Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Thinking about your business
Is a big part of ours

Simon Sheikh, Greens for the Senate, Candidate Questionnaire, Election ’13

By Barcham 29 August 2013 73

Sheikh

Greens’ Senate Candidate Simon Sheikh has sent us these 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?

This is a question of compassion and of dignity. With the appropriate safeguards in place, voluntary euthanasia would allow those with debilitating terminal illness and chronic, intolerable pain to determine when they die. More than 75 per cent of Australians support voluntary euthanasia and the fact that the old parties won’t touch it shows just how out of touch they are. If elected, I’ll vote in favor of a Senate inquiry into voluntary euthanasia in the next parliament, with a view to introducing federal legislation to assist terminally ill patients to die with dignity.


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

Yes. High Speed Rail makes economic and environmental sense. It will boost Canberra’s local economy, decrease traffic congestion and accidents on our roads, and lower greenhouse gas emissions. The Greens have championed high speed rail in the Parliament and worked incredibly hard to secure a $20 million feasibility study as part of their agreement with the Government. Now, we’re the only party going to this election with a fully costed plan from the Parliamentary Budget Office that will turn this from a dream into reality. We need 21st century solutions to 21st century problems. Tony Abbott is stuck in the dark ages with his attachment to roads blinding him from supporting sustainable, long-term public transport solutions for Australians.


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

No.

We’re seeing the gap between the rich and the poor widen. Government has a fundamental role in assisting the most vulnerable and the most disenfranchised people in our society. When we see social polarisation increasing, what we’re witnessing is a failure of government to adequately provide for everyone.

Newstart is a good example of a policy that fails in its objective to support people getting back on their feet and finding work. The single rate of Newstart is just 45% of the minimum wage and leaves people living well under the poverty line. We’re not going to fix the problem of inequality by giving those who are struggling so little that they can barely afford the basics like food and decent accommodation, let alone leave them with enough money to be able to search for work.

The Greens propose increasing Newstart by $50 per week and providing additional support to single parents. A just and fair society doesn’t allow for people to become trapped in cycles of poverty, unemployment and often social exclusion. And on this, we’re on a unity ticket with the Business Council of Australia.


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?

Having grown up in public housing, I know how important housing accessibility and affordability is. Homelessness has soared in Canberra over the last five years, despite Canberra being one of the most affluent cities in Australia. This level of housing inequality should not sit easily with any of us.

The Greens have a plan to end homelessness by 2020. One in every 200 Australians are homeless. A quarter of them are children under the age of 18. We have committed to doubling funding for homelessness services and providing an additional 7000 new homes by 2020. Currently we rely heavily on emergency services to respond to our homelessness crisis – but this is not only more expensive, it’s not a long-term solution. We have a long-term solution that provides more affordable housing and additional funding for the support services those experiencing homelessness need to get back on their feet.

We’ve also got the most comprehensive affordable housing plan released by any party at this election. You can check it out here: http://www.greens.org.au/housing


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 hard to see a downside to fast and affordable internet for all Australians! Connecting all Australians to high speed internet will create enormous opportunities – especially for those in regional and remote areas. It will fast-track innovation in health care, business and education and will make telecommuting more accessible. It’s worth the investment, so The Greens support the NBN. What’s more, if elected, I’ll campaign to get it rolled out faster across Canberra. It’s pretty unfair that the southside is currently missing out.


6. Do you think cyclists should be registered?!

No. I support making our roads safer for cyclists, pedestrians and drivers but I don’t think bike rego is the way to go. Bike riders already contribute to the construction and maintenance of our roads irrespective of whether we drive or ride on them. Cars pay registration that is in part based on their weight and potential damage they could cause – this measure applied to bikes would result in an almost negligent cost. Making cyclists register would reduce the number of people who could be bothered going through the process, thus leading to more cars on the road and more traffic congestion for little tangible benefit.


7. What is your position on gay marriage?

I have always supported ending marriage discrimination. Equal love deserves equal rights. It’s becoming increasingly clear that politicians who think otherwise are out of step with the Australian people. When I was National Director of GetUp I campaigned actively for marriage equality (check out this video).

The Greens have been backing equality from day one. Christine Milne was at the forefront of gay law reform in Tasmania in the 80s. Sarah Hanson-Young’s first bill in Parliament was for marriage equality. Adam Bandt’s bill to end marriage discrimination was debated in the House earlier this year – though a vote on it was blocked at the last minute.

And its important. This isn’t just about righting a wrong. Suicide rates amongst same sex attracted young people are woeful. When our laws send a message to same sex attracted people that somehow they are different, it legitimises discrimination.


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

Yes. I’ve always stood up to government, big corporations and vested interests. Unlike the old parties, The Greens allow their elected representatives to cross the floor on any issue. The reason I’m running for the Senate is because I believe we need strong voices in Parliament who are willing to stand up for what’s right, not just what’s easy – and, if that requires crossing the floor, then that’s what I’ll do. I was pretty disappointed to hear Zed Seselja attacking Gary Humphries during their preselection fight about the time he crossed the floor.


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?

If we’re doing the right thing, we should have a right to privacy and the freedom to communicate without surveillance. And the reality is, almost all of us aren’t using the internet to do anything sinister! At the moment, Governments are abusing their power without appropriate oversight. That’s why Greens Senator Scott Ludlam introduced the “Get A Warrant” bill which requires that law enforcement agencies and intelligence services need to be granted a warrant before collecting personal information from our online or telecommunication data.

When whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed new and concerning information about how widespread NSA’s PRISM project was in America, our government went quiet on the issue. We should have a right to know whether the Australian government is participating in PRISM or similar programs.

Law enforcement agents should be able to access information when trying to prevent serious crimes. But there is no reason why they shouldn’t get a warrant to do so, just as police have to if they wanted to search your home.


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?

1. The Liberals – He’s not my opponent since the Liberal preselection, but Gary Humphries was a moderate Liberal who many respected. And his replacement, Zed Seselja, has a phenomenal capacity to summarise complex arguments in short sentences, making him a powerful communicator and a tough opponent.
2. Labor – Kate Lundy has shown deep and ongoing commitment to Canberra, having been in the Senate representing our community for 17 years.
3. The Katter candidate, Steven Bailey, also deserves a mention. His campaign manager, a dog called Bruce, livens up all our Senate debates.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
73 Responses to
Simon Sheikh, Greens for the Senate, Candidate Questionnaire, Election ’13
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Grail 11:34 am 02 Sep 13

c_c™ said :

“If we’re doing the right thing, we should have a right to privacy and the freedom to communicate without surveillance.”

He makes it contingent on the very thing that the measure aims to prove or disprove, which isn’t a very good basis. Because the invariable response to it is “well how do we know you’re doing the right thing or the wrong thing unless we have surveillance?”

It’s simpleton speak, there’s more sophisticated ways to argue for limitations on surveillance.

If you’re doing the wrong thing, there will be evidence of your wrongdoing which will lead to the possibility of getting a warrant to surveil you. This is the way it works for all searches and investigations: unless the authority in question has enough evidence to warrant further investigation. For example a known suspect A made phone calls to previously unknown B, there is evidence for B’s communications to be examined. Or perhaps someone procured (or inquired about procuring) the ingredients and equipment for methamphetamine production (reported to the police by the supplier), meaning that further examination is warranted. Or a woman complains that her estranged husband keeps phoning her with death threats.

So if we’re doing the right thing, there should be no reason for the Government authorities to dig into our phone calls, emails, web history and video conferences. If we’re not doing the right thing, we will produce some evidence sufficient to warrant further probing which would otherwise not be allowed.

This is not “circular thinking,” this is plain and simple due process. The investigation comes after the suspicion, not the other way around. What the Government wants to do is surveil everything all the time, digging into the collected data to find correlations to turn into evidence of crimes.

In a perfect future world, pervasive surveillance might be used to send agents to your door to warn you that a course of action that you are contemplating will lead to a crime being committed. What will more likely happen is that a “pre-crimes tribunal” keen to score some political goals will arrest people on suspicion of planning to commit a crime. Or a corrupt official will concoct evidence to have some inconvenient person gaoled/deported/executed.

All power corrupts. The civil libertarians are arguing that pervasive surveillance is simply too much power for any organisation to handle safely.

thebrownstreak69 9:49 am 02 Sep 13

davo101 said :

wycx said :

No mention of repealing negative gearing in the Greens Housing policy. No vote for them.

Yes; complete lunacy, no economist would ever agree with that.

It’s unlikely removing negative gearing would achieve much anyway. Prices would reduce temporarily, a few people would buy, then the remaining renters (and there would still be lots) would have to compete for a smaller number of available rentals. Building would slow right down (why buy on the outskirts when you can get something much cheaper in a better location), and so supply would slow down, putting further pressure on the remaining renters.

Given that governments across three levels (fed, state and local) collect well in excess of $40B tax a year from property owners, even including losses from negative gearing, it’s unlikely we’ll see much of a change in this area.

davo101 9:29 am 02 Sep 13

wycx said :

No mention of repealing negative gearing in the Greens Housing policy. No vote for them.

Yes; complete lunacy, no economist would ever agree with that.

c_c™ 9:25 am 02 Sep 13

Grail said :

c_c™ said :

Answer to #9 is a wonderful example of both circular logic and irrational thought processes.

Can you elucidate upon your comment? How does suggesting that spying on civilians should require a warrant constitute circular logic and irrational thought?

“If we’re doing the right thing, we should have a right to privacy and the freedom to communicate without surveillance.”

He makes it contingent on the very thing that the measure aims to prove or disprove, which isn’t a very good basis. Because the invariable response to it is “well how do we know you’re doing the right thing or the wrong thing unless we have surveillance?”

It’s simpleton speak, there’s more sophisticated ways to argue for limitations on surveillance.

Grail 8:25 am 02 Sep 13

c_c™ said :

Answer to #9 is a wonderful example of both circular logic and irrational thought processes.

Can you elucidate upon your comment? How does suggesting that spying on civilians should require a warrant constitute circular logic and irrational thought?

simsim 7:36 am 02 Sep 13

sien said :

What are his ties with Canberra?

Didn’t the Greens have some locals last time?

His ties to Canberra is that he represents the values that a certain percentage of Canberrans hold. If that percentage is high enough, he’s in the Senate.

The nature of the Senate is such that there’s not a hell of a lot of room for local issues and local pork-barelling to go on, so I have no problem with saying I’d rather have an intelligent, vocally able out of towner who represents my values appearing as a represenative in the Senate rather than a less-competent person who happens to be local.

c_c™ 11:57 pm 01 Sep 13

Answer to #9 is a wonderful example of both circular logic and irrational thought processes.

Grail 11:21 pm 01 Sep 13

sien said :

What are his ties with Canberra?

He lives here, and has the support of rusted-on Greens whose grandparents are buried in the local cemetery. Sure, he’s not from ’round ‘ere, but that’s not what you look for in a candidate for parliament. Thinking that being a “true blue local” is important for a local representative or senator gets you voting for Zed for the ACT Legislative … oh sorry, I forgot about that.

Grail 11:15 pm 01 Sep 13

justin heywood said :

Sorry to dampen the love-fest, but I think I should point out that the reason the Greens are free to say Yes to everything and generally promise universal peace and happiness is because they know they don’t have to deliver on anything – they know they’ll never actually be in government so they are free to promise anything.

“Everything” is a little more all-encompassing than a few questions on a RiotACT poll, don’t you reckon?

The Greens are saying “NO” to CSG, “NO” to coal ports on the Great Barrier Reef, and “NO” to the racism inherent in a Government and Opposition so focussed on “stopping the boats” by making coming to Australia worse than being stoned to death in Iran.

This isn’t about being “free to promise anything” this is about sticking to their principles, which have been published for a decade and you can read them and the policies that they have spawned over on the Greens web site.

Or you could just be lazy and stick to what you are told by Murdoch and Rinehart.

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