Candidates not listed below were either:

  • Uncontactable
  • Not willing to participate
  • Have not responded

Simon_Behrakis_Template_1.jpg

simon.behrakis@aph.gov.au

Please tell us a little about yourself – your upbringing, family, interests etc.

I was born in Hobart and raised in a traditional Greek family. Since a very young age I was taught the importance of maintaining our Greek Orthodox traditions, especially the family values which have served us so well. I have a degree in economics and finance, and also grew up in a family small business, combining the theoretical with the practical.

 

What are the top two priorities that you want to achieve for your electorate?

To ensure that the economic growth and prosperity that Denison has enjoyed for the last four years continues into the future, but more importantly to ensure that our values and heritage, which we hold dear, are maintained. I would ensure that the history of our State and Nation is preserved rather than rewritten I also believe it is crucial that programs such as “Safe Schools” never find their way into the curriculum in our state, and I would oppose any move to implement gender theory in our schools. I would oppose any move to have the date of Australia Day changed.

 

Euthanasia has been rejected by Tasmanian parliaments in 1998, 2009, 2013 and 2017. Would you oppose or support any future attempts to legalise euthanasia in Tasmania?

I would oppose further attempts to legalise euthanasia. A caring and compassionate society would support patients and ease their suffering during such difficult times.

 

How would you like to be remembered as a politician?

As a servant leader who made it easier for people to go about their lives without undue interference, someone who protected the most vulnerable and as a defender of our God given freedoms.

 

Drugs continue to wreak havoc in our community. Some are suggesting the decriminalisation of small volume use and possession of illicit drugs. Would you support or oppose legislation to enable this?

The Tasmanian Liberals will not decriminalise illicit drugs, nor introduce legislation to do so. Nor will we support legislation introduced by another political party.

Illicit drug use can lead to significant social problems, including family violence and child abuse. We will reduce the supply, demand and harms associated with the abuse and misuse of illicit drugs. See www.tas.liberal.org.au for all election policies.

In contrast, the Greens have a clear policy to remove criminal penalties for personal illicit drug use and in 2017, Labor voted in favour of the "decriminalisation of small volume use and possession of illicit drugs".

 

According to a 2013 Galaxy poll, the majority of Tasmanians oppose late term abortions except in cases of severe disability. Despite this, Tasmania's abortion law continues to allow abortion up until birth. Would you support or oppose an amendment to legislation to repeal the provision of late term (post 24 weeks) abortions except when a mother's life is in danger?

The Tasmanian Liberals have no plans to change the current laws. Should another political party bring such laws to Parliament, my Members will be allowed a conscience vote, as they have in previous years when legislation related to the termination of pregnancy has been debated.

 

Do you support faith-based organisations' current right to, if they so choose, restrict employment or enrolment to those who share their ethos, just like political parties do?

Such rights already exist. Faith-based organisations are able to seek exemption from the Anti-Discrimination Act, subject to conditions set by the independent Commissioner, and limited to a period of not more than three years. Extensions can be sought. Exemptions enable faithbased organisations to employ persons based on religion or participation in religious observance.

 

Do you agree with state funding of education programs that teach contested gender theory (like the so called Safe Schools Programme?)

The Liberals will continue to provide safe and supportive learning environments, for all students and staff. We have put in place a new $3 million Combatting Bullying Initiative that will provide practical support to schools to ensure that all students feel safe and valued in their school community.

 

Poker machines cause a great deal of social harm to vulnerable Tasmanians. Over $15 million is lost monthly on poker machines in Tasmania, with a significant portion of this attributed to the estimated 8000 problem or moderate-risk gamblers. Do you support legislation for a $ I bet limit? What other measures do you support to help at-risk Tasmanians and their families?

The Liberals' policy is available at www.tas.liberal.org.au

Tasmania's harm minimisation framework is already recognised as national best practice and

99.5% of Tasmanians are not problem gamblers. The Liberals will:

  • reduce the cap on poker machines by 150;
  • end the monopoly;
  • allow venues to licence, own and operate machines, increasing returns to pubs and clubs to invest in economic activity and jobs;
  • increase returns for government to invest in schools and hospitals;
  • double the Community Support Levy to around $9 million per year, providing a bigger pool for harm minimisation, preventative health and support for community sporting activities and facilities.

 

Prostitution degrades women by objectifying them as commodities for men's sexual gratification. Internationally, policies discouraging demand for sexual services are proving to be the most effective way of limiting both the size of and the harms resulting from prostitution. The progressive "Nordic model" criminalises the buyer of sex, not the provider, and provides viable pathways for those wishing to exit prostitution. Would you support an inquiry into the suitability of the Nordic approach to help vulnerable women in Tasmania?

The Liberal Party has no plans to change existing laws

Richard_headshot_white_background.jpg

Please tell us a little about yourself – your upbringing, family, interests etc.

I was born in Hobart and attended Hutchins School and graduated from the University of Tasmania in 2006. I live in New Town with my wife Kate and two young children. I work as a lawyer and volunteer as the Tasmanian Director of Civil Liberties Australia. In my spare time I like to go bushwalking and bike riding.

 

What are the top two priorities that you want to achieve for your electorate?

I would like to see a Tasmania Human Rights Act passed into law and for Tasmania to become the third Australian jurisdiction to protect human rights in an Act of Parliament. I believe human rights are the basic building blocks of life and that by enshrining these rights in law we will better equip more Tasmanians to reach their full potential.

I would like to see Macquarie Point utilised, in part, to build affordable housing for people on low incomes. I believe this would be a reliable medium term measure to assist in providing more Tasmanians with an affordable home while also assisting in social inclusion by bringing more people of diverse backgrounds to live in our city.

 

Euthanasia has been rejected by Tasmanian parliaments in 2009, 2013 and 2017.

Would you oppose or support any future attempts to legalise euthanasia in Tasmania?

I support the 2016 Tasmanian Bill and, if elected, would like to meet with all interested stakeholder groups and interested individuals to understand what (if anything) can be done to address the concerns expressed by Will Hodgman MP to ABC on 25 May 2017 being "those with a non-terminal illness and those of a young age". I do not share his concerns but understand them and would like to discuss what, if anything, can be done to address them.

 

Drugs continue to wreak havoc in our community. Some are suggesting the decriminalisation of small volume use and possession of illicit drugs.

Would you support or oppose legislation to enable this?

Before such a law reform were ever enacted an extensive public discussion would be required and I support such a discussion taking place. I am strongly committed to an evidence based approach to policy development and would take account of all evidence available at the time to determine whether the costs of such a law reform outweigh the benefits or vice versa. I am open minded at this stage about such a change to the law.

 

According to a 2013 Galaxy poll, the majority of Tasmanians oppose late term abortions except in cases of severe disability. Despite this, Tasmania’s abortion law continues to allow abortion up until birth.

Would you support or oppose an amendment to legislation to repeal the provision of late term abortions (post 24 week when a baby can survive outside the womb) except when a mother’s life is in danger?

I do not know enough about late term abortions to answer this question definitively. If elected and such an amended were tabled in parliament I would consult widely and take account of all views in forming my position.

 

Do you support faith-based organisations’ current right to, if they so choose, restrict employment or enrolment to those who share their ethos, just like political parties do?

I do, in principle, support organisations ability to restrict employment to those of the same faith. However, in practice, I am concerned that this can be used as cover to terminate the employment of people who do not readily fit the mould of the religion in question e.g. gay teachers being sacked for being gay.

I only support the ability of a religious school to turn away students of a different faith when a particular class size is at capacity. When class sizes are not at capacity and the school is in receipt of public funds I believe the school should enrol all students.

 

Do you agree with state funding of educational programmes that teach contested gender theory (like the so called Safe Schools Programme)?

I am not familiar with what the particular ‘gender theory’ is or why it is contested. If elected, I would have a responsibility to inform myself of how public funds were being used.

 

Poker machines cause a great deal of social harm to vulnerable Tasmanians. Over $15 million is lost monthly on poker machines in Tasmania, with a significant portion of this attributed to the estimated 8000 problem or moderate-risk gamblers.

Would you support legislating for $1 bet limits (down from the current $5 bet limit)?

Yes, in principle I support $1 bet limits as one of a different number of reforms that would reduce the impacts of poker machine addiction. Given the recent lower house election saw no success electoral success for the proposal for removing poker machines from pubs and clubs I would meet with all stakeholder groups to assess what is the next most meaningful reform that can be aimed for. In addition to dollar bet limits I am also aware of other reforms that have been suggested such as pre-commitment technology to enable a user to set their maximum expenditure through the machines.

 

Prostitution degrades women by objectifying them as commodities for men’s sexual gratification. Internationally, policies discouraging demand for sexual services are proving to be the most effective way of limiting both the size of and the harms resulting from prostitution. The progressive “Nordic model” criminalises the buyer of sex, not the provider, and provides viable pathways for those wishing to exit prostitution.

Would you support an inquiry into the suitability of the Nordic approach to help vulnerable women in Tasmania?

In principle I would support a parliamentary inquiry into the Tasmanian Sex Industry Offences Act 2005 as all laws, from time to time, warrant review. I add the proviso that there are limits placed on the number of such inquiries that can be conducted in any given year due to resource and time constraints. I would reserve the right to see which other areas of inquiry are being proposed by the community and make a judgement call on which area most warrants expenditure of parliamentary resources. I have also been approached as a candidate regarding proposals for inquiries into gun law reform, housing affordability and tourism impacts on the environment.

 

How would you like to be remembered as a politician?

I would like to be remembered as an Independent Member of Parliament who was able to work with all sides of politics to progress human rights protections for Tasmanians.

Rob_-_ACL_shot.PNG

Please tell us a little about yourself – your upbringing, family, interests etc.

I was born in Hobart and raised in Dunalley where my father ran a fish cannery and factory.  I have one brother and I am married with three children and six grandchildren.  I was encouraged to help and consider others from an early age by my mother who appeared to be one of the ‘go to’ people for those in the community who needed spiritual comfort and practical assistance.  Bush walking, riding my old BMW motorbikes, skin diving and rod fishing are my enjoyable pastimes, along with reading local history and listening to good music.

 

What are the top two priorities that you want to achieve for your electorate?

Principally I am there to review legislation affecting the whole state and need to approach the role from that perspective.  Currently my electorate has affordable housing and traffic management issues entwined with the development of a capital city.  I would therefore be concentrating on a holistic approach to these issues by encouraging proper, integrated long-term forward planning between state and local government. 

 

Euthanasia has been rejected by Tasmanian parliaments in 2009, 2013 and 2017.

Would you oppose or support any future attempts to legalise euthanasia in Tasmania?

Individuals need to consider such weighty matters within the context of their own values and belief systems.  The law is for all and needs to reflect the diversity of our community within it which would find me supporting such a move. 

That said, I would need to read submissions, listen to briefings and debate to discover what I would see as short-comings in such legislation.  It would also need to protect the vulnerable from unscrupulous folk that may seek to profit from such individuals and to ensure there is no reasonable prospect for the individual’s pain and suffering to be relieved.

 

Drugs continue to wreak havoc in our community. Some are suggesting the decriminalisation of small volume use and possession of illicit drugs.

Would you support or oppose legislation to enable this?

 During my terms as Lord Mayor (over 12 years) I was involved with the Council of Capital City Lord Mayors and was party to a number of conferences and forums on drugs and their impact on society in our major cities.  I am firmly of the belief that harm minimisation is the best approach to be taken rather than zero tolerance.  Alcohol and tobacco are legal and cause more harm than some of the more popularly disparaged drugs, such as marijuana. There needs to be an open, holistic approach to the issue of drugs per se in our community, dealing with their misuse as a health issue rather than through the criminal justice system, after all an addict is barely capable of deducing right from wrong when that inner craving is controlling their being.

 

According to a 2013 Galaxy poll, the majority of Tasmanians oppose late term abortions except in cases of severe disability. Despite this, Tasmania’s abortion law continues to allow abortion up until birth.

Would you support or oppose an amendment to legislation to repeal the provision of late term abortions (post 24 week when a baby can survive outside the womb) except when a mother’s life is in danger?

Principally the issue of pregnancy and all that entails is between the expectant mother and her doctor(s).  The current law was devised to enable that to occur and I believe those settings are right.  To repeal the provision may indeed have the unintended consequence of increasing illegal abortions, which must be avoided at all cost, to safeguard the health of those involved.  

 

Do you support faith-based organisations’ current right to, if they so choose, restrict employment or enrolment to those who share their ethos, just like political parties do?

The determination of whether or not a restrictive action is discriminatory is a complex matter under the relevant Act.   I believe the current law allows such a restriction where it can be shown it is relevant to the role being performed.  It is my understanding that “Sharing the ethos” doesn’t necessarily mean the individual to occupy the position has to personally practice or hold to the belief or faith position, but rather they are prepared to teach the ethos and that is the position I hold on the matter.

 

Do you agree with state funding of educational programmes that teach contested gender theory (like the so called Safe Schools Programme)?

I support the status quo.  I would need to be appraised of any proposed amendments before commenting further. 

 

Poker machines cause a great deal of social harm to vulnerable Tasmanians. Over $15 million is lost monthly on poker machines in Tasmania, with a significant portion of this attributed to the estimated 8000 problem or moderate-risk gamblers.

Would you support legislating for $1 bet limits (down from the current $5 bet limit)?

I would see the legislation of $1 bet limits as being a step in the right direction, however my personal position is this:

The operation of poker machines needs a thorough review, regardless of venue.  Technical aspects i.e. speed of play, addictive nature, bet level and level of advantage to the establishment cause harm and require major scrutiny.

 

Prostitution degrades women by objectifying them as commodities for men’s sexual gratification. Internationally, policies discouraging demand for sexual services are proving to be the most effective way of limiting both the size of and the harms resulting from prostitution. The progressive “Nordic model” criminalises the buyer of sex, not the provider, and provides viable pathways for those wishing to exit prostitution.

Would you support an inquiry into the suitability of the Nordic approach to help vulnerable women in Tasmania? 

While I am unsure of the claims being made with respect to the Nordic model above, as with any contentious area of policy, I would be happy to participate in such an inquiry which would provide an opportunity to test such claims.

 

How would you like to be remembered as a politician?

A fair and honest individual who was always willing to not only help others with their problems and issues but who listened to all sides of an argument before settling on a position and not closing their mind to any matter that was of general community concern.