Responses

I’ve received a number of emails from individuals and advocacy groups – please find my responses below:

*What’s your definition of abuse?  To use or treat something badly. If elected, I wish to address incidents of abuse where an individual or individuals cause physical or psychological injury repeatedly – actively or passively, through neglect or being unresponsive.

*The repatriation of the Sharrouf children. Based on the information available, I support the repatriation of the Sharrouf children but would assess other requests for repatriation on a case by case basis. I support the brave and loving advocacy of their maternal grandmother, Karen Nettleton.

*Do you support Labor’s call for better protection for casual workers and the reinstatement of penalty rates? I support Labor’s call for an enforceable approach regarding the conversion of casual staff that have been working for the same employer for over 12 months to permanent roles but believe that small businesses should be exempt. Many small business owners operate their businesses whilst managing considerable financial risks and this flexibility could be critical at times. I unconditionally support calls to reinstate penalty rates for all eligible employees working on weekends, public holidays, after midnight or in the evening.

*What are your views on the current state of the Education sector? I believe we should consider a return to the framework mapped out in the original Gonski report and prioritise the funding the public primary and high schools most in need. Like two recalcitrant students sitting in the back corner, the Labor and Liberal parties have refused to fully implement the recommendations proposed by David Gonski and the review panel – instead trotting out their own warped versions of his plan whilst co-opting and rebranding the Gonski name. One can only wonder what David Gonski and his panel privately think about what has happened since the original report was commissioned almost a decade ago. Australia is one of the few OECD nations that uses public money to fund private schools and if the major parties continue on their current trajectory, it seems logical that individual states may be compelled to reassess their levels of private sector funding and put students most in need first.

I’m worried about the cuts to the university sector and the impacts on the quality of teaching, learning and research. These cuts have directly impacted on local and international students, and have the potential to affect one of our more significant export industries. I’m also concerned about the massive decline in public investment in university infrastructure over the last decade.

On some specific issues, I back Labor’s support for the public funding of 2 days a week of pre-school for all 3 and 4 year olds but do not endorse the Greens call for free TAFE and university. I have been contacted by the TAFE Community Alliance and provide the following responses to their questions:

*Will you actively support increased core funding from the Federal Government budget for local TAFE institutions around Australia? YES

*Will you work to wind back the contestable training market? YES

*Will you advocate for the Federal Government to increase its investment in the quality of TAFE teachers as both educational and industry experts, and in the scholarship of teaching and learning? YES

I wish to highlight that whilst signalling my support for the above measures, I wish to reiterate that - if elected - my primary focus will be to engage with incidents of repeated physical and psychological harm in South Australia and that my support for the above may not be considered by some as active advocacy. However, I will support legislation in the parliament that addresses these issues affecting our TAFE’s and wish to highlight the unconscionable and predatory conduct of some private training colleges in exploiting many vulnerable Australians, including some with intellectual disabilities. Addressing highly inappropriate conduct such as this is central to my campaign.

*National Integrity Commission. I support calls for a tough federal anti-corruption commission – not the watered down version proposed by our current government.

*Australian Republic: I believe that Australians should choose Australia's head of state. I support calls for constitutional change using a referendum process that asks if electors support an Australian head of state, in conjunction with a separate question that canvasses support for a range of different models.

Questions received from Bank Reform Now:

*A properly bank funded remediation program for victims of bank crimes and misconduct. Proper funding does not have a cap. AGREE

*Legislation that insures bankers involved in crimes are stripped of their assets and face jail terms where appropriate. AGREE

*Properly funded access to justice for all citizens involved in a legal dispute with a corporation or government. AGREE

Bank Reform Now also asked for my views on their SUMIR model involving a re-design of our Sovereign Wealth and Monetary Systems – please see their website for more information. If elected, I intend to explore this model further though I once again reiterate my core focus will be on the issue of abuse and neglect.

Questions received from Vegan Australia:

ANIMAL WELL BEING

*Animal agriculture practices should be transparent and open to public scrutiny AGREE

*Organisations empowered to monitor animal welfare should be independent of government departments whose role is to support agriculture AGREE

*Animals should no longer be used in circuses DISAGREE

*All entertainment and sports involving animals should be strongly scrutinised for animal well-being AGREE

*Animals should not be used in entertainment or sport DISAGREE

*Animal testing of cleaning, cosmetics and personal hygiene products should be replaced by animal-free testing techniques AGREE

*Animals are capable of feeling pain STRONGLY AGREE

*Animals should not be treated as commodities AGREE

*Live animal export should be banned AGREE

*Animal agriculture should be phased out NEUTRAL

Comments: I believe that not all animals involved in circuses, sport and entertainment are engaged in risky activities. Given the state of our planet, I feel that over time the animal agriculture sector may reduce in size and be subject to greater regulation but at this point in time, I respect the right of individuals to eat what they want and for farmers to produce goods that meet this demand.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND SUSTAINABILITY

*Animal agriculture contributes significantly to adverse environmental outcomes, including climate change AGREE

*Animal agriculture should be included in greenhouse gas emissions measurements AGREE

*The industries using the most water in the Murray Darling Basin should be made public AGREE

*The total government support for animal agriculture, including subsidies, taxation relief, grants and other payments should be made public AGREE

*Sustainable plant-based agriculture should be promoted through education, subsidies and support for animal farmers to convert to plant farming or other uses of the land like restoration for endangered native animal habitat, returning land to Aboriginal ownership and control, carbon farming, forestry, etc. AGREE

*The government should support investment in research into plant-based alternatives AGREE

*Environmental labelling of food should be introduced showing the environmental damage of products, such as greenhouse gas and water use, similar to energy efficiency labels NEUTRAL

Comments: Regarding my neutral response to labelling, I query whether taxation reforms would be more effective in shifting the price point to more accurately reflect the environmental cost and place downward pressure on the consumption of such items. This should be a gradual transition that doesn’t impose sudden and significant costs on farmers and food producers. A labelling regime ultimately would burden all food producers including those currently engaged in sustainable operations - I support consultation and modelling in this area.

DIET AND HEALTH

*A balanced vegan diet can be healthy during all stages of the lifecycle AGREE

*Diets high in animal-based foods increase the risk of heart disease, bowel cancer, diabetes and other chronic diseases AGREE

*Health warnings should be mandatory on foods that are known to be carcinogenic, such as processed meats NEUTRAL

*Advertising of harmful animal products, such as processed meats, especially to children, should be banned DISAGREE

*Healthy vegan foods should be promoted in hospitals, aged care and disability services, schools, prisons, the defence forces and government funded events AGREE

*To improve the health of Australians there should be more public education of the benefits of plant-based diets AGREE

Comments: In the case of carcinogenic food - like ‘environmental impact’ labelling, I’m undecided if the burden of labelling all food is more effective than reforms that shift the price point to more accurately reflect the burden on our health system (much like the excise currently imposed on cigarettes).  My disagreement to the banning of advertising is that I view this more as an issue around health education and media literacy, and a parenting issue in the case of children. There would be many products subject to an advertising ban if we applied similar standards to other goods and services with inherent risks. I was a vegetarian for over a decade when younger and still frequently cook and eat vegan/vegetarian meals.
CONSUMER INFORMATION AND ACCESS

*The government should act to ensure all Australians, irrespective of location, ability, status or income, have access to affordable and balanced healthy vegan food NEUTRAL

*The government should act to ensure a healthy vegan diet is an option in all hospitals, aged care and disability services, schools, prisons, the defence forces and government funded events AGREE

*The government should act to ensure vegans can maintain their ethical beliefs in their school or workplace, such as the freedom to choose vegan foods, clothing, footwear, etc NEUTRAL

*The International Standards Organisation should be supported in their efforts to develop a definition for vegan products AGREE

*There should be mandatory labelling of all products that incur harm to animals in their production AGREE

*Better instruction on healthy nutrition should be mandatory for doctors and other health workers AGREE

*Vegan products should continue to have the freedom to be labelled with names such as milk, cheese, sausage, mince, etc. AGREE (but that the labels identify the product as Vegan Milk, Vegan Cheese etc.)

*Restaurants should be encouraged to clearly identify vegan items on menus AGREE

Comments: My neutral responses to two questions in this area represent my preference for a more gradual transition over a number of years rather than any enforced and sudden change. If enforced, this could be a costly and difficult process to implement logistically. It is unfortunate that the recent spate of trespassing, theft and public nuisance activities by a small number of animal activists has diminished the prospect of a more engaged public debate on all of these matters. My responses to all questions largely fall within the agree/neutral/disagree as opposed to the strongly agree/strongly disagree categories as my focus if elected, will be on addressing human suffering. I believe if we can start treating everyone with respect and care, that this could be the catalyst for the better treatment of animals and our planet.

Please continue to send any questions through to independentagainstabuse@gmail.com.

Authorised by Brett O’Donnell 126 Muller road Greenacres SA 5086