Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party
Apr. 29th, 2022 09:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
b_auspolShooters, Fishers and Farmers Party
Website: https://www.shootersfishersandfarmers.org.au/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/sffAustralia
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SFFparty/
(My review for the 2021 WA Election)
It’s time for NSW’s favourite “We’re an Alternative to the Nationals” party! Shooters, Fishers and Farmers (SFF) were formed in 1992 to support gun rights (and complain the Nationals weren’t representing the country properly) and they’ve stayed in that wheelhouse ever since. They now have politicians in both houses of NSW Parliament and have snuck them into VIC and WA on occasion too.
SFF have decided that the best approach to their policy platform this time is to post everything in individual pdfs, one per policy. This is only slightly more effective than running for election without a visible internet presence and irritates me almost as much.
If you’re not familiar with the tone of SFF, here are the first two sentences on their policy page: “The Shooters Fishers and Farmers party believe the major parties have become the Coles and Woolworths of politics. They work together with certain minority parties to disadvantage and oppress Australian citizens.” So there.
Party Analysis
I’m going to group the gun and defence policies together and at the top of this list, as look, this is what the party is most famous for. SFF don’t think we have sufficient force to defend the country from “Communist China” (ahhh, scaremongering) and think we need to build our own onshore nuclear capability. So that’s both nuclear subs AND nuclear missiles, I guess? Charming. Also gun policies should focus on illegal firearms, rather than “persecution of law abiding firearm owners”. They are against any sort of federal regulation or registry of weapons and think it should all be state based, and that we should support and promote local gun manufacturers? They would also like more self defence rights (because that goes so well in the US). Look, I am never going to be reasonable about SFF’s gun advocacy, but the fact they not only want more guns but they also want local nuclear capability? Hahahaha how about no.
In their climate change policy, apparently believing in climate change is “the views of extremist groups”. SFF say their approach is “rational scepticism”. They will admit that there may have been some change to the long term climate, but Australia only has a teeny part to play in that. SFF say they want a scientific, evidence based policy about climate that does not not overly restrict farmers, the resource industry, transport or manufacturing. And I’m laughing, because we DO have scientific, evidence based policies supplied by other parties, but SFF clearly aren’t willing to listen to them. We are back to good old “we will do something but only as long as nobody suffers any downsides”. This isn’t a climate policy. 1992 called and would like to point out it was more ambitious back then. There’s a whole separate “protecting our environment” policy, which wants active management of the environment, encouraging recreational use of national parks, and takes digs at Greens policies to leave no trace. Basically, any policy championed by the Greens is dangerously partisan and suspicious, and SFF want “sound nonpartisan and scientific” policies instead. Have the SFF spoken to the scientists who research this stuff? They do want conservation hunting for pest animals (which is about the one gun policy I’m not opposed to), but otherwise everything is “we love it, let us use it”. Also stop the “vilification of four-wheel driving and motoring enthusiasts” (well I would, if you stopped to acknowledge what your vehicles do to delicate ecosystems).
Economic policies include “support small business”, more tax paid by big business, no carbon tax or carbon trading, and an odd policy where states and territories should be forced to give mining royalties to the regions only. Look, I know you’re an alternative country party, but I cannot see that policy ever flying. Basically, your standard right wing suspicion of big business plus a refusal to act on climate.
Minerals and farming policies! SFF want to dig up more rocks to sell them but they also don’t want the digging up of rocks to disturb farms and waterways. They think renewables are over subsidised by the government and we should rely on good old dependable coal instead, as well as natural gas and nuclear. Every time I read one of these “renewables are too expensive power” policies I do wonder if the people writing them have actually looked at the current costs of various forms of power. Renewables are winning there, folks, that’s why big businesses are pivoting towards them, because they’re cheaper. Running a coal fired plant or nuclear is expensive in comparison (prohibitively more for nuclear, actually). As far as farms go, they are suspicious of foreign farm ownership and want a register of this, they want farming property to be able to exclude mining licences (interesting), they want land clearing legislation left to the states, they want live exports, and to cut cheap food imports. And oh ho ho they want “significant increase in investment in water storage and distribution infrastructure, including the establishment of a northern water diversion scheme to dry land areas”. Everyone together, who can spy the Bradfield Scheme? (It won’t work. It’s a boondoggle that will fail. Stop trying to make it happen). Murray Darling water must be for agriculture first, not fish or frogs.
SFF also want to stop those bleeding heart lefties from having the ability to sue under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Also the Commonwealth should not be allowed to veto projects the States want to build. The Commonwealth should also not get hissy and interfere when farmers burn on PUBLIC LAND to protect their own land (uh I think they should absolutely interfere there. Not your land, lads).
In fishing policies, we should be doing more of it. However only locals; no international fishing operations should be allowed to fish in our waters. Tougher sentences for poaching, and stop trying to prevent people from fishing in marine parks. In fact, no more marine parks at all.
The education policy is a combination of “better education and continuity of teaching in regional and rural areas” with some absolute daft complaints that there is not enough freedom of speech at universities and that the curriculum should teach the importance of regional and rural Australia “especially as it relates to our inherited Western cultural values and beliefs”. Can you hear the dog whistles in this? I can. Why do we need to prioritise the Western cultural values? What are you afraid they’re teaching instead?
Health policies are largely focused on better access for regional and rural Australians, with a special call out for better services for First Nations people. Honestly, this policy is just “more access, close to home, in regional and rural areas”, though spelt out over all the different policy areas. There isn’t any mention of telehealth in this though, which is an interesting omission. Telehealth has equalised a lot of general access to medical professionals over the past two years.
Finally there is a Freedom, Liberty and Privacy policy. Buckle up, folks. SFF says “Our parents and grandparents fought for freedom and our party believes this inherited right must be defended and expanded”. Freedom of speech and freedom of association are being eroded people, ERODED by those nasty leftists and their discrimination legislation (and by terrorism surveillance legislation). They want private ownership of personal data (which I can’t get grumpy at – some EU level protections would be nice), a Bill of Rights (the bill of rights is VERY popular with the right this election), and they want freedom of the press but more limits on “government owned media outlets” and forcing them to be “balanced” (that’s ABC and SBS to you and me).
What can't I see here? Any policies on net zero dates (since SFF don't really believe in it) and on Uluru Statement from the Heart. They are also silent on everyone else's favourite policy, a Federal ICAC.
Is this party trying to kill me?
SFF have guns and they want to use them for self defence. Yes. They’re trying to kill me. They also want us to become a nuclear nation, with nuclear power and nuclear defence missiles.
Is this party trying to harm me?
Alongside the gun policies, SFF reluctantly believe in climate change, and do not believe in any form of climate action. That’s causing quite a bit of harm. Also they’re proposing a Bradfield Scheme without saying it outright, which causes me psychic damage every time someone treats it as a serious suggestion.
Conclusion:
I was actually expecting SFF to have fewer nuttily worded policies decrying those devilsome leftists in the Greens for their inner city woke notions, because they’ve actually got a reasonable amount of political experience in NSW politics now, but no, all the dogwhistles and call outs were still scattered through the literature. It’s hard to take seriously.
In good policies where their “why aren’t the Nationals doing more” side pokes through, SFF want more regional and rural support for education, healthcare, infrastructure, and I have no issues with these desires.
It’s just their stubborn determination that conservation is wrong and their strange desire for nuclear everything that really cheeses me off. Oh, and the guns. They are also extremely anti-federation and want the Commonwealth out of everything possible, leaving it to the states.
Website: https://www.shootersfishersandfarmers.org.au/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/sffAustralia
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SFFparty/
(My review for the 2021 WA Election)
It’s time for NSW’s favourite “We’re an Alternative to the Nationals” party! Shooters, Fishers and Farmers (SFF) were formed in 1992 to support gun rights (and complain the Nationals weren’t representing the country properly) and they’ve stayed in that wheelhouse ever since. They now have politicians in both houses of NSW Parliament and have snuck them into VIC and WA on occasion too.
SFF have decided that the best approach to their policy platform this time is to post everything in individual pdfs, one per policy. This is only slightly more effective than running for election without a visible internet presence and irritates me almost as much.
If you’re not familiar with the tone of SFF, here are the first two sentences on their policy page: “The Shooters Fishers and Farmers party believe the major parties have become the Coles and Woolworths of politics. They work together with certain minority parties to disadvantage and oppress Australian citizens.” So there.
Party Analysis
I’m going to group the gun and defence policies together and at the top of this list, as look, this is what the party is most famous for. SFF don’t think we have sufficient force to defend the country from “Communist China” (ahhh, scaremongering) and think we need to build our own onshore nuclear capability. So that’s both nuclear subs AND nuclear missiles, I guess? Charming. Also gun policies should focus on illegal firearms, rather than “persecution of law abiding firearm owners”. They are against any sort of federal regulation or registry of weapons and think it should all be state based, and that we should support and promote local gun manufacturers? They would also like more self defence rights (because that goes so well in the US). Look, I am never going to be reasonable about SFF’s gun advocacy, but the fact they not only want more guns but they also want local nuclear capability? Hahahaha how about no.
In their climate change policy, apparently believing in climate change is “the views of extremist groups”. SFF say their approach is “rational scepticism”. They will admit that there may have been some change to the long term climate, but Australia only has a teeny part to play in that. SFF say they want a scientific, evidence based policy about climate that does not not overly restrict farmers, the resource industry, transport or manufacturing. And I’m laughing, because we DO have scientific, evidence based policies supplied by other parties, but SFF clearly aren’t willing to listen to them. We are back to good old “we will do something but only as long as nobody suffers any downsides”. This isn’t a climate policy. 1992 called and would like to point out it was more ambitious back then. There’s a whole separate “protecting our environment” policy, which wants active management of the environment, encouraging recreational use of national parks, and takes digs at Greens policies to leave no trace. Basically, any policy championed by the Greens is dangerously partisan and suspicious, and SFF want “sound nonpartisan and scientific” policies instead. Have the SFF spoken to the scientists who research this stuff? They do want conservation hunting for pest animals (which is about the one gun policy I’m not opposed to), but otherwise everything is “we love it, let us use it”. Also stop the “vilification of four-wheel driving and motoring enthusiasts” (well I would, if you stopped to acknowledge what your vehicles do to delicate ecosystems).
Economic policies include “support small business”, more tax paid by big business, no carbon tax or carbon trading, and an odd policy where states and territories should be forced to give mining royalties to the regions only. Look, I know you’re an alternative country party, but I cannot see that policy ever flying. Basically, your standard right wing suspicion of big business plus a refusal to act on climate.
Minerals and farming policies! SFF want to dig up more rocks to sell them but they also don’t want the digging up of rocks to disturb farms and waterways. They think renewables are over subsidised by the government and we should rely on good old dependable coal instead, as well as natural gas and nuclear. Every time I read one of these “renewables are too expensive power” policies I do wonder if the people writing them have actually looked at the current costs of various forms of power. Renewables are winning there, folks, that’s why big businesses are pivoting towards them, because they’re cheaper. Running a coal fired plant or nuclear is expensive in comparison (prohibitively more for nuclear, actually). As far as farms go, they are suspicious of foreign farm ownership and want a register of this, they want farming property to be able to exclude mining licences (interesting), they want land clearing legislation left to the states, they want live exports, and to cut cheap food imports. And oh ho ho they want “significant increase in investment in water storage and distribution infrastructure, including the establishment of a northern water diversion scheme to dry land areas”. Everyone together, who can spy the Bradfield Scheme? (It won’t work. It’s a boondoggle that will fail. Stop trying to make it happen). Murray Darling water must be for agriculture first, not fish or frogs.
SFF also want to stop those bleeding heart lefties from having the ability to sue under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Also the Commonwealth should not be allowed to veto projects the States want to build. The Commonwealth should also not get hissy and interfere when farmers burn on PUBLIC LAND to protect their own land (uh I think they should absolutely interfere there. Not your land, lads).
In fishing policies, we should be doing more of it. However only locals; no international fishing operations should be allowed to fish in our waters. Tougher sentences for poaching, and stop trying to prevent people from fishing in marine parks. In fact, no more marine parks at all.
The education policy is a combination of “better education and continuity of teaching in regional and rural areas” with some absolute daft complaints that there is not enough freedom of speech at universities and that the curriculum should teach the importance of regional and rural Australia “especially as it relates to our inherited Western cultural values and beliefs”. Can you hear the dog whistles in this? I can. Why do we need to prioritise the Western cultural values? What are you afraid they’re teaching instead?
Health policies are largely focused on better access for regional and rural Australians, with a special call out for better services for First Nations people. Honestly, this policy is just “more access, close to home, in regional and rural areas”, though spelt out over all the different policy areas. There isn’t any mention of telehealth in this though, which is an interesting omission. Telehealth has equalised a lot of general access to medical professionals over the past two years.
Finally there is a Freedom, Liberty and Privacy policy. Buckle up, folks. SFF says “Our parents and grandparents fought for freedom and our party believes this inherited right must be defended and expanded”. Freedom of speech and freedom of association are being eroded people, ERODED by those nasty leftists and their discrimination legislation (and by terrorism surveillance legislation). They want private ownership of personal data (which I can’t get grumpy at – some EU level protections would be nice), a Bill of Rights (the bill of rights is VERY popular with the right this election), and they want freedom of the press but more limits on “government owned media outlets” and forcing them to be “balanced” (that’s ABC and SBS to you and me).
What can't I see here? Any policies on net zero dates (since SFF don't really believe in it) and on Uluru Statement from the Heart. They are also silent on everyone else's favourite policy, a Federal ICAC.
Is this party trying to kill me?
SFF have guns and they want to use them for self defence. Yes. They’re trying to kill me. They also want us to become a nuclear nation, with nuclear power and nuclear defence missiles.
Is this party trying to harm me?
Alongside the gun policies, SFF reluctantly believe in climate change, and do not believe in any form of climate action. That’s causing quite a bit of harm. Also they’re proposing a Bradfield Scheme without saying it outright, which causes me psychic damage every time someone treats it as a serious suggestion.
Conclusion:
I was actually expecting SFF to have fewer nuttily worded policies decrying those devilsome leftists in the Greens for their inner city woke notions, because they’ve actually got a reasonable amount of political experience in NSW politics now, but no, all the dogwhistles and call outs were still scattered through the literature. It’s hard to take seriously.
In good policies where their “why aren’t the Nationals doing more” side pokes through, SFF want more regional and rural support for education, healthcare, infrastructure, and I have no issues with these desires.
It’s just their stubborn determination that conservation is wrong and their strange desire for nuclear everything that really cheeses me off. Oh, and the guns. They are also extremely anti-federation and want the Commonwealth out of everything possible, leaving it to the states.
