Federal ICAC Now

[b_auspol]

Federal ICAC Now

Website: https://www.federalicacnow.org/

Federal ICAC Now were registered in September 2021. They are a classic one issue party with that issue in their name. Honestly I’m a bit surprised they managed to clear the 1,500 member requirement, but on the other hand, we have been joking for years that the two things every micro party wants are “a Federal ICAC With Teeth” and a Royal Commission into [their pet topic].

That said, their website and logo make me smile every time I look at them. The party acronym is FIN, which they’ve lent into by designing the logo as a shark fin and the website background as deep water. It’s the way they don’t take themselves too seriously that makes me happy.

Party Analysis

FIN are upfront about their one and only policy being “the establishment of an adequately funded, staffed and empowered Federal Independent Commission Against Corruption.” They like the Greens model and consider the Labor model watered down. They also have nothing good to say about the Liberals.

In their FAQ, when asked about any broader policies, FIN says “Honesty in Australian politics. It is an ideal worth striving for.” They’re attached to “look for corruption” and “does it contravene the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. That’s an interesting starting point, as I would not say the UDHR covers all topics that we’d see come up in parliament.

Their more specialised focuses are a real-time donation disclosure (would this still be subject to amount limits? Which amount limits? The original $1,000 proposal or the current $14,500?); a five year bar on appointment to government funded positions for retiring MPs; a ban on working in industry or lobbying in regards to a former portfolio; limits on donations to political parties by corporations, trade unions, lobby groups and other entities; and strengthened whistleblower protections.

In regards to limits on donations to political parties by all those bodies, do they actually want to essentially make major parties rely on mega donor individuals? A significant portion of Labor’s money comes via unions and to the Liberals via companies – is it actually more useful to have the names of the individuals associated with these organisations making the donations instead? I’d say it’s more obfuscating.

As far as whistleblower protections go, I am all for them being strengthened. And the MP-to-comfy retirement position pipeline can definitely be stark, though I must say if you’re banning people from working in any industry associate with any former portfolio, that is going to make life quite difficult for some senior ministers on retirement who’ve moved through 4+ portfolios.

“FIN is strictly non-partisan and will not obstruct the legislative agenda of a duly elected government, unless that agenda: acts to prevent or impede FIN’s aims; or contains corrupt content or contravenes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. This is a fascinating policy, in that you don’t actually know what FIN will be voting for prior to the election. If the Liberals win, FIN are saying they’ll support the Coalition in the Senate unless the legislation doesn’t meet this test.

As we’ve seen on previous occasions where unprepared candidates were elected by group voting tickets (Ricky Muir is the classic example), they often evolve quite a bit over the six year term as they learn the ropes and how things function in the Senate. I suspect any FIN candidate would actually have their own preferences on which of the Government and the Opposition they wanted to work with, and have stronger opinions by the end; at this point though, we cannot tell where they are even starting.

Is this party trying to kill me?

No. FIN, despite their shark theming, don’t want to hurt anyone.

 

Is this party trying to harm me?

No. Their policy about following the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an attempt to prevent them harming me!

Conclusion:

Federal ICAC Now are a single issue party with a mildly odd twist for how they’re determining how they would vote outside of their single issue. If your number one major issue was in fact the lack of an ICAC, it wouldn’t hurt to stick them near the top of your ballot to make a statement that way. Otherwise they’re pretty harmless.