How do the policies of the major parties compare with those of SPA? Which major party is closest?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/sustainability-party.html

Which parties support:

• Lower overall tax burden on society
• Higher taxes on greenhouse emissions, water and other 'negative externalities'
• Communal resources remaining communal
• End to the baby bonus
• End to first home buyers grant scheme
• End to water tank subsidies
• Electoral reform
• More food trees on public land
• Greater use of marine parks as fisheries management tools
• Truth in advertising for bank interest rates
• Ratification of Kyoto
• End to farming subsidies
• End to bans on fuel taxes for international flights
• End to bans on importation of kangaroo meat
• Greater leadership role by Australia in reducing greenhouse emissions

Initially we should be given a basic allocation per person per household, and if we exceed that - then a fair price should be charged for every extra litre.

Wouldn't it be better to increase the price, then hand out some money to compensate? That way even those who aren't using much still have a motivation to use less. The fair price for water is whatever it would cost under a free market mechanism, plus a bit more to get some flow back in rivers. There is only so much water available. Subsidising it's use just leads to waste. Telling someone that they will be given a huge overallocation of a precious resource and won't be compensated in any way for conserving that resource just guarantees it will be wasted.

We should all be given a chance to use this resource carefully before we are penalised.

Paying your way is not being 'penalised'. It's paying your way.

That's why I can't see the problem with water tanks - even though the initial outlay is expensive, they should be essential to all households to fall back on during droughts.

Water tanks are a great idea, if the economic situation justifies it. But at the moment water from a tank costs a lot more than town water, because the government is subsidising town water. Doesn't that tell you something? We are running out of water because the government is giving it away for almost nothing.

I also believe that farming subsidies are necessary to keep Australia self sufficient.

Australia is a net food exporter. We produce more food than we consume. Our farmers would be better off by far if farming subsidies were removed. We would produce even more and our farmers would be better paid.

What about those people with large families who can't afford to pay a lot for it.

They will have just as much trouble paying for other things, and will benefit just as much from the reduction in tax on those other things. We are not in any danger of having people who cannot afford enough water to drink or to wash.

If you look at industry and mining - they pay some ridiculously low amount for so many megalitres of water or they pay nothing.  

People should be paying the same amount if they are in the same catchment. Most likely it will be farmers, mining and factories that get charged more, but I haven't looked into the details.

Are you still writing policies or is it already established?

They are just the ones I have come up with so far. I have a few more in mind which I will get round to soon, but it won't change much from my ideas. If you can come up with any ideas that fit well with the general theme of sustainability please suggest them. I expect there will eventually be a lot more detail to the policies.

---

The coalition's whaling policy is far closer to SPA's than Labor:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1168478179/36#36

Labor's climate policy is far closer to SPA's, with support for Kyoto and 'less intolerance' of taxation schemes. That is, Howard has pretty much ruled out taxes and baely ruled in trading while Labor has said they are open to both taxes and trading. Howard's tropical reforestation policy appears to be significant.

Labor is better on reducing the overall tax burden:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1179640933/25#25