It does matter what people are saying about the persons in the party

.We go into the 2010 Vic  elections  wondering whether we can maintain credibility with our core constituency let alone grow it . FF survival is dependent on its persons and reps in particular ,  not often on its leadership. Its aim to make government more open accountable and value based means it is a platform for good things. Even if people are unhappy with the leadership, the key issue is what it stands for .The key issue is the people who stand and whether they do truly represent the people's interests.  Whatever the party name the same is true .  

The Libs don't realise just how much trouble they are in

While The Victorian election result is not unexpected in terms of the libs flagging adherents, the libs failure to recognise that the leakage to FF is because they like Labor are taking for granted the conservative christian vote .They are said to be irrational by the media whic is supposed to mean "irrelevant" . Trouble is the Libs believe there own media hype too much- its not whats marketed that matters .Bracks too is into marketing; As one old commo ,now labor person, said on the husting today . the premier is the best liberal premier we have had ( he wasn't being too kind but he was dead accurate)
Thankfully Rudd for one is not ignoring the really old radicals folowers , but like the left , the old church schoolboys are the worst -they keep forgeting that faith is boring to teach, but great fun to preach - Safely innoculated against ever raising their hands by emotionless classroom presentations , the Libs are hoping they can resurecet libertariansim without the liberators emotional drive The libs can't do it without putting His followers in their sights. FF , despite its weak policy in many practical matters is not going to go away . Time for the Libs to wake up and stop living on the past . Just Like labor

What I am saying about Family First

They need to more vigourously encourage their young recruits to speak directly to local issues because the major parties are not providing, a lead, or much credibility or risk .

Victorian Election

Not much is being said in mainstream media ..... but what's new

Queensland election

what happened there ?

Federal Election 04

Even though it's new ( 2yrs old )The media haven't been saying much ( To date 24th September )except to adopt the extreme left's view that it's extreme right.
What is this new group about ? It started in churches Does any church control it ? Is there room for the more stable middle ground in Australian political debate?
What are they doing right ? What are they doing poorly ?
Email questions or join Blogger and participate

Consistent - unlike so many who waver and wooseout !

It was 10 years ago, back in 1996, that the Parliament decided that the Health Minister should be responsible for approving RU486, by passing the Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill 1996 (No.2).

At the time, Labor Senator Belinda Neal said: "These issues need to be addressed by the executive of this government …with absolute and direct accountability."

Then Greens senator Christabel Chamarette said: "We deserve to have parliamentary scrutiny of decisions. We deserve to have a voice on issues and not simply leave them to boards of experts."

Nothing has changed. The onus is on those who seek to repeal that Bill to show there has been sufficient change since 1996 to warrant such action. Not only have they failed to do so, they have not even attempted to do so.

We all know RU486 is not like any other drug. It is designed to cause an abortion and end the life of an unborn child.

Family First believes this is a major policy issue of social, moral and ethical importance.

The community elects, and pays, politicians to do their job, and that includes tackling tough issues like abortion, and considering the community's views. For Australia's elected politicians to wash their hands of this, to pass off their decision-making power on a policy issue like RU486 to unelected bureaucrats, would be a gross dereliction of our duty, and a real insult to the people who put us here in the first place.

Labor's own political correctness

Major parties are just as "religious" as any. This helps explain why Labor now after losing so big ,will take a long time to really admit why they missed the opportunity to address the "issues of the day ".
As chief political adviser I don't give important advice to just anybody ,but if you are willing to explore, you 'll find much of labor's highly predictable failiure ( i wrote to goerge negus on the subject several weeks ago ) briefed out there - you really need to explore our teaching site for politicians. http://users.gsat.net.au/tuf
Like Jeff Kennett ten years ago coming from another blikered view of the world, Labor can expected be struggle to accept the fact their biggest handicap is political correctness. No time here to elaborate - that too would give the game away. There is, as Santayana said, no medicine like the truth to get in the way of a historic media strangehold on the story .

What the Greens are saying about FF

From Meet the Press October 3rd
JENNIFER HEWITT: One of the parties that's running on a family program is Family First and they are actually saying that you are extreme on all sorts of issues. They don't seem to be very impressed with your family policies at all and you are complaining about their ads. But you do have extreme views on drugs, don't you?

BOB BROWN: No, we don't. Let me just talk about Family First. It's an un-Christian group. It seems to be motivated by hate. It has been talking to the PM about how to get extra representation in the parliament because the PM wants to use Family First to get control of the Senate. Through its preferences or if Family First senators are elected, he can get total control of the Parliament, including the Senate. Coming back on to the drugs policy, Family First was asked about that in Tasmania this week and doesn't have one. That's a sign of a party that's covering up a lot. The Greens policies...

PAUL BONGIORNO: But the point...

BOB BROWN: ..are to minimise the harm to young Australians. We have a death toll of one young Australian per day on average at the moment.

PAUL BONGIORNO: But doesn't Family First's objections come down to the fact that your policy would have marijuana sold over the counter?

BOB BROWN: Well, no, it doesn't. It comes down to the hard drugs problem where we're seeing a death toll. That's not coming out of marijuana - the biggest death toll in Australia, by the way...

PAUL BONGIORNO: But you do have that view on marijuana, don't you?

BOB BROWN: No, I don't have that view.

PAUL BONGIORNO: Well, your party does.

BOB BROWN: Of decriminalising. That's very different to the legalising...

JENNIFER HEWITT: I guess it is controlled availability in appropriate venues. What's the difference?

BOB BROWN: That's right. That is harm minimisation, but this is not legalising as Family First would have it. Let me just say this - the prohibitio...-

PAUL BONGIORNO: Just quickly, Bob, we're just about out of time on this segment.

BOB BROWN: ..increases the death toll of young Australians. Family First, I believe, their policies actually threaten young Australians, whereas the Greens are trying to minimise that threat.



MALCOLM FARR: Senator Brown, your preference allocations are this marvellous magical mystery tour all around the shop. You don't go for Family First, but you do put at the top of your Queensland Senate list Mr Free Marijuana. You preference the Social Alliance ahead of the Democrats, which is an interesting matter of weighing up the two parties. But can I go to Labor Party preferences? In the seat of Brand you won't give preferences to Kim Beazley, but in the seat of Wentworth you are giving preferences to Labor's David Patch. What's Kim done to you?

BOB BROWN: Well, the local groups determine those preferences, Malcolm, but let me go back to your first...

MALCOLM FARR: But you're the leader of the party, aren't you?

BOB BROWN: No, no, I'm not a dictator. We've got a democracy in the Greens. We've got 8,000 members and we've got branches which make up their own mind on a whole range of factors and issues. But the preferences are secondary to us to getting primaries. But let me go back to your first assertion. People have to know this, that in the Senate in various States, if they vote for the Coalition or the Labor Party or the Democrats, they can put in a far-right candidate. Not the Greens. Because the preference flow goes away from the Greens. The only safe way of getting the Greens into the Senate is to vote for the Greens. Let's talk about preference flows. Did you know Labor flows in Victoria and Tasmania go to the Family First before the Greens? The Coalition does in almost all cases. The Democrats give their preferences to Family First before the Greens in South Australia. So you've get to be very, very aware - voters have to be very, very aware of all over the shop coming from those other parties.

MALCOLM FARR: As soon as we have the two leaders in there, we'll have a shot at it. But you are here now. Can you say that your preference allocations are merely the mechanics of pragmatism to get the votes in, that they're not representative of anything else, that you're not favouring a particular ideology in one party over another?

BOB BROWN: No, I can't because...

MALCOLM FARR: So Mr Free Marijuana is there not just for pragmatic reasons, but because you reckon he's got a pretty good case to make to the people.

BOB BROWN: In Queensland I would reckon because there's a whole range of other policies that are important to the Greens there which have stacked up. For example, better funding for public education and school.

MALCOLM FARR: From Mr Free Marijuana?

BOB BROWN: I would presume so. I would presume they are better than the Opposition's or the Government's.

JENNIFER HEWITT: Bob, in practice, though, the Greens really act as a huge advantage to the Labor Party, don't they?

BOB BROWN: In practice, the Greens voters do go, as Sol Lebovic was saying, Jennifer, 70-30 to the Labor Party. But just yesterday an elderly lady in Launceston asked me how to put her preference, how she should vote if she voted Green, so her preference went to the Government. It's a mixed bag and it very much indicates where people have come from in the past, and that's one of the wonders of our democracy.

JENNIFER HEWITT: But why are you so antagonistic to Family First? Aren't they doing on the right what you're just really doing on the left?

BOB BROWN: Except we are open. Family First policies aren't out there. They've had secret discussions with the PM. They are about...

JENNIFER HEWITT: What, as opposed to your discussions with the Labor Party?

BOB BROWN: We are open about it. We tell people what we do. That's the big difference. They don't say where their funding is coming from. We do. It's a very different kettle of fish and I'm proud that the Greens are as open and responsible and direct with the electorate as we are.

JENNIFER HEWITT: You seem to be fairly conspiratorial about Family First.

BOB BROWN: Yes, I am, because I think it's a conspiratorial set-up. I think they haven't been open and honest about what they are doing, for example about the extreme right religious connections behind it, and I think they should be.

MALCOLM FARR: Speaking of the extreme right, I don't know what you'd gain from having a look at your voting record. Over the last three years the two Greens senators, yourself and Senator Nettle, voted for the Liberal six times, you voted with One Nation 75 times, you voted with Brian Harradine 106 times. You don't mind nudging up to the extreme right occasionally, do you?

BOB BROWN: You've got it back to front, Malcolm. You've got it totally back to front again.

MALCOLM FARR: Have I?

BOB BROWN: Yes. What you are saying there is on many occasions the cross benches voted together and that's included One Nation and/or Brian Harradine supporting what the Greens were doing.

MALCOLM FARR: They were supporting you?

BOB BROWN: That's right. I can tell you in the main, when it comes to such issues - and let me go back to it, because it's so important - as not draining funds away from the public education system or properly funding hospitals or the environment, very often those components of the Senate vote the same way.

PAUL BONGIORNO: OK. We're right out of time. Thank you very much for joining us today, Senator Bob Brown, and all the best for next Saturday.

What FF says about itself

THE TRUTH ABOUT FAMILY FIRST
- SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT -

Dear News Editor,

In recent days, as media recognise that all major parties except the Greens have preferenced Family First highly and there are strong chances of Family First gaining Senate seats, there has been much speculation about where the party has come from. We provide these facts and trust that any comment on the areas below will be based on the information below and not on misinformation that The Greens, a ‘network of talkback callers’ and other sources have tried to spread. We welcome your enquiries if you want to clarify any of the points below.

Thank you

Dr Matt Burnet
Federal Secretary

RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION
The party is not a church party or an Assembly of God party, nor is it funded by AOG churches. It does see itself as SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE, with Family Values based on Christian ethics. Like any main-stream party we do not have on record the religious affiliations of any of our members. The Board of Reference in South Australia includes business-people, members of the medical profession, as well as ministers and people from Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Uniting and other church groups. The rapid national growth of the party leading into this election and the late decision to contest in all seats possible, has meant that in some states there are candidates, with strong family values, who have been introduced to the party through the personal relationships they have from their involvement in community/church networks.

LEFT OR RIGHT
The party does not see itself as far right or extreme in any way. Evidence of this is how Family First negotiates and votes with Labor, Liberal and Democrats in the South Australian parliament. It’s voting record for 2 ½ years has been sensible, compassionate, moderate and non-partisan. Hansard attests to our position in the political spectrum.

MAJOR ACHIEVEMENTS SO FAR IN SA PARLIAMENT
* Major child abuse legislation introduced by Family First and passed unanimously in both houses of parliament– resulting in hundreds of investigations by police;
* Inquiry into status of fathers – fathers in crises due to breakdown of family relationships. Again endorsed overwhelmingly by the parliament;
* Opposed introduction of GM products;
* Supported River Murray reform, and
* Championed rights of disabled groups including autistic children

FINANCES
The overwhelming majority of donations have been raised through candidate fundraising events, like the recent one in Brisbane with 400 people present, and personal donations from individuals like any other political party.

STRUCTURE
The Family First Party has been set up under a company structure simply due to the convenience it provided in the short-term for a national structure that spans state boundaries. It should be noted that the transparency of a company is no less than that of an incorporated body. It also needs to be noted that Family First will be incorporated in each state in the next 18 months.

POLITICAL ADVICE
There are no political ‘heavyweights’ from any other party assisting or advising with the campaign in a public or private way. All preference negotiations have been conducted by the Family First executive and its candidates/workers.

PARTY FORMATION & PLATFORM
Andrew Evans, a retired Assembly of God pastor from the Paradise Community Church, was the first elected Member of Parliament for the Family First Party. He was born in India, and spent many years in PNG. His work involved, among other things, running a primary school and setting up aid posts and prenatal clinics in the Sepik district. He then came to Adelaide and spent 30 years working with the community in his role as a pastor and community leader. This was acknowledged and recognised in 2003 by being awarded an OAM. He founded the party with other people who were interested in seeing him fight in parliament for families on issues such as child abuse, youth suicide, excessive gambling and other social issues. The party has not raised any bill against Abortion in the SA parliament, does not have corporal punishment as part of its policy platform and believes that all co-dependents should not be discriminated against – whether Homosexual or not. In the first election that Family First contested in SA in 2002, Family First defeated the Greens and gained up to 7% of the vote in lower house seats and 4% of the primary vote in the Senate.