You can view our question list for all candidates here.
—–
#2 candidate on the Victorian ticket for the Liberal Democratic Party, Graeme Klass, responded :
What are your thoughts on asylum seekers?
Australia has a responsibility to assist people who are fleeing political persecution, for two reasons: 1) for compassionate and humanitarian reasons and 2) to demonstrate to the world the attraction of a free, democratic nation.
The best way to describe the Liberal Democrats process for handling asylum seekers is to quote their policy from their website:
“It is necessary to do preliminary health and security checks on all people coming to Australia. Unfortunately, it is not possible to do these checks on unauthorized arrivals before they come to Australia. It is therefore necessary to detain unauthorized arrivals temporarily until basic health and security checks can be completed.
Following these checks the unauthorized arrival can then apply for PR either by paying the immigration fee, applying for an “immigration scholarship” or “immigration loan” or by applying for humanitarian consideration. The process of determining genuine refugee status will be limited to a tribunal of first instance and a single court of appeal. Both will be open to the public.
While awaiting a decision on humanitarian grounds, unauthorized arrivals can apply for temporary release, with bail conditions. Any individual or organization can offer to post a bail equal to the immigration fee. If the unauthorized arrival is denied entry on humanitarian grounds and they refuse to leave the country, then the bail money will be used to pay the immigration fee.”
What are your thoughts on public transport?
Mass transport can provide a useful and beneficial function in society provided that is not subsidized by the taxpayer. Public transport should be allowed to compete for customers as any other normal business would.
What are your thoughts on renewable energy?
Renewable energy is a good thing, provided that it can stand on its own feet, without government subsidization or special legislation to make it “competitive.” I believe that individuals should be free to choose to purchase their energy from renewable sources as they see fit at a price set by the free market.
Do you support or oppose the introduction of the R18+ rating
classification for video games?
I support the introduction of R18+ classification for video games. The government (or any bureaucratic agency) should not dictate what consenting adults can and can’t watch, play or interact with.
Do you support or oppose the proposed internet filter?
Strongly oppose. The internet is the modern world’s most amazing system for spreading knowledge, culture, information at extremely low cost. A government (of whatever flavour) having a secret blacklist will slowly and by stealth impinge on the freedom of individuals to access information deemed “politically” sensitive.
In regards to the protection of children, it is up to parents to control the use of technology and internet use, as they see fit.
In regards to child pornography, it is obvious that this is a despicable crime. I would support more resources to the Australian Federal Police to track down the producers of child pornography and have the full weight of the law thrown at them.
Do you support or oppose gay marriage?
I believe that the role of government should have no say in how we define, control or sanction marriage. Marriage should be a decision between consenting adults, no matter their sexual orientation. Again from the LDP website:
“The LDP does not endorse or reject marriage – it simply regards it as a personal decision that anyone should be entitled to make free of government interference, irrespective of their sexual orientation or lifestyle choice. Thus the LDP preference is not to seek the granting by governments of equal rights for gay marriages, but the withdrawal of government so that it remains a private domain.
The LDP would amend relevant legislation so that marriage between two individuals had the same consequences irrespective of whether they were of the same or different gender.”
What are your thoughts on abortion?
I am against abortion as I think that every life should be protected. This is my personal view, but would not attempt to introduce legislation to limit the rights of women in the early stages to seek an abortion.
Do you support or oppose the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia?
I support it. A person owns their life. If they wish to end it and has consented to it (ie. without force, violence or coercion), then so be it. I do personally believe in value of human life, and if a friend, colleague or family member that wanted to go down this path, I would try my hardest, through reason and compassion (not through force), to convince them otherwise.
What are your thoughts on stem cells research?
I support private research institutions and companies undertaking stem cell research. I do not support public funding institutions undertaking stem cell research due to the fact that some tax payers do not support stem cell research and thus cannot voluntarily withdraw their funds from these institutions.
What are your thoughts on education?
Education is important to a well functioning society and economy. The question is: how can we achieve the best educational system in our society? I believe that we need to have market forces participating in education. This means greater competition, greater parental choice, flexibility of schools to adapt to local conditions and direct school vouchers that are redeemable at any accredited educational institution. The delivery of education is the responsibility of the states.
What are your thoughts on campaign finance disclosure?
Running for public office requires voters to know large financial backing from individuals and businesses.
What are your thoughts on climate change?
Being an engineer, I have looked at the evidence and am not convinced at the doomsday scenarios. I believe that man can influence the climate but its effects are largely insignificant.
However, I respect the opposing views that people have on this subject. What I do not respect is the top-down, government backed solutions to climate change that is being foisted upon us. When governments get involved in solutions, trouble always looms. It is far better for people who are concerned about their impact on the climate change to change their own behaviour themselves, rather than forcing legislation to change it for us.
What are your thoughts on water?
Water is obviously crucial to a country like Australia. Governments have completely mismanaged water resources and allocation by supplying water at a lower than market rates. This has led to shortages across many capital cities. My view is that water sources and water management be removed from government hands and put into the hands of the private sector. By letting the price of water rise, this sends a signal to companies to invest in new water sources, and tells consumers to cut back their water usage. Over time, we will see water shortages become a rate event.
Do you support or oppose standing order 50?
I oppose the reading of any prayer in parliament, as I believe in the separation of church and state. Religious faith should be a private matter for the individual.
Are there any local issues you are trying to highlight with your campaign?
Not particularly, although I believe having a low taxing, low spending federal government will in the long term help the people of Victoria.
Though group voting tickets have not been submitted yet, do you have an
idea on where your preferences will be going?
The best resource I have found on the net is www.belowtheline.org.au to see where the Liberal Democratic Party preferences are flowing.
It is certainly refreshing to see a party emerge with true libertarian ideology motivating their policies. However, I wonder if in some cases this is taken too far.
Case in point, climate change: Surely it is conceivable that (a) climate change is the case (b) consumers are largely uninformed as to the reality and severity of climate change. If (a) and (b) are true, then markets will necessarily fail to provide a solution, and the government will have to intervene.
The stated position seems to neglect that, if climate change is real, a solution will depend on the behaviour of everyone, rather than just those who are “concerned about it”. It will be too little too late for merely the concerned few to change their habits of consumption.
LDP would be at the top of my ticket if not for this particular position, which seems to suggest that their faith in market forces is a little too unabashed.
It seems to be a common misconception on this site that the LDP supports an almost unfetted laissez faire-style market system. I don’t believe that is the case at all. There is a place for some regulation in our market, but it needs to be limited.
Like any minor party, there only chance is picking up a senate seat, which means they are acting to review legislation, not form it themselves. Given our two major parties are effectively near enough to centrist on many economic issues, I don’t think it could hurt having a vote in the senate that favours more competitive market-based solutions over government intervention, while at the same time being staunch supporters of civil liberties (Judging on their policies, they appear even further to the left on social issues than the Greens, which is great).
As a PhD qualified physicist, I believe an agnostic approach to the climate change issue is the responsible one. I’d done extensive reading on both sides of the debate, and believe there is still a huge uncertainties in the claims of both camps. I think promoting and encouraging sustainable action from the bottom up instead of the top down (via legislation) is the best solution given this uncertainty. Governments have a history of creating more problems than they intend when they seek to solve our problems.
And I’m still astounded of the opposition to nuclear power given the anti-fossil fuel sentiment prevalent amongst the ranks of the Climate Change proponents.
Weren’t you the one that said regulation won’t solve anything?
They’re not centrist.
“left on social issues” makes no sense. The left-right scale is an economic one. See above link.
The anti-nuclear sentiment may have something to do with the fact that it replaces one non-renewable pollution source with another non-renewable solution source. Then there’s also the fact that, for Australia, lead times on reactors would be far greater than other non-polluting, actual renewable energy sources – between the novel project for Australian industry and the regulatory framework that would need to be established.
Hi George,
Thanks for your comment.
“Surely it is conceivable that (a) climate change is the case (b) consumers are largely uninformed as to the reality and severity of climate change. If (a) and (b) are true, then markets will necessarily fail to provide a solution, and the government will have to intervene.”
In regards to (b) I have not met a single person who has not heard about climate change. There are many environmental groups, scientists, media that promote the dangers of climate change. Now the question is: who decides what is reality? who decides what the severity is? who decides the optimum temperature of the globe? If you take it to the logical conclusion it will be a small group of bureaucrats/politicians deciding this for the population. I believe it is far better for the for the free exchange of ideas regarding pros and cons of climate change action and severity, but ultimately people need to be free to take action if they see fit.
In regards to (a), climate change may be happening but to what extent is man responsible for it? What is the effect on temperatures? There is a very wide opinion of this. I fully support the open and frank debate on whether anthropogenic climate change is occurring, I just don’t want the government to be involved in the solution – it’s recipe for gross mismanagement and waster.
But for argument sake let’s say that it is real and requires action. How would a bottom up approach work? For example, there can be open, competitive carbon trading markets around the world. Companies wanting good PR can purchase those credits for marketing purposes. Individuals can freely purchase them as well. People and businesses would adapt to the new climate – we have done this from the dawn of man – I have great faith in the capacity of humans to adapt and change. There would be investment in new technology for greater agricultural production. In fact, I don’t know what the end “solution” would be – that’s the great thing about the market – it’s unpredictable and surprising. The market is much more adaptable to change that government is.
Anyway, thanks for your comments. While the LDP may not be #1 on your ticket, I hope we will be in the top #2 at least
Kind regards,
Graeme.
Hi sdh and Chris,
Regarding the whole left/right thing, I have seen so many definitions for what is left, what is right. Using the chart that Chris link to the LDP would be in the bottom right quadrant. I also think the ideology of Libertarianism can be applied to economics and social issues – as it is based on the concept of individual freedom. Perhaps a simple explanation for the LDP is that we support social and economic freedom.
Chris, regarding non-renewable and renewable energy policy:
“anti-nuclear sentiment may have something to do with the fact that it replaces one non-renewable pollution source with another non-renewable solution source”
in a market economy actually dictates that a resource doesn’t run out. I know that is counter intuitive, but if a particular energy resource is starting to run out, it’s price increases. This price signal tells the market that a) we need to use less of it (or use it more efficiently) and b) spurs investment in other forms energy (including renewable).
It is far better for the market to determine these actions, rather than by government decree.
Regarding nuclear power, I am for it, provided it stands up on it’s own, without government subsidies, in a free market and an open competitive landscape. Nuclear reactors are in operation all around the world.
Thanks for adding to the debate.
regards,
Graeme.
You’re right. It’s highly unlikely any resource will ever entirely run out. But that’s not the issue, it’s whether it is viable. $400/L petrol might still be petrol, and might not have run out, but it’s not a practical fuel source. For all intents and purposes it runs out. Regardless, that does not address the pollution issue.
The oil industry’s historic suppression of renewables research also puts a damper on the whole ‘market spurs research’ thing.
Thanks, sdh.
I agree with almost everything you wrote, particularly on the value of having a party like LDP in the senate.
However, climate change is an issue that could be significantly influenced by a party reviewing legislation, rather than forming it themselves, and I cannot see how you can conclude that agnosticism is a sensible approach.
It seems trivially true that the “bottom up” method relies, not on whether or not climate change is the case, but on whether consumers believe it to be the case.
While I’m all for promoting sustainable action, I fear that by the time climate change is apparent enough to sufficiently convince consumers of its reality, it will be too late for market changes to fix the problem.
Governments intervention has indeed created problems in the past, just as markets have often failed to act in the interests of consumers. I think that climate change is already an example of the latter situation, and that careful and sensible legislation is now the correct approach.
Completely agree with you on nuclear power, for what it’s worth.
Graeme, thanks for taking the time to respond! It is genuinely appreciated.
> Now the question is: who decides what is reality?
I guess that is the grand question when it comes to climate change. If it isn’t up to consumers to decide, then who is it up to?
It might not be a very popular opinion, but I believe that if ever there was an exemplar of a failing of democracy, climate change would be it.
Simply put, what makes this issue so difficult is that anthropogenic climate change is either True or False. It is entirely possible that we might get it wrong, and getting it wrong would be disastrous for everyone. The “bottom up” method would amount to leaving it to the general public to decide for themselves, when the very nature of the issue is something that only experts are qualified to weigh in on.
I have to admit, I have no idea about how exactly we could go about building a meritocratic assembly of “experts”.
> Anyway, thanks for your comments. While the LDP may not be #1 on your ticket, I hope we will be in the top #2 at least
Indeed, and a very close #2 at that. Thanks again for responding.
George, I’m not a climate change sceptic, nor do I believe that climate change will necessarily be solved by market forces. However I do believe that any climate change policy should be required to pass a cost-benefit analysis to ensure that the preventative measure is actually going to increase living standards. I don’t believe current proposals do so.
I also believe that mitigation is pretty futile at this point. The type of deep cuts in carbon emissions that are required to the prevent negative consequences of climate change aren’t possible without severely compromising the living standards of people globally. I think that we’re better off to look at adaptation rather than mitigation, largely because adaptation will better allow us to deal with problems in a localised manner, much as we already do with natural disasters.
If climate change were not man-made we wouldn’t be talking about mitigation, the focus would be on adaptation. Because the cost of REAL mitigation is potentially so high I think that man-made climate change should probably be dealt with through adaptive means anyway. Or at the least mitigation should pass a cost-benefit analysis taking both the science and economics into account.
Julia Gillard criticised the role of economists in the climate change debate, saying “Addressing climate change isn’t about accountants’ calculations or economists’ curves. It’s about people, their job security and their children’s future.”
I think this is entirely wrong. Climate change is about trade-offs, it’s about trading standard of living now to try and prevent a reduction in the standard of living later. That is entirely a job for economists- to assess what level of reduction now justifies future savings. Saying otherwise elevates climate change to moral panic, where leaving rational discussion at the door seems accepted.
That’s one reason I’m more supportive of the Greens Carbon Tax than an ETS. At least the Greens policy uses free market mechanisms. I’m still sceptical of the role of preventative action on climate change, though. I think that it’s paying too high a premium for too low a benefit.
Oh and as for the left-right debate. I accept that some commentators limit left-right to purely economic descriptors (which would make the LDP “far right”), but I also see those terms used on social issues. Tony Abbott isn’t seen as right-wing because of his economic policies (which include a lot of middle-class welfare) but because of his views on abortion, gay marriage, the role of women, etc. On social policy, most of the time the Liberal Democrats take a more “left-wing” line. Left/right are confusing terms in reference to a party like the LDP largely because social conservativism has for so long been wrapped up with crony capitalism in parties like the Liberal Party and US Republicans. We support liberalism in the classical sense- both socially and economically. Neither the term left, nor the term right do us justice.
I wonder, what would a cost-benefit analysis of adaptation say?
The people who use those terms on social issues are wrong. Or generalising, because the libertarian/socialist, conservative/neo-libertarian split is most common. But it’s still wrong. The LDP is right wing. Libertarian and neo-libertarian, both.
Regardless, the start of the left/right thing was sdh saying the LDP were centrist on economic matters, which I think we can agree is not the case.