http://www.newaustralia.net/images/newaust.jpg
Is anyone here interested in joining the NewAustralia party?

This is a new environmental party formed by ex-green and ex-democrat members who don't believe the Greens or Democrats are going to increase the net environmental vote beyond 10%.

The NewAustralia web site is here: www.NewAustralia.net.

Key Policies:

• A Big Green Tax Shift
  
• Balanced Trade
  
• More Funding for Public Transport, Health and Education
  
• Cost Effective Defence
  

Membership is free.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/05/2561307.htm


Quote:

The Greens have accused the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and some other green groups of selling out to the Government over the emissions trading scheme. The ACF is supporting the Government's decision to delay the scheme until 2011 and peg Australia's emissions reduction target at 5 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020, with an option for a 25 per cent cut if global agreement is reached. Greens Senator Christine Milne cannot understand why....

Christine should become a Zionist and plan more trees instead of "cannot understand" political scheme.

I think the ACF has just given up on the Lib/Labs and figures they may as well go along with the supposed 25% target, even though that has so many caveats that it is unlikely to ever get up anyway.

The reality is that the ETS as proposed has only a 5% target and comes with a $10 billion hand out to the polluters. Even the 5% target can be fulfilled by buying foreign carbon permits instead of domestic savings.

I think the Greens were right to say they will vote against the ETS as it stands now. It is a dud.

AlanIde wrote on May 5^th, 2009 at 8:40pm:

I think the ACF has just given up on the Lib/Labs and figures they may as well go along with the supposed 25% target, even though that has so many caveats that it is unlikely to ever get up anyway. The reality is that the ETS as proposed has only a 5% target and comes with a $10 billion hand out to the polluters. Even the 5% target can be fulfilled by buying foreign carbon permits instead of domestic savings. I think the Greens were right to say they will vote against the ETS as it stands now. It is a dud.

Where will the Greens decision get the Greens and where will it get the environmental solution? Isn't it that small step in right direction better then anger and derision?

The current ETS is really just a $10 billion subsidy for polluters and a promise not to do anything serious about climate change for decades.

Why would anyone concerned about climate change vote for that? It is a big step in the wrong direction.

I notice in today's Age that ACF director Don Henry is being toasted by other ACF members for appearing to support the ETS and is now backpedaling: theage.com.au/environment/support-splits-green-group-20090505-atzg.html

AlanIde wrote on May 6^th, 2009 at 10:22am:

The current ETS is really just a $10 billion subsidy for polluters and a promise not to do anything serious about climate change for decades. Why would anyone concerned about climate change vote for that? It is a big step in the wrong direction. I notice in today's Age that ACF director Don Henry is being toasted by other ACF members for appearing to support the ETS and is now backpedaling: theage.com.au/environment/support-splits-green-group-20090505-atzg.html

I agree AlanIde with your sentiments. The ETS in it's current form is not workable.  The $10 billion could be going into renewables to be used as back up until more advanced technology comes to hand, but governments will never tread on the toes of coal companies.

I noticed the State government is getting in on the act already and imposing a 12% tax now on water, on top of the already huge increase for this commodity for their "climate change fund" - so who knows how this is going to hit us when the Federal government gets in on the act.

Quote:

I noticed the State government is getting in on the act already and imposing a 12% tax now on water, on top of the already huge increase for this commodity for their "climate change fund" - so who knows how this is going to hit us when the Federal government gets in on the act.

Hi Mantra, re above this is where the Green Tax Shift comes in.
I don't think people would mind paying a lot more for energy & water if there was no Payroll Tax, no Vehicle Rego, no income tax on income < $25k, etc.

This is the key policy of NewAustralia - see web link below.

The Greens have been pushing a Green Tax Increase for years, but < 10% of folk will vote for that.

I am a Greens supporter AlanIde so I'll have a thorough look at your website a little later.  It's nice to see a new green party emerge and good to see another greeny on this forum.

We liked the "Marine Parks as a Fisheries Management Tool" on this site so have just co-opted it for our site - see http://www.newaustralia.net/enviro_parks.html.

Hope know one here minds  :)

Welcome to the forum Alan. It's great to see another group pushing the green tax shift concept. For some reason it is a difficult one to communicate.

Also, there are a lot of Australian fishing and camping forums that would be interested in your parks policies. This is always a hot topic. The fishing forums seem to be interested in 4WD access, jet skis, fire management etc.

Hi.

With respect.

Has anybody within the enviro-lobby even bothered to find out how hunters think about conservation?

I have been a hunter since my pre-teen years and consider myself to be a VERY serious conservasionist.

(Well. - Okay. I ain't been hunting in a long while now due to some fairly serious disability, but it is something I want to get back to ASAP).

If there are any things relating to the mainstream "enviro-freaks" which have put me, - (and MANY thousands like me), - from voting for you, it is your hatred of firearms owners in general and of hunters in particular.

With very few exceptions, most avid hunters/shooters I know are also avid fishermen.

The above points DO have a very major bearing on votes.

Do you want them or not?

If not, why not?

If so.........what are the largely self-styled "enviro-friendly" Parties offering in return for those votes?

Hi Freediver & The Warragal,

I am not a hunt'n, shoot'n, fish'n kind-a-guy but as I think http://www.newaustralia.net/enviro_parks.html shows NewAustralia is not opposed of these activities.

Why don't you guys send me your ideas on expanding some of this stuff? I can run it past existing members. I am in favour of hunting non-native animals (deer, pigs, foxes, cats & dogs, etc) in a humane way. Not too keen on duck shooting though....we may disagree on this point??

I am into bushwalking & skiing and found it was ridiculous when the parks people would not let Melbourne Bushwalking Club re-build Wilkinson's Lodge after it burnt down. For this reason I go on about huts a bit on this page and even scanned in a bad photo of Wilky I had. (I am the fat guy on skis to the left in the photo:))

Your site is very professional Alan and you've spent a lot of time researching and setting it up obviously to make it that way.  

I can't understand why people would want to kill an animal just for the pleasure of it.  The problem is - can you trust hunters just to kill feral animals and is there anyone around to ensure that they're killed swiftly and humanely?  Now that hunting seems to be making a big comeback - it not only causes unnecessary suffering to some animals, but puts humans in danger as well as more and more parks are opened up.

I'll accept that feral animals have to be culled humanely, but I'm surprised your party would support hunting as a sport.

I'll have a further look at your policies - they all seem great and as long as there is nothing in regard to hunting for pleasure - I'll join up while membership is still free.

I am not that keen on hunting but I have respect for the deer hunters I have met in my travels in the bush. I guess tracking a deer for 3 days through the alps gets rid of the crazy rambo types pretty quickly.

Re humane killing the deer hunters I have met are probably as proficient as anyone with a fire arm.

NewAustralia is not a party set up to support hunting but as long as its only feral animals which need culling anyway then and is controlled then I am not inclined to support (trying to) ban it either. At the moment we have a policy of opposing duck shooting. I can't see it changing.

It depends what they use when they hunt deer.  There are some crossbow hunters on this forum and today in the paper there were two incidents mentioned where kangaroos were found left to die - one with a bow through its head and the other one through its rump.  Disgusting.

Unfortunately too many of our national parks are being opened up to hunting and it's open slather.  Beware if you're a visitor taking in the sights.

Duck hunting is pointless and just another blood sport.

Ok I hadn't thought of cross bow hunting!

There are some words about Animal Welfare here http://www.newaustralia.net/society.html#animal. Also some hunting stuff here http://www.newaustralia.net/enviro_parks.html.

Feel free to suggest some new wording. I don't think anyone in NewAustralia is much into animal sadism.

Hi Mantra.

I have no idea who these "cross-bow hunters" that frequent this Forum are but they must be very exotic beasts.

In Australia, with the exception of South Australia and the Northern Territory, cross-bows have been subject to as stringent and in some jurisdictions even more restrictive legislation than even firearms.

In New South Wales cross-bows were banned in 1973, and only limited ownership was later tolerated for target archery and Historical Re-Creationism only.

The incident involving the two injured kangaroos describes an act of mindless vandalism.

Are you unable to make a distinction between hunting and criminality?

OR.

Are you so biased that you simply don't want to make room for ANY such distinction?

You write:

Quote.

"Unfortunately too many of our national parks are being opened up to hunting and it's open slather."

End Quote.

From all that I have seen of the proposed game management details only feral animals will be culled on crown land and National Parks Land.

Such culling is to be restricted to hunters who hold the appropriate licenses.

Hardly "open slather" Mantra.


You write:

Quote.

"Beware if you're a visitor taking in the sights."

End Quote.


Now why would you say that Mantra?

Are you seriously saying that people who legally hunt are in some way a danger to their fellow citizens?

If so. - Then I must ask you to provide credible evidence to support that remarkable assertion.


Finally:

Quote.

"Duck hunting is pointless and just another blood sport."

End Quote.

We have plenty of non-native waterfowl in Australia.

Why is duck hunting pointless?

The only serious conservation problem related to duck hunting that I could ever find and which was scientificaly validated was the issue of lead poisoning caused by birds eating spent shotgun pellets.

This matter could easily be addressed by obligating ammunition manufacturers to make shotgun pellets from non-toxic bismouth.

(Iron shot was attempted years back, but as it lacks sufficient weight to be ballisticaly efficient, its use could hardly be described as ethical much less humane, so bismouth looks like the most realistic alternative to lead shot).  

AlanIde hi, Ive had a look at your website and like a lot of  your ideas, I have a couple of questions if you don't mind,
Does your party have any religious affiliation? I noticed something on your site about "preserving gods creation" do the party believe in creationism?

My other question is what is the party's position on drugs?

The Warrigal: What sort of regulation of shooting in national/state parks would you say is appropriate? Should all hunters be members of some approved body? Or are they anyway? We flag the idea in http://www.newaustralia.net/enviro_parks.html of having different days for different activities...not sure how practical that is! I confess ignorance in this area which is not one of our key points.

Skippy: We have no religious affiliation, but do not seek to exclude people of faith.

I occasionally attend a Baptist church in St. Kilda. The 'Respecting Faith' section of http://www.newaustralia.net/society.html is a reaction to the Greens and Democrats that we felt were anti-faith. Faith is a very rich tapestry and includes a whole universe of beliefs. Personally I have faith, believe in evolution & climate change and accept abortion & homosexuality. Others have faith, reject evolution but passionately agree with the need to save 'gods creation'. Then there are others of faith who say God gave us all this so its our duty to exploit it to the max right now and kill all gays. (Luckily I don't know any of them.)

Note that in http://www.newaustralia.net/education.html we oppose teaching of intelligent design in schools. So sort of a bob each way really. :)

Re drugs see http://www.newaustralia.net/health_drugs.html. What do you think?

Defence...  policy is naive and inaccurate.
"Current global"  expediture list is out of date.
The idea of Australia wanting to be a world super-power is barmy.
Never has been a goal.
1/ Look at our expenditure as a % of GDP....  we are waaaaaay down the list.  2/ Since we have most of the worlds uranium etc, it wouldn't be hard to become a Nuclear Power ie Superpower if we had wanted to.  3/ we don't have the population to provide a large enough military force.  The argument is a farce.

Oh and I notice you support GET UP! Radical progressive Left nutbags if ever there were any...  2 words...  Mamdouh Habib.
Oh and your obvious recent addition the knee-jerk "white phosphorus" line is again showing your ignorance on the subject.  if you'd been here a few months ago you might have learnt something when we were debating it whilst Hamas were trying their very best to get Palestinians killed.

Oh and as for your imaginary treaty...  I'll believe it when I see it...  gee and I wonder what effect that would have on alliances.  Everyman for himself arms-race anyone?  Oh and I guess that shoots ANZUS in the foot too even though you seem to not recognise that.

I notice you support GET UP!  A radical progressive left group of nutbags if ever there was...  2 words...  Mamdouh Habib.

Say hello to boofy Alan he's the resident crackpot, don't worry tho when he's on his medication he's reasonably harmless.

Nothing constructive to say as usual Skippy just flaming as usual.

Grendel wrote on May 12^th, 2009 at 2:02pm:

Nothing constructive to say as usual Skippy just flaming as usual.

Facts aren't flaming boof boof.

You trying to create a flame war on someone elses topic squippo?
How about just trying to refute the facts for a change...  get your wife to help.

Quote:

NewAustralia is not a party set up to support hunting but as long as its only feral animals which need culling anyway then and is controlled then I am not inclined to support (trying to) ban it either. At the moment we have a policy of opposing duck shooting. I can't see it changing.

What about kangaroos, crocodiles, whales, emus and native fish?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/sustainability-party/kangaroo-law.html

http://www.ozpolitic.com/sustainability-party/why-allow-whaling.html


Quote:

Duck hunting is pointless and just another blood sport.

Duck is one of my favourite foods.


Quote:

Should all hunters be members of some approved body? Or are they anyway? We flag the idea

My old spearfishing club tried to set something like that up for spearfishing. It has been pretty difficult.


Quote:

Say hello to boofy Alan he's the resident crackpot, don't worry tho when he's on his medication he's reasonably harmless.

Skippy leave out the personal attacks please.

freediver you raise excellent points here and expose an inconsistency between different parts of the NewAustralia agenda. On the one hand we talk about only hunting feral animals and yet on http://www.newaustralia.net/rural.html we support commercial kangaroo harvesting.

While this is not a central part of our agenda we will need to do some more thinking about this and try and fix it up. I will let you know when we have.

My current thoughts on the matter would be that terrestrial parks should be like marine 'no take' zones for native fauna unless scientific data recommended a cull. Native animals could and should be used commercially outside of parks. Comments please!!

The whale harvesting idea is interesting and what you say makes some sense. At a practical level we can't stop the 'scientific' program anyway so continued posturing about it just pointlessly erodes our relationship with Japan. Perhaps a better conservation deal can be reached by agreeing to convert the scientific whaling into commercial whaling. I will need to see what the the reaction of the other NewAustralia members is to this before adding this as policy. At the moment we are silent on the issue -  it just hasn't been discussed yet.

Nice to see you take on board all critical appraisal Alan.   ;D ;D ;D

Alan.

Thank you for your reply and also for your patience!

The only opinion that I represent at Ozpolitic is my own, so rather then regale you with my own views at this juncture, I thought it would be more productive if I sought out and provided links to the some of the most respected of conservation hunting orgs.

Here are a few which I would regard as essential to anyone seeking clear insight into the hunting community's point of view:

http://www.fga.net.au/www/251/1001127/displayarticle/hunting--1001226.html
     
http://www.bowhunters.org.au/phpBB3/portal.php

http://www.ssaa.org.au/hunting/hunting-and-conservation-branches.html

www.forest.nsw.gov.au/recreation/hunting/pdf/conservation-hunting.pdf

http://www.aushunt.com.au/main/mainarticle2.php?articleid=08712d59b1

The economic as well as ecological benifits of sport hunting are well articulated in the articles contained within the above mentioned sites.

While I shall chime in a bit more regarding my own personal thoughts a little later, for the time being I shall confine myself to one of your questions.

You ask wether it should be mandatory for hunters to belong to an approved hunting association and if so which one should it be.

I am inclined to think that this is not only unneccessary but also unwieldly and liable to be an expensive administrative nightmare.

Freediver has pointed out some of the difficulties of trying to do this.

As it happens most of the hunters I know join one or more sporting bodies which revolve around their hobby.

Hunting covers a lot of territory so there are several categories of firearm hunters along with the bowhunters and the "primitive hunting" enthusiasts.

All of these seem to be represented by at least one reputable club or association

I think that it would be very unfair, not to mention counter productive for anyone to arbitrarily declare that association "A" is the ONLY fit and proper body to represent hunters.

Regards,

Warrigal

AlanIde wrote on May 13^th, 2009 at 4:47pm:

freediver you raise excellent points here and expose an inconsistency between different parts of the NewAustralia agenda. On the one hand we talk about only hunting feral animals and yet on http://www.newaustralia.net/rural.html we support commercial kangaroo harvesting. While this is not a central part of our agenda we will need to do some more thinking about this and try and fix it up. I will let you know when we have. My current thoughts on the matter would be that terrestrial parks should be like marine 'no take' zones for native fauna unless scientific data recommended a cull. Native animals could and should be used commercially outside of parks. Comments please!! The whale harvesting idea is interesting and what you say makes some sense. At a practical level we can't stop the 'scientific' program anyway so continued posturing about it just pointlessly erodes our relationship with Japan. Perhaps a better conservation deal can be reached by agreeing to convert the scientific whaling into commercial whaling. I will need to see what the the reaction of the other NewAustralia members is to this before adding this as policy. At the moment we are silent on the issue -  it just hasn't been discussed yet.

Alan, these are good points to consider, and good on you for the effort and feedback. The aboriginals understood the terrestrial parks concept as do many traditional social groups. It is no accident that many sacred sites and areas are also important animal nurseries.

Quote:

The aboriginals understood the terrestrial parks concept

How so?

When I was in Africa my guide told me that the tribes used to have an animal totem and that hunting that animal was forbidden within their territory, effectively creating a species specific no-take zone.

A bit busy at the moment but will respond in detail later.

That should give time for Grendel to come up with some hard data on why the JSF is a good buy, where Australia comes now in the list of world military spending, how all these new destroyers will defend themselves (let alone Australia) ETC.

Have a nice day :)

freediver wrote on May 14^th, 2009 at 6:54pm:

Quote: The aboriginals understood the terrestrial parks concept How so? When I was in Africa my guide told me that the tribes used to have an animal totem and that hunting that animal was forbidden within their territory, effectively creating a species specific no-take zone.

FD, it is because
Quote:

It is no accident that many sacred sites and areas are also important animal nurseries.

These areas become no hunt zones period. Or they may be seasonally specific. It probably helped if the no-hunt period coincided with times of fruit abundance etc. these areas were recognised for their contribution to sustanability.

Tim Flannery's book The Future Eaters is an easy and excellent read and covers some of these concepts. I think you would enjoy it. Tim is a big fan of harvestable meat sources as opposed to farming.