Readers Write: You tell us your views and your comments on Howard's fourth term

With the Howard Government taking effective control of both Reps and Senate, we asked our readers: If you were John Howard what would you do?

On Line Opinion’s armchair Prime Ministers power walked a quick kilometre or two in John Howard’s trusty trainers and came up with this agenda for our PM as he starts his fourth term.

Paul Monagle, wearing his Howard hat, would bring in a National Industrial Relations system and a National Workers Compensation Scheme.

Jeff Walski sets himself a "no-brainer" - “Simplify the tax mess”, that’s all he wants. (He also has a couple of bridges for sale.)

Charles Vincent would give Peter Costello a leg-up and resign immediately and repent his decision to join the Iraq War.

“I’d ask God for his help to re-examine my conscience... then resign for having betrayed Australia's gullible trust and for having gone down the immoral track of war.”

But if Mike Alexander were wearing Howard’s nifty tracksuit he would turn his attention to reducing the power of the unions. Oh, and also figure out how to be fair to workers who don’t believe in unions, “Who are forced to pay union fees, knowing that their fees are used to bring down a government that they prefer”.

Getting rid of racial vilification laws would be the first item on PM Geoff Muirden’s agenda. These laws operate with a double standard, he says, allowing whites to be vilified while protecting non-whites from racial slurs.

“A clear distinction should be made, however, between criticism, and defamation. "Defamation" could be defined as making unsubstantiated and unjustifiable accusations. "Criticism" could mean finding fault, on the grounds of reasonable objections.

“If these abominations nevertheless remain, they should have built into them democratic safeguards.”

Among these safeguards, he suggests should be the right to identify and cross-examine accusers, the right for those proven falsely accused to sue their defamers. As well, revisionists should not be victimised for seeking truth, and truth should be a defence.

Robert Stephens is a part-time single dad with a big ask. If Robert were making a midnight snack at Kirribilli House, he’d take his opener to the family law can of worms. For starters, shared parenting, looking at the issue of divorced fathers suicide, child support payment rules and unreasonable lawsuits.

Robert would like an overhaul of child support arrangements, “So that it is more likely to be child support rather than financial aid to people who don't like working and so that it relates more to the cost of raising children than to relative incomes”.

He wants, as a starting point, “Both parents to share equally in financial responsibility for their children. Variations are then based on choices the parents make".

For instance, he suggests, “One parent moving away from another parent with the impact of making shared parenting impossible alters the responsibility for child support so the parent who cannot see their kids because of the actions of the other pays lots less”.