[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

      • havebeerbelywillsumo on 05/04/2022 - 16:42

        It's not…Google the term……….posted by someone who knew it existed but that's about all.

        • SBOB on 05/04/2022 - 17:04
          +6

          Every energy producing option has some for of environmental impact.

          If youre in a highly fossil fuel reliant energy country and claiming wind turbines are environmentally damaging, then you probably need to reassess your baseline reference.

          • EightImmortals on 05/04/2022 - 17:13

            @SBOB: I'm not saying we can't do better. I mentioned LFTR's ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY ) previously or other such tech. The boffins are working on Tokamak reactors with the Chinese leading the pack so far. My objection is the completely unfounded claim that 'climate tax' will fix the weather and that renewable energy is some kind of unicorn that will save the planet. Neither are true even if renewables are better in some metrics than our current method of producing electricity. I also object to the green fundamentalist idea of replacing or shutting down out current electricity generation holus-bolus when renewables are not ready to handle the current baseloads. My wife works in that industry, I know stuff. And FTR I'm totally on board with the concept of renewables but it has to work AND be practical and like electric cars, we're not there yet.

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 21:26
      +3

      "Declare an emergency with a Climate Emergency and Mobilisation act"
      "Place a material price on carbon emissions"

      Bit to much religious and non-scientifically proven hysteria there for my liking. Even if 'global warming' was a proven fact I'm yet to see the peer-reviewed research on how 'more tax' is going to fix it realistically and not simply be passed on to the consumer while the environmental vandalism continues. Yes we are trashing the planet, no arguments on that point, but slugging the whole world with even more tax is not going to fix the problem. Talk to me about direct practical action against environmental vandalism, built-in obsolescence, and general pollution and you might change my mind. Otherwise see 'Who wants to be a carbon trillionaire' and tell me you still support a global 'carbon dioxide' price.

      You'll have a hard time convincing me that taxing something doesn't affect behaviour unless demand is inelastic: it changes the price of things, and given that fossil fuel demand is getting less necessary by the day (due to increasing renewable/batteries)… if the argument is instead that carbon pricing is hard and open to rorts, then yes, it is, but most areas of government regulation have holes on introduction. The problem is that the government's current approach to carbon pricing (carbon credits) is so weak and they're so poorly committed to it actually doing anything that they're more worried about people making money out of it than the carbon effects of the scheme (https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2022-03-14/carbon-credit-p…).

      "Set an 800% renewable energy target, and establish a national grid to distribute renewable energy."

      So are we talking clean nuclear (LFTR's ) and the like or just more environmentally damaging wind turbines and solar cells? And what type of national grid are you referring to? We already have poles and wires, what else did you have in mind?

      We're talking about a lot more wind and solar and setting up the grid to efficiently distribute it around Australia and export it rather than needing to consume it locally. Yes, sometimes proponents of wind and solar underestimate the carbon/pollution cost of production, but the good news is that our industrial system is fine-tuned for increasing efficiencies these days. i.e. it's only going to get better.

      "a bill of rights would ensure the rights that are fundamental to a fair and ethical society are extended to all within it."

      So what good has a bill of rights done the yanks and the Canadians over the last 2 years? Canada has turned into a full-blown tyranny with Justin Castro being castigated a week or so back by the international community for his OTT tyranny during the scamdemic. There's no point in ANY scribbles on bits of paper unless a) we ALL get a say in the contents and that b) they are enforceable and not easily ignored or countered by whatever kakistocracy of the day decides it's agenda is more important than mere 'rights and laws'.

      A bill of rights is just another part of the structure. I think of politics as a continual evolution of those intending to exploit the system as it stands and those intending to improve it and make it more resistant to exploitation. A bill of rights can make our democracy stronger.

      "Remove censorship, blasphemy, and other laws against speech."
      How will you force facebook, twitter, instagram etc to reverse their current censorship agenda?

      There's a big distinction between what private companies do and what the legal system imposes. I'd agree with your perspective if we were seriously censoring political thought on the internet (cf Russia?), but we don't. This is just about making it clearer that we support free speech, not that we force private companies to carry whatever nonsense people want to spout.

      And you really lost me at the 'secular state' nonsense. Why is imposing your secular beliefs (whatever that means) and excluding the beliefs of everyone else somehow morally superior? How is that any different from the Muslim who would love to install Sharia law on everyone? People should be free to follow whatever world-view they choose on the basis that they are not harming others. And if we had an actual democracy with limited government powers then no one particular world-view would be able to dictate to anyone else, be it theistic, atheistic or corporatist unless it had the full support of the majority. And even then I'm not yet convinced on the claimed virtues of having 51% of the population dictate how the other 49% live their lives.

      The idea is that the state should stay out of religion and not favour one religion over the other. People are welcome to elect politicians with particular world views, and they'd be free to argue for any ordinary policy, but funding religious activity (e.g. school chaplaincy program) shouldn't be on the table.

      "It is important that decisions made about the future of the country be based on facts, evidence, and logic."
      But only YOUR 'facts, evidence and logic'?

      It's all about the vibe, mate. The position that the Fusion Party is coming from is that we want our policies to be based on facts, evidence and logic, and we're open to criticism on that basis. Sometimes political parties are a little too… ideologically focused, and I suspect even they would say their policies are dictated more by some political need than by rationality.

      "Teach ethics in school to expose children to questions of morality and truth, as an alternative to religious education."

      Why can't you do both? Because you have an agenda of your own to push?

      I volunteer as a primary ethics teacher (currently a program in NSW schools and an alternative to religious education) and it is not at all about dictating a world view. It's about giving kids the opportunity to think about ethical questions that they're not confronted with at school and form their own opinions, and I don't think any religious person would object to the content:

      https://primaryethics.com.au/about-ethics-classes/our-curric…

      No-one in the Fusion Party is saying that people shouldn't be religious or partake in whatever religious education they want. The strange thing in Australia is that we deliver it as part of the public education system.

      "Replace the National School Chaplaincy Program with a National School Counselling Program, using trained counsellors suited to the role."

      'Councillors' trained in what, and by whom? And in what practical ways are school chaplains not 'suited to the role'? Is it because you believe they have a bias that is different to your bias?

      Existing school counsellors aren't a bad start (in NSW having qualifications in psych and teaching): https://education.nsw.gov.au/student-wellbeing/counselling-a…

      School chaplains inevitably come from a particular religious background. Most of them are great people - someone having a strong religious impulse is often a sign of someone who cares a lot about people! - but I don't think someone of a different (or indeed no religion) would feel completely comfortable having conversations with them, and I suspect some of them find it difficult to give advice that conflicts with their religious doctrine. If we could offer 'school chaplains' of every single denomination in proportion to the religious make-up of the school, and an atheist/agnostic counsellor that might work: but isn't it easier just to keep the religious advice in the religious institution, and keep public schools secular?

      • EightImmortals on 06/04/2022 - 09:11

        Thanks for the reply, I'll do a quick (hopefully :) ) response to each point as I don't want this discussion to drag out into one of 'those' arguments if you know what I mean? :)

        "You'll have a hard time convincing me that taxing something doesn't affect behaviour unless demand is inelastic: it changes the price of things, and given that fossil fuel demand is getting less necessary by the day (due to increasing renewable/batteries)…"

        Yes that was kinda my point, when you tax a company that increased cost is always passed onto the end consumer and the company just continues on as they always have. Or are you trying to change MY behaviour in some way? Let's face it, for most people we use electricity to cook some food, watch a bit of telly, surf the web etc. Why do you seek to impinge on my modest lifestyle based on your belief that the worlds temperature is changing and that watching less telly or paying more tax will fix it? As I said before, instead of just slugging everyone with more tax (is that the only tool in your kit?) why not offer tax breaks for companies who innovate and update their plants and equipment etc? That would be a win-win IMO as you get your lower emissions, the company has capital freed up to make the improvements and there are no extra costs to the consumer. When I turn on the switch I have no say or concern in where the power comes from.

        "A bill of rights is just another part of the structure. I think of politics as a continual evolution of those intending to exploit the system as it stands and those intending to improve it and make it more resistant to exploitation. A bill of rights can make our democracy stronger."

        Possibly. But given that we do not have a democracy (a fact I have noticed for many years) what is it you are trying to strengthen? At it's most basic a 'democracy' means 'majority rules' (I'm not sure that's such a great idea either but that's what a democracy is supposed to be). We do not have a democracy and probably never have. What we have (assuming the integrity of elections, which I also have doubts about) is a system whereby we we elect a mob to rule over us unaccountably with 'we, the people' having ZERO say in what they do or don't do once the election is over. That is not democracy. If your bill of rights included moving us to a more direct democracy like a couple of other countries have then you might get my attention. But it reminds of the republican debate that we should become a republic on the basis of "We don't need the royal family" (fair enough) and "Don't worry about the details, we'll work it all out for you" (yeah, right….)

        And you didn't comment on my observation about how useless bills of rights have been to the people of Canada and the U.S. over the last 2 years. Seems all the political class has to do is declare an 'emergency' (whether real or invented) and all of those hard-won rights get thrown out the door in a heartbeat.

        "There's a big distinction between what private companies do and what the legal system imposes."

        OK for the purposes of this discussion I'll try to stay focussed on that. I'll also (begrudgingly) include main stream media as 'private companies' so as not to get bogged down. (even though my personal belief is they are simply state propaganda outfits albeit slightly more sophisticated than some of the ones in 'other' countries)

        "I'd agree with your perspective if we were seriously censoring political thought on the internet (cf Russia?), but we don't."

        Forget Russia for moment that wasn't in my frame of reference. And we very much censor political thought on the internet and in the real world. Mostly it seems to be being conducted under the regime of so-called 'anti-discrimination' tribunals which are star-chamber clowncourts unto themselves who are hell bent on prosecuting 'the agenda' against private citizens guilty of thoughtcrimes despite the rulings of higher courts, limits of jurisdiction and the ridiculous and frivolous nature of many (though not all) cases. All at the cost of millions and millions of tax payer dollars. I can provide an example or two if you like but I just wanted to counter your claim that 'our government' doesn't do that kind of thing.

        "The idea is that the state should stay out of religion and not favour one religion over the other."

        Hey I'm all for that, but what exactly do you mean though? If you meant that Churches, Mosques, Temples etc should be allowed to operate as they always have without being subjected to STATE forced mandates and closures then I'll support you no problems. You'll have to give me examples of how the state favours one religion over another? In terms of tax breaks, they are offered to all religions equally as far as I can tell ( https://tinyurl.com/3v5hjmxt ).

        "but funding religious activity (e.g. school chaplaincy program) shouldn't be on the table."

        You keep coming back to the chaplaincy program for some reason. From what I have seen the chaplains are not there to engage in 'religious activity' and they have very strict rules about proselytising (wish I could say the same about other ideologies that are given free rein in schools and taxpayer money these days). If they changed their name from 'chaplain' to 'counsellor' would that make it better for you? Chaplains are there to support the kids in a way that the state never could and they need to remain as free from political interference as possible else they become as useless as any other government enterprise. If the school communities didn't want them there they would have gone years ago.

        Here are the national guidelines for school chaplains https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/health/ment…
        Please read it as it covers every one of your objections.

        "The position that the Fusion Party is coming from is that we want our policies to be based on facts, evidence and logic, and we're open to criticism on that basis. Sometimes political parties are a little too… ideologically focused, and I suspect even they would say their policies are dictated more by some political need than by rationality."

        Well I can't argue with your second point. :) The problem with claiming 'facts evidence and logic' is that NOBODY is completely objective. 'Facts' are disproven everyday (remember 'weapons of mass destruction', 'Gaddafi gassed his people' 'the gulf of Tonkin'? for just a tiny sample of examples. 'Evidence' is open to interpretation (and we ALL interpret things to suit our apriori views on the matter) and logic is a lost skill and as far as I can see, while being useful, cannot be separated from all of the other aspects of being human without damaging something along the way. Even Mr Spock learned that one. So while I agree with your point that, at least in a governmental context, decisions should be made with as much rationality as possible, that would take (IMO) a government populated by representatives with wisdom and virtue and yea, common sense, who are operating from a baseline principle of making the country, and the world a better, safer and freer place for as many people as possible without trampling the rights and freedoms of the individual in the process (assuming of course that said individual doesn't want to rape, murder and steal etc ). You know? Kinda the polar opposite of what we have had for the last few decades.

        "It's about giving kids the opportunity to think about ethical questions that they're not confronted with at school and form their own opinions, and I don't think any religious person would object to the content"

        Sure. But my question was 'why not have both'? From what I can see, the more information people have access to from different perspectives, the better they can decide for themselves as you say. So why limit that information just to the stuff you are presenting?

        "No-one in the Fusion Party is saying that people shouldn't be religious or partake in whatever religious education they want. The strange thing in Australia is that we deliver it as part of the public education system."

        No we don't. I addressed that issue above and provided a link to the government website detailing the rules that chaplains must abide by. They do not 'deliver religion'. If people are receiving help , comfort and guidance in times of need then why does it matter to you what the wordlview of the person delivering those things is? It can't be the money issue as you have said you are happy to have 'secular' (whatever that means?) counsellors instead of Chaplains. So is it just your anti-Christian or atheistic biases that are informing your position on this point? (Not trying to pick a fight but it's a fair question that should be asked of anyone who wants become part of 'government', would you reject the best person for the job because you disagreed with their beliefs? Or in the same way would you hire someone less qualified for a job because they held the same beliefs as you?)

        "Existing school counsellors aren't a bad start (in NSW having qualifications in psych and teaching)"

        Schools are already full of qualified teachers and psychologists are in some schools but available to all if needed (https://www.apacs.org.au/ )

        "School chaplains inevitably come from a particular religious background. Most of them are great people - someone having a strong religious impulse is often a sign of someone who cares a lot about people! - but I don't think someone of a different (or indeed no religion) would feel completely comfortable having conversations with them.."

        OK. Nobody is being forced to have discussions with anyone AFAIK? If there are kids who aren't comfortable talking to the chaplain they can talk to a teacher or giudance/support person at the school. That's no reason to scrap ALL the chaplains and all of the good they do.

        "and I suspect some of them find it difficult to give advice that conflicts with their religious doctrine."

        Again, we can't just scrap the whole chaplaincy program based on your 'suspicions', even if you could validate those suspicions now and then. And why should ANYONE be expected to give advice that conflicts with their beliefs? Now granted, it seems to me that most people, theistic or atheistic have arrived at their position without putting much thought or study into it and have gone with what 'feels good' to them or the way they were raised. But a lot of other people have got to their position though experience in the world, question their own beliefs looking at the evidence for and against, listening to arguments from all side etc. So if you are lucky enough to find one that can give you some evidence and solid arguments for why they believe the things that they do then that would be much more helpful to the enquirer than the former. And let's face it, this issue will NEVER be resolved on a public basis, only in the mind of the individual. If university level PH'd scientists and philosophers can't reach a consensus then you and I certainly wont and therefore on the basis of 'facts, evidence and logic' should not be forcing or excluding anything on anyone. :) And for the most part this is completely irrelevant to the kid who parents are splitting up, or who is getting bullied, or has had a friend die etc.

        "If we could offer 'school chaplains' of every single denomination in proportion to the religious make-up of the school,"

        Why?
        What you said implies that you believe that chaplains are there for religious instruction, they are not. (Some schools have separate RI volunteers come in once a week or so for that and participation is by parental consent) And for those parents who feel strongly enough about their particular worldview they would be teaching that to their kids outside of school anyway.

        "and an atheist/agnostic counsellor that might work: but isn't it easier just to keep the religious advice in the religious institution, and keep public schools secular?"

        Again you are making a separation between 'religious advice' and 'secular (whatever that means?) advice (and assuming that chaplains are there to give religious advice). Why is a secular (and I am assuming be secular you mean atheistic, please correct me if you mean otherwise.) person's beliefs about God superior to a theist's beliefs about God to the point where you would remove all other worldviews from the school?

        Let's not get too hung up on that issue thogh, I think the main problem here is that you are thinking in the context of 'government by force' and that people must be GOVERNED, that they are not free to live their own lives and speak their own beliefs (again, the caveat being as long as are not directly harming others) and that only YOU (and those who agree with you) should decide on what that means. This is the single biggest core problem throughout the whole history of humanity. Everybody wants to rule the world in some way or another. In the case of chaplains, let the school parents decide, if 51% of them want a chaplain at the school they should have one, there's your democracy in action, there's the free speech you mentioned and the will of the people should not be overridden by a state or federal system that is far removed from the situation and that is operating on an agenda-driven basis fuelled by their own particular ideology being violently forced on every else. Less 'government' is better for everyone, except the kakistocracy of sociopaths who want to own and control everything and everyone.(hope that makes sense)

        Cheers.

        • Roman Sandstorm on 06/04/2022 - 15:20
          +1

          @EightImmortals

          Wow! Do you have a bee in your bonnet about religion/secular ideas or what?

          Why is a secular (and I am assuming be secular you mean atheistic, please correct me if you mean otherwise.) person's beliefs about God superior to a theist's beliefs about God

          Your direct comment here, and several others scattered through your questions definitive statements of fact, clearly deminstate that you either do not understand the concept of secular society, or actively reject said concept.

          Arguing against that perspective is pointless, and I admire James for taking the time, and making the effort, to cogently respond to you.

          But your borderline fundamentalist views are seemingly so entrenched:

          • Even if 'global warming' was a proven fact

          • or just more environmentally damaging wind turbines and solar cells?

          • Canada has turned into a full-blown tyranny

          • Why is imposing your secular beliefs (whatever that means) and excluding the beliefs of everyone else somehow morally superior?

          • I'm not seeing much here that's different from the atheistic Greens policies

          • given that we do not have a democracy (a fact I have noticed for many years)

          … that I doubt any argument will shift your ideology-based view.

          Despite your lengthy and seemingly-polite comments, I feel you are being disingenuous in that you are really just platforming your own immovable ideas. These are best summed up by one of your own comments:

          (assuming of course that said individual doesn't want to rape, murder and steal etc )

          This, of course, is one of the unsinkable rubber ducks of fundy-religious types who claim that society would go down that drain, and everybody would 'rape, murder and steal' but for belief in their sky fairy, and strict adherence to the 'rules' he provided to desert goat-herders 4000 years ago.

          • EightImmortals on 06/04/2022 - 16:29

            @Roman Sandstorm: "Wow! Do you have a bee in your bonnet about religion/secular ideas or what?"

            Sorry champ, I am just responding to the OP's comments, he (she?) is the one who is bringing up the secular/religious argument. And if you are getting triggered merely because I asked them to define what THEY meant by the term 'secular' then you have bigger problems that what random people write on the internet, even if you are barging into someone else's conversation.

            " that I doubt any argument will shift your ideology-based view."

            Probably not at this stage, mostly because I've heard all the arguments over the years, unless you have some new evidence to add to the conversation about any particular point that I made or question asked?

            "Despite your lengthy and seemingly-polite comments, I feel you are being disingenuous in that you are really just platforming your own immovable ideas. "

            I did not start this thread, the OP said 'ask me anything' and it is their intention to 'govern' over others therefore my questions/concerns are validated. If the OP objects he doesn't have to reply. or they could change the heading to "Ask me 'almost' anything'. :)

            "This, of course, is one of the unsinkable rubber ducks of fundy-religious types who claim that society would go down that drain, and everybody would 'rape, murder and steal' but for belief in their sky fairy, and strict adherence to the 'rules' he provided to desert goat-herders 4000 years ago."

            Now who's 'being disingenuous and platforming your own immovable ideas?'

            I mentioned none of those things and only brought up the caveat about people seeking to harm as a pre-emptive move because when we are talking about free speech and less government there is always someone who will go the extreme and try to claim that if we had more freedom, how do we deal with people who think they are free to cause harm? Go back and read what I wrote in context. It has NOTHING to do with the assumptive explanation you just wrote. In fact the notions you espouse in your last sentence are usually those claimed not by religious people but rather by statists when their belief in the big stick of government is being threatened. At least in my experience.

        • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 20:45

          Sorry, I don't have the energy to go into this further, and I suspect both our sets of opinions are too entrenched. At least you know where I'm coming from in more detail!

          Just one thing with the religion delivered in public schools - I wasn't referring to the school chaplaincy program at that point (I know, confusing), but just the delivery of SRE (scripture).

          i.e. that we allocate time in public schools for arbitrary religious groups to, during school hours, deliver whatever content suits their fancy. This is the bit that I think is unnecessary, and is what the Fusion policy is against. I have no objection to religious institutions doing whatever instruction they want in their own time, and I have no objection to religious studies in public schools delivered by teachers, where you learn about many religions.

          • EightImmortals on 07/04/2022 - 06:24

            @wryun: OK, no worries, yes politics can be draining and in my limited experience tends to bring a lot of 'special' people out of the woodwork. :)

            In terms of your last comment I am not aware that RI classes are receiving any government money, they are run by volunteers. And why not allocate time to teaching kids about the various worldviews out there? As I said before, limiting information is usually a bad thing in terms of education and personal growth. And why have it delivered by 'teachers' who may know nothing about the course material from personal experience? I would rather learn about medicine from a doctor than from a teacher who might have done a short course on the basic concept of medicine.

            Anyway, all the best, if you dislodge any of the incumbent scumbags then I will celebrate with you despite our different positions. :)

    • Karfaffel on 06/04/2022 - 20:24

      another facepalm for you
      No point in engaging with

  • TheMindsetTraveller on 05/04/2022 - 14:28
    +2

    I will be voting in the Grayndler area; I am generally Centre-left leaning so ALP seems to be my go to guys but interestingly:

    At a state and local level, I hate the Greens with passion - they are just sooooooooooooooooo anti-development in the inner-west. Just because a house is OLD does not mean it has significance (and therefore should be saved).

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 14:31
      +2

      This is actually one of the reasons the Future Party was formed (which became the Science Party and is now part of the Fusion Party). We believe that urban density will help lower housing prices and protect the environment, and that does mean avoiding the reflexive 'no' to all development which I think is part of the Greens DNA.

  • godofpizza on 05/04/2022 - 15:18

    What are things/opinions your not allow to discuss with the general public?

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 17:41
      +1

      Well, we're a small party, so probably I'll find out when I do it! As long as I don't contradict party policy or say anything too crazy, I doubt it'll be a big issue. And one of the unfortunate dynamics that minor parties are faced with is that it's almost worth doing something crazy just to get attention.

      But, since you ask, things I care about that are definitely not party policy:

  • nfr on 05/04/2022 - 16:11
    +1

    Never heard about Fusion Party until today. I've been voting for Sustainable Australia Party for the last few elections because their policies a bit more detailed and less contradictory than just slogans, but I'll rank Fusion 2 if I see it on my ballot paper.

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 17:47
      +2

      Science Party policy at the last election was probably the most detailed of any minor party:

      https://www.scienceparty.org.au/federal_policy

      Having said that, the Science Party at least was on the side of more immigration rather than less, a position I would still support (though Fusion itself has no position on numbers).

      We're not up to that level of detail as part of the Fusion Party (takes time!), but I think our position is coherent: https://www.fusionparty.org.au/

      Hope you vote No 2 for us (though we'd only see your vote in the preference distribution if Sustainable Australia get eliminated first).

      • Clain on 06/04/2022 - 07:12

        So there’s no more science party after the merger?

        • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 13:06

          The Science Party still exists as an organisation, and we have our own membership lists, but we were deregistered by the AEC (we didn't attempt to provide a list of 1500 members, instead focusing on Fusion). The leader of the Science Party (Andrea Leong) is now President of Fusion. We've tried to bring most of our members across to Fusion, but not everyone reads their emails :)

  • cashless on 05/04/2022 - 16:13

    Without really knowing your policies and without being able to understand where you stand on a lot of issues, I'd have to call you the party of confusion.
    But I might just vote for you on the basis that preference voting, rather than wanting to vote for someone, is like putting all the candidates in reverse order of dislike.

  • Duckie2hh on 05/04/2022 - 16:17

    Thoughts on:
    1) Religious institutions and education institutions being able to select students/workers based on religious belief, sexual orientation and gender identity?
    2) Social housing issue and solutions?
    3) The party's outlook on climate change, renewable technology, electrical vehicles?
    4) Tax rate on multinationals as well as 'everyday' people.

    Thank you

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 18:53

      Religious institutions and education institutions being able to select students/workers based on religious belief, sexual orientation and gender identity?

      My personal thought is if you accept government funding no (i.e. like almost all current schools). If you're entirely a private institution and that's your religious belief, then I'm fine with that.

      Social housing issue and solutions?

      Replace stamp duty with land tax, increased density, and introduce a universal basic income to replace the current complex and frustrating welfare system.

      The party's outlook on climate change, renewable technology, electrical vehicles?

      Help to slow climate change and promote renewables and R&D (we should be an exporter - our plan is 800% of our current electrical production). Electrical vehicles are a necessary part of addressing climate change, but increased use should fall out naturally from removing fossil fuel subsidies and adding a price to carbon.

      Tax rate on multinationals as well as 'everyday' people.

      Yes, but it's a hard one to do well. We don't have a current policy position on this, but I would be supportive of international efforts to tax multinationals (best way to solve in collaboration with other countries).

      • Duckie2hh on 06/04/2022 - 08:43
        +1

        Good answer. Especially on PT 1

      • Kangal on 06/04/2022 - 21:18
        +1

        I like these views/ideas.

        One of the biggest problems facing Australians (and not a fringe minority) is the cost of living. In particularly, our system is setup so that homes are seen as vehicles of investments. The banks and politicians benefit from this, and REAs who act as middlemen do not help. I think majority of people are happy owning just 1 home, but the scarce market is forcing people to rent, and rent prices are forced to increase because of property-sales prices increasing. I think we should keep Negative Gearing, but make a law that makes rental prices fixed. Look at the historical data, rent fees have gone far above inflation rate and income increases. If rents are no longer lucrative, that kills the market for "property investors" and Banks who have benefitted billions in past three decades. And a land-tax would further go to hit the 1% who cheat tax, hoard their wealth into property, and do not utilise it (empty land, houses, and apartments) which further adds to the scarcity. The land-tax gives those people a liability, and balances the market.

        Now, the even bigger issue is the system itself.
        People are fallible. I think no Aussie politician should be able to accept/receive gifts (eg Above $1000), and also not able to give/donate. I don't care about the naysayers. There's such a small minority of politicians that law would have zero effect overall (besides bruised egos). On top of that, all politicians should not be able to hold ANY shares, stocks, bonds. With the only exception being their Superannuation. That way we make it "impossible" for fraud/corruption to happen. But to counter-balance this, I think politicians should be paid a very good sum of money. (Now hear me out). The amount of money they get this year would be tied to the performance of the country. If they did a good job (eg Prosperity of their fellow citizen), then they get rewarded. If they did a bad job, they get a reduced amount of money. Not sure if this money should be able to go to Zero or Negative. That means the politicans have skin in the game. Which is vital for any system to be successful. Skin in the game. Sometimes they will have a bad year despite doing their best, but they should still be "penalised", because it means they are still rewarded because it could have been even worse for them (and us by extension). And politicians "doing it tough" would help keep them grounded and understand the struggles of the common man.

        All of those are "far-out ideas". It's a romanticised viewpoint, and I don't expect to see it come to fruition in my lifetime. But throwing it out there to see what you think, and if such ideas could be bounced to your members, colleagues, and even rivals.

  • dylanando on 05/04/2022 - 16:46

    How do you earn an income?

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 17:49
      +2

      I'm currently working as a Software Developer for https://grokacademy.org/ , though part time at the moment (focusing on the election).

      I've mostly working as a programmer, though I am qualified and briefly worked as a high school teacher (English/Maths).

  • havebeerbelywillsumo on 05/04/2022 - 16:53

    Thanks for posting, Was a rusted on (one of the two) duopoly voter till the last few elections and now find neither party attractive….. but there seems to be no realistic hope of election for any party outside one of the duopoly so felt I was really wasting the benefit of living in a democracy.

    Your party's opinion on compulsory voting?

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 17:52
      +2

      I don't think the party has an opinion, but I would say most politically engaged people in Australia think compulsory voting is a good thing (as do I), because otherwise segments of society are more likely to be disenfranchised (skew to higher incomes and older people). I would support an explicit donkey vote option on ballot papers for the disenchanted; I don't support people just being too lazy to vote.

      Don't give up on our democracy yet - the only way other parties can build credibility to get elected is if people start voting for them, and with preferences you don't need to 'waste' your vote (just direct to the appropriate party that will actually get elected if you have a preference). Also, the senate is more of an open contest, and can play a pretty important role in moderating the wilder impulses of the government.

      • samyall on 07/04/2022 - 15:08

        I like the idea of a "I do not wish to exercise my democratic rights in this election" box.

  • Autonomic on 05/04/2022 - 17:07

    Do you have any explicit anti-racism policies?

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 17:54
      +1

      The general vibe would definitely be 'racism bad', and we have some nice words about 'Reduce actual and perceived discrimination' (and better support for asylum seekers), but nothing clearly focused on that. What would you like to see from a political party?

      • Autonomic on 05/04/2022 - 20:42
        -5

        AHCRs Leading For Change report shows that 95% of senior leadership in Australia (across government, ASX200 companies and universities) is white compared to 75% of the population. Clearly evidence of systematic bias, Australia wide. Would be good to see some attempt to address that, to begin with.

        • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 22:05

          I agree this is a problem, but it's not simple to address at the federal level aside from generic statements or simply promising more funding to the AHRC. I've had a brief skim of 'Leading for Change', and its recommendations are mostly at the individual organisation level - I can't imagine any of them as a big policy initiative driven by the federal government. I'll raise this with our policy group though and see if they have any ideas (I'm just the candidate!).

          I also think in the long term change at the bottom feeds into change at the top: i.e. having a universal basic income and a better schooling system will continue to increase the diversity in our higher education system and at all levels of our society, and this will make it easier to break down leadership cliques.

          Though if you vote for our President Andrea Leong in the NSW Senate, that will help address whiteness there :)

          • Autonomic on 07/04/2022 - 12:19

            @wryun:

            I also think in the long term change at the bottom feeds into change at the top: i.e. having a universal basic income and a better schooling system will continue to increase the diversity in our higher education system and at all levels of our society, and this will make it easier to break down leadership cliques.

            Why not address the issue directly instead of just waiting? To me this is akin to burying our heads in the sand or, read less generously, that somehow non-white candidates are not qualified enough for senior positions, which is obviously not the case.

            I can't imagine any of them as a big policy initiative driven by the federal government. I'll raise this with our policy group though and see if they have any ideas (I'm just the candidate!).

            AHRC has their own national anti-racism framework. Why not support that? Or if you have no ideas, why can't you have a policy to at least find out? Commission a study by them and stand by the findings? I'm not a political scientist but I'm pretty sure it's not impossible for the federal government to address racism.

        • Autonomic on 07/04/2022 - 04:48

          Why is this at -4 lol

  • BarneyKB on 05/04/2022 - 17:32

    What are you / your party's thoughts on cars, public transport and cycling (and other options) in relation to commuting and urban / suburban design?

    What do you see being the primary method of commuting for working Australians by, let's say, 2050?

    In order to reduce Australia's emissions, do you think it's more important to focus on consumers (e.g.: promote cycling, electric vehicles, public transport) or companies (carbon taxes, research grants, subsidies, etc)?

    If you were in power, and had to decide between something you think your voters would want, and something which you thought was the better choice, which would you choose? (This isn't meant to be a loaded question. I think both are valid answers.)

    • SBOB on 05/04/2022 - 17:41

      commuting for working Australians by, let's say, 2050?

      I'm hoping for tubes, aka Futurama style….

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 18:04

      What are you / your party's thoughts on cars, public transport and cycling (and other options) in relation to commuting and urban / suburban design?

      High density / less cars / more public transport + cycling will pay off in many ways: less carbon and pollution, better quality of life / health, easier service delivery, less houses on productive farmland, etc. The Science Party's position which we've had since 2013, which is not current policy but might give you a flavour of where at least some of us are coming from:

      https://www.scienceparty.org.au/australian_charter_city_poli…

      What do you see being the primary method of commuting for working Australians by, let's say, 2050?

      Personally, looks like WFH is here to stay for a large proportion of the white-collar workforce. For those not operating over video links (or some kind of VR?) by 2050, I'd gamble on self-driving vehicles (not sure on size) not individually owned. But I'd be happy if the government had a reasonable 10 year planning time frame as opposed to the 'win the current election' time frame that the Coalition's currently employing.

      In order to reduce Australia's emissions, do you think it's more important to focus on consumers (e.g.: promote cycling, electric vehicles, public transport) or companies (carbon taxes, research grants, subsidies, etc)?

      Of those options, I'd vote for companies. Carbon taxes (or ETS schemes) ultimately affect both companies and individuals, and I think this is the foundation of any efficient approach to emissions reduction. Once it's in place, we can play at the edges with encouraging certain behaviours, stimulating R&D, etc., but fundamentally I believe in market based mechanisms.

      If you were in power, and had to decide between something you think your voters would want, and something which you thought was the better choice, which would you choose? (This isn't meant to be a loaded question. I think both are valid answers.)

      Nice question, but I think it's a little situation dependent. I don't know if you saw my responses to the anti-vaxxer above, but even though I am firmly on the side of medical orthodoxy I think it's important to understand the destruction caused by any policy, and part of the destruction can be voter alienation from the political process. I guess I'm giving you a non-answer: I'd choose what I thought was the better choice, taking into account not just the immediately correct action but also the feelings of those who voted for me and the entire populace.

      Weasel words for the win?

  • TheRealCJ on 05/04/2022 - 18:02

    Search for a cure for ageing.

    Okay.

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 19:01
      +1

      Okay.

      More people die of age-related diseases than anything else, and the suffering related to age is incalculable (dementia, cancer, …). This is not saying we should be immortal - it's saying that if we could figure out the mechanism of aging, we'd likely be able to help a lot of people, and it's worth focusing on explicitly rather than only on its related effects (dementia, cancer, …). This is a current area of research; we're saying it's worth more funding.

      • Roman Sandstorm on 06/04/2022 - 15:31

        Hmmm… yes.

        And now I have become an old bugger: yes, yes, yes.

        That said, there may be a slight incongruency in desiring humans to live longer, and creating/maintaining sustainability. More old people = more resources, hell, more people overall, more energy consumption, blah, blah.

        Now, this may well be fine for us fat rich old people in well-off nations, but imagine the disaster if Bangladeshis (for example) started living 20 years longer? (Er, of course that's unlikely to be a problem as their country will soon disappear anyway due to sea level rises… sigh.)

        Perhaps a 'Logan's Run' policy may be more in line with a sustainable future? :S

        • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 20:51

          Because we've had so many 'what???' type reactions, this has now been changed to:

          • Invest in research into new medicines and techniques to improve health and healthy lifespan.

          Same policy, but raises fewer eyebrows.

          Re the concern about people living longer causing economic issues, I think the ethical choice is simply to do the 'best' thing for people's health and figure it out afterwards. Consider the question from the reverse side: if we could solve economic issues by spreading some disease that shortened the lifespan of people in poor health… hang on, maybe I shouldn't go there. Hopefully you get my point!

  • moggott on 05/04/2022 - 18:32
    -3

    Another global warming alarmist clap trap.

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 18:55
      +5

      Another global warming alarmist clap trap.

      So, you think that most climate scientists, the IPCC, most governments, etc. are deluded. Do you think they're confused about the temperature increase, or how problematic the temperature increase will be?

      I think the question you should ask yourself is what is the probability that you're wrong? Even if it's only 5%, the downside is a bit concerning, and maybe worth spending a few percent of GDP (which is all it's predicted to cost!).

      • mdavant on 06/04/2022 - 06:01
        +1

        It is futile. How will you stop China and India using coal.

        • belongsinforums on 06/04/2022 - 10:32

          move manufacturing elsewhere. have you been to china? every person and their dog has a solar panel.

        • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 11:07
          +2

          Let me annoy you by telling you a story.

          mdavant and wryun are standing on a cliff throwing their rubbish in the ocean. belongsinforums comes up and says 'hey, what are you doing? Don't throw that rubbish there'. mdavant says 'but wryun's an idiot, I know he's going to keep throwing rubbish in the ocean, so it's going to be a mess anyway. I may as well keep doing this because driving to the tip is hard and they charge a bunch of money'.

          • mdavant on 06/04/2022 - 11:11
            +2

            @wryun: I have a story.

            Mdavant is burning coal to provide a competitive energy market so his children can have a manufacturing job and enjoy a first world lifestyle.

            Wryun and 100 million other Chinese do the same so their 300 million children can work under slave labor conditions and have a manufacturing job.

            Mdavant is expected to change his lifestyle under fear of people shouting him down as they believe he can make a difference.

            Futility

      • mdavant on 06/04/2022 - 11:13

        Can you debunk this please

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blam…

        • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 11:16
          +1

          I'm not getting into this. Ultimately, I'm relying on the general scientific consensus. Sometimes the general consensus is wrong, true, but most often it's right. Non-experts getting into the weeds of an issue and deciding for themselves; well, I reckon that's not the best way of getting to an answer.

          • mdavant on 06/04/2022 - 11:26
            +1

            @wryun: Roy Spencer is a highly regarded scientist and a long standing expert in the field. He is not saying he doesn't believe humans contribute to global warming (read his statement)

            To blindly believe a group of scientists who peer review each other and are paid to conduct research and shout down anyone questioning the settled science is crazy

            Remember the settled science keeps getting adjusted each review. Hence the prior settled science was wrong.

            Every adjustment shows that you cannot blindly trust the settled science.

            • gromit on 06/04/2022 - 16:29

              @mdavant: exactly, This tends to be why I avoid getting into climate change debates with people. I believe climate change is in all likelihood caused by humans, however the science around it at the moment is far from settled. I think the most disgusting thing I saw was a few years ago on Q&A where the panelists basically stated the climate debate has been settled and anyone that challenges the science should be shouted down. Science is all about questioning what we know or what we think we know, if a theory is sound it can withstand scrutiny or even become stronger because of it, ostracizing people because they dare to point out flaws in the theory or holes in the data is anti science.

              Having said that, doing things to combat pollution and environmental destruction is good regardless of the science behind climate change.

              • mdavant on 06/04/2022 - 18:15
                +1

                @hrayn3: So after a 5 second perusal of your link.

                Just the last point.

                1. The reference is to some Indonesian thing.

                2. The statement that breathing out only returns co2 that was already there shows a misunderstanding by their so called scientists of extremely basic metabolism physiology.

                But at least sceptical science gets what it wants out of it. —- plebs with zero science understanding quoting their website

      • moggott on 08/04/2022 - 19:29
        +1

        I ask myself why all the predictions have come up zero.

        The Arctic will be permanently ice free when it reforms with a greater mass, same with the Antarctic.

        The prediction that GB will never see snow again when record snowfalls have happened year after year.

        The prediction that Islands will sink with sea level rises when none have.

        The prediction that Qld dams will never be at capacity again and within 6 months they were.

        Deleting weather stations that showed no warming to fit the narrative.

        Saying that the Great Barrier Reef is being destroyed when the evidence shows it recovers every year.

        The "adjusting" of data to further push the global warming agenda.

        The emails from CRU that showed there was a concise effort by climate "scientists" to be disingenuous in regards to data manipulation and targeting anyone that doesn't adhere to the cult's narrative.

        Explain those facts.

  • CalmLemons on 05/04/2022 - 18:35

    Are you guys actually involved in attempts at power generation using fusion?

    The name to be honest probably loses you most votes from the majority. Will assume you'll targeting the small percentage of the population that think your party name is cool.

    Anyway apart from the siliness above, I refer to the other users note:

    ""Teach ethics in school to expose children to questions of morality and truth, as an alternative to religious education."

    Why can't you do both? Because you have an agenda of your own to push?"

    I'm not of any religion myself but if you're going to be representatives of people/managing them/leading them I thought you would understand to a degree religion is a device in which ethics and morality/ways to behave are actually taught by putting lessons and history in the form of stories to be able to teach the masses. The adverse effect is that some people take it too seriously or are taken advantage of, but that portion of the population will always be that way.

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 18:58
      +2

      ""Teach ethics in school to expose children to questions of morality and truth, as an alternative to religious education."
      Why can't you do both? Because you have an agenda of your own to push?"

      I volunteer as a primary ethics teacher (currently a program in NSW schools and an alternative to religious education) and it is not at all about dictating a world view. It's about giving kids the opportunity to think about ethical questions that they're not confronted with at school and form their own opinions, and I don't think any religious person would object to the content:

      https://primaryethics.com.au/about-ethics-classes/our-curric…

      No-one in the Fusion Party is saying that people shouldn't be religious or partake in whatever religious education they want. The strange thing in Australia is that we deliver it as part of the public education system.

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 19:03
      +1

      Re Fusion - no. Fusion also has a meaning related to coming together, which is what we're going for. I agree it's confusing. Naming is hard.

      Have a silly computer programmer joke for your trouble: there are only two hard things, naming, caching, and off-by-one errors.

      • Roman Sandstorm on 06/04/2022 - 15:39

        Re Fusion - no

        For as long as I can remember, sustainable and profitable nuclear fusion has always been 'thirty years in the future'. LOL.

        It's almost a cliche

        I admit, it was my initial thought when I read 'Fusion Party'. Ahead even of fusion jazz, or fusion cuisine.

        Of course 'fusion' also must fight against almost-universal ignornace equating 'fusion' to 'fission' to 'nuclear' to 'unmitigated evil'. Sadly independent of rationality, evidence and facts.

  • dlakers3peat on 05/04/2022 - 20:07

    Does the fusion party even have the necessary resources, skills, talent and experience even to implement these policies and then govern them.

    IMO it seems minority parties are a waste of taxpayers money with money best being spent on parties who actually know what they are doing.

    Everyone bad mouths Morrison but look what he did during the pandemic. He introduced job keeper which helped a ton of people during a very difficult time. All that is forgotten because it's now about petrol prices and cost of living.

    No government is perfect and has all the answers, but I would prefer a government with experience than a party that is just doing it as side gig.

    • VFM on 05/04/2022 - 20:29
      +3

      I doubt if any of the minority (other than the Greens) parties has the numbers to form the opposition, let alone government.
      It's not about forming government.

      It's about pushing for policies that are different from the mainstream status quo that the duopoly stands for.

      A good government would have provided JobKeeper funds directly to the people instead of funneling it through corporations.

      Morrison's government didn't merely give a money to a ton of people, he also gave a ton of money to a (relatively) few companies.

      While no government is perfect for the people, the current one is pretty close to being perfect for their own, and their mates' interests.

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 20:36
      +3

      Does the fusion party even have the necessary resources, skills, talent and experience even to implement these policies and then govern them.

      Ultimately, we aren't even standing enough candidates to form government, so, no, we're not going to be the sole party of government.

      More seriously, when you elect a government they work with public servants to implement their proposed policies (and the existing government has the benefit of those public servants when they device their policies in the first place!). If we were part of the government, the Fusion Party would have that same support. Admittedly, not many of us have experience in how to get ahead in a major political party, or have spent most of their adult lives in politics, but I think it's actually pretty good to bring other experience (and talent and skills!) to the table. I'd say that our current political class's expertise is too skewed to being good at politics, and a little experience from other parts of the 'real world' would help.

      It feels like the endpoint of your position is that no-one should ever start a political party (unless they split up an existing major party?), which feels a little anti-democratic to me. Sometimes new ideas are good, and democracy lets us choose which ones appeal.

      IMO it seems minority parties are a waste of taxpayers money with money best being spent on parties who actually know what they are doing.

      The taxpayers have paid nothing except for registering us and putting us on ballot papers (for which we pay $2000/candidate for the privilege), and we'll only get some money back from our campaign if we poll above 4% (unlikely in the senate; slim chance in individual lower house seats).

      Nevertheless, I think it's important to stand for what you believe in, and there are reasons to be a candidate as a minor party without the prospect of being elected. You can help spread your ideas (a few ideas that the Science Party originally proposed in Australia have been adopted by major parties or the Greens), let people genuinely participate in democracy rather than getting stuck in a polarising two-party system, and build the party into one that does have experience and stability.

      Re Morrison - as much as I think he did the right thing by doling out a bunch of money during the pandemic, it's a little bit hard to pat him on the back for it given how much carping the Coalition did about Labor's GFC spending. And at the moment, I'd like a little more vision from my government than splashing cash around semi-randomly, which seems to be mostly what the Coalition is about at the moment and sits very oddly with their earlier ranting about government debt. Admittedly, they are good at throwing more cash at marginal electorates…

    • radradrobotank on 06/04/2022 - 14:42

      Putin agrees that there shouldn't be any minor parties, even an opposition is inefficient. Why waste govt resources on a party that doesn't even have the votes to get a bill through parliament. The admin costs to run a democracy are so insignificant to the benefit!

  • VFM on 05/04/2022 - 20:44
    +4

    Thank you for standing.

    We do need more engineering, technical types and less banking/legal types in government.

    It would be great for democracy when a government is made up of people with different training and from diverse professions.

    A handful of essential workers (nurses, social workers, school teachers, factory workers, etc) would help balance the opinions and formulate something fairer for society.

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 21:39
      +1

      Thanks! I'd actually love it if we experimented more with sortition to help address this narrow representation issue (https://www.sortitionfoundation.org/)

      It's hard for me to imagine significant change in our current system: it feels like there are particular career paths than lead to most of the positions in the Labor or Liberal party, at least. I think multi-party systems have a somewhat better chance of letting different people have a voice (cf Germany), if only because more parties means a greater variety of paths.

  • pandaman on 05/04/2022 - 21:02
    +4

    I'll put you as 1 (in locale) . This website has given me a lot, and you write well and answer questions straight. Good luck

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 21:28

      Thanks! Appreciate it.

  • yokel on 05/04/2022 - 21:35
    +1

    What do you think Clive Palmer is setting out to ultimately achieve? Do you think his party with the massive advertising spend is diluting the pool of minor party votes?

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 21:47
      +3

      I mentioned earlier that Palmer confuses me. It feels like he's made the UAP toxic enough generally that the majority of Australians wouldn't bother listening to him, and revving up the 'freedom' crowd just doesn't seem to be worth many votes. If he was seriously threatening the Liberal Party on the right (like One Nation did) he'd have more of a chance that they'd adopt some of his positions, but even the those inside the Liberal Party sympathetic to his ideas can't easily support them now.

      Maybe he just watches Sky News too much and thinks if he or Craig Kelly keeps trying to be Trump one day it'll take off.

      In terms of diluting the minor party votes: yeah, some people are just angry and mostly care about not voting for Labor/Lib/Greens. But if they're that non-selective that they'll vote UAP, I'm not sure they were meant to have a long term voting relationship with Fusion :)

      Just armchair analysis. Don't believe anything.

  • BlackMonk on 05/04/2022 - 22:23

    Where do you stand in terms of the religious discrimination bill that the LNP tried to pass? for? against?

    do you think that freedom of religion(free to believe whatever you want and right to practice it) must be protected in this country? and why?

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 22:57

      I'm not familiar enough with the bill to offer a firm opinion, and I lack the enthusiasm at the moment for being across all the arguments.

      Thoughts:
      - Fusion policy is that we should have a bill of rights, which would help clarify exactly what we think is fundamental.
      - I think religious freedom should be part of that.
      - However, religious freedom shouldn't give people the license to ignore prohibitions on discrimination in a public context.
      - Exactly how these should interact is not clear to me.
      - I think the way the government presented their religious discrimination bill was a cynical political exercise, which made it hard to be sympathetic to it.

      My main thought is tangential: we tie ourselves in knots around the 'religious' behaviour of publicly funded institutions (e.g. Citipointe). From my perspective, the simplest solution here is to not publicly fund institutions that value their religion over current societal norms (i.e. don't kick out LGBTQI kids and teachers); they're free to continue running, but they shouldn't receive government funding. I reckon you'd suddenly find that most of them would be pretty careful. It's a shame that political parties are running so scared of the private and Catholic schools.

      • BlackMonk on 05/04/2022 - 23:36

        It's a simple solution to a very complex issue, I think that if you're going to try to implement that, you will have massive issues.
        basically your tangential thought to me is the following…
        stop funding the publicly religious institutions if their values are over current social norms. Based on that, you're saying that any religious organization that values their values, and all of them value their values should not get government funding anymore.

        Here is the issue with your idea
        Each political party have their core values (although it is hard to tell the difference these days). If the Fusion party values a number of things, policies, and passions, which is totally fine, it's what makes the Fusion party the fusion party. Then the fusion party has the absolute right in my view to kick out anyone who disagrees or opposes those values from within their organisation. Any organization should have the right to kick out people, if those people don't stand for the values that organization stands for.
        If you take away that right by taking government funding away, in effect you're saying that If I love the LNP party values, and work for Fusion, Fusion can't get rid of me despite the fact I stand against all the values that the Fusion party stands for. It's a double edge sword.
        In a democracy I want organisations and political parties of all sorts. the issue I have lately is can't tell LNP from labour anymore, and that's partly because none of these two parties are extremes opposites of each other or showing much difference, and partly is because of sticking to societal norms that you mention.

        • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 11:10
          +2

          I should have been clearer about current social norms. I'm not talking about some wishy-washy things - I'm talking about racial and sexual discrimination. I don't think it's a good idea to publicly fund bodies that do these things, even if they have a religious justification.

          In some cases, I can accept that it's a genuine religious belief and that's what they want to do. I just don't think taxpayers should enable it when the vast majority of society has agree that racial/sexual discrimination is bad.

  • Lockdude on 05/04/2022 - 22:57

    I don't think I've seen this discussed (apart from land tax) - but apologies if it has. Assuming someone like me doesn't have rich parents or dead relatives to fund my first home - what's your plan for helping me buy? - I could elaborate, but I figure a short question is better.

    • wryun on 05/04/2022 - 23:00
      +1

      Removing stamp duty and replacing it with land tax, removing the CGT discount for investment properties, and encouraging urban density should:

      • increase the number of available homes
      • use our existing land more efficiently
      • reduce their price

      Unfortunately, it'll take a while. But the quick-fixes (i.e. let's help first home buyers get a mortgage! let's let people use their super!) tend to increase home prices further and hence send even more money to existing home owners.

      • orangetrain on 05/04/2022 - 23:22

        I'd suggest running locally in council too. What you can do is a vacancy tax of 10% of property value. Councils already charge property value in council rates. While you may not get successful in high ownership/high living areas, if you TRIED this close to student council areas, you may get a landslide.

        Downside is that the salary for the position can be up to 20k per year.

        PS: Why are there so much corruption in councils? How come everyone says developers own councils? I wonder…

        • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 11:14
          +2

          I think vacancy taxes are hard to implement well (end up in stupid arguments about whether a property is actually vacant) and I think the actual vacancy rate isn't that high.

          The problem with increasing property tax at a council level is that you just end up hitting people with more cost: it's a much easier sell to remove stamp duty and add land tax at the same time.

          One thing you might be missing with land tax - it encourages under-occupied properties to change hands or be redeveloped, which a vacancy tax doesn't. Yes, this is tough on the pensioner who's lived in the same 4 bedroom house on a quarter-acre block for 50 years, but I think it's a worthwhile trade-off.

          PS In inner Sydney, I'd have basically 0 luck getting elected with pro-development increased tax policies.

          • orangetrain on 06/04/2022 - 12:04

            @wryun: Vacancy tax is simple. No one is using property = tax. A guy rents out a house to their wife for $100,000/year? Great, tax is paid on it!

            Do a drive through suburbs and CBD, there's shops or buildings boarded up, wire fence around grass, etc. These non-used places are being held by corporations or individual speculators. I've even seen some of those places stay empty for many decades!

            After all, those empty properties don't pay any tax. If they were rented out, tax could be paid on it.

            Overall, having a punitive vacancy tax would open up a lot of supply, leading to lower rents which in turn could lower leasing business costs, which in turn could lower cost of living costs. As well, more rent means more tax is paid.

            Land tax? It is likely to be a small amount compared to vacancy tax. It raises the costs of those who already rent out properties or uses the property for a business which means higher rents which in turn means higher cost of living. As it's likely a small amount, speculators will continue to hoard because they pay a miniscule amount to the government instead of rent/vacancy taxes.

            Raise land tax? Raise cost of living. Lower land tax? Raise cost of living!

            Raise vacancy tax? Cost of living plummets. Lower vacancy tax? Raise cost of living.

            Have you tried in inner west? All my local candidates are major parties or developers who care about their portfolio! I wish I could run, but the <20k salary puts me off.

            • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 13:10
              +1

              @orangetrain: I live in the Inner West council, and it's basically Labor, Greens, and community independents (who are essentially anti-development). It's an interesting idea to run a campaign around a vacancy tax; my instincts are still against it, but I'll think about it. If the Grayndler run gets a reasonable number of votes that will definitely tempt me to run for council.

              • orangetrain on 06/04/2022 - 13:13

                @wryun: Look at domain, or ABS, if it's overwhelming renters then vacancy tax could win seats as investors usually don't live there and cant vote.

      • idonotknowwhy on 06/04/2022 - 11:22

        removing the CGT discount for investment properties

        Just to clarify, this is only for investment properties, and not for cryptocurrencies and shares right?

        • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 13:11
          +1

          Yup.

  • orangetrain on 05/04/2022 - 23:15
    +2

    I admire you. You're going to be above the majors and above the LNP/Christian/Rich class fronts. I am in a different electorate, however.

    I hope you also push for electoral reform for more proportional rep and/or less lost votes because the rich class are increasingly desperate to cling to power. I am sure that you enjoy those hiked candidate fees (or deposits;)

    • Clain on 06/04/2022 - 07:17
      +2

      Agreed. Also appreciate the very detailed AMA responses.

  • htc on 06/04/2022 - 06:54

    How about the big company got the subsidy from gov during pandemic but later made profit? The people on welfare who got overpaid had to pay back to government, the same was not applied to these companies. When it was review Harvey Norman got the subsidy and made profit, Harvey Norman paid back. But many companies name were not revealed. Do you think the companies who got overpaid by company should pay back? How about your policy on the multinational companies that avoided tax?

    • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 11:20

      As far as I'm aware, the government legislation allowed this to happen; the companies were overpaid from a fairness perspective, but weren't overpaid legally.

      Think of it as part of the tax system - would you pay the government a bunch of extra tax because you thought they'd drafted the legislation wrong, or because you disagreed with the Coalition cutting the top tax bracket? Expecting corporations to be even nicer than people is crazy.

      So if there's anyone to blame here it's the gov and not the companies, but I wouldn't be too harsh on them. They pumped some money into the economy in a hurry, and made some compromises in doing so. I wish they'd skewed more towards individuals, and delivering a UBI for real as an experiment rather than messing with welfare payments, but… it's a hard problem.

  • Maz1 on 06/04/2022 - 07:18

    I voted for the pirate party last election, is it a combined effort Australia wide or just in your local? If so you already have my vote, and I wish you the best of luck.

    • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 11:22

      Great - we're Australia wide! Look for us as FUSION: Science, Pirate, Secular, Climate Emergency on your senate ballot paper at least; we're not covering many lower house seats, I'm afraid, since there's no chance of winning them (and it's hard to find enough candidates).

  • Boogerman on 06/04/2022 - 07:53

    How do you differ from The Greens? Which of their specific policies do you believe are not evidence based or grounded in logic?

    • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 11:31
      +2

      Official answer re Greens and ALP is here: https://www.fusionparty.org.au/faqs

      Personal answer:

      As I mentioned elsewhere, I'd love us to play a role similar to what the Democrats used to: holding the government to account, proposing good policies, but being prepared to work with either side. A lot of Australians even if they agree with some Greens policies are turned off by their attitude and positioning; you can see this in how much both Labor and Liberal parties frequently promise not to work with the Greens.

      To add some more wishy-washyness, I think that the Greens have a lot of reflexive 'No' in their DNA; they're a party that started off trying to stop things, after all! I like to think that Fusion is more optimistic and progress oriented. Take housing: at a local level, you can see Greens councillors being opposed to most development and density increases in inner city areas. And if you look at their policy, you see things like 'Public housing should not be privatised or sold.' Well, it's often a bad idea, but when you're planning public housing for a city with millions of people, sometimes it absolutely should be.

      Or with housing again, the Greens propose adding rent controls/rent caps. The general economic consensus is that this is a terrible idea (not evidence based?), but it's that reflexive 'no' again.

      And let's not get into what happened to the Rudd's ETS … :(

      • Boogerman on 06/04/2022 - 17:36

        Sorry but you’re wrong on both The Greens position on social housing & the Emissions Trading Scheme.
        Social Housing has been something that The Greens have pushed much harder than any other party. Only now, in Victoria, has the governing Labor Party taken on what The Greens originally proposed (but nowhere near to the extent it should be)
        As for the ETS, it was utterly useless - plenty of historical revisionism goes on with it from both Liberal & Labor Parties (aka lies). The fact is the Carbon Tax, unlike the toothless ETS, was a legitimate approach to carbon pricing (an externality) & it was enthusiastically supported by The Greens.
        Just wanted to set the record accurate.

        • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 20:57

          I'm confused about your point. I agree Greens push social housing more than any other party, and I admire them for that.

          I simply quoted a very black/white statement from their (incredibly long and annoying) housing policy which I felt was unnecessary, and pointed out that they support rent control (again, good intent, but probably not the best policy).

          I agree that the carbon tax was better than the ETS, and it's arguable whether the Greens should or shouldn't have supported the ETS, but for my mind it's an example of their reluctance to bend ideologically. I guess I consider myself a little more wishy-washy and like compromises, and indeed am the sort of person who didn't hate Meg Lees for agreeing to a GST :)

  • HelpMeiCantSee on 06/04/2022 - 08:01

    As long as you’re not a commie, you’re alright with me!

  • ribze1 on 06/04/2022 - 09:16
    +1

    Who are you preferencing last on your hot to vote material?

    • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 11:32
      +1

      It's going to be a seat by seat thing. With the current candidates in Grayndler, almost certainly the UAP.

  • SadKen on 06/04/2022 - 09:52

    Boxers or Briefs?

    • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 11:32
      +2

      Briefs. National security comes from local security.

  • huffboy on 06/04/2022 - 09:59

    whats the salary and benefits that come with the job?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join