Australia’s Voice
Apr. 13th, 2025 08:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
b_auspolAustralia’s Voice
Website: https://australiasvoice.com.au/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/people/Senator-Fatima-Payman/100077402947532/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/senatorfatimapayman/
(New party for 2025)
This is Fatima Payman’s electoral vehicle after she resigned from Labor. As a party, it doesn’t really feel like it’s gelled into a solid platform as yet, but more of a grab bag of ideas.
Party Analysis
The core policy of this entire party is ending the war in Gaza. The conflict is the reason that Payman left the ALP, and understandably is a major concern of hers. It is a very very pro-Palestinian and anti-genocide policy: not only does the party not want Australia involved, but they want strong ethical lines actively avoiding rendering any sort of third party assistance to Israel. The party also is a proponent of wanting declarations of war to come from a parliamentary vote rather than the prime minister, and they don’t like AUKUS and nuclear subs.
The party housing policy is ‘limiting’ negative gearing, but with no details of how, and reducing the capital gains tax discount to 25%, stepped by 5% a year over 5 years. They also are all for a government backed bank, wanting to base it out of Australia Post. As far as I can tell, this concept is entirely just spun out of the Bank@Post system. They want a nice bank, who protect people’s money and loan money at low interest rates to home buyers, not speculate with it! They also want a mandatory banking code of conduct, rather than the current self-administered voluntary one, and are mad about bank branch closures and want these explained to the local community.
Australia’s Voice want to break up the supermarket duopoly, but their suggested method is forcing Coles and Woolworths to sell off stores to ‘independent grocers’ if found to be engaged in “price gouging, exploiting suppliers, or anti-competitive behavior”. This is not actually a solution that is likely to fix the problem, or lead to lower prices for consumers. It’s a surface level gloss for the public, rather than actually addressing the causes of anti-competitive behaviour.
They’re mad at politician’s wages and benefits, in a cost of living crisis. And look, nobody ever likes seeing politicians award themselves more money (which is why they often have a lot of allowances that are easier ways to increase earnings without as much scrutiny), but: we’ve tried paying politicians less, and what we get from it are politicians who are independently wealthy so they don’t need to rely on the stipend, and talent departing for higher private sector wages. Commensurately high wages are the least bad option for allowing a broad spectrum of the community the ability to represent that community.
Australia’s Voice wants a republic (with a little implied dig in the policy about how politicians have to follow s44 but the monarch doesn’t), a gas supply reserve for Australia, and general vibes for climate action (no specific policy). The party wants to raise the HECS repayment threshold and cap debts to 1.5x the original amount, and have a national definition measuring poverty. They’re for raising JobSeeker to $82 a day and an increase in the Remote Area Allowance for Centrelink fixed to CPI. (You can tell Payman is a WA Senator).
The domestic and family violence policy focuses on a single issue - automatic superannuation splitting in cases of domestic and family violence. It’s an interesting proposal to add to the Family Law Act, and it’s actually the sort of policy a solo Senator could champion as a member’s bill.
Is this party trying to kill me?
No, this party is extremely anti killing people (particularly people in Gaza).
Is this party trying to harm me?
No, this party is committed to preventing harm (particularly in Gaza).
Conclusion:
My overwhelming impression of this platform is that most of the policies could easily be summed up as “this is a common sense solution, why hasn’t anyone done it?” without any knowledge of the deeper reasons for why people might not want those solutions or the outcomes if they were implemented. It just feels incredibly politically naïve . And look, I’ve read plenty of politically naïve policy platforms in my time, but generally by the time the party/politican has some political experience, the reality of what is and is not achievable for a minor party kicks in. I think the policy I was most compelled by was actually the domestic violence policy - that one is in the scope of a private member’s bill and an independent senator could form a coalition of crossparty supporters to get it passed if it’s one of Payman’s interests.
I don’t think there’s any harm in Australia’s Voice as a centre left party, and a vote for them is a very clear indication of a vote for ‘do more about Gaza’. But outside of that I am just not seeing a lot on offer that is more than generic stuff the Greens and Labor already cover.
Website: https://australiasvoice.com.au/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/people/Senator-Fatima-Payman/100077402947532/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/senatorfatimapayman/
(New party for 2025)
This is Fatima Payman’s electoral vehicle after she resigned from Labor. As a party, it doesn’t really feel like it’s gelled into a solid platform as yet, but more of a grab bag of ideas.
Party Analysis
The core policy of this entire party is ending the war in Gaza. The conflict is the reason that Payman left the ALP, and understandably is a major concern of hers. It is a very very pro-Palestinian and anti-genocide policy: not only does the party not want Australia involved, but they want strong ethical lines actively avoiding rendering any sort of third party assistance to Israel. The party also is a proponent of wanting declarations of war to come from a parliamentary vote rather than the prime minister, and they don’t like AUKUS and nuclear subs.
The party housing policy is ‘limiting’ negative gearing, but with no details of how, and reducing the capital gains tax discount to 25%, stepped by 5% a year over 5 years. They also are all for a government backed bank, wanting to base it out of Australia Post. As far as I can tell, this concept is entirely just spun out of the Bank@Post system. They want a nice bank, who protect people’s money and loan money at low interest rates to home buyers, not speculate with it! They also want a mandatory banking code of conduct, rather than the current self-administered voluntary one, and are mad about bank branch closures and want these explained to the local community.
Australia’s Voice want to break up the supermarket duopoly, but their suggested method is forcing Coles and Woolworths to sell off stores to ‘independent grocers’ if found to be engaged in “price gouging, exploiting suppliers, or anti-competitive behavior”. This is not actually a solution that is likely to fix the problem, or lead to lower prices for consumers. It’s a surface level gloss for the public, rather than actually addressing the causes of anti-competitive behaviour.
They’re mad at politician’s wages and benefits, in a cost of living crisis. And look, nobody ever likes seeing politicians award themselves more money (which is why they often have a lot of allowances that are easier ways to increase earnings without as much scrutiny), but: we’ve tried paying politicians less, and what we get from it are politicians who are independently wealthy so they don’t need to rely on the stipend, and talent departing for higher private sector wages. Commensurately high wages are the least bad option for allowing a broad spectrum of the community the ability to represent that community.
Australia’s Voice wants a republic (with a little implied dig in the policy about how politicians have to follow s44 but the monarch doesn’t), a gas supply reserve for Australia, and general vibes for climate action (no specific policy). The party wants to raise the HECS repayment threshold and cap debts to 1.5x the original amount, and have a national definition measuring poverty. They’re for raising JobSeeker to $82 a day and an increase in the Remote Area Allowance for Centrelink fixed to CPI. (You can tell Payman is a WA Senator).
The domestic and family violence policy focuses on a single issue - automatic superannuation splitting in cases of domestic and family violence. It’s an interesting proposal to add to the Family Law Act, and it’s actually the sort of policy a solo Senator could champion as a member’s bill.
Is this party trying to kill me?
No, this party is extremely anti killing people (particularly people in Gaza).
Is this party trying to harm me?
No, this party is committed to preventing harm (particularly in Gaza).
Conclusion:
My overwhelming impression of this platform is that most of the policies could easily be summed up as “this is a common sense solution, why hasn’t anyone done it?” without any knowledge of the deeper reasons for why people might not want those solutions or the outcomes if they were implemented. It just feels incredibly politically naïve . And look, I’ve read plenty of politically naïve policy platforms in my time, but generally by the time the party/politican has some political experience, the reality of what is and is not achievable for a minor party kicks in. I think the policy I was most compelled by was actually the domestic violence policy - that one is in the scope of a private member’s bill and an independent senator could form a coalition of crossparty supporters to get it passed if it’s one of Payman’s interests.
I don’t think there’s any harm in Australia’s Voice as a centre left party, and a vote for them is a very clear indication of a vote for ‘do more about Gaza’. But outside of that I am just not seeing a lot on offer that is more than generic stuff the Greens and Labor already cover.
