A minority group should not dictate the way the majority chooses to live.

About ten years ago a euthanasia bill was presented to the Northern Territory Parliament.
The bill was derailed and defeated by what was probably a minority view. I do not believe that a minority group should dictate the way the majority chooses to live.

More recently I became interested in two issues.

Firstly why do imported 4WD vehicles attract less tax/tariffs than other passenger cars? Given the safety and environmental concerns surrounding these vehicles are the reasons for lower tax/tariffs still relevant today?

The second issue is why the government is indiscriminately paying a rebate for the production of biodiesel? As I understand it, our government will pay around $50 million a year to a company in the Northern Territory producing biodiesel from Indonesian palm oil. The Indonesian Minister for Agriculture, Anton Apriyantono, announced on 27 January 2006 that his government planned to develop three million hectares of palm oil plantations over the next five years ‘to meet increasing demand for biofuel as an alternative source of energy’. By subsidising the production of biodiesel from palm oil, I believe our government is using taxpayers’ money to encourage the destruction of rainforest in an economically vulnerable country.

When I was seeking more information about both of these issues:
I had great difficulty finding accurate information and I wrote letters to many in both the media and politics but failed to raise any interest.
I began to appreciate how difficult it was to get accurate information and even how futile it was trying to make change.

I appreciate that these issues may seem minor and even a little obscure compared with others facing our country, but they are matters that contribute to the kind of society we are creating.

Accurate information and balanced argument - I wish!

Today there are many issues facing the Australian public where the outcome will affect how we shape our country. These issues receive plenty of attention in the media. –They include nuclear power or not, desalination or recycled water, euthanasia or ‘natural’ death, whether to sign the Kyoto protocol or not, questions over the war in Iraq, such as what are the ramifications of pulling our troops out of Iraq before the Iraqi government is ‘on its feet’; and how long do we give the Iraqi government our support by way of troops on the ground in Iraq?
I feel extremely frustrated that 'Jo(e) Public'’ has no real opportunity to access accurate information and balanced argument on issues facing the Australian people and, beyond voting at elections, has no direct input on the outcome of issues.

It is difficult to get independent information on issues. By way of example, interest groups can lobby a cause by putting forward a biased view and questionable ‘facts’ about an issue. In the Australian newspaper on 21 March 2007, it was reported that during a campaign against water recycling in Brisbane 400,000 booklets were to be distributed, claiming treated effluent can cause testicular cancer, has the potential to kill, and quoted scientists saying it can cause infertility. Without accurate information and balanced argument we will not be able to reach the best decisions about matters facing our community.

The internet has so much information; it is difficult to sift the facts from fiction and the relevant from the rubbish.

The internet will change politics.

I believe that the internet has great potential for democratic political systems, which should include:

• accurate information and balanced argument that is easily accessible and can be referred to on each bill and important issue confronting our society. This might be like the media preparing a detailed, unbiased and well-rounded report on an issue, except that the information will be more accessible and easy to refer to.
• giving the majority of our community a way to be informed and voice an opinion.
• tallying the votes and ensuring the majority view is clearly heard.

On a different note, I would like to share with you two public recognitions.

First is indicative that I have a passion for innovation and doing.
In 1991 I identified a business opportunity and started a company named Leveraged Equities Limited which lent money against shares. Within two years Leveraged Equities had become the market leader in its sector.
My main focus, during the eleven years I was with and headed the company, was to ensure an innovative product and to develop a great team of staff who would deliver outstanding customer service.
A measure of achievement were comments by Macquarie Bank equities research team made in their ‘Regional Banks Account Number 3, July 2001’ report which noted “Leveraged Equities has an excellent reputation for product innovation... very strong brand awareness... ‘LE are generally believed to own the broker channel’ where they have a ‘clear number one’ market share... cleverly structured product”.

I was very proud of my team at Leveraged Equities, because it was as a team that we achieved this recognition.

The second indicates that sometimes I make bad decisions.
In 1999, the Government was selling down its stake in Telstra. I falsely predicted that these shares would be good value and I decided that I should enthusiastically invest. I used what ASIC described as “a combination and permutation of family members at a number of addresses”. I used multiple applications, in line with what I wrongly believed to be the acceptable practice of many professional investors at the time. In 2000, ASIC started an investigation concerned that the names “may have been contrived”. In Oct 2002, I entered an Enforceable Undertaking with ASIC, that prevented me acting as or holding a Dealers License for a two year period, not withstanding that I have never acted as a dealer.

I was wrong to have made multiple applications in order to get a better allocation in T2 than I otherwise might have got. This poor decision had significant costs and embarrassment. More than the personal humiliation was the shame I felt for causing embarrassment to my wife and children.
I regret the decision I made, I remain embarrassed about it and I am sorry for it.

Senator On-Line

Senator On-Line is a genuine attempt to give people easy access to accurate information and balanced argument on the important issues facing our nation, to make politics more progressive, to make politics more engaging and ensure that the majority view is clearly heard beyond election day.

SOL is a not-for-profit Organisation. I am volunteering my time and energy.

We live in great country. We have a democratic society with free speech. A flavour of 100 different cultures. A population who in the main (but not all) are logical, considerate and compassionate. A vast majority of who have access to the internet. I believe it is with these factors a SOL type concept would be of valuable input to any government.

If you like the concept please join us. The only way to give the SOL concept substance is for people to get involved, to lend a hand and help. Help, even in the smallest of ways, such as sending an email to friends and asking them to simply visit the SOL website, would be greatly appreciated.

Please click here to see how you can help.