Election Candidate Surveys

Candidates for New South Wales / CTH Senate Election 2010


Show

All Q1Q2Q3Q4Q5Q6Q7Q8Q9Q10

Scoring Key

Yes, Definitely10Probably7Unsure5Unlikely3Definitely Not2No Comment1

Candidate scores

BG = Ballot Group / BP = Ballot Position / = previously sitting member / = personal response / = party response
BG BP Candidate Party Q1Q2Q3Q4Q5Q6Q7Q8Q9Q10 Total
A1EVANS, RachelSocialist Alliance----------0
A2ISKANDER, SoubhiSocialist Alliance----------0
AA1FIERRAVANTI-WELLS, ConcettaLiberal Party1010352710251064
AA2HEFFERNAN, WilliamLiberal Party1010352710251064
AA3NASH, FionaThe Nationals1010352710251064
AA4HUGHES, HollieLiberal Party1010352710251064
AA5DENNIS, JoeThe Nationals1010352710251064
AA6BILIC, GeorgeLiberal Party1010352710251064
AB1ECKFORD, MichaelIndependent101031010101073376
AB2STEVENS, CriseleeIndependent102107310775768
AC1WEBBER, AndrewOne Nation----------0
AC2BRETT, JohnOne Nation----------0
AD1RHIANNON, LeeThe Greens222225222223
AD2McILROY, KeithThe Greens222225222223
AD3JEGATHEESWARAN, BramiThe Greens222225222223
AD4SWIFT, HarriettThe Greens222225222223
AD5MORRISSEY, SimoneThe Greens222225222223
AD6KANAK, Dominic WyThe Greens222225222223
AE1KERNOT, CherylIndependent----------0
AE2CANT, SimonIndependent----------0
AF1DRUERY, GlennLiberal Democrats----------0
AF2GABB, LucyLiberal Democrats22122211101033
AF3STITT, PeterLiberal Democrats----------0
B1HODGES, RobertIndependent----------0
B2FRIER, BobIndependent----------0
C1ROBINSON, TonyIndependent----------0
C2SELBY, NoelIndependent101010107101010101097
D1HODGES, DarrinIndependent1010107271010101086
D2FOLKES, NickIndependent----------0
E1BROWN, RayBuilding Australia----------0
E2O'DONNELL, MichaelBuilding Australia7757710105101078
F1BAS, WesSenator Online----------0
F2ROACH, BriannaSenator Online----------0
G1LAWLER, GeoffCommunist----------0
G2KELLAWAY, Brenda AnneCommunist----------0
H1BLOOM, NadiaIndependent----------0
H2IRELAND, BedeIndependent----------0
I1BUTLER, Robert HCitizens Electoral Council----------0
I2McCAFFREY, Ian DavidCitizens Electoral Council----------0
J1CLANCY, FionaAustralian Democrats----------0
J2MITCHELL, JenAustralian Democrats----------0
K1SAMPSON, MegIndependent105710101010107584
K2HINCHCLIFFE, JIndependent----------0
L1BELGRAVE, Leon AdrianIndependent----------0
L2BEREGSZASZI, JanosIndependent----------0
M1KOUTALIANOS, BillThe Climate Sceptics7101073107510776
M2BROWN, GeoffreyThe Climate Sceptics----------0
N1BRYCE, IanSecular Party of Australia----------0
N2WARREN, Lyle RichardSecular Party of Australia----------0
O1MUIRHEAD, Jim GerardShooters and Fishers----------0
O2McGLASHAN, Alistair DavidShooters and Fishers----------0
P1McCAFFREY, Simon ThomasDemocratic Labour Party10101010101010101010100
P2CULLEN, MartinDemocratic Labour Party10101010101010101010100
Q1LEISHMAN, MarianneAustralian Sex Party----------0
Q2CAMPBELL, HuwAustralian Sex Party----------0
Q3ZIMMERMAN, LarissaAustralian Sex Party----------0
R1BARKER, DavidIndependent10101010101010101010100
R2ZUREIK, S GIndependent----------0
S1BEAMS, NickSocialist Equality Party----------0
S2ZABALA, GabrielaSocialist Equality Party----------0
T1BOURKE, WilliamIndependent----------0
T2O'CONNOR, MarkIndependent----------0
U1THOMPSON, AndyNon-Custodial Parents Party10101010101010101010100
U2FOSTER, RolandNon-Custodial Parents Party10101010101010101010100
UG1RICHARDSON, HamishIndependent----------0
UG2HOOPER, Norman H JosephIndependent----------0
UG3SCOTT-IRVING, StewartIndependent111111111110
UG4PAPE, BryanIndependent----------0
UG5WHALAN, AndrewIndependent----------0
V1SWANE, GregFamily First10101010101010101010100
V2LAMB, PhilFamily First10101010101010101010100
W1FAULKNER, JohnAustralian Labor Party1010321010722258
W2THISTLETHWAITE, MatthewAustralian Labor Party1010321010722258
W3HUTCHINS, SteveAustralian Labor Party10101010101010101010100
W4MURNAIN, AnneAustralian Labor Party1010321010722258
W5SEATON, FionaAustralian Labor Party1010321010722258
W6McDERMOTT, HughAustralian Labor Party1010321010722258
X1STEFANAC, JenniferIndependent101010107101075584
X2COOLEY, Tucky TaniaIndependent10110105101055571
Y1CARTER, MarylouCarers Alliance----------0
Y2BUCKWALTER, MareeCarers Alliance----------0
Z1GREEN, PaulChristian Democratic Party10101010101010101010100
Z2PEEBLES, RobynChristian Democratic Party10101010101010101010100
Z3NILE, ElaineChristian Democratic Party10101010101010101010100

Questionnaire

1. Prayers in parliament

Prayers in parliament are an important daily reminder that we must all ultimately answer to the higher authority of Almighty God. The prayers, which consist of the Lord's Prayer and a request for God's guidance, are an expression of the Christian foundation and character of our nation. According to the latest census, 64% of Australians identify as Christians.

Do you support the current practice of opening each day of parliament with Christian prayers?

2. Marriage

In 2004 the Marriage Act 1961 was amended to reaffirm the understanding across cultures throughout history, that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. The Greens' Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009 would have fundamentally changed this definition, removing the words "a man and a woman" as well as "to the exclusion of all others", opening the door to polygamy and same-sex marriage - to the detriment of children, who do best when raised by both a mum and a dad.

Would you vote to retain the Marriage Act 1961 definition of marriage as "the union of a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life"?

3. Abortion

The paid parental leave and baby bonus laws provide for women whose babies are delivered stillborn after 20 weeks gestation to receive the payments (on average about $8000 paid leave or $5200 baby bonus). In most late abortions after 20 weeks, the baby is induced and delivered dead (stillborn) and current laws entitle the mother to thousands of dollars of taxpayers money.

Would you vote to amend the paid parental leave and baby bonus laws in order to remove the loophole allowing women who undergo a late abortion for "social" reasons to access these payments?

4. Illicit drugs

Harm minimisation has been one of the key principles of Australia's drug strategy since 1985. Harm minimisation measures include needle and syringe exchanges, injecting rooms, heroin prescription, methadone substitution, liberal cannabis laws and drug testing kits. In 2003 the House of Representatives 'Roads to Recovery' report called for the replacement of the current focus of the National Drug Strategy on harm minimisation with a new focus on harm prevention and treatment. This recommendation has not yet been implemented. Sweden has shown that drug free policies can dramatically reduce the use of illicit drugs.

Would you support the replacement of the current focus of the National Drug Strategy on harm minimisation strategies with a new focus on achieving a drug free society?

5. Internet filtering

The current classification system for publications, films and videos bans (i.e. refuses classification for) dangerous material including child pornography, and material promoting crime, suicide or terrorism. Unfiltered, the internet can bring explicit pornography and material that promotes terrorism, crime or suicide into the family home. Voluntary PC based filtering systems will not protect children in vulnerable situations such as the 9-10 year olds reported by the Canberra Hospital for sexually abusing even younger children after exposure to internet pornography. Mandatory filtering at the ISP level is essential for the protection of Australian children and for a healthy society.

Would you support mandatory filtering of the internet at ISP level to exclude all material currently refused classification in print, film or video media?

6. Online Gambling

The 1999 Productivity Report on Gambling demonstrated the enormous harm to Australian families from addictive forms of gambling such as poker machines. The 2010 Productivity Report found that despite the implementation of harm minimisation measures in the last decade, problem gamblers are still responsible for around 40% of money spent on poker machines. Internet gambling - with or without harm minimisation measures - could lead to even greater levels of problem gambling.

Would you oppose any measure which seeks to legalise online gambling?

7. Education

A 2009 review of the Howard government's school chaplaincy program by Edith Cowan and New England University researchers found it is working well. During the two weeks prior to the survey, chaplains had dealt with students' behaviour issues, bullying and harassment, family issues, mental health issues, alcohol and drug abuse, self-harm and suicide - and 83% of school principals said they were "very satisfied" with the program.

Would you support full funding for the current school chaplaincy system until 2014?

8. Child care benefits

Surveys indicate that a large majority of parents would prefer one parent (usually the mother) to care for their children full-time at home if they could afford it. Current child care benefits are much more generous to mothers who place their children in child care centres than to those who care for their own children at home. All parents should be treated equally, receiving the same childcare benefit. They should be free to spend it as they choose on childcare or on helping one parent stay at home.

Would you support legislation to provide equal benefits to all families with young children, either baby bonus, parental leave or child care, whether the mother is in the workforce or not?

9. Human rights

There has been widespread public concern, including from leading judges and law professors, about moves to introduce a charter of rights or Human Rights Act. The accountability of the Australian parliament to the Australian people would be undermined by making lawmaking, and judicial interpretation of laws, subject to international instruments and the ideological decisions of United Nations treaty monitoring bodies.

Would you vote against any form of a national charter of rights that would subject Australian lawmaking to international instruments and jurisprudence?

10. Vilification legislation

Laws which prohibit vilification on the grounds of religious belief or sexuality are an unwarranted interference with free speech and religious liberty. Those who point out the health risks of homosexual behaviour or who question claims and practices of a particular religion, such as Islam, should not be penalised. Australians are already adequately protected by sedition laws, which prohibit incitement to use force or violence against others that would threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth.

Would you vote against any attempt to introduce a vilification law that would penalise frank discussion and debate of religious belief or sexuality?
Joomla SEF URLs by Artio
Authorised by: Charles Newington, FamilyVoice Australia, 4th Floor, 68 Grenfell St, Adelaide SA 5000