S T E W A R T   G L A S S

Questions received from citizen (name removed as requested) on 8 Feb 2010 (in bold).  My replies are inserted.

1.Do you intend to declare your religious views now or after the media finds out? I dare say that you are hoping that the members of the Church will vote for you, but if you are not willing fly your standard now then you can not ask for their support later. Many of yor 'views' / polices are couched in the very same terms as the Church couches its beliefs.

I am happy to be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Accepting the gospel continues to be one of the best decisions of my life.  I don't find any chasm between been a libertarian and being LDS.  Of course I don't claim or desire to speak on behalf of the LDS church.  People who want to find out more should visit something like www.mormon.org   Though I have my own ethics, I don't try to force them on others - that is why I am a libertarian.  One of my basic tennets is the separation of church and state.  
see Key 07-Moral and Legal

2. Defence. Do you have any views on Austrlaia's long term engagement with ASEAN or its close neighbour, such as East Timor or PNG. YOur views on Defene appear to be a bit light on really.

I have not focused on defence as this is a state election and defence is a federal issue.

3. Economics. You have a 'socialist' cartoon link on your page. Does this
mean that you don't ascribe to the Church's anti socialism stance, noting
that many GAs have decalred socialism and Communism as opposed to the
kingdom of heaven?

The cartoon was illustrating that socialism doesn't run because they remove the engine of self-interest ( ie as Adam Smith described ).   I oppose socialism and communism because they are bad for Australia.  To see where I do fit in visit here

4. Urban fringe. Do you say that the environment is of less vlue than my need to "keep up with the Jones'"? unlocking teh urban fringe ina land as environmentally fragile as Australia is fraught with long term issues. Have you considered medium and high density living as a means of bringing about the socialist ideal that everyone gets a piece of the action? Of course teh Australian dream is for teh 1/4 acre block, but I thought that had officailly died several years ago.

Removing the Urban Boundary is totally distinct from "keeping up with the Jones".  If you have land, you can build a solar powered 2 bedroom cottage with a vegie garden next to your neighbour's McMansion if you want.   

Let's face it - Australia is a land with "boundless plains to share"

I also reject that removing land zoning is bad for the environment as I suspect most new homes will be built on pastures - hardly areas of high environmental diversity.   Central planning does little to enable the poor to afford a home - as is bleeding obvious in Adelaide today.  

Lastly I reject that the should even be an official block size for Australians.  It's your life and the government should mind it's own business as long as you are living peaceably with your neighbours. 

5. What are yor vies (if any) on the separation of chruch and state? 

I believe in the separation of church and state - ie the government should not subsidize nor dictate morals to it's citizens.    See Key 07-Moral and Legal

"Schools would need to provide good service and keep trust with the parents
to keep the students - and hence the funding. Schools would need to adapt to
the priorities of parents to stay viable." quoted

What happens to school
How does you pollicy above meet the needs of children and Australia into the
future. Simply giving power to schools to make decisions will not work. You
are relying on schools and parents having the foresight (wisdom, intelligence and education) to manage funds and curriculae in a manner which benefits the future, a future which may be just a long as the next pay cheque of for others tomorrow morning. How do you see this concept working in a country which doesn't even have a national curriculum for education?  

Firstly, I don't think we need a national, or even state curriculum.  Secondly, I trust parents of children (with the future of their children) more than any other group.  They are the ones who choose the school and hence give them funding.  If we think people are so short sighted and incompetent, why even believe in democracy?

I think that you have fallen into the trap of the minor parties here - no
chance of ever having to form a majority governmetn and therefore no chance of ever really testing your policy statements. A bit like the Greens, Family First and the What Women Want Party.

I think this policy would be one of the easiest out of all my policies to implement.  I wish the major parties would adopt it.  

Unlike one-issue-parties, you will note that my policies are consistant within themselves.  They all follow my 20 Keys

What is your attitude towards women in the workplace and the education of
girls? Are they simply in need of enough education to keep house or should
they have an education commensurate with or better than their husband /
defacto / interdependent partner?

If women want to work, they should be allowed.  If girls want an education, they are just as capable as the boys to get one.  I grew up with intelligent and strong willed women and girls, and so I don't have an issue with it.  I am also happy for my wife to be smarter than me.

Do you have a policy regarding interdependent partnerships and the
legalising of their relationships?

Sorry - I'm not familiar with this term.

Further to your education policy of dividng up the budget equally among all
school aged children:
Does your policy infer that all children have the same education costs? I
dare say that a child study top level maths and science is in need of a larger slice of that 'pie' than a child in reception who simply wants to finger paint and play 'duck duck, goose'. I don't think that your education policy is sustainable. It may garner some polulist support, but for those who actually consider it, they should arrive at the same decision.

I don't have an issue with older students being allocated more money per student than younger students, as long as all Year 10 students (for example) are allocated the same amount per student.

Furthermore, do you infer that a child living in Woodcroft or Reynella is in
need of the same financial support as a child in the outback who relies on
the internet for their education? 

And what happens to the economy when your education policy causes the farmer to vacate the farm in an effort to educate the child in the city? 

I don't doubt that education costs will vary somewhat between locations.

Students or schools that require additional help due to special needs will need to be assisted from their communities, charities or parents, as is the case with all welfare. I believe though, as there is to be a minimal government administration, there will be more money available.  There are pro's and con's to living rurally and I leave it to families to decide what best suits them.

Regarding the economy and farmers leaving - water will find it's own level.  If farmers leave, there will be less competition and food prices in their section will rise.  This will mean more income for the remaining farmers.  In any case, I can't see education costs varying that much.  I also believe if given a free hand, schools will come up with innovative solutions.

Some of yor policies appear to lack credible or indepth consideration.

Perhaps instead of the 'ill considered' statements as policies, you could
simply run as a candidate who wants to 'keep teh b**rds honest'. it worked
before and those guys have been in politics for a long time now. 

The democrats who said that actually lost their last member of Parliament when David Winderlich left the party to become an independent.   Slogans are good but you when you actually vote in parliament it's according to your policy.  I think my policies are commonsense, if not always currently popular.   As a minimum I am upfront and my agenda transparent - this is more than can be said for many candidates.

But what happens if you turn into a career politician? 

I hope a friend tells me to resign.  (I define a career politician as one who goes or stays in politics for anything else than the good of the society (as they see it))

Will you resign on principle of simply continue to move toward a wonderful political pension and other benefits paid for at the expense of the public purse? 

I don't agree with politician perks after they resign, apart from security issues.  I also think their wage should be linked to the average wage - that way if wages improve so does their remuneration, and if the citizens have a hard time, the politicians feel it too.