[AMA] I'm a Minor Party Political Candidate (Fusion Party)

Lwryun on 05/04/2022 - 12:01
Last edited 05/04/2022 - 20:10

I'm standing in Grayndler (Albo's seat in Sydney) in the coming federal election for the Fusion Party:

https://www.fusionparty.org.au/james_haggerty

I'm guessing this has already provoked a few strong reactions, probably related to either my sanity, the futility of minor parties, or me using Ozbargain for self-promotion, so hit me with your best shot. I promise to not completely toe the party line.

EDIT: for context, the Fusion party is a combination of a number of existing parties: the Science Party, Pirate Party,
Secular Party, Vote Planet, and Climate Change Justice Party. This was encouraged by the government changing the rules around minor party membership requirements: https://www.fusionparty.org.au/our_party

For this election, we've tried to combine our passions into a bunch of different policies you can see on our website (https://www.fusionparty.org.au/). For instance, you can really see the influence of the Pirate Party on the Civil & Digital Liberties section, the Science Party on Future Focused, and the Secular Party on Secular Humanism. I think it's great that we all have our areas of expertise and passion, and we're all on board with Climate Change as our number one priority.

Introduce Yourself Federal Election

closed Comments

  • MS Paint on 05/04/2022 - 12:02
    +23

    How many votes are you hoping to get?

    There is no mention of ozbargain in your priority areas. Why?

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 12:06
      +20

      My dream in Grayndler is to reach 4% of the votes, which means that the AEC will fund my flyers and corflutes and suchlike (4% is the cut-off for electoral funding).

      We peaked at 3.5% in Sydney in the last election (as the Science Party), so it's a reasonable target.

      But I'm mainly running to let people vote for what they believe in and help encourage people to vote for Fusion in the Senate.

      Not entirely sure what ozbargain related policy you're imagining. Government subsidies for bargain sites? Consumer protection law enforcement based on the result of ozbargain polls?

      • Xyzzy on 05/04/2022 - 12:50
        +71

        Maybe:
        Subsidised eneloops.
        Shopping with Kogan punishable by deportation.
        Something, something, Harvey Norman, (use your imagination).
        People without insurance who have car accidents named and shamed on "Idiot Watch"

        That sort of thing.

        • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 13:07
          +50

          Free MSPaint diagram education?

          I'd be on board with compulsory 3rd party property to address the insurance situation.

          • capslock janitor on 06/04/2022 - 14:21

            @wryun: why are there 6 logos but only 5 parties?

          • pandadude on 06/04/2022 - 15:16

            @wryun: Should be law on the third party property insurance.
            Just add it to the yearly rego.

            There has been no written priority on free trade agreement with Monglian. I mean the Consulate of Mongolia based in Armadale WA closed down. They opened a Honorary Consulate in Perth. Thats not good enough. How are we suppose to export out Aussie made FWD gear to Monglian?

          • Krankite on 07/04/2022 - 08:26

            @wryun: If you want to get really radical, you could also limit 3rd party property payouts to $60k per vehicle to keep the premium down for compulsury and force to expense of high-end vehicles onto the owners insurance. You could add in some form of subsidy for commercial vehicles but I doubt the impact would be too large in the scheme of things.

        • GourmetFoodie on 05/04/2022 - 13:23
          +16

          Lol what about a Harvey Norman GST tax? Like every dollar of profit they have to pay 10% to fund reparations to all of us who now have to pay more to ship low value goods from overseas?

        • CalmLemons on 05/04/2022 - 18:28

          Yes I would vote for this.

        • smartazz104 on 06/04/2022 - 07:55
          +3

          Something, something, Harvey Norman, (use your imagination).

          Charge Harvey Norman 20% GST.

        • TheOtherLeft on 06/04/2022 - 08:29

          I would 100% vote for these life changing issues.

        • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 14:24
          +65
          • because it gives our policies more visibility
          • it's good for our electoral system for people to vote for what they believe, and this influences the policies of those who are elected
          • because everything has to start somewhere (we won't be elected this time, but if we can build our vote then this attracts publicity, and increases our visibility in the next election, etc. etc.)
          • TheKas on 07/04/2022 - 09:47
            -4

            @wryun: Do you have unlimited amounts of time and money in your hands? Because there is no way you floating up some colourful website helping people or any of these dot points. Can't believe AEC wastes tax money by funding these micro parties.

            • wryun on 08/04/2022 - 00:06
              +2

              @TheKas: The good news is that the AEC doesn't fund "micro-parties". In fact, you pay $2000/candidate to stand, and only receive funding if you get 4% of the vote (which is not easy - the UAP's polling around 3% at the moment despite their millions, although they'll definitely exceed 4% in some seats).

        • randomusername2017 on 05/04/2022 - 17:11
          +9

          wyrun?

        • cadwalader on 07/04/2022 - 08:47
          +1

          It also forces/encourage the main parties to become more competitive and/or change their policies if they see it winning votes.

          A more vibrant democracy with more options rather than less is always better for the people.

        • dcash on 07/04/2022 - 11:59
          +1

          He told you already, he's doing it for the money.

          • wryun on 07/04/2022 - 23:35
            +1

            @dcash: This is not what I was trying to say. My 'target' is to increase our proportion of the vote, and 4% is a nice goal to strive for. I'm doing it to spread our ideas and increase the chance that Fusion is successful in the long term.

            Any money from electoral funding would go into the Fusion party coffers or help retroactively cover expenditure. And even if I reached 4% in Grayndler, the chance that we'd reach 4% in all our senate races is low, so we're definitely losing money at a party. In fact, to receive funding after the initial amount you have to prove that you spent that money on the election:

            https://www.aec.gov.au/parties_and_representatives/public_fu…

            • dcash on 08/04/2022 - 09:41

              @wryun: It was mostly said tongue-in-cheek, so I wasn't really having a go at you for that. Personally I would be extremely unlikely to vote for Fusion, given the huge emphasis on climate change, secularism and suchlike, but I respect you for having a go. And I appreciate your personal stance on Bitcoin, given the level of greenhouse gas emissions that comes from so-called "mining" of Bitcoin and other blockchain related nonsense (often done using our coal, of course).

              • wryun on 08/04/2022 - 13:03
                +3

                @dcash: Thanks - guess I was feeling a little sensitive last night. If there was one thing I could magically change about politics it'd be everyone voting according to whether they agreed with party policies, so I totally endorse not voting for us.

                In this particular situation. Don't quote me out of context? :)

      • caileach on 06/04/2022 - 01:09
        +10

        My dream in Grayndler is to reach 4% of the votes, which means that the AEC taxpayers will fund my flyers and corflutes and suchlike

        Fixed.

      • diddy50 on 07/04/2022 - 18:10

        You want to hit 4% if votes so WE can pay for your campaign!??

        OK… Ummmm thats kinda crappy of you

        • BinaryPirate on 07/04/2022 - 21:36
          +4

          It's not that unreasonable when you take into account the tens of millions we're forking over to the two major parties, both of which take in tens of millions from donors & still claim every damn cent they can from the taxpayer.

          The alternative to the AEC/taxpayers funding anyone who gets>4% (statistically not many) is fully privately funded elections - i.e the American system. Can't say I know anybody really wants to go down that path.

        • wryun on 07/04/2022 - 23:39
          +4

          No, I want tell people about our ideas, help move the political discourse, and help the Fusion party succeed.

          I was asked how many votes I hoped to get, though, and I think 4% is a realistic and useful target, and will mean I haven't lost as much money as I otherwise would on this election. Also, if the Fusion party can consistently poll 4% it will be much easier to run in subsequent elections. Don't worry, the 'pay-out' for a small percentage of the vote in a single electorate is a tiny fraction of what the major parties will receive, on top of all the corporate and union donations!

          It's a reasonable position to think that the AEC shouldn't fund electoral campaigns, so you might claim that ethically I should refuse funding (or something?). I don't agree with this perspective: public funding helps political parties be less reliant on unsavoury donations.

  • kerfuffle on 05/04/2022 - 12:06

    What date do you think the election will fall on?

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 12:06
      +14

      21 May.

      • blitz on 10/04/2022 - 23:30

        …and indeed the election has JUST been called for exactly that date!

        • AlienC on 13/04/2022 - 07:24

          is this federal or state elections both are compulsory right? damn

  • djones145 on 05/04/2022 - 12:08
    +1

    will scomo be the PM when the election is called?

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 12:09
      +6

      Yes. Changing now is too late.

    • techlead on 07/04/2022 - 11:26
      +2

      ScoMo is 100% be the PM when the election is called and throughout the campaign.

      • samyall on 07/04/2022 - 14:21
        +3

        Yep Coalition will lose, change leader and then lick their wounds for 3 years before claiming that all the debt is Labor's fault.

        • macrocephalic on 08/04/2022 - 13:44
          +2

          The federal debt will suddenly be a crisis again, just like it was in 2013, despite the federal debt having quadrupled under the LibNat governments since then.

          • techlead on 08/04/2022 - 17:08
            +1

            @macrocephalic: Yep, they are gonna suddenly care about the debt and deficit again lol, its so predictable.

  • rektrading on 05/04/2022 - 12:18
    +5

    What is your view on Bitcoin?

    https://twitter.com/search?q=bitcoin%20candiate&src=typed_qu…

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 12:25
      +85

      The maths and the concept is neat, but the result has been wasted energy and Ponzi-like behaviour.

      So far, I think Bitcoin has made the world worse rather than better, and I think it will continue to do so, but I'd be happy to be proved wrong. NFTs have not filled me with hope.

      (Fusion, as far as I know, has no stated position on bitcoin)

      • rektrading on 05/04/2022 - 12:26
        +4

        Thanks for your reply.

        • Tiredman on 07/04/2022 - 20:14

          No one will read it. Unfortunately. It's true, Bitcoin is an easy target for politicians. Just look at the downvotes you are getting.

          • techlead on 08/04/2022 - 17:28

            @Tiredman: Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies reduces the power of government, so its natural and quite logical that politicians will not like it because it undermines their control. Unless those politicians are truly acting in the best interest of the people they sworn to represent instead of being drunk with power, look at all the pro-Bitcoin politicians and cities in the US and El Salvador.

            Generally, the OzB community are not pro-cryptocurrency, maybe out of ignorance or just jealousy.

            Those who cite environmental concerns have no idea what they are talking about. You can't just look at how much the Bitcoin network uses and say, "look its using so much energy, it must be bad". You should also consider:
            1. where that energy comes from - renewable or otherwise or a mix
            2. what benefits do you derive from that energy

            Bitcoin miners are incentivised to use the lowest cost energy, eg renewables or excess capacity energy. Hence the whole system is built on minimising energy costs to maximise profits.

            Second, it is estimated that the Bitcoin network uses 79TWh of energy per year. How does this compare to other industries?
            The finance and insurance industry uses 4939TWh of energy per year
            The gold and jewelry mining industry uses 265 TWh of energy per year
            The transportation industry uses 34582 TWh of energy per year
            Do we know how much power is wasted just by appliances being on standby? What about air con which is kept running unnecessarily?

            Source: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/bitcoin-energy-use-comp…

            In return, we have a decentralised, censorship resistant and permission-less network to transfer value around the world. That's a pretty good deal in my books.

      • mitchalbrown on 06/04/2022 - 15:03
        +1

        hmmm… interesting… I would have thought the pirate party would have had some strong policies or at least views on crypto… especially if they are focused on civil and digital liberties because that is basicaly the crux of it at a fundamental level.

        • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 20:32
          +5

          I suspect there are many people in the party who are more bullish on this than me, and it's important to distinguish between the potential of crypto-currencies and bitcoin (and indeed crypto) as it stands.

          The old Pirate platform has particular policies related to crypto, but they focus primarily on integrating it into the regulatory environment:

          https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Platform#Distributed_digital…

          Without thinking deeply about it, I agree with those positions.

      • Tiredman on 07/04/2022 - 20:16

        To get a better idea of the Energy FUD, go watch some videos of Nic Carter on Youtube. NFTs are dominated by Ethereum not Bitcoin.

    • havebeerbelywillsumo on 05/04/2022 - 16:11
      +1

      4 negs (anon of course) for a seemingly sensible question?????…………..oh the humanity.

      • rektrading on 05/04/2022 - 16:24
        +3

        It's ok. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

        I've been in this industry for a while now and have seen the shift among lawmakers and high ranking officials going from denial to acceptance to partaking to hodl.

        Cryptocurrency: UK Treasury to regulate some stablecoins
        By Michael Race and Daniel Thomas
        Business reporters, BBC News

        Published13 hours ago

        Chancellor Rishi Sunak said: "We want to see the [cryptocurrency] businesses of tomorrow - and the jobs they create - here in the UK, and by regulating effectively we can give them the confidence they need to think and invest long-term."
        https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60983561

        "Gradually, then suddenly." E.H

        • idonotknowwhy on 06/04/2022 - 11:08
          +2

          It's not really a valid use of a neg vote though.
          OP said to ask anything, and you asked a reasonable question.

          • Click_It on 06/04/2022 - 22:02
            +2

            @idonotknowwhy: Just saying the word "bitcoin" or "crypto" in a comment on OzBargain usually ensures some negs. It's got nothing to do with this thread, it happens all the time. Blockchain is not going anywhere, love it or hate it, like the internet before it, it's here to stay. Hating on it and refusing to understand it doesn't change it. And regulation is coming, the wild west is ever so slowly being colonised.

      • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 20:41
        +6

        I think it's probably that rektrading seems to have a particular passion that ozbargain people have seen a few times, and they were a little exasperated that he's managed to insert it into yet another thread.

        But given I'm promoting a political party, I haven't even got a wooden leg to stand on, and as you say the question was perfectly civil. Not sure of the point of the twitter link though.

    • Tiredman on 07/04/2022 - 20:10
      +1

      Hopefully some good news from the conference.

  • bdl on 05/04/2022 - 12:21
    +8

    will you have bin stickers?

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 12:27
      +1

      Hmm, hadn't considered. Good point. If I'm not too traumatised by the amount I've spent after I've done the corflutes.

      Not sure about a catchy phrase though. Labor have it easy. Some of us have been going with 'Better Now Than Never', but doesn't really work on bins…

      • MS Paint on 05/04/2022 - 12:29
        +2

        Not sure about a catchy phrase though

        What about…

        Confusion

      • KLoNe on 07/04/2022 - 08:32

        Where's a good place to buy corflutes? They're OBSCENELY expensive in Australia.

        US is like a tenth the price, but shipping kills it.

    • AndyC1 on 05/04/2022 - 14:08

      To stop the Brissy bin chickens getting out of QLD until after the Olympics?

    • pharkurnell on 05/04/2022 - 16:38
      +1

      Be plenty of flyers and corflutes in the bin, you want stickers in there too?

  • Seraphin7 on 05/04/2022 - 12:24
    +5

    What is your tax policy? How will this affect personal tax rates and brackets?

    What is your plan to address profligate government spending (i.e. where will you make cuts) and bring about a significant reduction in Federal government net debt?

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 12:44
      +21

      I was/am a member of the Science Party, which is one of the parties that came together to form Fusion. One of the tricky things about bringing together a diverse range of people is that the more controversial policies are sometimes watered down and we don't have as many good numbers and details as before (Fusion is very new). For instance, the Science Party took this to the last election, which is not part of Fusion policy - https://www.scienceparty.org.au/australian_charter_city_poli… - and we have a bunch of numbers here: https://www.scienceparty.org.au/tax_superannuation_and_welfa… (again, not universally adopted by Fusion, but you can see some tax bracket proposals here)

      In terms of current Fusion policy that's likely to increase government revenue:
      - stamp duty -> land tax is likely to generate more revenue (depending on how it's implemented, of course)
      - abolishing/adjusting CGT discount

      Ultimately, though, we have no declared policy on tax brackets, and as far as I'm aware haven't done the numbers on some of our more outrageous plans (cf $500/week min income guarantee). I'm slightly embarrassed at this, but not overly so: ultimately, in Australia, people who vote for minor parties (including even the Greens) are voting primarily to send clear messages to the major parties about their priorities. So, yes, I think you can currently accuse us of making up unfunded policy proposals, but realise that:
      - it's quite difficult as a small party to do good modelling
      - when you do that modelling, the value of it is low (i.e. no one's actually going to implement your plans as is)
      - Fusion has been very busy getting registered and organising for the election due to the changes in electoral laws, so we haven't had as much time as we'd like for policy development

      In short, you get a lot of excuses :)

      • Seraphin7 on 05/04/2022 - 13:13
        +8

        But surely you must (as a party) have a view on what will drive the economy through the lens of the Federal fiscal stance?

        Even in the broadest of terms, are you about "big government" and wish to play the role of driving the economy, particularly in terms of playing a relatively large role in redistributing income through a "tax and spend" stance?

        Or are you about "small government" that tends to focus on the supply of essential services that private industry are not equipped to serve, but otherwise seek to lessen the tax take in both real and share of GDP terms, which therefore comes to reining in spending over the cycle?

        • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 13:29
          +9

          I'm reluctant to answer this for the party, and I don't believe there's an official stance. I agree there should be a better answer, and I'm going to raise this with the policy working group. Maybe you'll get a good answer before the election. Nevertheless, our current suite of policies (e.g. extending Medicare to dental work, reforming welfare by introducing a UBI, increasing government funding for R&D, etc.) aim towards simplification and encouraging private industry, but ultimately would likely require a higher percentage of GDP. I think we're wealthy enough that every Western country is now running a reasonably big government in budgetary terms, and this is probably the only thing that's politically acceptable, as can be seen by the behaviour of the Coalition recently…

          If you're asking whether we want to nationalise industry though, then 'definitely not'.

          Re other thoughts on debt, I'm of the opinion that running a structural deficit over economic cycle is stupid, but if you can make a reasonable case for government borrowing for improvements that pay back in the long term you should do it. Ultimately, though, I don't have that much experience at economics, and wouldn't want to pretend I do.

          • Seraphin7 on 05/04/2022 - 13:32
            +18

            @wryun: Thanks for your candid responses.

            I would humbly suggest that for any party to be even vaguely taken seriously by anyone other than their aligned ginger groups, a definitive statement on your fiscal policy is a "bare minimum".

          • bobbified on 05/04/2022 - 18:35
            +3

            @wryun:

            Nevertheless, our current suite of policies (e.g. extending Medicare to dental work….)

            Ooooh….. don't tell this guy! >> https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/691297 😁

            • SBOB on 05/04/2022 - 18:40

              @bobbified: Pretty sure he's not their target voting demographic

              • bobbified on 05/04/2022 - 18:46

                @SBOB: Either way, he's doesn't seem to have much influence anyway! 😆

          • gromit on 05/04/2022 - 19:23
            +6

            @wryun: I must say the lack of a fiscal policy basically is a non starter for me. Even the greens have one (albeit insane). knowing your fiscal policy gives us some understanding of how you would vote for or against major party policies, while what you stand for is fine it is just as critical if not more so to know what we could expect from party sitting members.

      • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 19:34
        +8

        Sorry, forgot to mention that a flat tax rate is part of the universal basic income proposal. So, we do have a policy on tax brackets, I just managed to get caught up in Science Party stuff (oops).

        • NigelTufnel on 06/04/2022 - 08:48

          Sounds like a Negative income tax then right?

          • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 10:52
            +4

            @NigelTufnel: Similar in intent, but not quite. AFAIK a negative income tax implies that at low incomes for each dollar you earn you'd get a top up from the government. Our proposal is simpler: everyone gets a basic level of cash, then income is taxed at a flat rate regardless of who's earning it (i.e. in the same way every consumer pays the 10% GST).

            You might say 'but hang on, why should people on low incomes pay tax right from the start and not have a tax free threshold'? Most already are in practice, because welfare payments are removed based on income. It also makes the system easier for everyone to understand - I'd guess that a majority of the population are confused about tax brackets! - and easier to administer (no 'nominating primary income source' for PAYG, etc.).

            • NigelTufnel on 06/04/2022 - 11:47

              @wryun:

              AFAIK a negative income tax implies that at low incomes for each dollar you earn you'd get a top up from the government.

              No, that sounds like a wage subsidy. Negative income tax systems (at least as envisaged by Friedman), is equivalent to most UBI systems. Guarantee a minimum living wage for everyone, but maintain incentives to work to increase income at every income level.

              • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 12:55

                @NigelTufnel: Sorry, my mistake, you're right. Not my area, and I need to read up on it more. I agree that they're basically equivalent (at least in terms of the money in people's pockets), but they can be framed differently and my instinct is that a UBI is easier to administer and explain:

                https://www.scottsantens.com/negative-income-tax-nit-and-unc…

                Yup, just googling there.

            • Freitag on 06/04/2022 - 11:59

              @wryun: What percentage is this flat tax rate? (roughly).

              • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 12:59
                +2

                @Freitag: This is one of the woolly areas we're working out. The original proposal was 37.5% in Pirate policy; personally, I think that's too low and would require making up the revenue from other taxes (i.e. carbon pricing and land tax):

                https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Platform#Economic_reform

                Note that this sounds like a high tax rate, but because of the UBI you wouldn't even pass 20% tax earning $100,000

                I'm going to push for people to get some real numbers on this. I'm tempted to make up my own, but I don't want to say things that I have to walk back on or make embarrassing mistakes, as it's definitely not my area of expertise.

                • NigelTufnel on 06/04/2022 - 13:35

                  @wryun: From the link:

                  This basic income guarantee would be paid in the form of a negative income tax.

                  So Pirate party were proposing NIT.

                  The 'correct' rate really depends on what the threshold is. If it's $64,000, then maybe 37.5% or higher is okay. Even at 45% someone on $1m income will be paying around 42% effective rate, which is only very slightly more than what they are now (41.2%). Someone on $100,000 is only paying 16%.

                  But if you set the threshold lower (say $30,000), then at 45% even someone earning $100,000 is paying 32% effective rate, much higher than 21.6% in the current system…

      • Scantu on 06/04/2022 - 12:06
        -3

        Your tax policies are dangerous dog sh!t but I'll vote for anyone that will give us a bill of rights and freedom of speech

      • BartholemewH on 06/04/2022 - 12:26

        Going in with CGT on PPOR will sink your entire campaign on it's own imo.

        • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 13:01
          +1

          We are not proposing to remove the CGT on PPOR, but rather than CGT discount (i.e. 50% CGT reduction) on investment property.

  • rektrading on 05/04/2022 - 12:27

    What is your view on ESG?

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 12:52
      +1

      I think it's problematic 'expecting' corporations to be good, but it's hard to argue against trying.

      Part of the Fusion Party policy is to focus on non-financial metrics, but it's a bit more straightforward for government that profit-seeking companies:

      Recognise alternative ‘budgets and balances’ that must be maintained and expened effectively, for a diversified metric of people’s quality of life.
      Monetary: GDP, Budget, Unemployment
      Environmental: Carbon Concentrations, Biodiversity
      Personal: Opportunity, Education, Health and Wellbeing

      Err, was that what you meant, or did I misunderstand the acronym?

  • Almost Banned on 05/04/2022 - 12:28
    +5

    Why would anyone vote for you?

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 13:15
      +19

      Because they agree with our policies more than any other party.

      I'm pretty serious here. I wish everyone would vote this way, particularly when they can direct their preferences to whichever major party is in real contention for the seat anyway. I understand that not everyone will agree with Fusion policies, but for those who do the best way to make yourself heard is to actually vote (1) for the ideas you like. This sends a clear message to whoever wins the election that you support different ideas, and it helps shift the political discourse. The chance of Fusion getting even one article in a major media outlet this election is tiny, but if we took even 2% of the vote nationwide in the senate next election people would pay more attention.

      If you just want the spiel based on what I care most about:

      Vote for Fusion if you want immediate decisive action on climate change, a more equitable society, and more government transparency and strong protections against government corruption. And you want to vote for people who have experience in something other that politics.

      Or just read the website:

      https://www.fusionparty.org.au/

      • brendanm on 05/04/2022 - 13:38

        a more equitable society

        How so? Just having a glance through your stuff, looks like I will be worse off, and I'm far from a high flyer.

        • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 13:49
          +5

          What things are you thinking about generally?

          Also: https://theconversation.com/other-australians-dont-earn-what…

          Everyone tends to think they're not doing that well and the system is out to get them, but in general, I think people underrate how much wealthier we've become. It's just that we gloss over what we've achieved (better medicine, ridiculously inexpensive consumer goods, great food availability) and think mostly about the things that are quite broken (housing…).

          • brendanm on 05/04/2022 - 16:23
            +5

            @wryun:

            What things are you thinking about generally?

            Land tax etc, that will increase the cost of owning my home. Removing CGT exemption on ppor.

            Elsewhere, you have that the tax free threshold will be increased, while the next tax bracket will be increased.

            Confusingly, there is then a part on UBI, which says tax brackets would be abolished, and a flat rate would replace it. So unsure which it is the party is actually for.

            I'm very happy for taxes to be spent on health and education, and agree that basic dental and mental health under Medicare would be fantastic.

            Rather than increase taxation on the individual, as usually happens, do you guys have a position on taxation/royalties on mining companies etc? They are basically selling things that should be owned by all australians, and making all the profit, while we get under 10% of the value.

            Similar question with corporations and their tax "avoidance".

            • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 19:16
              +2

              @brendanm: Sorry for the confusion. Earlier I quoted some old Science Party policy, but the Fusion position is UBI then a flat tax rate. Also, the proposal is to remove the CGT discount, not the PPOR CCGT exemption.

              With land tax, you may or may not be worse off, but those trade-offs are about trying to decrease the cost of housing for everyone. Also note that replacing stamp duty with land tax doesn't have to increase the cost of owning your home. It's about removing the front-loading that currently exists, and if implemented would also likely involve some mechanism for some people (e.g. retirees) to accumulate debt on their property rather than paying it annually. Part of the idea here is that people are encouraged to move out of very valuable land (i.e. if you have 1000m^2 in a high density area and want to live there in a 2 bedroom home), and aren't taxed for doing so (stamp duty).

              It's worth reading up on land tax and its probable benefits (most economists agree!): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

              Rather than increase taxation on the individual, as usually happens, do you guys have a position on taxation/royalties on mining companies etc? They are basically selling things that should be owned by all australians, and making all the profit, while we get under 10% of the value.

              There's no official party position I'm aware of, but I was very sad that the Mining Resource Rent Tax was repealed and would support something similar.

              Similar question with corporations and their tax "avoidance".

              I don't think any politician would be in favour of tax avoidance, but I think in general electing people who are less tied to corporate funds leads to stronger regulation and more effort generally in fixing this. The Coalition are clearly most dependent (unless you count the UAP?); a minor party such as ourselves are not beholden at all to corporations. In terms of specific policy, I think it's probably best to develop this in consultation with the ATO while in government as its largely a matter of refining existing regulation (I suspect the bureaucrats have lots of good ideas…).

              • BartholemewH on 06/04/2022 - 12:32

                @wryun: The science party page you linked earlier states:

                "Taxing capital gains on owner-occupied and investment properties equally;"

                If it doesn't reflect your current position, I probably wouldn't be linking it. Further, the merging of parties that differ fundamentally on financial issues gives the impression of shooting in the dark.

                • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 20:37

                  @BartholemewH: Yup, sorry for the confusion. I should have been more careful; just tempted by the 'you people have no rigor' accusation.

                  None of the Science or Pirate policies I've linked are part of the Fusion platform.

                  However, I don't think there are fundamental differences on financial issues. Both Science and Pirate policy was intended to avoid welfare traps and simplify the welfare system, and both had financial mechanisms to change the housing market. Obviously the ultimate approach was different, but the ideological intent was similar, which was part of why we were happy to come together.

      • Almost Banned on 05/04/2022 - 18:39

        What does an 800% renewables target actually mean?
        Do you mean that renewables will be providing 8 times the country's energy requirements? Isn't that massively wasteful and inefficient?
        Also, how does 'declaring a climate emergency' do anything other than provide a pretext for draconian actions that would never be acceptable in a 'non-emergency'?
        High speed rail between Australian capitals has been shown to be a massive White Elephant time after time. Why are you pushing it anyway?
        What department will a Minister for the Future run, and what will they spend their time and budget doing - other than navel gazing?
        You propose giving $500 per week to every adult in Australia, Currently that would equate to payments of about 10 billion dollars EVERY WEEK? That payment alone will consume the entire national government revenue every year - and that is before the increased Medicare you promise - not to mention all the other expenditures.
        How exactly do you plan to reduce 'perceived' discrimination? Is that part of the mental health Medicare program?
        There is no Federal blasphemy law in Australia, very few states have one, and none enforce it. So, how will the Federal government implement something like this?
        Two years to end all fossil fuels? Will you 800% renewables be ready by then?
        You promise freedom of speech and freedom of religion - but then want to remove religious education from schools. What about families who want their children taught religion? What about kids who want it? And what about school communities who are happy with their chaplains? Why should their freedom to choose that for their kids be denied if they actually have freedom of religion and speech?
        There are a lot of meaningless buzz words in your platform, but I think the above will do for now.

        • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 19:31
          +4

          What does an 800% renewables target actually mean?
          Do you mean that renewables will be providing 8 times the country's energy requirements? Isn't that massively wasteful and inefficient?

          Yes. The benefit is twofold - cheap energy enables new technology and industry in Australia, and we can sell our solar surplus in particular to places where the the sunlight hours are different. cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-Asia_Power_Link

          Also, how does 'declaring a climate emergency' do anything other than provide a pretext for draconian actions that would never be acceptable in a 'non-emergency'?

          I'm not the best person in the party to talk about this, but it's about making it clear that this is priority of the government and has to be fixed immediately, not something where all the tricky problems can be pushed to the tail end of a 20 year projection. We've run out of time, and we need to admit this to ourselves and the world.

          High speed rail between Australian capitals has been shown to be a massive White Elephant time after time. Why are you pushing it anyway?

          The Science Party's original proposal was that high speed rail would be introduced as part of building a new city. I still think this is a good idea, but in the absence of this idea I still think there's an argument to be made: there's some aspect of 'build it and they will come' (i.e. it's hard to analyse in terms of existing behaviour), and it's also an important part of decarbonising (i.e. increase the carbon price enough and you'll find out if people are willing to take a train to Canberra or Melbourne rather than a plane).

          You propose giving $500 per week to every adult in Australia, Currently that would equate to payments of about 10 billion dollars EVERY WEEK? That payment alone will consume the entire national government revenue

          We currently spend around $200 billion/year on welfare. Agreed, a naive calculation would cost this at around $500 billion/year. But remember that when you give people $500 who are actually earning money, you can increase their tax rate and have them receive the same amount of money - and part of the proposal is to drop 'tax-free thresholds' and complex tax rebate systems entirely. So yes, it's expensive, but it could be costed at similar to our current welfare system.

          Two years to end all fossil fuels? Will you 800% renewables be ready by then?

          To end all fossil fuel extraction. Personally I think this is overly optimistic and not likely to happen given how tied our coal production is to our power stations, but it gets people talking (and is where we want to head).

          You promise freedom of speech and freedom of religion - but then want to remove religious education from schools. What about families who want their children taught religion? What about kids who want it? And what about school communities who are happy with their chaplains? Why should their freedom to choose that for their kids be denied if they actually have freedom of religion and speech?

          People should be free to do whatever they want outside of publicly funded schools. i.e. they can send their kids to church/temple/mosque, pay for private schools, etc. If they can't be bothered sending their kids to their local religious organisation and want it done 'for free' at school, seems like it can't be that important to them. Not to mention programs like school chaplaincy which prioritise one religion over another.

          There is no Federal blasphemy law in Australia, very few states have one, and none enforce it. So, how will the Federal government implement something like this?

          I'm not familiar with the area, and in part this is just our general policy and has more relevance at a state level. I also expect it could be implemented as part of the constitution. But are you seriously saying we should have blasphemy laws here, or just nit-picking?

          There are a lot of meaningless buzz words in your platform, but I think the above will do for now.

          I'm amused that you say this and then pick at policy specifics :) Anyway, enough arguing for now. It's fine that you're not on board with the policy positions - the beauty of our democracy is you can preference us last (or indeed not at all).

          • SgtBatten on 06/04/2022 - 09:57

            @wryun: I am non-religious but went to a non-denominational christian school and was required to complete studies of religion in year 11/12. I found this course wasn't about pushing religion but was teaching about those religions, many different ones including Australian Dreamtime. I found this class helped me form my own position that religion is all rather similar and not something I was interested in.

            I say this having only read the above comments, not your policy, but I think kids should be taught ABOUT religion because it has a significant hold on the entire world, a hold they need to understand and recognise.

            • belongsinforums on 06/04/2022 - 10:28
              +2

              @SgtBatten: i also did SOR and found that it only taught the 'pretty' parts of religion. at no point in those 3 years was i taught about historical and present human rights abuses by religious organisations

            • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 10:53
              +3

              @SgtBatten: I have nothing against doing studies of religion, and it's fine for schools to require it, though if I were on the P&C I'd argue against it being a requirement (particularly in a public school!).

              That's a bit different from delivering specific religious education in schools (i.e. now you have Catholic scripture), which is what happens in most public schools in Australia.

              • samyall on 07/04/2022 - 14:44

                @wryun: I also thought it was wild that you have to opt-out of religious education in school vs opt-in.

                Although I am kinda glad my parents my made go to all of the different scriptures so I could decide none of them were right for me and not practice any religion.

            • BinaryPirate on 07/04/2022 - 21:56

              @SgtBatten: Kids should be taught about religion. They shouldn't be taught about just one religion, nor should there be representatives of just one religion present in schools & paid for by taxpayers.

              The school chaplain program should be a funding model which allows schools to choose the 'chaplain' best suited to their students' needs.

              I would be very surprised if your experience of learning about all religions & deciding none were for you wasn't the most common among students taught about all religions.
              It's one reason why the christian organisations spend so much time and money ensuring their faith is the most represented in schools.

          • Zephyrus on 06/04/2022 - 12:37
            +1

            @wryun: I think the original questions may be confused because the policy document is the same for state and federal. Removing blasphemy laws or religous eductation in schools makes no sense from the perspective of the federal government but makes sense for a state platform.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join