You can view our question list for all candidates here.
—–
Independent candidate for Longman, Michael Van Boeckel, responded :
> —–
> >
> > What are your thoughts on asylum seekers?
The campaign being waged by both the big Parties is xenophobic, base, and
illogical. Nodoby is asking the Government to simply throw the doors open,
but simply to process Asylum Seekers in a prompt and fair manner. Once
their bona-fides have been established, and their suitability under UNHCR
established, then they can be released into the community at large, with a
support network, English lessons if needed, and education in the social
mores of their new country. If they are not assesed as Refugees, they can
be sent home with no qualms.
> >
> > What are your thoughts on public transport?
Underfunded. Public Transport has always been the poor cousin to private
commuting, despite its benefits; financial, emissions, infrastructure,
social. For example, while Redcliffe waited nearly 120 years for a railway
(and is still waiting. We’ll see if either the ALP or Coalition comes
through on their election promises), a _third_ bridge has been built across
Bramble bay, which might not have been needed if the railway existed.
Interestingly, the new bridge was apparently built high enough to deal with
storm surges and AGCC-induced sea-level rise.
> >
> > What are your thoughts on renewable energy?
Renewable energy should be a top priority for all levels of Government.
While Iceland and some African countries smelt Aluminium with hydroelectric
power, Australia continues to use Coal. Further, Australia is hopelessly
dependent on imported Oil products for our transport needs (in 2000,
Australia was barely self-sufficient, by 2009 we were down to ~70%).
Australia has some of the worlds best solar and wind resources, and vast
area where geographically-seperate Renewable plants can be located, so as to
reduce the effect of local variability. With the cost of coal-fired
electricity rising at unprecedented rates, it won’t be long before
Renewables are at cost parity, even without subsidies. An industry focused
on construction and maintainence will provide high-tech jobs with a wide
range of pay scale and requirements for Australians, hopefully operated by
Australian companies.
> >
> > Do you support or oppose the introduction of the R18+ rating
> > classification for video games?
> >
> > Do you support or oppose the proposed internet filter?
Absolutely not. Not only will it not achieve the stated outcome, it could
potentially foster a sense of complasence (where people think the `net is
safe, since the Government has “done something”), expensive, infringes on
privacy, it easily avoided, and sets up the mechanism for potential future
civil liberties infringments.
> >
> > Do you support or oppose gay marriage?
I view Marriage and Civil Unions as seperate. A couple can be Married, but
not in a Government-recognised Union, or can be in a recognised Union, but
not married. I support total equality in Civil Unions, but Marriage is
between the couple in question and the religous/spiritual institution of
their choice.
> >
> > What are your thoughts on abortion?
Should be free, no-questions-asked, Medicare-funded until 24 weeks
gestation. After 24 weeks, it should be legal if there is a threat to the
mothers health (physical or psychological), or if the future child will not
have a ‘useful life’.
> >
> > Do you support or oppose the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia?
Yes, provided there are strict safeguards to prevent those considering
undergoing Euthenasia being taken advantage of.
> >
> > What are your thoughts on stem cell research?
Support.
> >
> > What are your thoughts on education?
We need to back away from the ‘everyone’s a winner’ attitude and return to
some more basic roots. Beyond that, I can’t really say.
> >
> > What are your thoughts on campaign finance disclosure?
Waiting 18 months between an election and disclosure is too long. Given the
vast sums being allegedly poured into vital seats, there is an argument for
public funding of Candidates, which places all candidates on equal footing,
and restricts the volume of meaningless, largely useless material that is
produced during campaigns. Any public funding should not be based on how
many votes a Candidate recieved at a previous election.
> >
> > What are your thoughts on climate change?
AGCC is the greatest long-term threat to Civilisation we have ever faced.
Peak Oil (to be followed by Peak Gas and Peak Coal, as well as Peak
Everything), although dangerous, and already here, can be managed, and is
short-to-medium-term. The absolute cowardice displayed by political leaders
around the world, the kow-towing to the interests of Big Business (and not
limited to the Fossil Fuels sectors) should tell us all exactly who is
controlling our strings. The “Great Moral Challenge” advocated by Labour,
has been confined to the “too-hard, do it later” basket. The disdain and
contempt displayed by the Liberals reveals who they’re really looking out
for. And the outright hatred, lies, and misrepresentations from the
right-wing blogosphere and ‘Free Market’ (which doesn’t actually exist
anywhere) fundamentalists both sickens and angers me.
> >
> > What are your thoughts on water?
Instead of building energy-consuming Reverse Osmosis plants, we should be
building a pipeline network from Northern Australia. Such a network could
concievably be powered by Renewables (even Renewables not grid-connected, as
the water doesn’t have to flow 24/7/365), and would only require a fraction
of the annual rainfall in the tropical north.
> >
> > Do you support or oppose standing order 50?
Oppose. Whilst Australia does not have a specific seperation of Church and
State, the majority of Australians are not active in attending their
religous institution. SO 50 should be replaced by a minute for MP’s and
Senators to ‘reflect on their responsabilities to the people of Australia’.
> >
> > Are there any local issues you are trying to highlight with your campaign?
Transport (lack of Public Transport), Climate (dangers od coastal flooding,
altered rainfall patterns), Peak Oil (reduced availability of fuel and
oil-based products, economic downturn).
> >
> > What do you think about the media’s coverage of the election so far?
Pathetic. We’re talking about anonymouse leaks, hairstyles, and ears,
instead of announced Policy, recent history/performance, and political
inconsistencies.
> >
> > —–
> >
Michael Van Boeckel, Independent, Longman.
Good for you, Michael.
I hope you can affect the swing in Longman. Given my choices in my electorate, you’d be in the mix at the top of my list with those policies.
Some great positions on your policies mate, although I personally disagree with your position on gay rights.
It’s nice to see some like minded Independents out there.
Best of luck with your campaign.
David F: I’ve changed your display name to show as “David Fawcett (Independent)” from here on out to avoid confusion. There’s a David Fawcett running in SA on the Liberals’ senate ticket.
well said on most mate
Actually bloody well said on all
actually, marriage prettymuch originated as a legal binding of two people… somewhere along the lines, religion has hijacked the boat and claimed all responsibility for it….
aside from that, looks pretty good.
Cheera, all.
I’m not that hung up on it. The English language evolves, so if we start defining (or go back to defining) Marriage as a secular union of any two consenting people, it’s no skin off my nose. My general apathy toward the whole thing is probably driven by my total apathy to getting married/’Unioned’ myself (and fortunately, my Partner feels the same way).
I also forgot to answer
with a “Support”.
And apparently I can’t spell “Cheers”.
[...] reply to BKoPs’ questionaire has been posted on their web site. Also on the site are news links [...]
No worries Chris, it’s a good idea to clarify.
I can understand apathy towards civil unions vs marriage but the fact is that it’s a bad way to make law.
We don’t need a whole new slew of legislation to make civil unions ‘just like marriage’ all we have to do is amend the Marriage Act.
Furthermore it opens up civil unions to be restricted without placing the same restrictions on marriage in the future – something that I’m sure we’d all want to avoid.
Lastly you can’t have equality without equality. You want homosexuals to have the same rights as heterosexual then civil unions do not provide that, at the end of the day they still can’t get married.
It’s trite but you have to ask, ‘Can someone in a civil union get a marriage certificate and legally claim to be married?’
The answer is ‘No.’
‘Then they aren’t equal are they?’
Upon further thought, while I still see a distinction between ‘Marriage’ (in a religious sense) and ‘marriage’ (under secular law), I would support amending the Marriage Act to allow any two people to voluntarily enter a union to the exclusion of all others, regardless of Gender, race, etc.
I still think we need to call secular marriage something else, but a happy couple eloping and then saying “we got Civil Unioned!” doesn’t seem to have the same pizazz.
But like I said, I’m not hung up on it. I’ll change the blog to reflect the above.
nice to see… i like it when people listen and think, it makes me have a little more faith in humanity…
Not that anyone will care too much what I have to say, everyone has an opinion and thinks theirs is right, but my 2 cents,
On the abortion question/answer: I find it very interesting that every person who is pro-abortion has already been born.
Maybe instead of making abortion free (which is destroying a human life),(I am speaking strictly within terms of non life threatening pregnancy)
we should be thinking about making birth control free everywhere, and implementing a more intensive, morally sound and fact based sex-education in highschools.
And whatever happened to good old-fashioned adoption! no we’d rather be selfish and destroy the life instead of give someone else a gift of a child.
But excellent answer on the last question I may add, who cares what Julia Gillard’s hair looks like! Tell us about her policies!!!!!
hrm, i have a suspicion that the greens would be very much for free birth control things, and etc. i think it’s more about giving people the chance to choose; and i think arguing that we’ve already been bourn is stupid, you could use that for almost anything (one could say everyone who seems to be against child sex offenders hasn’t had sex with children), even dead people’s rights… another point to make, do you eat meat?
@ Aussie@Oz
The fact that you find a completely obvious self-affirming platitude interesting just shows that you’re a moron.
Good sex-ed is a necessity. But it cannot entirely replace abortions – pregnancy still happens when contraceptives are used properly. Not to mention that you seem to be ignoring the possibility of pregnancy in cases of rape or incest.
Also important to point out that no matter how good the education is, some children’s brains are more absorbent than others. I’m also sure that alcohol/drugs/passion play a significant part in some peoples decision to “ride bareback” on the spur of the moment, without referring back to their education.
I understand your point, we must never forget horrific and damaging things such as rape or incest.
The facts:
SOURCE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States.
**In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions**
for the 1% of those unforunate people I regonise this is a horiffic and life-altering experience. I cannot express how deeply I feel for those who go through this.
Should the rape victim give birth to the child that was unwillingly conceived?
There are 200,000 couples who want to adopt a child and there are only 25,000 babies to adopt each year! Why not just have the baby and change a lose, lose proposition into a win, win proposition instead”
I think this shall be my last post, this is becoming an ethical debate and I never should of commented in the first place.
One last note and I shall not return here again.
What if a wife had tuberculosis and a father had syphilis, and their first child was born blind, the second child, stillborn, the third, deaf and dumb, and their fourth was born with tuberculosis.
The wife then became pregnant with a fifth child not long after their fourth. Should the couple decide to abort this child? If someone thinks yes, congratulations!
That person has just aborted Beethoven. that is a FACT.
Karellen no need to become nasty and call names. I dont actually understand what a self-affirming platitude is sorry…it wasnt my intention to offend you.
We all have feelings, and I find it so interesting how easy it is to call someone a nasty name when its through a computer in cyberspace.
Steve Fielding? Is that you?
“That person has just aborted Beethoven. that is a FACT.”
I think you misunderstand what a “FACT” is…
cheap bastard just completely avoided my question!
So much for freedom of speech. interesting how nobody questions anything these days. goodbye.
Aussie@Oz – You really seem to have trouble understanding very basic concepts.
You’ve been given freedom of speech on this site. No-one has edited your comment, or moderated your comment, or in any way stopped you from making yourself look stupid. This is the fundamental tenet of freedom of speech. In a bizarre coincidence, everyone else using the site has the same freedom of speech and are allowed to question your assumptions.
Just as your definition of “FACT” is wrong. A fact is something that is true. You can tell the tragic story of Beethoven’s parents and his birth, but if you try and tell people that under those same circumstances in this day and age that they had just aborted Beethoven, a man who has been dead for almost 200 years, you make yourself look foolish.
You could say that they had just aborted a baby that in a freakish coincidence also shared all the inherited familial problems of Beethoven, and that would be an acceptable position, but that doesn’t change that they haven’t aborted Beethoven in this day and age because the guy is already dead and has been for bloody ages.
No Dave, you’re wrong, freedom of speech is when Aussie@Oz is never challenged on anything ever, because he is always right, and questioning that is an attack on fundamental human rights.
spose you guys are just all too smart for me hey. and no im not steve whatever his name is.