You can view our question list for all candidates here.
—–
Democrats Candidate for Hindmarsh, Greg Croke, responded :
What are your thoughts on asylum seekers?
Some people are under the impression that the influx of asylum seekers in recent times amounts to an invasion. The reality however, is that this is a myth – we are not being invaded. There are considerably more people who fly in and then seek asylum than people who come by boat, and more still who are here illegally, having overstayed (possibly deliberately) their visas. Perhaps we are simply afraid of people who come here in boats because, in effect, we (i.e. our forebears) came here in boats, and that reminder troubles something deep in the Australian psyche!
Nobody likes people smugglers (who simultaneously fleece desperate people and put those people’s lives at risk), but surely the solution to them isn’t to make life hell for their customers. Surely the answer is to make available a way for asylum seekers to make their claims before the smugglers get to them. Maybe Australian embassies in places like Jakarta could play a role. If asylum seekers in Indonesia are desperate to get to Australia, then they’re not going to abscond if they know their claims are being processed by the Australian embassy.
What are your thoughts on public transport?
Sometimes I think governments only pay lip-service to public transport – providing what are arguably only token gestures. Public transport should be provided in such a way that no one living in a major Australian city, or its suburbs, would need to feel that car ownership is a necessity. It can be a necessity for some people, because of their individual circumstances (such as their occupation), but for everyone else it should only be an option. No one in our cities should feel that without a car they can’t get around, as some currently do.
What are your thoughts on renewable energy?
We in Australia should be leading the world in the use of, and research into, solar energy. Arguably the same goes for wave energy. Perhaps wind-turbines could be located away from populated areas, but they would still have their place in energy provision. We should begin phasing out non-renewable energy and debunk the myth that renewable energy can’t provide base-load power – that problem is solvable if we get to work on it.
What are your thoughts on stem cell research?
Arguably this issue is tied to that of abortion. My only problem with embryonic stem cell use is also my problem with abortion – I believe life starts at conception. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, I have no problem with whatsoever, and I would strongly argue that we should head in that direction.
What are your thoughts on education?
The purpose of education is two-fold. To produce people who have one or more employable skills is one plank, but to produce people who have both a well-developed faculty of critical analysis (and thus can reason) and an adequate understanding of our, and other, cultures and their bases (involving an adequate understanding of history, literature, the arts and the sciences) is likewise essential. An education system that doesn’t adequately address BOTH of these needs is a system that simply isn’t good enough.
What are your thoughts on campaign finance disclosure?
All for it.
What are your thoughts on climate change?
There is more than enough evidence that climate change is real and that human activity contributes to it. That contribution is almost entirely due to industrialisation, given that the amount of CO2 equivalent in the atmosphere was basically static, and at a level well within a safe range prior to the Industrial Revolution, since when it has grown to well beyond what is safe.
We need to seriously begin reducing our carbon footprint, and I would rather see that begin gradually than not at all. A system where we set a cap on the acceptable level of emissions, trade permits within that cap, and only tax emissions above it, as well as gradually lower the cap until we have reduced our emissions to at least where they need to be reduced to is what is required – and no exemptions to big polluters on economic or other grounds. My comments about renewable energy are also salient here.
What are your thoughts on water?
We need thousands of gigalitres of water poured into the Murray-Darling system (and not used by irrigators) NOW. Buy it if we have to. Refill the Lower Lakes and the Coorong. Rainwater tanks should be mandatory, and their purchase tax-deductable. No desalination plants until either they don’t produce saline waste water or that waste is not dumped into the sea or any of our gulfs or harbours.
Do you support or oppose standing order 50?
I have just two problems with the prayer. Firstly, as a Christian, I wonder whether there is any point in non-Christians pretending to pray – I believe the only prayer God would receive from a non-Christian would be the prayer to become a Christian (what we in evangelical circles call “the sinner’s prayer”). Secondly, if it were me, I’d pray the prayer without the King James English – I’d be saying “you” instead of “thou”, your instead of “thy”, and “would” instead of “wouldst”.
What do you think about the media’s coverage of the election so far?
Not nearly adequate coverage of policies or of minor parties.
Some conspicuously absent questions there, Greg.
So you’re all for the State endorsing one religion over all others, even if you would use a slightly different prayer.
Lame.
David,
I am not suggesting that the state should endorse one religion over all others – that would be a clear violation of the Australian Constitution. My comments on Standing Order 50 relate to if the current practice is retained. The only thing I’m all for is Christian MPs praying the prayer – without the King James English. My main point here is that I believe non-Christian MPs praying the prayer is pointless.
Greg, you’re missing the point.
Having any prayer said before the start of every session of parliament is the issue, as both standing order 50 (senate) and standing order 38 (house) are currently in practise, not whether non-Christian MPs are reciting it or not.
I’ll make it easy for you – If there was a motion tabled to remove the standing order that requires a prayer be recited before every session of parliament, would you support that motion or not?
Beginning to think that some of the questions should have been multiple choice.
Might not have helped though.
I’m not missing the point. These questions are about my thoughts on these subjects and I have given them. I have said I had two problems with the prayer, and I have said what they were.
If such a motion were presented I would move two amendments to it, relating to the two problems I have with it. One amendment would be to remove the King James English from the prayer and substitute equivalent modern words. The other would be to allow non-Christian MPs to not have to pray, possibly by allowing them an alternative statement, perhaps to be read out by the Speaker or the Senate President, as part of the Standing Order. If my amendments failed, then I’m not sure how I would vote. If they succeeded, however, the amended motion would get my vote.
I am a Christian – of the Pentecostal variety. End of story.
See Greg, you do support the prayer before parliament, and thus, the tacit endorsement of the State of one religion above all others.
That’s all you had to say.
If any of you Christians supported putting the prayer on a roster so that every major religion were acknowledged in the same way, you’d look a lot less like massive hypocrites.
For the last time, having the prayer is not the State endorsing anything. You are comparing apples and oranges. I would not have a problem with there being no prayer. I just do not have a problem with there being a prayer, other than the two I have listed. If the existance of a prayer were a case of the State endorsing one religion over another there would have been a High Court challenge to it decades ago on the grounds that it would be a violation of Section 116 of the Australian Constitution. There has not, therefore it is not what you claim it to be.
I said I am open to alternative statements, which can easily include those based on other faiths.
How is standing up for my faith hypocrisy?
I’m unsure over whether the High Court has any power when it comes to parliamentary standing orders. Even then, Section 116 specifies that no laws be passed requiring religious observance. The standing orders are not laws as such, and therefore are not explicitly in violation of s116. Only in spirit, as it does require that whoever hold the office of Speaker/President speak a Christian prayer.
If the government were to require every school teacher to say the Lord’s Prayer at the start of the school day, would that not be the state endorsing Christianity? How is that any different in spirit than requiring one person to recite the prayer, regardless of their personal belief?
Also, just because something has not been tested in the High Court does not automatically mean it’s okay. It’s not the best example, but just because someone hasn’t been to court doesn’t automatically mean they aren’t a killer. It just means they haven’t been to court yet.
“I said I am open to alternative statements, which can easily include those based on other faiths”
So you are going on record as supporting the Fajr being spoken each day at the opening of parliament? And Hindu mantras? The Jaap Sahib (or part thereof)?
Greg,
Im more concerned with your comments regarding abortion. Can you please be clear about your party’s position and your own views on abortion, and the perscription of RU486.
Ari,
The Democrats’ position on abortion (http://www.democrats.org.au/policies/Action2010/Sexual_Repro_Health_AP.pdf) is pro-choice. My position is as follows:
What are your thoughts on abortion?
A person’s position on abortion will ultimately be determined by their view on the question of when a human life (as a distinct entity) starts – at conception, at birth, or at some other point. If you believe that it begins at birth, or at any point later than conception, then you won’t have a problem with abortion. If, on the other hand, you believe that it happens at conception, then that requires a belief that abortion is wrong. In my opinion it begins at conception, on the grounds that, while some would argue that conception-to-birth and birth-to-death are two separate processes, I believe they are the one journey – once conception happens, it starts a process that only ends with a death (hopefully several happy and prosperous decades afterwards).
Of course women have the right to control their own bodies, but to me that is the right to control when (or even if) they become pregnant – a right not all women are allowed. They should be able to only become pregnant when they want to. If that is not yet possible then we have work to do.
Why, pray tell, was that answer not included in the first place?
That would have been too easy.
Democrats’ policies are like a Dan Brown novel – short, incoherent, misunderstood, and with a twist at the end that most don’t see coming.
Dan Brown novels are utterly predicta…. ohhhhh, right.
It’s beginning to look like if I wasn’t a Christian there would have been no comments at all.
That’s because most atheists do not want prayer anywhere near their parliament.
I’m happy for everyone to have religion if they want it, but having the government openly endorse one particular religion is abhorrent and outdated.
That’s kind of like saying “if I didn’t avoid answering questions, people wouldn’t have asked me about those unanswered questions”. But with more of a persecution complex.
I have to admit, the Democrats have run the gamut this election.
They’ve endorsed a child sex offender, they’ve called people they didn’t know cheats and liars, they’ve told me to fuck off.
Is there a trophy or something we can give them?
We could nominate them for The Mal.
As a pretty bad attempt at being a follower of Jesus myself;
Personally I think if you actually believe in God, then why wouldn’t you talk to him(pray) and ask for some favours in running the country?
Whether that’s compulsory or not and part of the ceremony type deal is another issue. I’m sick of politicians trying to get “the christian vote” by going to a church and mentioning their prays go out to the troops when really they don’t give a crap.
I’d have to agree with Greg about the reading from the KJV, since there’s not point to using y’oldy language anymore. I abhore ceremonial prayers that you’re meant to repeat over and over with little meaning (with the exception of “may the Lord be with you”, “-and also with you” coz thats just starwars kinds of awesome)
At the church I attend, everyone mentions praying in parliament like “isn’t it wonderful” when really I see it as “Wow! this is what we (golly) have become, some weird obscure minority group who doesn’t know what the internet is or why we can’t get along with gay people when we’re in their face telling them what to do”
I think what I believe is correct, but I try and respect others rights to believe what they want, so that they may do the same for me.
@Greg Croke
You’re making me unhappy to be a Democrats voter right now…
You didn’t answer about the content filter or the R18+ games rating. You didn’t answer about gay marriage. You’re not pushing for the absolute removal of religion in Parliament. You’re saying that your personal opinion on abortion is not pro-choice and you’re not making clear if you’d vote along the Democrats party policy stance or along your own personal stance.
If you are what the Democrats stand for, then sadly it would seem the Democrats are no longer what I stand for.
I’d really appreciate some clear answers. I’d like to know that my 4 straight hours handing out Democrats senate flyers in my electorate wasn’t the wrong choice (and i’d have stayed longer too, had I not run out of flyers).