Tag: Pauline Hansons One Nation Party

australian politics, elections

Policies and Organisational woes. One Nation needs to get their act together!

The WA State Election is proving to be an interesting one with the rise of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party. According to mainstream media PHON has no policies but only incompetent candidates with another Candidate in WA – Ray Gould – resigning from the race over internal bickering. This is not true, PHON have released many policies however mainstream media are not reporting it. Thankfully PHON have embraced social media and can get their policies out that way.

As of 4th March 2017 according to PHON’s website, they have released policies in seven policy areas;

  1. Crime and Policing
  2. Clean Government
  3. Infrastructure
  4. Agriculture and Regional Development
  5. Housing
  6. Minerals and Energy
  7. Privatisation

The issue for PHON is that they need to clean up their organisational woes. Develop a sound organisation with a democratic base that allows party members to vote on candidate selection, policies and party executives. PHON also needs to consider re-launching their Young Nation Movement to engage young people. Once they get their organisational woes under control then they will see less negative publicity from the media. Is anyone from PHON listening?

australian politics, taxi, transport, uber, Uncategorized

The Taxi Industry is taking you for a ride! Pardon the Pun.

When was the last time you caught a taxi? What was the experience like? If you were like myself, you probably thought a flea infested camel was more adequate than jumping into an old filthy worn out ford falcon with almost unreadable words ‘Combine Taxi’ written on the doors. Often the stench of Taxi’s is enough to make you puke into your own mouth and then you are forced to swallow it thinking that torture is probably more humane than travelling in this heap of junk. To add insult to injury, the driver doesn’t speak a word of english and gets lost trying to find your destination. It is no surprise that the folk from Uber are making a killing, in today’s free market world, consumer’s are opting for a cleaner and easier mode of transport and Uber are our saviors, saving us from our own bile.

 

Recently the leader of One Nation, QLD Senator Pauline Hanson was visting Marcoola on the Sunshine Coast, she announced a scathing attack on Uber stating that they are destroying the Taxi Industry. Senator Hanson has called for either the State Government to cut costs to Taxi Drivers or increase the cost to Uber Driver’s to ensure that there is a level playing field.

On face value I agree, there needs to be a level playing field. Why should Uber Drivers who are subsequently ‘taxi drivers’ be able to drive customers to their destination without the additional costs yet actual Taxi Driver who do the same job, have to pay through their nose be able to operate?

 

Senator Hanson has made an error though in her statements. The mere fact she has proposed to increase costs to Uber is typical socialist mantra. One Nation wants to be an alternative to the major political parties therefore they need to come up with an alternative policy. Firstly, One Nation should be addressing why people are turning to Uber, rather than punishing Uber and Uber customers. It doesn’t take a QLD Senator to work out why Uber is thriving.

Just in case people are not sure here are some points. (Disclaimer: Generalising here, of course not all taxi’s and taxi drivers fit this generalisation)

  • Taxi vehicles are often old and not looked after
  • Taxi vehicles are dirty
  • Taxi drivers are unfriendly and smell worst than an unkept tramp
  • Taxi drivers english is often non existent
  • There is really no way to provide feedback
  • Mobile phone apps are not that superior to Uber
  • Taxi’s are expensive

A lot of these issues can be easily address without increasing costs to the taxi industry, except the last point, which I will discuss later.

If the taxi industry cleans up their act then they are on the road to a level playing field, almost!.

 

To finalise the journey to a level playing field, One Nation should be pushing to decrease the costs and regulations on the Taxi industry on the proviso that they clean up their act first. As mentioned, many people are moving away from Taxi’s because they are expensive. Often they are expensive because of the large amount of money they have to pay State Governments in costs and regulations. This however should not come free. The Taxi Industry often whinges about Uber, but Government needs to put pressure on them to clean their act up. This is an opportunity for One Nation to develop sound policies that once the Taxi Industry cleans up their act they will move legislation to cut regulation and bring down costs to the industry.

 

In essence, Senator Hanson has touched on an issue which needs to be discussed. The fact that there are hard working people who are suffering under a socialist mantra of regulations and increased costs goes to show Hanson is the only one that is addressing such issue. Hopefully the Qld Division of One Nation will develop a common sense approach to this, this is one topic I will be watching closely.

australian politics, democracy, elections, free speech, politics, Uncategorized

Having a leg on the Trump Train was everything but in vain.

Having a leg on the Trump Train was everything but in vain.

American politics is something that I never really was interested in. Their system compared to the Westminster system is confusing and this is merely due to my ignorance. As a right wing advocate I have always leaned towards the Republican Party rather than the Democrats. I believe in low taxes, less spending and more protection of borders. In saying that I do believe in government assistance to the most vulnerable in our society. What we have seen in America and around the world, are leaders who have dismissed these beliefs and have only pushed agenda’s according to whoever has donated the most to their election campaign. The 2016 Presidential Election campaign offered a real alternative to the status quo of politics, Hillary Clinton was seen to represent the establishment whilst Donald Trump in the eyes of many political commentators represented the ‘forgotten people’. Never in my time have we seen two presidential candidates that had complete opposition views on issues, mind you I am only young.

Hillary Clinton is a polished politician with many decades of political ‘wisdom’ and ‘astuteness’, her husband is a former President and Hillary Clinton herself was a lawyer. This provided the Clinton Campaign both pro’s and negatives. Pro in that she has had experience in government and as a ‘leader’ but negative in that the electorate saw her as a typical politician.
Donald Trump isn’t a politician, he is a businessman, a multimillionaire and a reality tv star.
On face value Donald Trump appeared to be a ‘Clive Palmer’ of US politics and at times I agreed with this notion. Under the bedrock of this idea the electorate felt that they needed change, and like many countries around the world this change is growing; you can only look at the rise of UKIP, Gert Wilders Party and in Australia, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation.

I had a leg on the Trump train because of three reasons.
Firstly, as mentioned earlier, I believe in three principles;
1. Low Taxes
2. Low Spending (whilst protecting the most vulnerable)
3. Strong Border Protection
Unfortunately Hillary Clinton and the Democrats have never held these beliefs. The Democrats like the Australian Labor Party believe in higher taxes to be able to afford more social programs rather than empowering people to find work and earn a living. As Australia’s former Prime Minister Tony Abbott once said “..the best form of welfare is a job.” This is something the left no matter where you are in the world does not believe in.
In regards to Border Protection, this clearly has been an issue in America, like it is currently in most Western Countries, the only candidate that addressed this issue regardless of how extreme it is which in my opinion isn’t that extreme, was Trump.
Automatically I was compelled towards the trump factor.
Second reason why I had a leg on the Trump train is because around the world the media have been taken over by left-wing liberal socialists who kept down-playing the rise of support for Trump. We saw this during the Brexit campaign. As a result of this bias I felt that supporting trump would be putting the middle finger up to the chardonnay latte sipping socialists.
Thirdly, the Western World needs change, and given that United States of America are the leaders of the Western World it is important that this change starts with them. The fact that Trump now is President it makes it easier for people to vote for an alternative political party or candidate. It sends a message to the electorate, regardless of country, that it is okay to vote for UKIP, it is okay to vote for One Nation, it is okay to vote for Gert Wilde. This is a game changer.

These reasons why I had a leg on the Trump train clearly has resonated across America. I was over in New York during the election. All media outlets, including the ultra right-wing Fox News even thought Trump wasn’t going to win prior to the closing of the Polls. What we have seen is a revolution. The electorate wants action, they want change, they want to be listened to. This is a wake up call to both the media and our political elites that the system they have put in, under the right circumstances, can actually backfire on them. People Power.

australian politics, free speech, islam

Myth Busters on Pauline Hanson

Well she did it. She told the rabble back in 1998 that she will be back, and she is, this time bigger than ever. Pauline Hanson and the One Nation Party have secured FOUR senate seats. This is impressive considering two years ago they were a distant memory plagued with infighting and internal abyss.

Given that she is back with a vengeance, the left and her opponents on the right continue to spread several myths about her despite many media commentators such as Andrew Bolt, Rowan Dean, Paul Murray, Miranda Devine and others share Pauline’s beliefs on certain issues. Lets explore these myths about Pauline Hanson.

  • Pauline Hanson hates Asians.

“We are in danger of being swamped by Asians….”

A famous quote which lead the racism label on Pauline Hanson. The only critical thing here that I can say is she used poor choice of words on the matter. The fact is we are in danger of being swamped, not by Asians but by the Chinese. RACIST!! BIGOT!! I hear people shout. Well let us explore more.

We have seen already the impact Chinese buyers have on the housing market, and despite that some economists are saying it’s slowing, many Australians have been pushed out of the Market. The dream of buying your own home no longer exists.

The other issue is Chinese companies, which have links with China’s Communist Party are buying up Prime Agricultural Land as well as buying infrastructure such as Ausgrid. Even Scott Morrison, the Federal Treasurer has concerns about this and blocked it.

To rub salt into the wound, we have heard allegations that links to Chinese Communist Party have been donating money to the Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party. These three issues that I have mentioned should send alarm bells to the Australian people, now when Pauline Hanson said we are in danger of being swamped by Asians, what more proof do we need? Do we really want Australia to be a communist nation? Controlled by the Chinese elite? This myth that Pauline Hanson hates Asians is simplistic and all it does it stifles debate on serious issues that affect Australia. MYTH BUSTED.

  • Pauline Hanson hates Aboriginals.

This comes from Hanson’s maiden speech where she called to abolish ATSIC and to reform the welfare system so that everyone is treated equally.

Well from memory, the Liberals abolished ATSIC because of the corrupt nature it was spewing from its offices. This is exactly what Hanson was talking about in her maiden speech in 1996.

Reforming the welfare system to ensure that everyone regardless of race, colour or creed does not make Hanson hate Aboriginal people. Australia is in debt, and the debt is rising. Unemployment is also rising. Therefore by abolishing some welfare payments and rolling them into one whereby no one is treated any different actually serves the Aboriginal community with more respect. Many Aboriginal leaders have come out and have said exactly what Hanson has been saying, such as former Labor National President Warren Mundine. Again this myth that Hanson hates aboriginal people is wrong and ignores the real issue within indigenous communities. MYTH BUSTED.

  • Pauline Hanson is Islamophobic

With the ever-increasing threat of Islamic Extremism within Western Civilisation, Pauline Hanson has called for the following:

  • Royal Commission into Islam
  • No More Islamic Migration
  • No More Mosques
  • CCTV In Mosques

The fact is any attack on citizens whereby the suspect shouts “Allah Akbar” has everything to do with religion and nothing to do with mental health.

Our political leaders are soft on this issue. Former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott did touch on the issue and was tackling it, however extreme left winger – I say extreme because the Liberal Party is suppose to be a right wing party – Malcolm Turnbull has tip toed around the issue of Islamic Extremism.

Pauline Hanson’s approach may seem extreme, however in extreme circumstance, extreme measures need to be implement rather than hash tags, feel good slogans and government funded community programs.

Firstly I’m going to discuss the Royal Commission issue. Hanson does need to define the terms of reference on this, because yes it is a religion and yes has some political ideology. All religions at some point have political leanings. We can see this with the Christian Democratic Party and Family First Party.

Having the terms of reference, which investigates all aspects of the religion, is warranted such as Halal Certification, Sharia Law practices within our community, and potential terror links attached to certain mosques. Calling for this does not make one islamophobic, the term should be ‘Islamoaware’.

The other issue stopping Islamic migration has caused howling from the left saying that we do not want a discriminatory migration program. Well in actual fact we already have a discriminatory immigration policy. We discriminate on the basis of health and occupation, therefore why can’t we discriminate on the basis of religion and culture? As one former Prime Minister said.

“We decide who comes into this country and the circumstance they come…”

We ought to have a policy whereby the culture has greater chance of assimilating to the host culture; otherwise we will create ghettos of hostility like Europe is currently experiencing.

The issue with Hanson’s other policies such as calling for a halt of mosques and CCTV is that is it all practical? This is a debate for another time.

Does all this make Hanson islamophobic? It depends on the definition of Islamophobia. The left argue that Islamophobia is hatred towards Islam, but when you break down the words, phobia means scared. Therefore is she scared of Islam? Well I’m not going to answer on Hanson’s behalf but if she says yes, then she has every right to be scared of Islam. So the myth of is Hanson Islamophobic? Well that is dependent on the definition of Islamophobia but using the lefts definition that she hates Muslims – MYTH BUSTED.

  • Hanson has no economic credibility.

As a Conservative Libertarian, I do sometimes find myself at odds with Hanson and One Nation’s economic platform. To say however that Hanson has no economic credibility is and should be, insulting to small business owners in Australia. Prior to 1996 Pauline Hanson was a small business owner, the infamous fish and chip shop. To own a small business and to employ staff must show that one has some economic credibility.

If you go to Pauline Hanson’s Facebook page and see the people who have liked her posts, and you explore their profiles many are either self-employed or a manager or managing directors of companies. This tells me that Hanson must have some credibility otherwise these people would not go near Hanson.
Hanson might not have the same view as most economists, but she does hold particular views that in the past have brought nations out from the abyss. This myth is BUSTED.

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party has a long way to go in terms of policy development especially when there are upcoming State Elections looming. One Nation as a political force does need to revise their policies and to educate the public what they do stand for, because otherwise the left and Hanson’s opponents will continue to spew out false myths which will unfortunately stifle debate on issues that need to be discussed.
In saying that, the party has just begun and I say to Pauline Hanson, Congratulations and look forward to seeing One Nation grow to be a major player in Australian Politics.

australian politics, current affairs, politics, Uncategorized

Is One Nation, Australia’s UKIP?

When the Liberal Party knifed Tony Abbott last year they should have known that it would create controversy amongst the rank and file conservatives who pay $100 a year to be Party members. They should have also known that non party members who lean towards the right would also be disgruntled to see a Malcolm Turnbull resurrection. Unfortunately they believed that Malcolm Turnbull, despite alienating the right, would attract those on the left and subsequently those on the right would still vote Liberal because let’s be honest, do we want a Labor Government? Little did the Liberal Party elite know that someone, a blast from the past, a nagging former Liberal and a figurehead for the right was working tirelessly to reform her political party and provide an alternative to the two major parties. Pauline Hanson and her One Nation Party.

Pauline Hanson became famous in 1996 when she stood up and spoke what the majority were thinking, she formed Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party in 1997 but failed to retain her seat in 1998 Federal Election but her party gained one senate seat in Queensland. The Queensland based Party gained 11 seats in State Parliament, 8 more seats than the Liberal Party, the Liberals had a measly 3 seats. In Western Australia in 2001 it gained 3 upper house seats and produced 3 excellent MLC’s. Problems arose for One Nation with infighting rife in all state divisions of the Party and ultimately it destroyed itself from within. Last year, Pauline Hanson took over the reigns of the Party and rebrand it with a new colourful Logo. It has produced policies, or broad policy statements if we want to get technical that doesn’t just talk about Immigration. Pauline Hanson has managed to improve her public speaking skills and has managed to get with the times with the use of social media and acquiring a plane which has the party logo on it, not as big as Clive Palmer’s plane though. Pauline has also obtained a vehicle which is heavily signed, great form of advertising. Pauline Hanson has been invited on many news programs such as Paul Murray Live, Today Show, Sunrise and has been heard on many radio stations. It’s safe to say Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Political Party is back and is ready to fill that void the Liberal Party has created by knifing Tony Abbott. The question remains though, can Pauline Hanson do it? Can One Nation ultimately rise to be the third major conservative voice in Australian Politics? In other words, is One Nation the UKIP of Australia?

As mentioned in previous posts we have seen a rise in the number of right-wing political parties such as:

  • Rise Up Australia
  • Australian Liberty Alliance
  • Katters Australia Party
  • Australia First
  • Hinch Justice Party
  • Jacquie Lambie Network
  • and more! 

The difference between these political parties and One Nation is Pauline Hanson. Pauline Hanson is a great figurehead for One Nation, her brand has been around since 1996 and the party gained a lot of electoral support. It has been proven without Pauline Hanson the party failed to continue to sustain their electoral successes.
There has been talk that many disgruntled Liberals have gone over to the newly created Australian Liberty Alliance but unfortunately they have not gained much media attention unlike Hanson therefore it would be hard to see ALA as a potential third major conservative party, this leaves One Nation on top.

The issue now is can Pauline Hanson’s One Nation continue to rise? In order to cement themselves to be that third major conservative force it is imperative that Pauline Hanson is elected into the Senate in Queensland. If she is elected into the Senate, it will give One Nation Political Party some focus, a means for people to join. At the moment they are classified as a micro party, with a member of parliament, people will see that One Nation has potential and purpose. If Pauline Hanson fails to win a senate seat, I think it could be over for One Nation as an organisation unless they remain focus and on top of the issues especially if Malcolm Turnbull or Bill Shorten remain as leaders of their retrospective parties.

I see great things for One Nation, the knifing of Tony Abbott and the infighting amongst the factions within the Liberal Party is a blessing in disguise for Australia as it does open the door for a third major conservative political party. It makes sense for One Nation to fill that void as it has already been established, has community recognition, has a figurehead and a potential youth movement called Young Nation, which can be reformed. It all comes down to whether or not Hanson can gain that senate seat.

australian politics, current affairs, democracy, Uncategorized

No root in this brothel!

The left must be licking their lips and salivating at the fact the right cannot organise a root in a brothel. This article, once you get past the poor form of journalism, indicates that Australia will never have a third right major political party. We will never experience what is happening in Europe.

If there is to be a new major right wing political party in Australian politics, all these fringe parties such as One Nation and Australian Liberty Alliance, need to get together and form a One Nation Liberty Alliance Party, or whatever they want to call themselves. There are too many right wing parties that because of ego or whatever floats their boat they can’t come together and form one major party. Lets see we have:

  • Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party
  • Australian Liberty Alliance
  • Rise up Australia
  • Australia First
  • Christian Democrats
  • Family First
  • Kim Vuga Love Australia or Leave Party (what the?)
  • Australian Protectionist Party
  • Australian Freedom Party
  • Katters Australian Party
  • Jacquie Lambie Network
  • and probably more lunatics out there………

If these parties got together, found a common goal, shared resources the Liberal and Labor Parties will have to up their game. The Liberal Party had no choice but to up their game back in the early 00’s when Pauline Hanson was the top dog in this game, we saw Howard adopt strong border protection policies and abolished ATSIC and got tough on welfare cheats, so if it has happened in the past, no reason why it can’t happen now under Prince Ponce as Leader of the Liberal Party.

People are longing for a new conservative force in Australia. The Liberal Party have changed from being a centre right party to a centre left. The National Party, well they are as defunct as an old commodore 64 computer, a mere country branch of the Liberal Party. Many National Party members have told me this, they have no plans on expanding. Hows that for an achievement? Therefore unfortunately there is no root in this brothel today!

 

australian politics, current affairs, democracy, politics

The need for a simple Electoral Reform

I posted awhile back about how minor and micro political parties fail to sustain their success. History has proven this with the rise and fall of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, Australian Democrats and now Palmer’s United Party.

After the demise of the Liberal Party and the dumping of it’s right leaning leader, Tony Abbott, we have seen more micro parties being formed and reformed in Australian politics such as the Australian Liberty Alliance and Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party retrospectively. Given that the Liberal Party dumped Tony Abbott it has created an opportunity for conservative members or former members of the Liberal Party to look elsewhere other than the factional torn Liberals.
The concerns however of these micro parties being formed is that it splits the conservative vote regardless of how preferences are allocated and importantly it divides resources. This is why there is a need for a simple electoral reform.

According to the Australian Electoral Commission for a political party to be registered it only needs 500 members. There are no provisions that these members have to pay a membership fee as it depends on the political party’s constitution. Given today’s technological advancement it is not hard for micro parties to advertise on social media or on their website that they are giving away free membership, all they need to do is pick an issue which touches on the emotional heart strings of a particular group and wham bam thank you mam you have a micro party, take the Voluntary Euthanasia Party for example, on their website there are no indications that you have to pay a membership fee and it tugs at the heart strings of those affected by cancer.
We often see on election day, when you turn up to vote and you are given a senate ballot paper it is often bigger than the tablecloth on your 8 seater kitchen table, this is because existing requirements only require 500 members, clearly this needs to change.
A simple reform of increasing the minimum membership requirement to 2000 would mean fewer micro parties and a smaller senate ballot paper whereby you as the voter wont be tripping over and breaking your back every three years. This will mean many micro parties will have to do one of three things; wind up, work harder or join forces with other like minded micro parties.

As mentioned previously, since the dumping of Tony Abbott as Liberal leader it has opened the opportunity for a new conservative force in Australian Politics. The issue is, existing electoral laws and regulations stop this from happening. The left side of politics appears to be somewhat well disciplined, with Labor and the Greens holding a stronghold on socialism, despite some left wing micro parties that really do not need to exist (Socialist Alliance and Socialist Alternative). On the right however there are many like-minded parties in existence for instance the Christian Democrats and Family First; and Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, Rise Up Australia and Australian Liberty Alliance. If these party’s decided to join forces, became one conservative political party it would provide a real alternative to conservative voters and a potential threat to the dominating Liberal/Labor duopoly.

It is therefore important for conservatism in Australia that the minimum membership requirement of 500 should be increased. Micro Party’s that do not meet the new requirement will be forced to either fold up, work harder or look at avenues to join forces with other like minded political party’s. The question is, will the Government do anything about it? Instead they seem to be focused on changing the voting system of the Senate. I wonder why?

politics

Repost – Why do minor parties fail to sustain their electoral success?

In Australian politics we have seen minor party’s come and go. In the early 90’s we saw the Australian Democrats gain significant power in the Senate, in the late 90’s we saw the rise of Pauline Hansons One Nation Party which gained a large number of seats in Qld State Parliament and then in the noughties we have seen the Australian Greens gain some momentum. The big question is, why do these party’s continually fail to sustain their electoral success?

As a former member of a minor party in the past, it has been observed that the support base of minor party’s are a result of a number of factors. Many people join, or vote for minor party’s because they are disillusioned by the major party’s; they believe strongly in a particular ideology or issue and or peoples ego’s are satisfied when involved in a political party, and by joining a minor party they can fulfil this easier than if they joined an established party.

At the 2013 Federal Election the Australian Greens lost some of their support. The Australian Greens, which support base is strong on extreme socialism, decided to do deals with the Australian Labor Party, in particular when it came to the Carbon Tax, one could make an educated guess that this relationship was a probable cause for their diminished vote.

Party’s such as Palmers United Party, the Motorist Enthusiast Party and the Liberal Democrat Party all gained parliamentary representation for the first time. If history serves us anything, it can be assumed these parties will not sustain their electoral success.

Starting with the Liberal Democrat Party. In NSW this party gained 9.50% of the vote in the senate, and lucky for them they gained a senate seat. This has been a controversial gain as they were given the number one position on the senate paper, and many individuals voted for the Liberal Democrat Party by mistake as they were confused and thought they were voting for the Liberal Party of Australia; with a swing of 7.19% from the previous 2010 federal election this was not due to the party campaigning hard, in fact many people did not think this party existed. The Liberal Democrat Party is based on hardcore liberalism, they believe in policies such as gay marriage, no gun control, legalisation of drugs and laissez-faire capitalism. Due to having a strong ideological belief, such party’s attract people with this viewpoint and with this in mind the party most probably cannot appeal to the wider community, as Australian voters are a mixed bag. Once you analyse these factors such as the party gaining a senator by mistake and being focussed on ideology, it is a recipe for failure.

The Australian Motor Enthusiast Party gained a senate seat in Victoria, they only received 0.51% of the vote however was elected in by preferences, too confusing to divulge in this blog. According to it’s website the party has policies that revolves around motoring. Recent news reports however stated that infighting within the party was occurring, a split between the party in Queensland and Victoria were rife, and the Queensland division terminated its Victorian leadership. This party is built on a single issue and clearly there are ego’s within the party that need to be satisfied, this party will probably not succeed electorally due to this.

Finally Palmers United Party, this party founded by Clive Palmer early 2013, a larger than life (Due to his outgoing nature of course) businessman who once was a member of the Liberal National Party in Qld. Palmers United Party has gained 2 senate seats and Clive Palmer himself is now the member for Fairfax. The electoral success for PUP is somewhat unremarkable considering they don’t have any solid policies, and the fact his candidates were unknown in most electorates. In Qld, PUP received 9.89% of the vote in the senate and in Tasmania 6.58% therefore gaining 2 senators. The interesting notion with PUP is this party thrives on peoples dissatisfaction of the major parties, Palmer himself appears to have a vendetta with the Liberal Party which appeals to these voters, and with Palmer being a man with money he can capitalise on this.

All in all, minor parties serve only to those who support them, they generally don’t look at the bigger picture of governing, this is why minor party’s fail to sustain their electoral success. Political party’s such as the ALP and LNP have been established for decades, they have seen the ups and downs of party politics and aim to govern for all Australians regardless of ideology. Of course generally speaking both major party’s lean a particular way but not to the extremes of some minor party’s. As mentioned before in regards to my observations being a former member of a minor party, the three things that create a minor party can also be viewed as detrimental such as;

Dissatisfaction of the major party’s – Voters vote for minor party’s in protest, usually unsustainable and people tend to go back to the established party’s.
Ideology – Many minor party’s as mentioned, base their policies and objectives through strong hardcore ideology, therefore only appealing to a small percentage of population.
Ego’s – Minor party’s are an avenue for people with big ego’s therefore creating a magnitude of infighting amongst party members.
In conclusion, minor party’s come and go, the major political party’s will be around for some time, they focus on Governing not on holding Government to ransom, it will take a lot to destabilise a major party in Australia regardless of circumstances.