Advertisement

Susan MacDougall, Voluntary Euthanasia Party for the Senate, Candidate Questionnaire, Election ’13

By 21 August 2013 15

Susan

Voluntary Euthanasia Party’s Susan MacDougall is up next.

Candidates, the readers of RiotACT are your voters and they have questions for you! If you’d like to answer those questions and prove you care what your voters think then email us at contact@the-riotact.com.

You can find the questions here.


1. What are your views on euthanasia?

I believe that the terminally ill suffering unrelievable pain should have voluntary euthanasia as one of their end-of-life choices. No-one should have to die slowly and painfully. Palliative care is great but there are some people whose pain they can’t control. I have a strong commitment to pushing for Federal legislative change so that the Territories can pass legislation for VE/medically assisted dying. Overseas models already exist of VE legislation with safeguards in place.


2. Do you support a High Speed Rail Link between Sydney/Canberra/Melbourne?

Yes. In particular, the Canberra/Sydney plane trip involves long waits in airports, airport check-in, baggage limits, security, inability to carry scissors, nailclippers, etc., and around 45 minutes in flight. Expensive and time-wasting.


3. Are you comfortable with the distribution of wealth in modern day Australia?

No. The gap between rich and poor has widened. People in management pay themselves obscene amounts, while the people who do the real work are often underpaid.


4. Recent polling (Auspoll) shows housing affordability to be a critical issue for a majority of Australians, with 84% of respondents saying it was important to them or their families, putting housing affordability ahead of issues such as education, border security, the NBN and NDIS.

The same poll also revealed that 84% of respondents also believe that Australia is not performing well on housing affordability.

Australian Governments are failing badly on this issue of critical importance to Australians.
What would you do to improve housing affordability?

The Voluntary Euthanasia Party is a single-issue party. I have no personal policy on this, but I agree that it is an important issue.


5. To me the NBN seems like a great idea, can you tell me why you think it’s ace/a dumb idea.

It’s a great idea. People in rural areas should have broadband connectivity and not be disadvantaged. The proposal for nodal connections would be cheaper but may be inadequate in the future. Cost is an issue here.


6. Do you think cyclists should be registered?!

I don’t see any need for it.


7. What is your position on gay marriage?

No-one should be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. So yes, in favour.


8. Would you be willing to cross the floor on matters of strong personal conscience or of significant concern for your electorate?

Yes


9. What are your views on the NSA collecting private information of Australian citizens and corporations, of the Australian government’s participation in similar programmes, and of the apparent silence of Australian politicians on the matter?

While I understand the need to protect countries from terrorism and other criminal activities, the extent of private information gathering seems excessive and goes against people’s right to personal privacy. Australian politicians presumably remain silent because of government participation and collaboration with other countries.


10. We hear so much negativity about the opposition when election time rolls around– what three things do you consider to be positive about any of your opponents and why?

The Labour Government’s achievements under difficult circumstances haven’t been acknowledged. A raft of good legislation has been passed.

The Greens have good policies on education, health and a more humane asylum policy.

Please login to post your comments
15 Responses to Susan MacDougall, Voluntary Euthanasia Party for the Senate, Candidate Questionnaire, Election ’13
#1
joingler10:23 am, 21 Aug 13

Good answer on Question #10 regarding Labor

#2
wildturkeycanoe12:16 pm, 21 Aug 13

On #3, I throw this out to the other respondents to this question as well, If we were to bridge this gap by – I don’t know, let’s give all the lower income earners a 200% pay rise – why would anyone want to go to University and further their education? The reason executive jobs have a larger salary is because the people doing those jobs have either (a) been through years of university and studied hard to gain their qualified job, (b) taken some serious risks with their money/house/family in order to achieve some financial gains or (c) were born into it and are darned lucky.
I’m all for making living costs easier for the struggling, but if you go too far then we won’t have anyone willing to put in the extra yards to become our future heart surgeons, engineers, lawyers [yeah, I know they don't really deserve all their dollars, but they do a lot of study to get there], architects, directors of companies, entrepreneurs and even politicians. Why go through so much heartache and earn the same as a street sweeper? If that training were affordable for anyone who had the intelligence, aspirations or desire to get to these money earning positions, the country would have enough doctors to treat our sick. I myself could have been an architect, but from a poorer family I couldn’t pursue that career. I feel sad that the ladder to success depends on the wealth of your parents instead of the wealth of your knowledge.

#3
johnboy12:17 pm, 21 Aug 13

The issue isn’t a doctor making $200,000 a year.

It’s Gina Rinehart making $200,000 every nine minutes:

http://www.howrichareyou.com.au/

#4
YeahBuddy1:38 pm, 21 Aug 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

On #3, I throw this out to the other respondents to this question as well, If we were to bridge this gap by – I don’t know, let’s give all the lower income earners a 200% pay rise – why would anyone want to go to University and further their education? The reason executive jobs have a larger salary is because the people doing those jobs have either (a) been through years of university and studied hard to gain their qualified job, (b) taken some serious risks with their money/house/family in order to achieve some financial gains or (c) were born into it and are darned lucky.
I’m all for making living costs easier for the struggling, but if you go too far then we won’t have anyone willing to put in the extra yards to become our future heart surgeons, engineers, lawyers [yeah, I know they don't really deserve all their dollars, but they do a lot of study to get there], architects, directors of companies, entrepreneurs and even politicians. Why go through so much heartache and earn the same as a street sweeper? If that training were affordable for anyone who had the intelligence, aspirations or desire to get to these money earning positions, the country would have enough doctors to treat our sick. I myself could have been an architect, but from a poorer family I couldn’t pursue that career. I feel sad that the ladder to success depends on the wealth of your parents instead of the wealth of your knowledge.

Too poor to stop being poor? Rubbish. Heard or HECS or HELP or whatever form it comes in these days? Don’t like that option, I know of many people who have worked part time while at uni and paid their fees off up front (not stripping either, pathetic excuse).

Stop blaming your parents and be responsible.

#5
neanderthalsis1:54 pm, 21 Aug 13

johnboy said :

The issue isn’t a doctor making $200,000 a year.

It’s Gina Rinehart making $200,000 every nine minutes:

http://www.howrichareyou.com.au/

But if people like Gina, Clive and Twiggy weren’t out there stumping up their own dosh, digging holes and selling rocks to China, we as a nation would be one hell of a lot poorer than we are now.

Yes Gina got lucky because daddy had cash by the bucket load, she may be madder than Bob Katter at a gay greenie tofu festival, she may have a family that makes the good folk off Dallas look like Family Ties, but she puts her cash on the line and gives people jobs.

We seem to support entrepreneurialism up to the point where people become successful and start making serious money. At that point, in the eyes of the broader Australian public, you stop being successful and start being an Industrial Overlord, living off the blood and sweat of the oppressed working class.

#6
Jim Jones1:56 pm, 21 Aug 13

YeahBuddy said :

Bootstraps

Yep, poor people are all lazy.

Well done.

#7
Freewheeling2:01 pm, 21 Aug 13

johnboy said :

The issue isn’t a doctor making $200,000 a year.

It’s Gina Rinehart making $200,000 every nine minutes:

http://www.howrichareyou.com.au/

well put

#8
p12:04 pm, 21 Aug 13

neanderthalsis said :

johnboy said :

The issue isn’t a doctor making $200,000 a year.

It’s Gina Rinehart making $200,000 every nine minutes:

http://www.howrichareyou.com.au/

But if people like Gina, Clive and Twiggy weren’t out there stumping up their own dosh, digging holes and selling rocks to China, we as a nation would be one hell of a lot poorer than we are now.

Yes Gina got lucky because daddy had cash by the bucket load, she may be madder than Bob Katter at a gay greenie tofu festival, she may have a family that makes the good folk off Dallas look like Family Ties, but she puts her cash on the line and gives people jobs.

We seem to support entrepreneurialism up to the point where people become successful and start making serious money. At that point, in the eyes of the broader Australian public, you stop being successful and start being an Industrial Overlord, living off the blood and sweat of the oppressed working class.

If you don’t like the example of Gina, what about the CEOs of banks on $10 million? There are many arguments for why some people get paid more then others (size or organisation, importance of organisation, level of responsibility, etc, etc), but it is very hard to make the argument as to why the difference needs to be so big (especially when compared to the wages of top brain surgeons or military leaders).

#9
johnboy2:07 pm, 21 Aug 13

And since the invention of stock exchanges and corporations we don’t need hegemonic plutocrats to pool the capital for major projects.

(Stock exchanges and corporations bring their own ills admittedly but we seem to be stuck with them)

#10
neanderthalsis4:10 pm, 21 Aug 13

p1 said :

neanderthalsis said :

johnboy said :

The issue isn’t a doctor making $200,000 a year.

It’s Gina Rinehart making $200,000 every nine minutes:

http://www.howrichareyou.com.au/

But if people like Gina, Clive and Twiggy weren’t out there stumping up their own dosh, digging holes and selling rocks to China, we as a nation would be one hell of a lot poorer than we are now.

Yes Gina got lucky because daddy had cash by the bucket load, she may be madder than Bob Katter at a gay greenie tofu festival, she may have a family that makes the good folk off Dallas look like Family Ties, but she puts her cash on the line and gives people jobs.

We seem to support entrepreneurialism up to the point where people become successful and start making serious money. At that point, in the eyes of the broader Australian public, you stop being successful and start being an Industrial Overlord, living off the blood and sweat of the oppressed working class.

If you don’t like the example of Gina, what about the CEOs of banks on $10 million? There are many arguments for why some people get paid more then others (size or organisation, importance of organisation, level of responsibility, etc, etc), but it is very hard to make the argument as to why the difference needs to be so big (especially when compared to the wages of top brain surgeons or military leaders).

But is it the role of government to determine remuneration levels?

I dislike top executives earning huge salaries with stock options, and when it goes pear shaped, they walk with a nice golden handshake. I also believe that their should be increased accountability to shareholders and transparency with shareholders. But ultimately it is the individual organization, through the Board and or the shareholders that should determine pay structures, not our elected representatives.

It is not a role of government to tell me how much I can earn.

#11
neanderthalsis4:12 pm, 21 Aug 13

neanderthalsis said :

p1 said :

neanderthalsis said :

johnboy said :

The issue isn’t a doctor making $200,000 a year.

It’s Gina Rinehart making $200,000 every nine minutes:

http://www.howrichareyou.com.au/

But if people like Gina, Clive and Twiggy weren’t out there stumping up their own dosh, digging holes and selling rocks to China, we as a nation would be one hell of a lot poorer than we are now.

Yes Gina got lucky because daddy had cash by the bucket load, she may be madder than Bob Katter at a gay greenie tofu festival, she may have a family that makes the good folk off Dallas look like Family Ties, but she puts her cash on the line and gives people jobs.

We seem to support entrepreneurialism up to the point where people become successful and start making serious money. At that point, in the eyes of the broader Australian public, you stop being successful and start being an Industrial Overlord, living off the blood and sweat of the oppressed working class.

If you don’t like the example of Gina, what about the CEOs of banks on $10 million? There are many arguments for why some people get paid more then others (size or organisation, importance of organisation, level of responsibility, etc, etc), but it is very hard to make the argument as to why the difference needs to be so big (especially when compared to the wages of top brain surgeons or military leaders).

But is it the role of government to determine remuneration levels?

I dislike top executives earning huge salaries with stock options, and when it goes pear shaped, they walk with a nice golden handshake. I also believe that their should be increased accountability to shareholders and transparency with shareholders. But ultimately it is the individual organization, through the Board and or the shareholders that should determine pay structures, not our elected representatives.

It is not a role of government to tell me how much I can earn.

…. that there should be increased accountability…

#12
Willoring10:38 pm, 21 Aug 13

Hi, Susan.
Are you the Voluntary Euthanasia party’s candidate in the ACT? I thought Philip Nitschke was standing here.
I had thought I would vote for him in the upper house, as I, like many, despair of the lack of policy debate from the two main parties. I will not vote Greens, I don’t want a tram etc. However, having voted for you or Philip at no. 1, I will then exercise my judgement over the rest of the ballot paper.
Because, I have to say, your responses demonstrate why single issue parties will never gain traction. Your answer to 1 is great, 2 shows a lack of economic principles, 3 is fine, but completely unanswerable by any candidate, 4 is part of the fiscal credibility gap of both major parties, 5 is ok, 6 I personally disagree with, 7 Hallelujah but who cares, secondary issue, the Ardbeg is kicking in, who designed these idiot questions that you have to answer anyway?? and I am now bored about the others.
Anyway, euthanasia is a very important issue, one that our squibbling politicians continue to avoid, I will vote for you (or Philip) on that.
Besides, I am not getting any younger!
Cheers
Willoring

#13
Grail8:17 am, 22 Aug 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

The reason executive jobs have a larger salary is because the people doing those jobs have either (a) been through years of university and studied hard to gain their qualified job, (b) taken some serious risks with their money/house/family in order to achieve some financial gains or (c) were born into it and are darned lucky.

You forgot (d): “are giving themselves pay rises because they feel they are entitled to the money.”

wildturkeycanoe said :

but if you go too far then we won’t have anyone willing to put in the extra yards to become our future heart surgeons, engineers, lawyers [yeah, I know they don't really deserve all their dollars, but they do a lot of study to get there], architects, directors of companies, entrepreneurs and even politicians. Why go through so much heartache and earn the same as a street sweeper?

What about pride of workmanship? What about basic altruism? Why should money be the only motivator? What have the people in the Queensland government done to earn their 40% pay rise?

wildturkeycanoe said :

If that training were affordable for anyone who had the intelligence, aspirations or desire to get to these money earning positions, the country would have enough doctors to treat our sick.

The training is affordable for more people than are able to become doctors. The number of doctors is limited by the Government’s handing out of licences to practise in the form of Medicare provider numbers. Then there’s the issue of people who have gone through the study and achieving their qualifications, receiving their provider number, then staying in the city where the clients have more money.

When acquisition of money is the goal, the economically rational player will do their work where their work is most rewarded. Under this model of operation, the doctors heading out to the country will be the ones who aren’t good enough to cut it in the city.

We need street sweepers more than we need Lexus-driving CEOs. The difference in contribution to society does not warrant orders of magnitude differences in salaries.

#14
astrojax8:48 am, 22 Aug 13

euthanasia, but no question on mental health policies – seems the forgotten issue in this election. very sadly…

#15
p110:44 am, 22 Aug 13

neanderthalsis said :

But is it the role of government to determine remuneration levels? ….. It is not a role of government to tell me how much I can earn.

No, I don’t believe it is, and would not be suggesting a salary cap on corporations. I do however think that it is evidence of some fundamental flaws in our implementation of capitalism.

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Get Premium Membership
Advertisement

Images of Canberra

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.