Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Daily flights from Canberra
to Singapore and the world

Election ’10 Candidate Questionaire – Quintin Phillips-Hedges for Fraser

By johnboy 3 August 2010 30

Quintin

Quintin Phillips-Hedges, the Secular Party of Australia’s debut candidate in Fraser is our first candidate to return answers to your questions:

1) whitelaughter asked: Would you support abolishing self-government in the ACT? Please include a “yes” or “no” in your answer.

No… We have a large enough population to be self regulating. Stanhope wanted to bring in Same-Sex Marriage and a Bill of Rights knocked back by the Feds. I support self determination for the ACT.


2) neanderthalsis asked: Do you support the proposed internet mandatory ISP filter and Data Recording Directive that record the browsing history of all internet connections?

No, except to keep an eye on your Mother.


3) 54-11 asked: Comsuper and DFRDB pensions are indexed by the CPI rather than by a wage-based index. The former Government, with the full support of the then Labor Opposition, stopped using the CPI to index the Age Pension more than a decade ago because it was considered an unsuitable and unfair way to adjust pensions. As a politician, your super is indexed to the increase in Parliamentary salaries and allowances, which is far more generous than for anyone else. Do you support, and will you actually do something about, fair and equitable indexation of all pensions?

What do you think? I am due to retire in the foreseeable future.


4) Thumper asked: What do you consider to be the maximum sustainable population for Australia and how do you intend to ensure that that this maximum is not breached whilst continuing to encourage immigrants as well as accepting genuine refugees?

The Secular Party deplores xenophobic attempts to demonise refugees and asylum seekers. We support continuation of an immigration program that is both economically beneficial and environmentally sustainable.

That said we need to spend a lot more money on infrastructure to sustain the population we already have. (PS If we tax the Churches we will have the money.)


5) Primal asked: Why were you deemed the best candidate for your party in the seat you’re contesting?

I was here.


6) Jivrashia asked: If a man says something, and the wife isn’t there to hear him, is he still wrong?

Just checking… dear?


7) colourful sydney racing identity asked: Did you prepare this response to RiotACT questions yourself or was it done by your party office?

I’m being supervised by the cat and a woman with a wooden spoon… dinner smells good.


8 ) p1 asked: Do you think that the Commonwealth Government should be able to overturn laws passed by the ACT?

That is a two sided coin. See question 1. We need more say in the governing process not just voting for tweedle tony or tweedle julia.


9) bd84 asked: What are the top priorities or projects for Canberra that you will be lobbying the new Government for?

Self determination and to reduce pollution via a light rail system.


10) Pommy bastard asked: Witches on Mt Ainslie, should their freedom of expression be protected from interference by fundy nutsacks?

See my video here including a free plug for Fiona.


The Eleventh Question

#33:housebound asked: How will electing you prompt the Commonwealth Government into paying attention to Canberra/Fraser?

The Secular party (my party) will rub a lot of people up the wrong way.

We want to ‘tax Churches’ and remove the Lords Prayer at the start of Parliamentary sessions and remove any mention of God from the constitution.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
30 Responses to
Election ’10 Candidate Questionaire – Quintin Phillips-Hedges for Fraser
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Jim Jones 9:37 am 04 Aug 10

You’re doing a lot of criticising of (clearly cited) figures rather than engaging with the argument.

Modify the figures all you want – they still provide a very clear indication that boat arrivals are a drop in the ocean (look at that, a pun) in the context of Australia’s overall immigration intake.

Jim Jones 9:34 am 04 Aug 10

justin heywood said :

Jim Jones said :

in 2009 there were under 2,000 boat arrivals and about 160,000 other incoming migrants?

Do not misrepresent what I said Jim. I have never said anything about being ‘swamped by boat arrivals’. (in fact that is not my view at all).
But the ‘boat people’ issue is a complex one. I am skeptical of all those from either side who imply that it is a black and white issue, or who misrepresent the facts to support their argument.

And actually Jim, if you watched 4 Corners on Monday you would have seen that we already have 4,000 boat arrivals for 2010, well on track for 5-6,000 by the end of the year.

But using some old figure of ‘under 2,000’ sounds a lot better doesn’t it.

I was very clear in citing 2009 figures. If you want to use 5,000, that’s fine. The figure remains miniscule compared to other forms of migration (and visa overstayers, a proportion of whom end up being ‘illegal immigrants’).

The issue is not black and white. That’s not my point. With respect, I couldn’t get two sh1ts whether you said we were being swamped by boat people or not. I was clearly addressing the myth that boatpeople are a major immigration problem for Australia and a threat to ‘sustainable population’. They’re not.

justin heywood 9:21 am 04 Aug 10

Jim Jones said :

in 2009 there were under 2,000 boat arrivals and about 160,000 other incoming migrants?

Do not misrepresent what I said Jim. I have never said anything about being ‘swamped by boat arrivals’. (in fact that is not my view at all).
But the ‘boat people’ issue is a complex one. I am skeptical of all those from either side who imply that it is a black and white issue, or who misrepresent the facts to support their argument.

And actually Jim, if you watched 4 Corners on Monday you would have seen that we already have 4,000 boat arrivals for 2010, well on track for 5-6,000 by the end of the year.

But using some old figure of ‘under 2,000’ sounds a lot better doesn’t it.

Jim Jones 8:31 am 04 Aug 10

justin heywood said :

Jim Jones said :

…. it’s remarkably easy to find. You could even have a look at a 2009 press release

Thanks for the tip Jim. I DID have a look at that press release. And here’s what I found:

“Senator Evans was speaking at a Senate hearing in Canberra yesterday where figures were released that showed a total of 48,456 people had overstayed their visa in the first 6 months of 2009 … often young Englishmen who come on a valid visa who then become unlawful overstayers”

All well and good and supportive of your argument. But, inexplicably Jim, you left out what he said next:

“they usually went home within a week of the visa expiring.”

Not so supportive of your argument, I think you’ll agree.

‘Usually’ – how many is that? Even if ‘most’ of them go home, even 1% of that total not going home within a week of their visa expiring and staying permanently (an exceedingly conservative figure by anyone’s reckoning) will mean that there are 400% more white ‘illegal immigrants’ than boat arrivals in any given year.

What about the fact that in 2009, there were under 2,000 boat arrivals and about 160,000 other incoming migrants?

Try some stats – they’re fun and informative (you can also use them to deflate bollocks arguments about ‘being swamped by boat people’).

justin heywood 8:09 pm 03 Aug 10

Jim Jones said :

…. it’s remarkably easy to find. You could even have a look at a 2009 press release

Thanks for the tip Jim. I DID have a look at that press release. And here’s what I found:

“Senator Evans was speaking at a Senate hearing in Canberra yesterday where figures were released that showed a total of 48,456 people had overstayed their visa in the first 6 months of 2009 … often young Englishmen who come on a valid visa who then become unlawful overstayers”

All well and good and supportive of your argument. But, inexplicably Jim, you left out what he said next:

“they usually went home within a week of the visa expiring.”

Not so supportive of your argument, I think you’ll agree.

Pommy bastard 5:22 pm 03 Aug 10

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Pommy bastard said :

Ok, Good point Jim. I think the “often” is a key word there, it indicates no figure. But you I hope you agree that the vast majority of these “illegal” immigrants would either be working here and over stay, would be overstaying by weeks rather than remaining here, would return to their home country after a period of x weeks or months, or would be in the process of becoming legal?

Asylum seekers aren’t illegal immigrants. Under both Australian and international law, a person is can enter Australia to seek asylum.

Amazing! Somebody actually quoted me.

Shame the response bears no relevance to the quote though 🙁

mutley 4:38 pm 03 Aug 10

While agreeing with your general push Jim, it is worth just noting that overstaying a visa is different from “illegal immigration”.

Pommy bastard said :

Ok, Good point Jim. I think the “often” is a key word there, it indicates no figure. But you I hope you agree that the vast majority of these “illegal” immigrants would either be working here and over stay, would be overstaying by weeks rather than remaining here, would return to their home country after a period of x weeks or months, or would be in the process of becoming legal?

Asylum seekers aren’t illegal immigrants. Under both Australian and international law, a person is can enter Australia to seek asylum.

georgesgenitals 4:10 pm 03 Aug 10

Jim Jones said :

georgesgenitals said :

Jim Jones said :

…and around 80% or more are generally found to be legitimate asylum seekers (who, if they didn’t get on a boat to flee their home country, would probably be dead).

From which countries are you referring to? Just some examples would be fine.

Sri Lanka and Afghanistan are the current hot spots. The situations there are well known.

Without reading anything into this (because it doesn’t represent my whole opinion on this topic), do you think that the people who arrive by boat from these countries have travelled all that way by boat alone? Or have they transited a number of other countries prior to getting onto the boat?

Pommy bastard 4:01 pm 03 Aug 10

Ok, Good point Jim. I think the “often” is a key word there, it indicates no figure. But you I hope you agree that the vast majority of these “illegal” immigrants would either be working here and over stay, would be overstaying by weeks rather than remaining here, would return to their home country after a period of x weeks or months, or would be in the process of becoming legal?

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site