Australian Values Party

[b_auspol]

Australian Values Party

Website: https://australianvalues.org.au/

Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/australianvalues.org.au/

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/australianvalues.org.au/

The Australian Values Party was formed by Heston Russell in 2021. Russell is a controversial figure with a past as an SAS Commander who criticised the Brereton Inquiry and investigations into war crimes in Afghanistan. Since then he has had several stories about his fundraising activities for charity, in one of which he essentially scammed people on OnlyFans by telling them he was selling porn to fundraise for a veteran’s charity, Swiss 8, but proceeded to keep the money for himself. He also was running unauthorised fundraising with ‘veteran supporter pins’ he didn’t pay for under another company. This is not a man I find in any way trustworthy.

At the outset I have to say that I find Heston Russell a shonk and about as appealing a person as Ben Robert-Smith (he of the ‘why are you running this defamation claim revealing more details of your own war crimes’ fame) and I seriously disagree with anyone who may have been responsible for war crimes or have commanded a platoon who committed war crimes running for political office.

With that said, here is what his political platform contains.


Party Analysis

Australian Values Party is a Defence and Veterans focused party. He wants all defence manufacturing done in Australia with no international parts, a National Guard for emergency assistance (rather than just calling in the ADF), legislation to protect military personnel and veterans from “trial by media” (which appears to be ‘getting called out for committing war crimes’), more money and tech for defence, and a review of everything to improve assets. Basically, shower the military in money and stop letting the general public go “what the actual did you just say”. He also wants better medical support and transition support for veterans after service and their families, with less red tape and paperwork, which is fair, as from what I hear this can be onerous for veterans and their families.

The party has a fascinating policy that there should be a new Act for conduct of politicians and parliamentary staff, which includes better accounting of financial benefits, mandatory drug and alcohol testing, and meeting “exacting ethical and moral standards”. Now I am the first to say I agree that politicians should not be intoxicated while at work, and that there are some ridiculous uses of parliamentary allowances, but I’m always slightly suspicious of anything that comes too hard after parliamentary finances. Some of that money is in fact so that people aren’t paying out of pocket for being representatives, and we have solid evidence that things are better if there’s a bit too much money sloshing around than if there is too little. It pays for staff and second homes and long hours working. Also, while I do think that there is an argument for some method of censuring politicians who have been found to have been ethically wrong (whether rape allegations like Christian Porter, or bribery/donation issues like Sam Dastiyari, or ‘what did you make up this time’ allegations like Angus Taylor and his invented Sydney Council funds), I feel the ultimate determination of whether these politicians should be in parliament comes down to the voters. The Federal parliament has removed its power to exclude politicians for a reason.

The party (read Russell) is also very unhappy with media and government accountability. He wants “Media accountability measures to address the ongoing trial-by-media persecution endured by those who are unable to afford 'the cost of justice’ required to defend their innocence before guilt by public opinion.” He also wants a Royal Commission to essentially every event of the past 3 years including the fires, floods and COVID, Aged Care and Robodebt. The general thrust of this is that the media and government are negligent and have been destroying people’s mental health. I don’t disagree that we need reviews, but what I actually think we need is to implement PREVIOUS reviews rather than just go for another round of looking into what happened. Also this feels a LOT like Heston Russell’s grudge against the ABC.

Foreign Affairs policies include a Peace Corps/National Guard like body for national and regional foreign aid, and spending more time working in South East Asia and the Pacific with our neighbours. I support this; the fact that we don’t actually have better equipped ships for disaster relief deployment surprises me, as was most recently evident with responding to the Sāmoān volcano. A specific group for this work, rather than drafting AFP personnel each time, would mean you could recruit for some more specialist experience in disaster relief.

The Australian Values Party want in depth reviews into almost everything, to see if money can be spent better, almost immediately after entering office. I find this highly unlikely to occur, particularly as it comes up in almost every single one of their policies. There is definite overtones of “there is too much bureaucracy” and “cut the red tape” and “do things that make common sense”. (Anyone who appeals to common sense in political terms is generally dangerously naïve).

Their entire energy policy is “let’s review what there is and what’s most effective” without committing to a position on what to use and whether to stop using fossil fuels. They want better federal quarantine for plants, animals and people, without specifics beyond “quarantine facilities” and “stop using the AFP”.

The first part of their health policy is “Any and all medical staff who lost their jobs due to state or territory mandates must be reinstated and, if needed, provided with federal exemptions to these mandates.” I am sorry, but up-to-date vaccinations are part of routine job expectations for medical staff. I have yet to see a convincing argument why they should be exempt from Covid vaccines but still have to be fully vaccinated for the flu and hepatitis. The number of people who lost their jobs on this basis is tiny and let’s be honest, I wouldn’t be comfortable having them treat me anyway. With open borders we are fully able to recruit additional staff from overseas as a stopgap for these personnel. In less vaccine-denial areas, the health policy wants more funding for early detection initiatives for conditions (I like the inclusion of dental, but I believe doctors, not government, should be determining what is a safe interval for early detection checks, to avoid false positives). They would also like national equalisation of medication regulations.

The Australian Values Party wants more sports development of youth towards the Brisbane 2032 Olympics, and also wants more funding for kids to be involved in cadets. There’s also a lovely dogwhistle here about “As we progress in technological advancements, previously common lived experience will continue to depart from our everyday lives, including those of our children.” I can’t quite get what it’s indicating towards – I think it might be sports, hobbies, car maintenance and other vocational items (which are still frequently in the curriculum) – but I can’t escape the feeling he’s pointing at something more concerning.

In terms of tertiary education, they want free TAFE for “critical areas of trade and specialisations” and subsidies/free HECS-HELP for health professionals. They are very into a training-to-job/career pathway, which is useful for students to gain employment, but also prioritises technical training over university studies into things you want to learn about and knowledge for knowedge’s sake.

In their firearms policy, the AVP is careful not to argue that they want more guns, but when you read it, they are arguing for more access to guns. They want a National firearm registration and licencing system, rather than state based systems, but they also want it managed at a local government level. I admit I’m confused what on earth local government would do with guns and I really think it should be kept at a more well funded level. Ok, this is where I get a bit “I work in law” but I feel guns and gun regulation are fundamentally linked to the Crimes Act. Criminal legislation is largely a State thing. While I agree with having national consensus on policy here, I see absolutely no reason why it shouldn’t be managed at state level, by the police. Local governments are for bins and roads, not checking people’s gun safes. There’s also a call out that military veterans are discriminated against by some States and Territories at getting registrations for guns, and honestly? If you’re not ticking the mental health boxes to get a weapon and you’re a military veteran I don’t think you should have access to a gun. In any case, the whole policy is a bit too enthusiastic about guns for my taste.

The climate policy starts with “Regardless of where you sit with climate change – we could all be doing more and better support the countries within our region to do so as well.” I really have nothing to say about that apart from that I think people who don’t believe in climate change aren’t interested in dealing with the impacts on our region. Policy wise, AVP are stumping for carbon capture and conversion, which have been largely found to be ineffective or not easily scaleable, and there is no commitment to reduction levels beyond a “scalable sustainable climate strategy”. In upsides however they want us to work with Indo/Asian-Pacific Region to support (financially) smaller nations with ‘sustainable initiatives’, however I feel that our leadership for that is sadly lacking given we are definitely the biggest polluter in the region.

The “Real Reconciliation” policy is a call for a Reconciliation Action Group (another committee!) to “to sit down, listen and work through the conversations that often come from generational trauma and carry resentment” and work towards planning a treaty. My major issue with this policy is while it is trying to say that we need to stop platitudes and make process…it spends the whole time making platitudes without committing to anything. There is no position on whether to support Uluru Statement from the Heart or on Constitutional Recognition or self-determination. There is also a lack of support for any equity programs – in fact there is a slogan that gives me the shivers: “Handouts and handshakes must be replaced by hard work” to address community issues. There is definitely an implication for ‘stop entitlements for First Nations’ people that are current attempts to redress imbalances.
 

Is this party trying to kill me?

While the party has a gun policy, it hasn’t specifically tried to water down policies that I can tell. Mostly they want to standardise regulation.


Is this party trying to harm me?

I kept getting the feel of dog-whistles for culture war issues while reading the website, but due to the general lack of commitment to policies beyond “we should establish a committee to investigate and review X”, there’s nothing I can pin down. There were definite shades of a bit of vaccine hesitancy around the health policy, however.

Conclusion:

This is a moderate right party who are far too into reviewing everything in government and lacking in firm ideas of what to do beyond that. On top of that, I really don’t think Heston Russell is a trustworthy person who even meets the moral and ethical standards he’s calling for all politicians to have to meet.

In terms of good policies, they are very invested in more work and assistance with the Pacific region and in disaster preparedness, but I just get a wishy-washy feel from most of their policies.