A religious group, The Australian Christian Lobby, recently sent out a questionnaire to parties running in the upcoming election on a range of political issues . Many of the questions, predictably, are related to issues considered important by Christians, but they are questions that most people have an opinion on nevertheless.

Go here to read the LDP’s answers to the questionnaire.

The Liberty & Democracy Party (LDP) today called for a change in Australia’s approach to admitting immigrants.

“Australia has a long standing and very workable Free Immigration Agreement (FIA) with New Zealand”, said David Leyonhjelm.

“New Zealanders are free to live and work in Australia without restriction and vice versa, although neither automatically becomes a citizen or is eligible for welfare. Australia should seek to negotiate similar bilateral FIA agreements with other nations that are compatible with Australia. That is, countries that share our basic values (rule of law, democracy) and where there is no expectation of a surge of immigration. Possible examples include Canada, Singapore, Japan, the UK, Ireland and the Netherlands.

“Migrants between FIA countries would have the rights of a permanent resident but retain the citizenship of their home country.The security risks are minimal. Australia already provides near automatic tourist visas to citizens from selected countries. It would merely mean extending the temporary visitor option to permanent residence for nationals from specific countries that were willing to provide a reciprocal benefit to Australians.

“It would eliminate much of the bureaucracy and cost associated with the work visa system and give Australians greater options to live, work and travel abroad,” Mr Leyonhjelm said.

However, whilst the LDP believes this would be an important reform it recognises that such agreements would be inappropriate for many countries. For them, the LDP supports a shift in our immigration process from the points-based “quota” to a “tariff” approach, where immigration is restricted by the charging of an immigration fee (and of course minimum health and safety requirements).

“An immigration fee acts as a form of self-selection as only people with high expected income will apply. This provides a form of payment for Australia’s public goods that are already in place and adds to the economic benefit that the immigrant is providing Australia.”

The fixed immigration fee would originally be set at a level to ensure that the amount of immigration is roughly the same as the current immigration intake.

“Our policy is not about closing the gate on immigration. We believe in a reasonably significant immigrant intake. Our policy is about creating greater efficiency and transparency in the immigration process. An entry fee would be simpler and more transparent than the existing quota and points system,” Mr Leyonhjelm said.

The immigration fee would apply to all non-humanitarian immigrants, whether economic or family. A limited number of “immigration scholarships” and “immigration loans” would be available to certain highly skilled categories that Australia needed. Organisations that seek to encourage population growth in a particular region may also subsidise the fee for immigrants who agree to settle in that location. The same option would be open to State governments that sought to promote settlement of immigrants in particular areas of a State.

“Convenience stores aren’t very convenient if you can’t buy beer there,” says Liberty and Democracy Party (LDP) Queensland Senate candidate John Humphreys.

“Australia is turning into a nanny state with politician and bureaucrats trying to hold our hands through everyday decisions. The simple reality is that many Australians enjoy having a few drinks, and they should be free to buy alcohol when and where it is convenient.

“Paternalist campaigners argue that more liberal availability of alcohol will lead to social problems. However, most civilised countries allow the relatively free supply of alcohol and they don’t suffer any catastrophic social meltdown.”

The Liberty and Democracy Party is a new federal party aimed at getting the government out of people’s lives and restoring individual liberty and responsibility.

“Every other political party wants to tell you how to live your lives. You shouldn’t smoke. You shouldn’t drink. You shouldn’t gamble. While this may be good moral advice, the LDP believes that people should be free to make their own decisions without the meddling hand of government trying to control our social lives.

“The government exists to protect private property and prevent violent crime, not to be our mother. The LDP suggests that the government concentrate on its core jobs and stop telling Australians how to live,” Mr Humphreys said.

The Liberty and Democracy Party (LDP) will be actively seeking the vote of smokers as well as seeking funding from the tobacco industry and businesses affected by recent bans on indoor smoking.

At a formal launch of the party’s smoking policy in front of a group of
unrepentant smokers, Federal President David McAlary told the crowd:

“While the LDP does not dispute the ill effects of smoking, the decision of
when and how to stop smoking is the responsibility of smokers, not the
government’s.

“The government continually treats us like helpless children, telling us how to look after ourselves. Yet it has also reduced our ability to make an informed decision by preventing tobacco companies from printing the strength of cigarettes on packaging”, he said.

In addition to removing the ban on printing the strength of cigarettes on packaging, the LDP announced it would seek to overturn bans on smoking inside pubs, clubs and restaurants, restoring to property owners and proprietors the right to decide whether to allow smoking or not.

“Just as a private individual has the right to dictate whether visitors or guests may smoke in their lounge-room or car, so too the owner of a bar or restaurant should have the right to determine whether smoking should or should not be permitted on their premises. Some people may prefer that a particular venue is non-smoking, others may prefer that it is smoking, but the rule for a particular venue should be made by the venue’s owner”, Mr McAlary said.

“Many of us may not like smoky environments but no-one forces us into them. If there is a demand for smoke-free venues, operators will make them smoke-free to attract more clientele. Any operator who ignores the hoards of patrons deserting their establishment for a smoke-free establishment up the road will soon be out of business, while those who recognise and meet the demand for smoke-free environments will prosper and grow. The government does not need to be involved in this process.

“Some people may not wish to work in smoky environments, but no-one is forced to do so. Many people accept risk in their jobs - security guards, construction workers, miners and farm employees for example. They accept the risks for their own reasons, and are free to negotiate suitable remuneration for doing so. And with the current low unemployment levels, employees have many options open to them.

“The LDP is neither pro-smoking nor anti-smoking, it is pro-choice. It is an individual’s choice whether they smoke, and a property-owner’s decision whether to allow smoking on their property. The LDP is also pro-tolerance. People may not approve of the decisions that others make about their own bodies, or their own property, but a truly tolerant society respects their right to make those choices.

“The government should butt out of people’s freedom to choose”, he said.

The newly AEC-registered Liberty and Democracy Party (LDP) has called for an end to the constant demonisation of poker machines. This announcement comes at the same time as high profile anti-pokies campaigner Nick Xenophon has announced he will run for the Australian Senate.

“Pokies are one of the new easy targets for politicians to attack, but what they are really attacking is the idea of free choice” said LDP Qld Senate candidate John Humphreys.

“All other political parties approve of the idea that the government should tell you how to live your lives. Only the LDP supports the simple idea that each person should be free to make their own decisions, even if politicians and paternalistic do-gooders disapprove of those decisions.

“Personally, I don’t really like poker machines. I prefer real poker. But it is not necessary for all Australians to have the same tastes, preferences and hobbies. The LDP celebrates diversity, shuns paternalism and calls for greater tolerance for those who make different choices. We are the only political party that does not want to impose our morals on other people.

“While it is true that a small percentage of gamblers have a problem with self-control, it is not appropriate to punish the vast majority of people for the actions of a few.

“The LDP would move to decrease regulations on poker machines. Some organisations may follow the lead of South Sydney Leagues Club and not offer poker machines. Other venues will offer poker machines. People can then vote with their feet and make their own choices without the government looking over their shoulders and judging them.”

The Productivity Commissions reports that 82% of Australians gamble and a quarter of those use poker machines. In addition to the entertainment value, gambling provides over 150,000 jobs in Australia.

The Liberty and Democracy Party will be running candidates throughout Australia on a platform of lower taxes and individual freedom.

The LDP believes Australians pay far too much tax.

Since the Howard government was elected, real per capita taxation has increased 34%, not including the GST.

Individuals spend their money much more productively than governments. While the Government needs some tax revenue to provide essential services, today huge amounts are simply recycled by returning them back to essentially the same people and businesses (minus large administration costs) in the form of government handouts.

Australians are more prosperous than ever before, so the number of people needing government assistance should be falling. Yet the welfare state keeps getting bigger. And public servant numbers keep growing.

Neither the proposed Liberal nor Labor cuts restore taxes to what they were a decade ago. The LDP plans to implement genuine tax cuts.

The LDP has a detailed plan for a flat tax of 30% above a tax-free threshold of $30,000. The plan links to a welfare policy, which is based on a low income subsidy of 30% of the amount by which earnings are below $30,000.