Election Candidate Surveys
Candidates for Swan / CTH House of Representatives Election 2016
Show
| All | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scoring Key
| Yes, Definitely10 | Probably7 | Unsure5 | Unlikely3 | Definitely Not2 | No Comment1 |
Candidate scores
| BP | Candidate | Party | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10 | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | NIELSEN-HARVEY, Sarah | The Greens | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 26 | |
| 2 | KLOMP, Steve | Australian Christians | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 100 | |
| 3 | SOLONEC, Tammy | Australian Labor Party | 10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 32 | |
| 4 | IRONS, Steve | Liberal | 10 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 50 |
Questionnaire
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 of our nation. According to the latest census, about 61% of Australians identify with Christianity.
Would you vote to support the continued opening of parliament with Christian prayers?
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 purpose of marriage is to ensure that wherever possible, children are raised with both mum and dad role models in a stable environment – shown by research to be the safest family type.
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”?
There has been widespread concern about the content of the Safe Schools Coalition Australia program now operating in over 500 Australian schools. Its co-founder, lesbian activist Roz Ward, has admitted that the program is “not about stopping bullying”. Rather, it promotes unproven theories about transgenderism and same-sex attraction, uses invalid statistics, encourages partisan activism, and ignores most victims of school bullies.
Would you support the cancellation of the Safe Schools Coalition Australia program, with funding used instead to support proven programs that address all forms of school bullying?
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. This strategy has largely failed. By contrast, 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 so-called “harm minimisation” with a new focus on achieving a drug free society?
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 other harmful material into the family home – and to children outside the home via mobile phones. Voluntary computer-based filters do not protect children in vulnerable situations. Mandatory default filtering at the ISP level is essential to protect children and maintain a healthy society.
Would you support mandatory default filtering of the internet at ISP level to exclude all material currently refused classification in print, film or video media?
Australia’s Productivity Commission found in 2010 that problem gambling – mostly by poker machine addicts – costs Australia nearly $5 billion per year. One in six people who play the pokies regularly are addicted, and their addiction damages, on average, seven others. The Productivity Commission made several recommendations to alleviate the problem, but the resulting legislation was so weak that there has been little or no improvement in the situation.
Would you vote to require $1 maximum bets per spin and a $120 maximum hourly loss on poker machines?
This year a new program, Start Early, is being rolled out in childcare centres and kindergartens – backed by Early Education Australia, whose CEO says young children are “sexual beings” (Herald Sun, 6/3/16). Among other things, the program will talk about cross-dressing and gender “choice”, and take toddlers on tours of opposite-sex toilets.
Would you vote to ensure that no taxpayer funding is given to any program that prematurely sexualises children or promotes harmful theories about gender fluidity?
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 benefits (possibly as vouchers) at birth – enabling them to spend the money 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 or not the mother is in the paid workforce?
Euthanasia means the intentional killing of a person who is suffering pain or mental distress, instead of providing medical treatment or palliative care. Euthanasia does not mean ending treatment that is futile or burdensome, since treatment can always be declined. Evidence from the Netherlands, Oregon and the Northern Territory shows that legalised euthanasia has led to the deaths of persons who were not terminally ill, or were suffering treatable depression or did not ask for euthanasia.
Would you vote against any proposal to facilitate Territory bills allowing doctors to intentionally kill their patients?
Laws which prohibit speech or actions that merely “offend or insult” others are an unwarranted curb on free speech. Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act has been used to stifle important community debates.