Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

We mean business
Contact us today to get results

Irwin Ross, Rise Up Party for the Senate, Candidate Questionnaire, Election ’13

By Barcham - 29 August 2013 138

Irwin

Rise Up Australia’s Senate Candidate Irwin Ross has sent us in his answers to your questions.

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?

Rise Up Australia is pro-life and supports doing everything possible to protect lives.


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

Yes. One of our policies would be to ensure that Australia provides a transport and communications infrastructure that serves the needs of a modern ‘first-world’ productive economy and that provides for the social interactions of all Australians: this means we need a coherent transport policy that integrates road, rail, air, coastal shipping; we affirm that vital transport infrastructure (Qantas, airports, major rails, ports, freeways etc) should have majority ownership by Australian citizens or governments; we favour a fully or partly government-owned Very Fast Train between Melbourne and Sydney (then Brisbane).


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

Rise Up Australia believe that government funding should be directed into the areas that are needed the most, i.e. helping the poor and needy/homeless; funnelling more funds into the areas of health; and directing funds into developing a world-class education system.


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?

Housing affordability relates to the CPI, the Reserve Bank and its decisions, people’s supply and demand, how people view the nation and the future of their nation. The federal government can implement all sorts of initiatives, but it all comes down to local governments. Housing affordability is very much tied in with world economics also, and there is not a lot that governments can do to sway that, otherwise they would be guilty of interfering with free enterprise.


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

Rise Up Australia definitely agree with the NBN. We would look into policies that encourage high-class infrastructure within Australia.


6. Do you think cyclists should be registered?!

Rise Up Australia do not believe that cyclists need to be registered. We do not see any advantage in doing this, in fact we believe that if registration of cyclists was mandatory, it would discourage people from getting on their bikes and riding, as it would be an unnecessary added expense.


7. What is your position on gay marriage?

Rise Up Australia want to protect the traditional family unit, comprising man, woman and children; to promote marriage (as defined in the Marriage Act 2004) as an institution that provides the best nurturing environment for children and that has substantial economic benefits for society; while recognising that adults are free to pursue their own sexuality in private, we do not agree with the promotion of homosexuality as a normal practice in schools and in public; we affirm the basic right for a child to have both a male and a female as its parents (and to know why they are) in the best interests of the child; we oppose same-sex marriage, bigamy, polygamy and Centrelink funding of such and similar practices.


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

Rise Up Australia operates on biblical principles and has strong convictions that concur with social justice values. Rise Up endeavours to make the best decisions possible with the information and resources it has at the time concerning matters of conscience. Rise Up Australia will make ethical decisions that will be justified based on an ethical framework.


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?

Rise Up Australia wants to reduce the influence of external organisations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Trade Organisation (WTO) and United Nations (UN) on Australia’s domestic policies and assets. At the same time, we are committed to working with these organisations to benefit mankind. Rise Up Australia believes that collection of private information of Australian citizens should not be undertaken by sources outside of Australia, without their prior consent or knowledge.


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?

Rise Up Australia are aware that during election time many candidates fall into the trap of speaking out negatively towards their opposition, and we are strongly opposed to this. Even though we may not agree with some of their policies, Rise Up Australia respects our opponents’ freedom of speech, which is one of our top priorities. We seek to honour and respect the opposition, even if we do not agree with their policies.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
138 Responses to
Irwin Ross, Rise Up Party for the Senate, Candidate Questionnaire, Election ’13
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
7
Stevian 12:56 pm 02 Sep 13

IrishPete said :

howeph said :

I’m an atheist. A Jehovah’s Witness knocking on my door, whilst he/she might be being rude and presumptuous, is not being intolerant of my beliefs if they walk away when asked. It is only intolerance when beliefs are forced upon others.

But by knocking on my door, entering my property to do so, and disturbing my peace, they have already crossed a line in my book.

I’ve never forgiven them, for the time I answered my door in London while brushing my teeth, expecting it be the postman – I had to swallow the mouthful of toothpaste to tell them to go away. It may not make a lot of sense, but I have held a grudge against unsolicited religious and political doorknockers since then.

IP

They had you foaming at the mouth.did they?

IrishPete 12:24 pm 02 Sep 13

howeph said :

I’m an atheist. A Jehovah’s Witness knocking on my door, whilst he/she might be being rude and presumptuous, is not being intolerant of my beliefs if they walk away when asked. It is only intolerance when beliefs are forced upon others.

But by knocking on my door, entering my property to do so, and disturbing my peace, they have already crossed a line in my book.

I’ve never forgiven them, for the time I answered my door in London while brushing my teeth, expecting it be the postman – I had to swallow the mouthful of toothpaste to tell them to go away. It may not make a lot of sense, but I have held a grudge against unsolicited religious and political doorknockers since then.

IP

howeph 10:56 am 02 Sep 13

IrishPete said :

“The only thin[g] I will not tolerate is intolerance” means I will tolerate someone’s religious beliefs, sexuality, lifestyle choices, political opinions. They are their choices, and/or their business. But when they start trying to impose them on other people, that demonstrates that they are not tolerant, they are intolerant, and I will not tolerate that. They become open to criticism.

I agree completely.

IrishPete said :

So when a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness knocks on my door to convert me to their religion, they are disrespecting my beliefs, they are demonstrating a presumption that their beliefs are superior to mine, and they are going to try to change mine. You might say all religions are like that, and you may well be right.

But I think I feel the same about gay people who want to change the Catholic or Anglican or Muslim religions so they can marry within those institutions. That has a strong whiff of intolerance too. It’s their club, leave it alone. Form your own club if their attitudes are a problem for you.

No I disagree. I don’t believe in moral relativism.

Individuals and institutions are entitled to their own beliefs but that does not mean that those beliefs can’t be challenged; that beliefs are sacrosanct.

I’m an atheist. A Jehovah’s Witness knocking on my door, whilst he/she might be being rude and presumptuous, is not being intolerant of my beliefs if they walk away when asked. It is only intolerance when beliefs are forced upon others.

Dilandach 10:39 am 02 Sep 13

Yeah, gotta keep the sanctity of marriage. Can’t have the gays going to Vegas, getting married by some dude dressed as Elvis and divorced in under six months.

c_c™ 9:47 am 02 Sep 13

“Rise Up Australia operates on biblical principles and has strong convictions that concur with social justice values. Rise Up endeavours to make the best decisions possible with the information and resources it has at the time concerning matters of conscience.”

Could be a tall order if some of that information is a couple of thousand years out of date.

Healthcare policy: see James 5:14

Gender equality policy: see Corinthians 14:34

Infrastructure, aged care and superannuation policies: Matthew 6:34

watto23 8:48 am 02 Sep 13

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

ScienceRules said :

Lets just restate the actual things that marriage equality is or isn’t:

1. Allowing LGBT people to marry will in no way effect your marriage (or lack of marriage if that’s what you prefer,

2. Marriage equality has absolutely nothing to do with bearing or raising kids. Gay or straight people can choose to have or refrain from having children now and marriage equality won’t change that,

3. No church anywhere will be forced to marry gay people. You can keep having your closeted little hate-meetings to your heart’s content.

4. It won’t lead to polygamy, incest, dogs living with cats or fire and brimstone

5. It is about removing a barrier that grants special privelages to straight people and discriminates against a minority of people.

6. Bigot is defined in the OED as “obstinate and intolerant adherent of a creed or view”. Ergo if you oppose marriage equality you are bigoted. It is NOT bigotry to point that out or to call you what you are.

7. There is no rational, reasonable argument against marriage equality. In fact few arguments at all go past Leviticus. Try substituting “black and white people” or “protestants and catholics” for “gay” in your argument and see how tolerant you sound.

Thank you and have a lovely evening…

Pay this person

Agree summed up perfectly. Although point 3 is a little harsh and is opinionated enough to stir those against marriage equality to dismiss the otherwise completely rational and well thought out argument here.

BimboGeek 3:01 pm 31 Aug 13

Go poetix! Sounds like lots of fun. 😀

IrishPete 2:43 pm 31 Aug 13

Darkfalz said :

I have a saying, one of my personal philosophies that I try to live by:
the only thing I will not tolerate is intolerance.

IP

In other words:
1. Convince yourself your position is the only morally acceptable or valid one.
2. Anyone who disagrees with you is therefore either evil or stupid.
3. Win the argument by calling them names.

No, you have completely misunderstood, and you also have me confused with name-callers, which I am not.

“The only think I will not tolerate is intolerance” means I will tolerate someone’s religious beliefs, sexuality, lifestyle choices, political opinions. They are their choices, and/or their business. But when they start trying to impose them on other people, that demonstrates that they are not tolerant, they are intolerant, and I will not tolerate that. They become open to criticism.

So when a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness knocks on my door to convert me to their religion, they are disrespecting my beliefs, they are demonstrating a presumption that their beliefs are superior to mine, and they are going to try to change mine. You might say all religions are like that, and you may well be right.

But I think I feel the same about gay people who want to change the Catholic or Anglican or Muslim religions so they can marry within those institutions. That has a strong whiff of intolerance too. It’s their club, leave it alone. Form your own club if their attitudes are a problem for you.

In this current debate, gay people want to get married, religious people say “no, we own the institution of marriage”. Well, no, they don’t. Government does. And it is entirely normal for law to change, or evolve.

Personally I couldn’t give a flying f%ck about marriage, gay or otherwise. It’s a word. It is the state recognition of it, and the protections it gives to children, for example, that is important. The state should have no involvement in whether people want to dress up and have a party or a religious ceremony to coincide with the state’s recognition of the relationship.

So maybe the solution is to remove the word “marriage” from the law, and leave it as a colloquial term for a legally-recognised relationship between two consenting adults (or three or four if you’re in Utah or Saudi Arabia).

IP.

poetix 1:32 pm 31 Aug 13

Such a lovely day to ride one’s bike into town, consume a burrito, and have some fun with these people.

‘I can’t vote for you because I’m a Christian.’ That line caused them just a moment’s pause.

Unfortunately I forgot to add ‘Bugger Leviticus!’. That’s wit of the staircase (or bikepath) for you.

geni_lou 11:35 am 31 Aug 13

IrishPete said :

geni_lou said :

winstonI said :

It astounds me how the left of politics are in fact the worst fascists ever when you don’t agree with something, 66 million dead Russians can’t be wrong…..

Is there some kind of Soviet Godwin’s Law? Surely it’s just been created.

Yes, it’s called the “geni_lou” law and you just minted it, four hours before me. Damn your eyes.

IP

🙂

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 7:51 am 31 Aug 13

Darkfalz said :

ScienceRules said :

Lets just restate the actual things that marriage equality is or isn’t:

1. Allowing LGBT people to marry will in no way effect your marriage (or lack of marriage if that’s what you prefer,

2. Marriage equality has absolutely nothing to do with bearing or raising kids. Gay or straight people can choose to have or refrain from having children now and marriage equality won’t change that,

3. No church anywhere will be forced to marry gay people. You can keep having your closeted little hate-meetings to your heart’s content.

4. It won’t lead to polygamy, incest, dogs living with cats or fire and brimstone

5. It is about removing a barrier that grants special privelages to straight people and discriminates against a minority of people.

6. Bigot is defined in the OED as “obstinate and intolerant adherent of a creed or view”. Ergo if you oppose marriage equality you are bigoted. It is NOT bigotry to point that out or to call you what you are.

7. There is no rational, reasonable argument against marriage equality. In fact few arguments at all go past Leviticus. Try substituting “black and white people” or “protestants and catholics” for “gay” in your argument and see how tolerant you sound.

Thank you and have a lovely evening…

Referring to church as “hate meetings” says all anyone needs to know about you.

All points are your opinion and your opinion only. You’re entitled to your opinion. But you seem to want to enforce your opinion on the rest of us, judging by your labelling and name calling and prejudicial dismissal of opposing points of view. I want to live in a democracy. You seem to want to live in a social “progressive” dictatorship, where opinions and attitudes are state enforced and dissenters sanctioned.

Something else of note is that you try to equate interracial marriage with homosexual marriage, yet you insist other people should not equate a desire for gay marriage with polygamy or anything else. Throughout human history, sentiment against interracial marriage was the exception, not the norm. It tended to happen only when vastly different groups were essentially unnaturally thrust together in the same space, as happened with slavery. With trade and human migration throughout human history previously it was quite normal. New ethnic groups have come about from this intermarriage between different groups (Mongolians for example). Race is not the same thing as sexual attraction, orientation, preference or whatever you want to call it.

Can you please learn the difference between opinion and fact before you make another ignorant comment.

Pork Hunt 7:49 am 31 Aug 13

IrishPete said :

Robertson said :

ScienceRules said :

blah blah blah this hate-filled bigot blah blah blah

Well done everyone

You disagree with him. Therefore he is a “hate-filled bigot”. Very nice.

I see no evidence that what you say is true. I do see fairly plain evidence that you are a hate-filled bigot yourself though.

I have a saying, one of my personal philosophies that I try to live by:
the only thing I will not tolerate is intolerance.

IP

Mine is “If you can’t laugh at those less fortunate than yourself, then who can you laugh at?”

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 7:46 am 31 Aug 13

ScienceRules said :

Lets just restate the actual things that marriage equality is or isn’t:

1. Allowing LGBT people to marry will in no way effect your marriage (or lack of marriage if that’s what you prefer,

2. Marriage equality has absolutely nothing to do with bearing or raising kids. Gay or straight people can choose to have or refrain from having children now and marriage equality won’t change that,

3. No church anywhere will be forced to marry gay people. You can keep having your closeted little hate-meetings to your heart’s content.

4. It won’t lead to polygamy, incest, dogs living with cats or fire and brimstone

5. It is about removing a barrier that grants special privelages to straight people and discriminates against a minority of people.

6. Bigot is defined in the OED as “obstinate and intolerant adherent of a creed or view”. Ergo if you oppose marriage equality you are bigoted. It is NOT bigotry to point that out or to call you what you are.

7. There is no rational, reasonable argument against marriage equality. In fact few arguments at all go past Leviticus. Try substituting “black and white people” or “protestants and catholics” for “gay” in your argument and see how tolerant you sound.

Thank you and have a lovely evening…

Pay this person

housebound 12:47 am 31 Aug 13

ScienceRules said :

Lets just restate the actual things that marriage equality is or isn’t:
3. No church anywhere will be forced to marry gay people. You can keep having your closeted little hate-meetings to your heart’s content.

‘Hate-filled’ aside, apparently not.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383686/Millionaire-gay-fathers-sue-Church-England-allowing-married-church.html

Jono 10:35 pm 30 Aug 13

Darkfalz said :

Something else of note is that you try to equate interracial marriage with homosexual marriage, yet you insist other people should not equate a desire for gay marriage with polygamy or anything else. Throughout human history, sentiment against interracial marriage was the exception, not the norm. It tended to happen only when vastly different groups were essentially unnaturally thrust together in the same space, as happened with slavery. With trade and human migration throughout human history previously it was quite normal. New ethnic groups have come about from this intermarriage between different groups (Mongolians for example). Race is not the same thing as sexual attraction, orientation, preference or whatever you want to call it.

Interracial marriage was illegal in many states in the USA during the course of my lifetime. And similar arguments, seemingly from similarly intolerant people, were used to fight against its legalisation. It’s “unnatural”; it’s “immoral”; even that it’s against the will of god. Any of that sound familiar?

Jono 10:21 pm 30 Aug 13

IrishPete said :

State care? God no! You should have been sent to a religious orphanage or boarding school to be used as a virtual sex slave. Obviously. And if you hadn’t grown up to be well adjusted and Straight, it would have been the Devil’s fault.
IP

Straight? Definitely.
Well adjusted? Not quite so clear, but I like to think so.
Tolerant? Do my absolute best, but I don’t always succeed dealing with those who try to force their religious intolerances on others.

The final one is clearly the Devil’s fault.

7

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

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

Search across the site