Maybe you should have asked

and also maybe you should join up and also become a candidate or is this just talk

Stu. I'd like to join up and become a candidate. I agree with everything thats said.
I cant access the constitution and membership form as i dont have the program for it.
could you email them to me?

australiannationalist@yahoo.com.au

Newcastle is a fair distance from sydney but i dont mind to travel. only takes 2 hours.
Perhaps,if im accepted i could open a sydney branch?

Stu,

I read the constitution and was a bit concerned that it read like most other major party's constitutions. It has the usual member - branch - state - federal relationship with votes of the general members not counting for preselection but rather votes of their representatives (ie Branch president and secretary - i may be wrong there) counting. In a way, you are just perpetuating the system used by the major parties - and will end up with the same political animals becoming selected ie those who can control the most branches and are buddies with the higher-ups get selected.

What I would like to see is a pre-selection mechanism that operates on-line. People get a vote towards a candidate based on their geographical distance from the candidate. In this way, if a candidate had strong local support but weak national support they still had a chance - but if enough people were interested nationally their 'diminished' votes may be enough to sway the outcome. In this way candidates could campaign via the web/email and still have a chance - based on the quality of their work - not based on how many branches they have visited and stacked.

I also find the idea of policies a bit perverse - this is not just for you but all parties. The major parties seem to have policies designed to be fashionable with the middle-ground, and yours appear to be the same. But what is the end goal? I get the idea of what you are saying - to build a fair equitable state for all Australians. But everyone is offering that. It seems that parties morph and evolve over time, taking on characteristics of each other as they realise that they must adapt or lose part of their support-base.

What we need is something that can capture the public's imagination. And not just a set of policies, but proposing a set of fundamentals upon which the policies are based. As you may have guessed, one of my fundamentals is personal freedom and personal responsibilty. Also, I think in order to be wealthy as we are now we need abundant clean energy. Perhaps that will come at some environmental cost - or someone won't like the costs involved? Perhaps I am a pragmatist in that regard - if the best site for a wind-power site was in a national park then I would say fine - plomp it right in the middle. There has to be give and take if we are to achive goals, and the animals and trees and greenies can have the other 99.5% of the park that is left untouched.

Perhaps it would be best if you explained your politics, not as policies but in fundamentals, and then we work up to policies from there. Meanwhile I will read any new articles as they appear. I was a member once of one of the major parties and found other members thoroughly dis-interested in any such sort of self-investigation, It was all about controlling the branches and getting selected for a safe seat.

Enviro policy this is a good one many ideas
so come on over and will throw them around at each other.

What this party is about is us your comments like many others have been used ask ross.

This is what should happen but doesnt and this is what makes this a whole lot better.
like i told ross i have already spent 20 billion and can reduce co2 emmisions by the minimum of 30% in about 3 years now that is government doing something and at a min cost to the people.

Well what else do you want?
Returned soldiers and police issues are a no brainer for a nationalist, multiculturism is the BIGGEST challenge that faces us. and so is every other issue concerning our environment.
Mate, you are 42, i am 24, you'll be dead by the time anything comes along to destroy our way of life, the thing is, i'll still be here. so take that into account and dont be so selfish.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Qld-Libs-introduce-good-Samaritan-bill/2007/03/07/1173166762470.html

Queensland's coalition has introduced a bill to allow "good Samaritans" who help people in emergencies to avoid the threat of legal action.

Opposition Leader Jeff Seeney said the private member's bill would amend the Queensland's Civil Liability Act 2003 to provide legal protection to people who act in good faith to assist those in distress.

"Currently, the community is, in the large, cautious about assisting others in need because of the fear about being accused of causing further injury and in turn exposing themselves to legal liability," Mr Seeney told parliament.

"Although there has been no successful litigation against good Samaritans in Queensland to date, the threat is there," he said.

"The Queensland coalition's laws seek to remove this threat and bring Queensland's civil liability laws into line with other states such as Victoria and Western Australia."

---

Woman granted $1.1m after Canberra crash

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Woman-granted-11m-after-Canberra-crash/2007/07/06/1183351438678.html

A woman involved in an accident so minor that her car wasn't even damaged has been granted more than $1.1 million in compensation for injuries.

Supreme Court judge Justice Ken Crispin awarded $1.148 million to Canberra woman Judith Victoria Vaughan as a result of the impact which occurred in the Canberra suburb of Fadden on May 4, 2000.

"She said she was sort of a bit dazed really and it wasn't until a few minutes afterwards that she became aware that her neck was hurting, that she was getting a headache and she had numbness around her mouth and the tip of her tongue," Justice Crispin's judgment said.

You think this is a load of crock wait until you see the immigration policy

Immigration policy! i wanna see that.
Also how about a repatriation policy.