt.
* Political Remuneration for serving MPs
Elected members can expect to receive allowances for a multitude of expenses. These include daily travelling allowance claims, electorate allowance expenditure, general travel allocation expenditure, the information and communication allowance as well as air warrant & alternative travel for regional MPs. Taxpayers funded these allowances for MPs in 2013-2014 to the tune of $2 200 000 and that is just for Members of the Queensland Legislative Assembly. Considering there are 89 members that’s an average of just under $25 000 per member in a year. Considering the state has a $80 000 000 000 debt, political allowances and expenditure needs to be more carefully controlled.
In using the Qld MP's situation as a guide, if I was to propose that their Federal counterparts received equivalent expenditure remunerations of ~$25 000 per member in a year - with 226 Federal members that would ~ $5 650 000.
* Legalisation of Medicinal Marijuana
As a podiatrist, given my association with the now defunct Qld not-for-profit charity 'The Health Promotion Charity', I essentially treat MS patients. A percentage of MS patients will admit to using marijuana, in conjunction with other therapies, in attempt to control the effects of their disease process.
However, due to its illegality, I am in no way able to advise, advocate and can not recommend the use medicinal marijuana to my patients.
There are arguments against marijuana, being perceived as a gateway drug, however the medicinal marijuana process removes the psychoactive component, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), that gets 'social' users 'high'.
At this time the Australian government is beginning to consider the legal acceptance of medicinal marijuana for treatment modalities. I support it's trial, decriminalisation and authorised availability for citizens attempting to manage the effects of terminal diseases such as MS.
Below: Tour of a Hemp Farm in Penglai, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China. 2014. Hemp has no THC component.
* (Chinese) Ownership of (Australian) property
I first visited China, almost thirty years ago, and was happy to return to Australia after my most recent two months of business there this year. My Mandarin language skills are sufficient to allow me to travel, unaided, to remote locations. Although I remain quite underdeveloped in my understanding of tonal Mandarin pronunciation, I can report I have traveled a vast expanse of the country.
Working in the Australian transport industry has allowed me to travel across a great area of the Australian continent yet I have easily traveled similar distances in China. In 1959 the Australian country singer Geoff Mack wrote the song 'I've been everywhere man', made popular by Lucky Star in 1962. The song which claims of being everywhere & lists 72 city/towns was re-version-ed for locations in the United States, the United Kingdom and New Zealand.
I've visited >72 cities in China so feel tempted to say 'in China, I've been everywhere man'!. I have even translated the song into Mandarin & hope to sing this version one day on the TV show 'China's Got Talent'.
The following are a few pictures of ghost cities I have visited in China, great suburbs of high rise complexes, shopping centers and infrastructure that have no citizens. There are literally hundreds of ghost cities throughout China many built in remote locations, where they are literally to expensive for the local market. I have visited massive ghost cities, literally uninhabited where a kilometer away residents live in caves. This is because it is a lot cheaper to dig a fine home into the soft, dry earth of the surrounding countryside. Locals can not afford to purchase in the ghost city.
* (Chinese) Ownership of (Australian) property
I first visited China, almost thirty years ago, and was happy to return to Australia after my most recent two months of business there this year. My Mandarin language skills are sufficient to allow me to travel, unaided, to remote locations. Although I remain quite underdeveloped in my understanding of tonal Mandarin pronunciation, I can report I have traveled a vast expanse of the country.
Working in the Australian transport industry has allowed me to travel across a great area of the Australian continent yet I have easily traveled similar distances in China. In 1959 the Australian country singer Geoff Mack wrote the song 'I've been everywhere man', made popular by Lucky Star in 1962. The song which claims of being everywhere & lists 72 city/towns was re-version-ed for locations in the United States, the United Kingdom and New Zealand.
I've visited >72 cities in China so feel tempted to say 'in China, I've been everywhere man'!. I have even translated the song into Mandarin & hope to sing this version one day on the TV show 'China's Got Talent'.
The following are a few pictures of ghost cities I have visited in China, great suburbs of high rise complexes, shopping centers and infrastructure that have no citizens. There are literally hundreds of ghost cities throughout China many built in remote locations, where they are literally to expensive for the local market. I have visited massive ghost cities, literally uninhabited where a kilometer away residents live in caves. This is because it is a lot cheaper to dig a fine home into the soft, dry earth of the surrounding countryside. Locals can not afford to purchase in the ghost city.
There has been considerable growth in Chinese ownership of Australian property and to some extent this is a factor contributing to the expense of Australian property ownership. As I spend months each year in China I have considered purchasing an apartment there, as an investment. However China does not permit foreign land ownership, however in a time of 'globalisation' and 'free trade' it seems inequitable to me that Chinese nationals can buy land here yet Australian nationals can not buy land there. I would like to bring this trade inequity to their attention and see this unilateralism addressed in several manners, these being -
To negotiate towards policy change to allow Australian ownership of property in China, however if this could not be achieved
we should consider removing the rights to Chinese Nationals to purchase Australian property or introduce further and excessively substantial foreign land ownership taxes to assist and support our nation's debt reduction.
* The Penalty of Death
Citizens may argue for or against the penalty of death. Currently the United States, China, Japan, Jordan, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, India, Egypt, Ethiopia, Botswana, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, The Gambia, Libya, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, St, Kitts, Nevis, Belarus, Kazakhstan & Tajikistan advocate capital punishment.
I am an advocate of Capital Punishment for many reasons and as I have suffered the loss of a close family compatriot who was savagely beaten to death and dishonored for nothing more than a criminal's sexual conquest, I have strong views on the subject.
Given the current permits of law, a CRIMINAL upon conviction of even the most heinous of crime , is 'entitled' to FREE accommodation, meals, laundry, health care, counselling, advanced education & legal appeals. This is a tremendous & unnecessary drain upon the public purse. In cases where the crime is proven, beyond all doubt, I feel our community is better served if judges - given full disclose of fact - were able to impose the penalty of death. An inexpensive, small caliber bullet to the back of the head is in my opinion a far better option.
Australian Citizenship Revocation
During citizenship ceremonies, newly naturalised Australian citizens are required to make the "Pledge of Commitment" to Australia, as follows -
From this time forward,
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
whose democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect, and
whose laws I will uphold and obey.
I am steadfast in a belief that any naturalised citizen or citizen who holds dual citizenship should have their Australian citizenship revoked if they are convicted of any criminal offence which evidences failure to comply with their "Pledge of Commitment".
Livestock Export Trade
To quote from the Australian Government's Department of Agriculture and Water Resources website - the livestock export industry is a valuable Australian industry that is worth over $800 000 000 each year and supports the livelihood of many families in rural and regional Australia.
Live export is the commercial transport of live farm animals across national borders, Australia is the world's largest exporter of sheep and cattle and this industry has experienced significant scrutiny from animal welfare groups since 2003. These investigative groups have reported on the numbers of animals that die en route as well as documenting footage of animals being slaughtered in manner that shows some foreign butchers and abattoirs incapable of acting within the practices of Australian required welfare standards. This occurred to such an extend that for some period the Australian government acted to ban live exports which in turn at the time was a source of great anxiety for many primary producers.
As I am related to family that live in the heart of regional Australia, during visit could sense to be more aware of the financial hardship and uncertainty the ban of animal exports had upon them. While visiting 'Avago Station' I've learnt of the complete dedication, effort, work ethic and care provide for the animals raised there and feel certain they abhor the thought of their animals being killed or slaughtered in cruelty. However they have a product which they need to sell to remain solvent and government sales bans aren't welcome on a cattle property.
I say BAN all live animal exports as I am in favour of building an animal processing facility here in Australia to prevent incidents of animal cruelty, increase earnings for Australian animal producers, jobs for unemployed Australians and increase regional product growth!
Debt Reduction
The current level of Australian Debt is excessive and is currently continuing to grow at a rate of thousands of dollars per second. Taking a look at the Australian Debt Clock, found at the website -
http://www.australiandebtclock.com.au/clocks
provides good indication of our nation's debt level and the speed which it continues to grow.
Self Defense
In researching the policies of independents and political parties contesting this election, I discovered a number advocate establishing self defense as a legitimate reason for lawful possession of firearms. Although I support current gun ownership laws, I would like to see some changes in the equipment's of firearms ownership entitlements. However I would never support the legitimatisation of self defense as an argument for firearm ownership.
Representing an Electoral Division
I strongly believe that all candidates contesting any and all Electoral Divisions should be disqualified from doing so unless they actually live within the boundaries of the Electoral Division they are contesting. In short, the member elected to represent the citizens of the division should also be required to reside within that division.
Void issuing Visas to foreign nationals traveling to Australia to engage in hate speech
In discussing this point I'll refer you to a recent article published by 'The Daily Mail' website -
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3638438/Orlando-shooting-Controversial-anti-homosexual-sheikh-spoke-Florida-shooting.html
This alerts us to the fact that an Islamic preacher who has called for gays to be 'executed' was giving lectures in Orlando weeks before the recent nightclub massacre. This 'scholar' has gained a following by urging Muslims to 'get rid of' homosexuals. This individual is currently in Australia and over the month of June is engaged on a speaking tour. How it is that such an advocate of hate speech has been issued with a Visa to enter Australia to no doubt expound radical Islamic views which are conflict with our society. Our government should find this man about as welcome as Johhny Depp's dogs. How many mentally ill minds within the congregations in which he finds audience will he twist towards acts of radical Islam? In how many sick minds will this man's hate speech be seeded and how many may act in violence after being brainwashed by this form of radical Islamic hate speech. This man should have his Visa revoked, be taken into custody and be deported as soon as possible. Speakers intent on hate speech should not be issued with Visas allowing them to enter Australia. We are all familiar with what just one man with radical Islamic views can do and our government should not be issuing visas to questionable characters such as those who advocate violence or hate speech.
