b_auspol

Animal Justice Party

Website: https://www.animaljusticeparty.org/

Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/animaljusticeparty.bsky.social

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AnimalJusticePartyAJP

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/animaljusticeparty/


(My review for the 2021 WA Election. My review for the 2022 Federal Election)

The party for vegan animal-lovers.

Animal Justice Party were founded in 2009. They have never held a federal seat, however they have MLCs in both the NSW and Victorian Legislative Councils, and have held seats on local councils. They are therefore a minor party who have actual electoral experience.

As a party, AJP have matured somewhat over the last decade and a half from the changes brought by having to reach policy decisions on a wider set of priorities than the party’s core values. While their core values remain intact (I will never get over the fact that anyone running for office must be a committed vegan, for instance), they’ve performed actual policy work, both in their areas of interest and collaboratively in the upper house. Understanding how to actually DO the work of politics is an important skillset, and valuable in minor parties.

Party Analysis

AJP’s policy platform for the federal election is largely based in their core issue and interest (animal rights) but also canvasses a bunch of progressive policy areas. They are not purely a single interest party and do have positions on a range of areas.

In terms of broader topics, AJP’s approach to the current cost of living situation is that they want to lower income taxes and the removal of payroll tax. To make up the difference they want a combination of getting big business to pay higher tax rates and higher taxes on resource extraction, particularly mining and gas. They also want a tax on pollution, which as we know is never controversial in Australia. They also have the most cautiously worded policy on negative gearing I have ever seen: "Gradually adjust Capital Gains Tax and Negative Gearing to create a fairer tax and housing system." Cmon. You can be a bit bolder than that; you’re being outflanked by Bill Shorten in 2019.

Also with respect to cost of living, in terms of the issue of housing, the AJP platform is firmly pro-densification. They want to advocate for more public housing, more flexible zoning laws to allow higher density and infill in all cities, smaller floorplan housing, and a vacant properties tax. They don’t like short stay rentals. Their stated aim is cheaper and more accessible housing for all.

Another social issue that is raised is domestic and family violence. AJP has a history advocating for better government support for this, particularly in terms of rehousing victims and support to leave with pets. This is a genuine danger with domestic and family violence: one of the biggest predictors of danger to humans is if the abusive person threatens, injures or kills the family pets, and a lot of shelters don’t allow people to bring pets with them. Their policy is a lot of support and extra funding for the existing programmes to try and prevent and address violence.  

In terms of healthcare, as always the AJP’s central policy is actually Veticare - aka Medicare for pets and injured wildlife. It’s a policy that makes perfect sense in terms of AJP’s strong focus on animals. It both has extra money for vets and vet mental health as well as a focus on desexing and microchipping for pets.

The most interesting general environmental policies from the AJP this time are that they want to start a National Biodiversity Fund for the purpose of protecting endangered species, ending deforestation and habitat destruction, and supporting sustainable practices. This is a really interesting way to look at improving environmental outcomes. They’re also interested in legal personhood for natural land features rights: just like the landmark rulings allowing various rivers and mountains in NZ to own themselves (like Taranaki Maunga for instance), the AJP are suggesting that various river systems and the Great Barrier Reef should gain this protection, to give them specific rights that the country has to protect.

And then we have all the usual animal-based policies.

AJP want stronger animal protection laws and an overseeing independent body to hold all states and territories to a standard. AJP specifically point to the animal cruelty legislation they’ve succeeded in passing in NSW as something they want to see in all jurisdictions, and it’s a good demonstration of what smaller parties with a primary issue can accomplish when they have a seat at the table. AJP have been able to negotiate to get support behind a bunch of their core initiatives as well as being signatories for other progressive legislation.

They want to end live export (which is a live issue this election as the ALP have policies to implement this), phase out farming animals, transform the agricultural system to be plantbased only, and advocate for veganism. This is a standard part of their platform, where one of the points I’ve never seen addressed is the question that given Australia has some of the poorest, least nutrient-rich soils on the planet, and a lot of our farmland isn’t appropriate to grow crops with any serious yield (aka why it’s used for sheep and cattle farming), what are the plans to convert dry sheep farms to produce plants instead?

There is also my eternal sticking point in their platform: their advocacy against killing feral animals. I get their emotional buy-in, but also most non-lethal methods are clearly ineffective large scale at managing feral animal populations. You only have to look at the 2021 Kosciuszko National Park Wild Horse Heritage Management Plan for evidence of the significant difference in effect of various control methods. In the last 3 years, almost 9,000 brumbies were removed from the park. 6,000 of those were from aerial shooting since that was once again allowed in October 2023. 1,000 of the horses were rehomed. While rehoming is an implemented solution, it is far, far less effective. In a situation where the NSW government is desperately trying to reduce the brumby population to save the ecosystem, the overpopulation, and the animals starving to death, it is not enough to keep up with the herd increase.

Is this party trying to kill me?

No. the AJP don’t want to kill any animal, even humans.

Is this party trying to harm me?

No. The worst they want is for me to stop eating meat.

Conclusion:

The AJP are a minor party with an extremely specific main goal (protection of animals), but from years of political experience understand how to translate that goal into a wide selection of policies, and have advocacy positions on a range of socially progressive issues. Unlike a number of other minor parties, you can either get an answer or fairly easily predict what their MP’s position will be on a range of political issues, which provides a lot more confidence in terms of knowing how they’ll vote outside of their core issues.

United Australia Party

Website: https://www.unitedaustraliaparty.org.au/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/unitedausparty
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/UnitedAusParty

The United Australia Party are essentially the Clive Palmer Feelings Vehicle. Originally formed 2013, it is not a successor to the UAP of the 1930s and 1940s, which was a conservative Labor-Nationalist breakaway group and provided Menzies’ first prime ministership.

Being the Clive Palmer Feelings Vehicle, its policies tend to swing their focus quite wildly between elections. The most valuable assets they’ve probably provided Australia is Jacqui Lambie and endless billboards to deface. The least valuable assets they’ve provided include their habit of blanket saturation advertising and Clive Palmer.

Policies:

FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM and promises to fix interest rate at a max of 3% for all mortgages for 5 years. That’s the UAP platform right now, from what I absorb via giant billboards and tv ads. Shockingly enough, I’m not supportive of either of these policies (also I’m not convinced they are achievable either). However, I’ve taken a look at the actual policy platform too.

UAP’s housing policy is a maximum 3% interest rates for all mortgages and $30,000 paid on home loans tax deductable each year. This is populist nonsense, a gigantic rort, and probably the most likely policy from any political party to send house prices even more stratospherically high. And of course, there is nothing here for renters – this is just making people who already have house mortgages have their houses accrue more value. I took a quick peek at what is currently being advertised as best interest rates (it’s around 2%), so I’d imagine a bunch of people are already paying around 3%.

Economic policies from UAP include a 15% export licence on iron ore to “repay the national debt” (oooh so why is this ok but a resource super profits tax of 40% isn’t, Palmer?). They want more ore and minerals processing in Australia to value ad before international sale. They are also calling for all superannuation to be invested in Australia: “Just like when John Curtin in World War 2 brought the troops back to save Australia, the United Australia Party will bring back a trillion dollars of Australian super back to Australia, to save Australia”. While this is some great nationalism, it’s considered ethically sound for managed funds to invest internationally. Also in nationalism, they want more support and labelling for Australians to buy Australian made products. UAP also want to build a nuclear power industry here.

In education policies, UAP want to abolish HECS debts. And let me admit, I am down for that, but this is astonishing as the only education policy. Nothing for childcare, primary or secondary education.

In tax policies, rather than increasing tax to fund all these policies, UAP instead want to decrease tax by up to 50% on second jobs (why second jobs? Income is income. This doesn’t make sense, given our tax system doesn’t quarantine payments by WHEN we earn the money; if you change employers during the year, does that then count as a second job for the lower tax rate? I can see all sorts of shenanigans). They want to abolish provisional tax for businesses and allow it to be paid at the end of the year (by my understanding provisional tax payments are intended to smooth the tax burden over the year and to also stop companies going bankrupt with giant tax debts as often). Also in terms of bankruptcy, UAP want businesses to be allowed to “trade out of difficulty”. According to UAP, the government are the main petitioners of bankruptcy and liquidation. To me this sounds like “let businesses run even further into the red, failing to pay their workers”. When a business goes bankrupt there is generally a reason why. They’re not paying for something (often their invoices, their workers and their tax). I don’t see why we should be trying to let them limp along into even more trouble.

UAP want to abolish fringe benefits tax. They want to introduce at 20% zonal tax concession for those living rurally, at least 200km from a capital city. Is this from the centre or the fringe of the city? UAP note huffily that this is legal and existed in the 1960s, but I have to say I can see this exploited by remote worker professionals to drop their tax rates, rather than assist regional and rural communities. Also, all populations make some compromises – an equal tax system is surely fairer than this.

Then we have the COVID cooker FREEDOM policies. You can probably recite these by now. No vaccine mandates or passports, no lockdowns, allow alternative medical treatment for COVID (yes this is the Ivermectin policy), abolish the National Cabinet (and I bet he doesn’t want COAG back either), stop social media censoring COVID deniers and antivaxxers (phrased as social media censoring “Australian political debate”). You know the stuff, all the protestor policies that are less relevant now.

Also in terms of FREEDOM, UAP want to exclude former ministers from being lobbyists, and are advocating for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from fear and freedom of association. In context, this really should read as “remove Section 18C on Racial Vilification” so that freedom of speech is as wide as possible.

Healthcare policies (that don’t involve the right to eat horse paste) are $40 billion in extra hospital funding. Gosh the UAP are amazing at announcing extra things they want to pay for while also wanting lower taxes. You can have one or the other. They also want to raise the old age pension by $180 per fortnight (but no other Centrelink payments). Veterans and spouses should all have access to gold cards and service pensions should be linked to total average earnings.

Finally, in terms of defence, the UAP dislike the French submarine deal and are calling the abandonment of the deal a triumph for their policy. They want nuclear subs for protection.

Is this party trying to kill me?

The COVID denial and promotion of dangerous cures is the issue here.

Is this party trying to harm me?

UAP want nuclear power and nuclear submarines. They also are really into radical interpretations of freedom of speech.

Conclusion:

The UAP are populists whose policies veer sharply around to pick up whatever they think might net them some disaffected voters. There’s a lot of random single policies here that would cost a lot in tax revenue, while the party also demands lower taxes. I think the thing that worries me the most, alongside the known connections to the Convoy to Canberra crowd and other extremists, is the support to allow companies who are bankrupt to keep trading. Bankruptcy exists for a reason and is there to resolve situation where there really is no further way out. Letting companies dig deeper holes and go further into debt doesn’t seem advisable.

Guitang Lu:

Guitang Lu has been the hardest of the ungrouped independents to track down this election. They previously contested East Ward for the Hills Shire Council in December 2021, ending up with 472 votes total. They submitted a candidate statement for that election that said “Independent voice of the Hills for fairness and harmony in the multicultural community.” They also appear to be a migration agent based in Castle Hill.

Look, there’s essentially no information available here other than this general statement. I cannot really recommend voting for an individual where there is no available information. If you can’t manage to put up a website or a social media page for your campaign, you’re not really running for election.

Julie Collins:

Website: https://www.juliecollinsnsw.com/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JulieCollinsNSW/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/juliecollinsnsw/

Julie Collins is a Ngunnawal woman living in Tamworth, running with the slogan “Sensible Solutions”. Her main hobbyhorse is the Family Law Court System and a bunch of right wing social views.

Collins is worried about the removal of children from families, which given her background is completely understandable. She also wants more protections for children in the Family Court system and doesn’t like expert witnesses. In terms of family and domestic violence, Collins is concerned the current systems are not doing enough for families in crisis. Her solutions are tougher sentencing for domestic violence, more support for reporting domestic violence, children not having orders to see family members convicted of domestic violence. Also she throws around the suggestion of chemical castration for repeat sex offenders against children.

Collins is anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia. She also wants more money for aged care and palliative care.

Collins is an anti-vaxxer, and your standard Covid protestor who is against vaccine mandates, lockdowns and border closures. She feels that COVID and border closures have divided the community and caused rifts in family relationships. She’s upset about the people who lost their jobs over not being vaccinated. Given they were mostly medical personnel and teachers, people who should be fully vaccinated in any case, this argument is remarkably unsympathetic. She’s more upset about the police brutality breaking up the protests than the fact that unvaccinated people are at higher risk of serious illness and death.

Collins is a TERF into gender essentialism (women’s bodies are different!). She doesn’t believe in trans people, gender fluidity, and is against Safe Schools. She thinks the Family Court shouldn’t be allowed to make orders in line with children’s wishes about transition (or about getting kids vaccinated, for that matter). Hate I have to say this, but this is really unacceptable, against the evidence and research, and is more likely to harm kids than help them.

Finally, she has an environment policy that is ambivalent to whether climate change exists. She is for less land clearing and cutting down trees and comments that whales help reduce greenhouse gases (okay, but that’s not really a solution on any scale). She also wants less plastic waste and more biodegradeable products so they don’t contaminate waterways and the sea. She doesn’t like water licences being held by mining companies when they could instead be held by farmers.

I’m sympathetic to Collins’ feelings about the Family Court system (which is generally considered to have issues by all parties involved, with the only upside in it being an improvement on every previous system we’ve had), but she is otherwise a right wing TERF, anti-vaxxer, anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia. These are all dealbreakers for me.

TNL (The New Liberals)

Website: https://tnl.net.au/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/TNL_Australia
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/tnloz/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tnlaustralia/

TNL are a new party for the 2022 election formed by Victor Kline. They describe themselves as a party of change and an alternative to corporate corrupt politicans. In fact they’re essentially a centrist party trying to achieve the positioning and momentum that have been taken by various Teal Independents this election. They are also registered with the colour teal, leading to not a little confusion and hilarity in branding.

They initially registered under the name “The New Liberals” as a protest against what they saw as the Liberal Party not holding liberal values. This is a tedious old debate, in my mind, and ended up bringing yet another round of arguments over whether the party wanted to use the word “Liberal” disingenuously to pick up confused voters on the Senate ballot. I won’t relitigate the entire debate here, but since ‘liberals for forests’ in 2002, the tactic has been used with greater and lesser extent and intent to harvest votes, with the pinnacle of success being David Leyonhjelm’s 2013 Senate seat for the Liberal Democrats after drawing column A in NSW.

Amusingly, TNL are convinced that the new party name rules are targeted specifically at their own party, rather than an agreement between the Liberals and Labor that the DLP and Lib Dems (among others) have caused voting issues enough times off the back of using conflicting names and had finally got everyone to agree to remove the loophole.

Victor Kline has become mildly famous in auspol circles for spouting off absolute nonsense about his party’s election chances, including an infamous tweet predicting that the 2028 federal election would have TNL as the party of government and the Greens as the party of opposition.


Party Analysis

TNL’s thing is basically the suite of socially liberal policies circulating around all the centrist and centre left parties at present. They’re for climate action, want a Federal ICAC (with teeth), a jobs guarantee, and tax reform.

In terms of the collective climate policies, TNL want net-zero by 2030. They also are using a LOT of war imagery in respect of how they want to tackle climate change. They want no new coal or gas mining, local renewable energy grids with batteries, 100% electric rail, geothermal energy (interestingly this is the first time I’ve heard geothermal spruiked in a while. It was all the rage a decade or two back), more aerial water bombers (I presume they mean buy our own sky cranes, as a lot of the smaller fleet are already ours. We mostly loan the big stuff from California). They want all new vehicles from 2030 to be EVs, a wider charging network, stamp duty exemptions for EVs and ICE car buybacks, and the federal fleet cars to be converted as soon as possible. They want to ban live exports, protect native species, increase trees, protect koala habitat, etc. Honestly after reading so many centre socially liberal platforms, there’s nothing particularly new here. Net-zero dates are the major difference between the various platforms, and 2030 is one of the shorter timelines.

TNL want a retrospective ICAC with teeth (TM). In fact, they want it to have powers even beyond the NSW ICAC’s wildest dreams, being a full court process with a judge and jury trial, rather than a set of recommendations to be passed on to the DPP for prosecution. In my view this is far more excessive than is necessary; an advisory commission on investigating corruption is significantly different to a body that has the ability to prosecute. Also in responsibility for politicians policies, TNL want them all to take a 20% paycut and reduced super, and also adopt the entire Jenkins report suggestions into a Parliamentary Code of Conduct. Oh and term limits of a max of 12 years for all politicians. I’m boggled by this, as 12 years severely closes the generational memory pass on for politicians. I’m not against making sure there is generational change among politicians! I just think 12 years is probably too short a max length, especially to allow your PM and ministry to have relevant experience.

They also want real time donation disclosure and oh my god a complete ban on “major political advertising” during election campaigns. “We would prohibit mass media advertising via radio, tv, print and online advertising, social media, postal advertising, robot or personal phone calls, paying endorsers and influencers and any form of billboard advertising” and only allow flyers, doorknocking and other in-person campaigning (along with websites). Look. This is ridiculous. I am not opposed to stronger rules about what is allowed in political advertising, but this would be even more counterproductive. Essentially this proposal would reduce any party awareness among the general community down to current parliamentary parties, and make it almost impossible for anyone to communicate their election platform in more than one or two slogans and platitudes. Low information voters would have even less information. No.

There’s a proposal for a Job Guarantee Scheme which is for full time employment for everyone who wants it, facilitated by the government. These always feel a bit utopian to me (what if jobs in your skill set aren’t around? Or in your area?), but offering real jobs not work for the dole is a good start.

TNL also want better treatment of “aged citizens” both in aged care and outside it, to make it “the best in the world”. No details on how or the costs of this, however. There is also a “wisdom retention” policy, which is a Council of Elders for OLD PEOPLE, a “body of living national treasures that will help guide government policy”. I’m going to sigh with frustration here – this is not a constituency as unheard as the Voice to Parliament would be, and I really have no interest to pushing for this ahead of Uluru progress.

The refugee policy is an end to mandatory detention and offshore detention, but also still is a “stop the boats” policy. TNL also suggest more refugees in the country on farms “to revive dying towns”. I’m unsure on the percentage of refugees who are trained farmers, but I cannot imagine it is as high as TNL seem to believe – quite often it is highly trained individuals who need their qualifications (whether professional or trade) recognised. There’s also a proposal for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to help investigate and repair some of the damage our policies have caused, which is a policy I’d like to see but doubt would happen.

In terms of big Constitution policies, TNL want a Bill of Rights, a Republic, Indigenous Recognition in the Constitution, and lowering the voting age to 16. They want full adoption of Uluru Statement from the Heart and treaty negotiations with every nation (yes all 500+, for ‘fairness’).

In other First Nations policies they want Raise the Age, get rid of Indue cards, improve prison rates, more work on Deaths in Custody, more input on mining leases, and the policy I always find SO paternal, “arrange more employment in environment and flora and fauna for First Nations people in their community! Use their traditional knowledge!” Look, if there are reasons for ranger jobs in an area, sure, and yes we should be relying more on traditional knowledge for things like burns and regeneration, but those are NOT the only jobs needed or wanted by First Nations people. It’s super condescending to keep pigeonholing them in the jobs you want to offer in these policies (especially when what I see a lot of call in the news for is more education and healthcare on country, with associated jobs).

In terms of healthcare, there is more support for the NDIS and better service delivery of the program, higher Medicare rebates for GP visits, more early intervention and screening healthcare, more funding for mental health on Medicare, and funding for “obesity related diseases”. Pretty standard. Also they would like to future-proof for future pandemics.

Support for the ABC (SBS not mentioned) and more funding for a local arts industry. Also there’s a media policy that looks like the “break up Murdoch” stuff spelled out, and strongly dislikes think tanks and research institutes for being too partisan.

TNL are into Modern Monetary Theory, which I am familiar with but could not explain to you. Basically they want us to spend more money as we can always print more. They also want a new government owned bank. Taxation is about taxing multinationals and large businesses more money, with no more specifics than that, on the basis that the scale of money that could be recovered there exceeds any quibbling over other tax rates.

Centrelink pay rates are to be doubled (so this would be $88 a day I think), along with providing carers a living wage. Also no sequestered payment cards like Indue.

In terms of education policies, they want to decrease funding for private schools, want to put heavier restrictions over how education funds can be spent (and want them spent in the same year, a policy every public service agency is howling how awful it is right now), increase to teacher’s salaries, more funding for preschool, your first uni degree to be free, and more money for university research.

Foreign affairs and aid policies are a lot of motherhood statements, really, but focused around “we are part of the Asian region”. They work really hard not to take a position on China. They also want us to spend a lot more on foreign aid (funded by taxing multinationals), particularly in our region. Also in terms of defence, we should rely less on the US and form a defence pact with Indonesia (TNL are oddly into working with Indonesia, it’s been called out in a number of policies). They also want better navy acquisitions as our first line of defence (small subs and air support). Finally, they want parliament to hold the power to declare war, not the prime minister (look I see the symbolic nature of this, but I have to say I always doubt that this change will alter anything, and has the downside of needing to call back both houses if you need to make a call quickly).

Law and justice policies look like they’ve been written by lawyers (shocking given Victor Kline, I know). TNL specifically call out reforming immigration and family law systems to reach solutions faster. This includes a 50/50 community property split in all divorces to decrease litigation (I can see some downsides on this and I can CERTAINLY see it being unpopular). They also want better funding for legal aid.

In water policies they want more flow through the Murray-Darling system, more water conservation, phasing out water-intensive crops, and the end of trading in water licences.

Finally we have a couple of rather petty culture war issues.

The Australia Day policy is “move it to 1 January” (this is a terrible suggestion given it is already a public holiday and half the country is hung over/sleeping in) and introduce a Reconciliation Day holiday in May nationally for the 1967 referendum. Here’s a suggestion – let’s delay this until the NEXT round of referendums and choose a date together.

There’s a policy proposing we change the national anthem, and I’m sorry to inform you that TNL decided to take the worst of all options and retain the tune but change the lyrics. The lyrics they’re proposing feel patronising, like they’d date in about 30 seconds and realistically already feel dated. If you care, it’s the Judith Durham rewrite.

Is this party trying to kill me?

No, TNL don’t have any deadly policies in their platform.

Is this party trying to harm me?

Only in terms of how hard I roll my eyes. TNL personalities spend a lot of time clowning on social media. Their actual policies didn’t appear to have any unexploded bombs.

Conclusion:

Look, this is a pretty standard socially liberal centrist policy set that is quite uneven in detail. There’s not a huge lot in here to pick out compared to the pack – probably the main thing is the MOST powerful ICAC policy I’ve seen, that is extensive enough that I do feel it’s into overreach. The old people voice to parliament made me chuckle as well. They also are prosecuting a handful of culture war policies over the national anthem and Australia Day, but neither of their suggestions are ones that I’ve seen wide acceptance or liking for. Finally, TNL have the most bizarrely broad “no election advertising” policy of the whole campaign. I really don’t feel it would work out the way they expect and would likely entrench major parties.

My biggest issue is the personalities involved with the party. Victor Kline in particular seems to enjoy being a Twitter personality and getting into ridiculous fights in the comments. There are other parties who spend less of their time centring parliamentary decisions as specific attacks of their party personally.

The Great Australian Party

Website: https://www.greataustralianparty.com.au/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/RodneyNCulleton
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/greataustralianparty

(My review for the 2021 WA election)

It’s time for the Sovereign Citizen party of the disgraced former Senator-in-Exile, Rodney Culleton! GAP was formed in 2019 as the election vehicle for Rod Culleton, after his extremely failed previous political career in the 2016 senate, where he ran as a One Nation candidate and then sat as an independent before the power of s44 came and rendered him ineligible due to bankruptcy.

If you do not know the whole Senator-in-Exile story, do read up on it, because it includes the delightful fact that Culleton tried to appeal his exclusion to the Privy Council, even though the Privy Council is basically incapable of overruling the High Court since 1988. He certainly has extremely complicated and wrong views of how the Australian legal system and parliament functions.

Party Analysis

GAP is essentially the radical right crackpot party. It’s where conspiracy theories too wild for the rest of the far right cluster go to die.

The Animal Welfare policy of GAP is quite strange, as it reads extremely socially liberal. In fact, it is the Greens Animal Welfare policy, imported. Please compare with this page. I still don’t quite understand whether this is a cynical move to try and appeal to Greens voters, or if it’s a form of green-washing, or they actually like the contents of the policy.

The Communication and Arts policy has still not been updated since last time I looked at is, as they’re still campaigning that we shouldn’t stop using analogue tv signals, digital is unnecessary. I have to remind you this party was formed in 2019 and analogue was discontinued in 2013. They also despise the ABC for liberal bias, and do not want any further deregulation of Telstra or Australia Post (neither of which appear on the table at the moment).

In the Defence policy they want us to work with “other Commonwealth countries” to protect our borders from foreign invasion. So not the US, presumably. Also there is a “make as much of our defence hardware and apparel in Australia” policy, because everyone’s into local manufacture this year.

In Education policies, GAP thinks we need to be teaching more religious values, patriotism and morality. They want to “ban political leanings” in education because apparently the education system right now is dangerously biased. Also they want “legitimate consequences” for bullying, and I’m not sure if they mean expulsion or corporal punishment. Also GAP would like more focus on early childhood education, “starting when the mother is 6 months pregnant”. I presume this is meant to be education for new parents about caring for and educating their children, but I have the funniest mental image of a universal ‘play music to your fetus’ program or something. They also want a focus on bilingual education for under 5s and support for parents to take part in early years programs with their children. I really don’t know what to make of all this early childhood stuff. It looks a bit like more support for parents to stay home and improve education outcomes?

Employment policies want fewer overseas workers, and rescinding of industrial relations policy. The policy is a bit odd – they are ok to retain unionism as long as it’s voluntary, but they want to give more ways to fire employees or throw out union officials. I cannot tell if they want more individual bargaining or continued collective bargaining. More local manufacturing, more apprenticeships, make our nation self-sufficient. They are very unhappy that older teens have policies keeping them at school to 17, rather than starting apprenticeships at 15. GAP bizarrely insist that 15-16 year old apprentices learn better than adult apprentices. I have no issues with keeping kids engaged and interested in the learning they are doing; I am just sceptical and worried about this insistence on 15 being so much better than 17-18 for learning is due to adult apprentices having more ability and perspective to advocate for a living wage and better conditions. One example they give of this terrible hollowing out of apprenticeships is the fact that nursing is now a university degree rather than on-the-job training. Apparently teaching nurses as professionals is diminishing the number of nurses and their skillset, rather than giving them a more rounded and technical education. (Also only girls are nurses). In fact, all jobs should be on-the-job apprenticeships if possible, universities are dangerous institutions. Now, I am not disputing that more workplaces open to training on the job would be useful. However the wholesale disregard for the benefits of university education here cheeses me off.

In energy policy, GAP want it all made at home. It looks like they want local petroleum manufacture, and higher emissions testing on vehicles. Apparently if we test for lower emissions “all Motor Engineers will be retrained to a much higher level of understanding than currently exists for the benefit of reducing dramatically, suspended unburnt hydrocarbons. We will assist all current education facilities to better implement this re-education with a view to expanding this knowledge worldwide”. There are no details of what this new education involves to burn hydrocarbons more cleanly, and why we’re not doing it already. GAP thinks climate policies are dangerous nonsense, but they are ok with “true renewable energy”. They want to stop sale of uranium (so that’s a no on nuclear power). Also we should sell energy to the world. Honestly, the policies are unclear, but largely sound like retaining coal and gas but aiming for cleaner burning (I would presume carbon capture, but they are down on climate policy, so I presume simply more efficient burning?). Electricity should not be privatised.

GAP’s environment policy is all over the place. They deprecate the Greens and Climate Change as dangerous, yet they are also on board with some level of conservation and renewable power (“clean energy” is the term they like). They support feral animal culls by shooting, but also want to protect Brumbies in the Snowy High Country (this in fact may be the deciding factor in how low I put them on my ballot). They want more access to beaches, marine parks and national parks for people. It’s quite odd. They clearly do enjoy the outside, but just cannot trust the advice and evidence that the climate is changing (and have a pack of conspiracies about how it’s a conspiracy).

Their families policy is concerning. GAP believe in keeping “the marriage and family unit intact”. Divorce causes trauma, a bunch of signalling that sounds a lot like what Men’s Rights Activists talk about, and “Compulsory counselling reinforces societies’ values and commitments to the sanctity of marriage and the individual’s commitment to work strongly to retain the marriage vows”, which is clearly a dogwhistle for religious counselling.

Health policies include anti-vax sentiments, and not just against Covid vaccines, but all vaccines. Hilariously they want to use the Northern Rivers as a control group due to their low vax rates (though even those are still above 83% of children). They think IVF for “unmarried women” is exploitation making women depressed, and they also want homeopathy and naturopathy included in Medicare. All of their crank tendencies are really on display here. Oh and apparently they want to implement the NUREMBERG CODE so people can object to vaccines better (their interpretation of all this is wildly kooky).

Immigration policies are racism central. GAP want zero net immigration, turn backs not just for boats but for aeroplane arrivals, want migration visas to cost more, and to withdraw from UN treaties on migration and refugees. This is honestly appalling. We have a bad record as a country, but this is advocating even worse rules.

Actually, GAP want us to withdraw from as many treaties and agreements as possible. They want to review them all and drop as many as they can, especially anything that’s from the UN and any free trade agreements. Local border protectionism and looking inwards is what is required, not living in an international community.

Their justice policy is also, unsurprisingly, quite authoritarian. Mandatory imprisonment for violent crimes, more deportations, heavier penalties and sentences, everything must be a trial by jury (uh GAP there’s very good reasons we don’t use jury trials for some complex matters like class actions). They’re very unhappy about vandalism (treat it as a crime!), and quite horrifically want to name youths who are serial offenders (oh yes, let us destroy any rehabilitation prospects there). Also, in ‘let us import American values’ areas, they want desecration of the flag to be a criminal offence (why? No really, why? You can go get another one, there’s no shortage).

GAP are also into the citizen initiated referenda that are featuring a lot in right wing and libertarian parties. They want a minimum of 5,000 signatures for this. This is hilariously low and I am very against these policies, largely because I consider that we elect politicians to deal with this for us.

In the Seniors policy, GAP decide to experiment a bit with social policy. To start with “GAP proposes that all Australian’s over the age of 55, be classified as Seniors. They should not suffer demeaning categorisation such as aged, pensioners etc.” I don’t think the terminology is the biggest issue, GAP, but you do you. They also want no asset test for the aged pension (if you have ever paid tax), a retirement age of 60, free health and medical care for all seniors, more seniors card discounts, and better indexation of pensions. Also they’re agitating for the return of widow and war-widow pensions (war-widow pensions particularly blow my mind, because if you assume that essentially the list of widows from WWII and Korea are now negligible, given they’d all be over 90 now, there’s a total of 621 military deaths since 1960. I imagine the number of people who both would qualify and have need for it at this point is a rounding error). I do find it hilarious how the right stare ageing in the face and suddenly start advocating for All The Benefits but for old people only.

Firearms! Oh boy this one is messed up. “GAP believes in firearms ownership as a right, not a privilege.” Oh look we are importing US standards again. Stop it. They want easier registration with less red tape (folks that won’t be happening), category licencing for firearms rather than specific licencing (yeah no), oh and good god they support HANDGUN CARRY. You absolute maniacs. You want concealed carry of guns. This will not fly with 99% of the community. Also “GAP will work to establish secured depots of firearms and ammunition throughout every town and city, ready for issue to the civilian population in the event of an attack on the people of Australia by a foreign power” because apparently GAP thinks there will be a land invasion of Australia at any point.

Tax policies are also quite complex. GAP want a COMPLETE REFORM of the tax system, including removal of the GST, abolishing income tax, and removing compulsory super. They want to replace it with a transaction tax. I don’t fully understand how transaction taxes work, but this sound completely wild and extremely unlikely to sufficiently tax high earning individuals.

In terms of Indigenous policies, GAP want to form a “‘National Tribal Federation’ to unite all tribes within Australia so as to establish, recognise and re-enliven the inalienable Birth Right of the Tribal Sovereign’s across this nation”. I...don’t think this something the community is asking for? “GAP will additionally establish a ‘Tribal & Islander Council’ to overhaul ALL Land Rights legislation ~ to end the legislative extinguishment of Individual Birth Rights to the land, with a fair and equitable outcome for those that have suffered due to the colonisation of this land”. This sounds interesting but likely to cause constitutional issues.

Is this party trying to kill me?

Yes. GAP want to loosen gun laws, allow concealed carry of handguns, don’t believe in vaccines and don’t believe in climate change.

Is this party trying to harm me?

GAP have a large number of damaging policies, so yes.

Conclusion:

Look, GAP are one of the most cooked right wing parties on the ticket. They want to stop immigration, import a whole lot of right wing American culture war issues, withdraw from international agreements and treaties, go back to analogue TV, replace the entire tax system and have a Men’s Right Activist bent to divorce. They’re into guns and against vaccines.

Do not vote for these people. They’re actively dangerous to a chunk of the community.

Socialist Alliance

Website: https://socialist-alliance.org/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/socialistallnce
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SocialistAlliance

(My review for the 2021 WA Election)

Socialist Alliance are one of only two socialist parties who made it through the 1,500 members culls (the other being the Victorian Socialists). The party was founded in 2001 and have been contesting election at all levels of government, and have only been successful at local government level. Nevertheless, they do have some practical government experience.

Socialist Alliance want a democratic socialist society in Australia. They want communities, trade unions and social movements to come together to create a better collective good. Radical democracy for all!

Party Analysis

Socialist Alliance, as is traditional, have approximately eleventy one policies on their website, many of them deeply earnest and longwinded.

Their taxation policy is pretty straightforward. No Stage 3 tax cuts, tax the rich more, introduce a wealth tax for the super rich, more large company taxes, remove negative gearing from investment properties. Basically, tax the wealthy, block the loopholes, use the money for a better socialist good. Also scrap the Medicare levy and pay for healthcare out of the ordinary tax pool rather than claiming it comes from a separate levy.

Public ownership of property! Time to nationalise everything, folks! Government to seize ownership of: mines, banks, and energy companies. Put them under community and worker control. Stop any further privatisation of public assets. And we need to form WORKER COOPERATIVES. The spirit of Marxism lives on.

Socialist Alliance demand Real Climate Action. 100% renewables within 5-10 years, but no specific date put on net-zero. Phase out all fossil fuels and their subsidies. Take control of the energy companies. More reforestation, end old growth logging, more remediation of mines. No nuclear power. It’s a bit of a grab bag but generally “transition power” and “replant things”.

The list of demands for parliamentary changes is interesting. They want a Federal ICAC (of course) and to prevent former ministers lobbying for their portfolios or on boards (also a big policy the social left are into), and then we get more serious. Religion out of politics. Politicians paid an average worker’s wage (I don’t think this is a good idea, but I also assume in Socialist Utopia there are a lot more social services). Proportional representation at all levels of government! (time to change the voting system). Public funding for all electoral candidates (as I’ve said before, this is a lovely idea but I also don’t support funding the hobbyists), a new constitutional convention for reform, and HTVs displayed at all polling booths. Oh and voting age dropped to 16.

First Nations policies include no specific call of whether to follow Uluru Statement from the Heart. They do want treaties and “First Nation control of First Nations’ affairs” but no specifics on a Voice or not. Lots of support for communities, more community control, stop child separation, repeal Intervention laws and cashless welfare cards. Implement the Deaths in Custody recommendations and the whole of Close the Gap (yes, yes, fuck yes).

More rights for asylum seekers and migrants. Obviously end all detention, honour refugee UN commitments, and dismantle Border Force. Abolish Temporary Protection Visas and provide permanent stability for refugees. Increase the number of refugees, more family reunion visas, prepare and act on climate refugees.

Socialist Alliance also want a Bill of Rights! Also to dismantle ASIO. Get rid of anti-terror laws, extend anti-discrimination laws. Voluntary Assisted Dying for all states and territories (so lift the ban on the territories).

Socialist Alliance also want stronger workers rights across the board. Better penalty rates, better unions, more apprenticeships, pension age retirement being 55, decriminalise sex work, and introduce a 30 hour work week (interesting, instead of a 4 day week. Works out similarly, but I guess supports 7.5 hours/4 days OR 6 hours/5 days).

Welfare policies include scrapping Work for the Dole (yes!), no compulsory income management, free 24 hour childcare availability, welfare payments lifted above poverty line and indexed to CPI, get rid of the Job Network and return the public service version...this basically reads like the AUWU wishlist. Universal aged pension, better disability services and support, nationalise aged care. Run the NDIS better and publicly with more support, based on individual’s needs.

Women’s rights are eliminate the pay gap, publicly funded abortion and contraception, prevent foetal personhood laws, expand refuges and consent education, more paid parental leave, provide paid domestic and family violence leave and sexual assault leave.

Queer rights are full anti-discrimination legislation, no religious exemptions, better supportive healthcare and identity change documents, better school sex education, and paid leave for gender affirmation/transition treatment.

Basically, Socialist Alliance want paid leave for every difficulty you face. If things have been bad or you need medical assistance, you should get leave. Also welfare should be enough to cover you during the times you cannot or are unable to obtain work.

Free education from primary to tertiary and vocational, abolish all HECS debts. More funding for public schools, cut all funding to private education. “Democratise TAFE and universities including student and staff control of curriculum”. (This sounds fun but also extremely dramatic, do not let stupol determine curriculum folks).

Free housing for all! Free healthcare for all! Dental into Medicare, mandated ratios of care in Aged Care. Better tenancy rights.

More public transport: “comprehensive, frequent and free” (I’m not hugely on board with free public transport; many of the users can afford it just fine), more suburban and high speed inter-city rail (oh yeahhh).

Fund the ABC and SBS, so SBS no longer needs to run ads. (PLEASE). Fibre to the premises NBN for all. Government bodies should use open source software (I see the upsides, but that also seems less than ideal for hacking attempts), telecommunications should be publicly owned again.

A bunch of animal welfare policies, with end live exports, better free range farming regulations, and then a whole suite of every animal welfare policy you’ve ever seen.

“Solidarity and international aid, not war and occupation” – this policy has a lot of reparations to other countries for invasions, prosecute war crimes (can we start with BRS and his buddies?), end ANZUS and close all US bases in Australia, no nuclear subs, don’t send military abroad, stop being imperialists in the Pacific, solidarity with everyone.

Water should not be owned privately, better management, preserve water quality and develop a national water conservation plan. Proper river flows, and phase out water-intensive crops.

Is this party trying to kill me?

No, Socialist Alliance would rather have a socially liberal worker’s paradise. Solidarity!

Is this party trying to harm me?

Not really. A bunch of their policies I cannot see ever getting up, but there’s nothing particularly harmful in there.

Conclusion:

Look, it’s Socialist Alliance. They would like public ownership of all national assets, a proper welfare state, socially progressive policies to support equity and equality in marginalised communities, and climate action and refugees treated like humans. I’m not sure we’re ready for the socialist paradise, but Socialist Alliance are certainly thorough at laying out what they want to change to get there.

Seniors United Party of Australia (SUPA)

Website: https://www.seniorsunitedparty.com.au/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SeniorsUnitedOz
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SeniorsUnitedAustralia

The Seniors United Party of Australia was founded in 2015. As you can tell by their acronym (they must have been so pleased with themselves) it’s mainly focused on retirees, superannuation and retirement village legislation.

SUPA were deregistered but scraped back in after an appeal. The timing of this decision means that as far as I can tell they have not yet had to prove they meet the 1,500 member test – they were readmitted under the 500 member test. There’s every chance they might fail once registration decisions resume after the election.

Party Analysis

SUPA want a national inquiry into superannuation and retirement income. They want the removal of contribution caps, no taxation, no further changes to the scheme until after this inquiry, and the super guarantee lifted to 15% over the course of 10 years. They also want more support for mature age employment, protections from discrimination against mature age workers, and lower tax rates for mature age employees.

In terms of the Aged Pension, they want no more changes to the rules “as it effects the planning of those close to retirement”, the retirement age to not increase from 67, and a reversal of the Asset Test changes in 2016. They’re particularly unhappy about any suggestions family homes should be included in the Asset Test. (As someone under the age of 45, let me tell you I would love family homes in the Asset Test but I recognise why retirees do not).

The medical policies can be summed up as no copayments, include general dental on Medicare, reduce public hospital waiting lists, and National Strategies into Dementia and Elder Abuse (identifying them, supporting them, addressing issues).

In Aged Care they want RNs in nursing homes, mandatory minimum staffing levels, no privatisation of aged care accreditation, and a National Palliative Care Scheme. They would also like a national scheme for Retirement Villages, rather than state-based legislation, with more social and community housing available.

In policies not revolving around old people, SUPA feel that politicians are paid too much and have too many entitlements. They feel it is out of step with community expectations and want their payments pegged to multiples of average ordinary weekly earnings, along with only standard levels of superannuation. The whole policy has a feel of “how dare they have shinier benefits than the public”. Also abolish many ministries, secretaries and committees, as they’re just “perks for mates” giving more money and are a “huge disincentive for MP’s to remain ethical and work on behalf of their constituents”. Parliament should be streamlined to be more efficient!

SUPA would also like a Federal ICAC. It looks like every other federal ICAC policy. I wish they’d had the humour to make a “with dentures” joke.

SUPA also think there are too many immigrants. They want the establishment of a National Inquiry into what is a “sustainable” population for the country and to immediately reduce our immigration rate. They also want to reduce skilled migrant visas to keep jobs for Australians. And to have smaller states take more of the migrants into regional areas.

SUPA think we are spending too much money on defence, and call out submarine funding as particularly problematic. This policy does not appear to have been rewritten since the 2019 election, so I suspect they are even more incandescent about it now. There should be a Parliamentary Defence Procurement Oversight Committee (ahh but you just said remove committees?). However we should provide more support for veterans.

SUPA would like more lifelong learning and support for education for over 55s. Please provide more support. (No mention of whether they want to take on HECS debts for this).

They would also like more affordable internet and a public television channel just for seniors with senior-specific programming.

I have to say, for a party that thinks there are too many parliamentary committees, SUPA wants an awful lot of National Inquiries into things.

Is this party trying to kill me?

No. They’re trying to forestall their own deaths.

Is this party trying to harm me?

Well yes, in that several of their policies are antithetical to young people being able to get jobs and housing, but not really.

Conclusion:

Look, this is a party for people over retirement age who are concerned with issues entirely revolving around themselves. Also they’re racist (see the immigration policy). They would represent a certain cohort of the public who do deserve attention and representation, but they do not offer me anything.

Liberal Democratic Party

Website: https://www.ldp.org.au/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/libdemaus
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibDemAus

(My review for the 2021 WA Election)

The Liberal Democratic Party were founded in 2001. They initially contested federal elections as the Liberty & Democracy Party in 2007, due to naming rules before being renamed after an appeal to their current name. At present, the most recent round of party name rules means that they are required to change their name again (likely back to the Liberty & Democracy Party), however due to a number of shenanigans, the Liberals lodging applications a bit late, and the Lib Dems running down the clock on challenges prior to writs being issued, they are contesting one final federal election under their preferred name.

And no, I don’t know why they won’t just call themselves the Libertarian Party and save everyone the headache.

Party Analysis

The Liberal Democratic Party, or Lib Dems, are traditionally libertarians. But largely right wing libertarians. They're for the power of the market and personal responsibility to solve every issue. This is particularly hilarious in Australia, where the market has very infrequently solved any issue, and often causes more.

The Lib Dems have labelled their policy page as "Freedom Manifesto". Let that sink in for a moment. Yes, we are dealing with clowns. Their first policy being labelled "Freedom from COVID Alarmism" should help make that extremely obvious.

The Lib Dems are calling for a return to pre-2020 respiratory virus management strategies, which sounds moderately reasonable on paper, except we know that they were also calling for this prior to VACCINES. I've lived through lockdowns. I have strong views about the unnecessary burden of some interventions (please, discuss helicopters or mandatory mask wearing during intense exercise with me, I would be very happy if I never jumped at the sound of another hovering helicopter again). I cannot just give the Lib Dems the grace of taking them at face value here. Yes, in the future we will need to manage COVID at a community level, because it was not eliminated and long-term (multi-decade) active interventions are going to become ever less popular, but the interventions were not unnecessary when introduced and they saved lives.

Next up the Lib Dems want recall elections. Because they love the free market so much they want to sack politicians early. And not only do they want recall elections based on a petition from "a certain percentage" of the electorate, they want a "citizen's veto" over legislation, because direct democracy is an effective way to run a nation. While I have a soft spot for the idea of getting certain federal politicians out of office sooner (David Leyonhjelm formerly topping that list), direct democracy is bad and easily exploited by bad actors. We elect representatives and pay them to take the time to understand legislation, the issues around it, and do all the research that the general public doesn't have the time to do (as it is a full time job). Also while they're trying to get everyone to sack politicians, they also want voluntary voting. Nobody has yet presented to me an effective reason why changing our compulsory system would improve the situation. I agree some countries with voluntary enrolment and voting also have good electoral systems, but clearly both methods work. Why drop the one that's working for us? Especially given that we have some of the most isolated and lowest density voting communities to reach on the planet, and we have plenty of evidence how other countries with such isolated communities neglect their voting rights.

The debt and deficit policy is a masters in "wow you fail to understand the point of having a government". The Lib Dems are very unhappy about the current government debt, so want to solve it by… cutting every department's budget by 10%, then a further 1% every year. Except Defence. Defence get to keep all their treats, apparently, and don't need to go on a budget with everyone else. While we are at it apparently we are abolishing political advertising, the ABC, SBS, any subsidies for renewable energy (but not for fossil fuels), any funding for political parties and "abolish middle class welfare and replace it with a tax cut". Or, hear me out here, Lib Dems, you are actually bonkers and the point of having a government is to support people and we just had to spend a lot of money to stop even worse things happening in the past two years. We could also raise taxes, if you're that worried about the debt. "Earn more" is always pushed as a way to fix budgets. Look I'm sorry, I cannot take this seriously and treat any of the suggestions with respect.

Speaking of taxes, the Lib Dems want low, flat taxes, despite the fact this shifts the tax burden onto the least wealthy in the community. They are proposing… a $40,000 tax free threshold, followed by a flat 20% tax above it? I thought you wanted to fix the government debt, Lib Dems! This will only make it worse. (Though yes I realise their solution is 'remove all spending by the government and let the free market handle it', famously a great solution to unemployment, disability and retirement incomes). They are also arguing that lower company taxes would have more companies move global businesses to Australia, aside from the fact that such companies generally spend as much time as possible avoiding paying any tax whatsoever.

Super should also be voluntary, with no more rate rises and SMSFs should be simpler (so people can invest their retirement money in even more ridiculous ways, I guess). SMSFs are largely a vehicle for rich people trying to leverage their property portfolios in more tax-advantaged ways, and while I'm sympathetic to the suggestion we should replace superannuation, the Lib Dems are not suggesting we replace it with "universal living wage aged pensions". Oh no, we should be able to spend and waste our own money.

The small business policy essentially can be summed up as "get rid of red tape, get rid of having to pay staff properly". As one of my friends says "if you cannot afford to pay your staff and your suppliers, you have a hobby, not a business". A quiet part of me was actually hoping that the end of JobKeeper offed some more of these zombie businesses that are essentially vanity projects exploiting family members and employees. I could sum up their policies here but essentially it's 'deregulate everything'. The most astonishing policy of the lot, however is this one: "Consumers having the power to opt in or opt out of regulatory regimes. In many cases unregulated products will offer better value and quality as a trade-off for less protection. That risk assessment is one for individuals to make, not bureaucrats." The whole concept of this is blowing my mind. No, it does not offer better value for the product you want to buy to have killed someone in the process of manufacture, or contain listeria, or caused environmental damage due to runoff going into waterways. We live in a SOCIETY. "Fuck you all, I've got mine" is the WORST way to run a business.

Also they're quite upset that cryptocurrency attracts capital gains tax. Despite being a wildly fluctuating asset. Poor crypto bros, having to pay tax. You want it to be treated like normal currency? Start by having it follow the rules and regulations expected of banks.

The energy policy thinks net-zero is "an absurd extension of climate alarmist ideology that will have grave effects on living standards for all Australians if it is pursued", so that's a no on climate action, I see. Therefore, ah yes, cheap and reliable energy requires us to build nuclear power. I knew it. One of the most expensive forms of energy production, even more than coal. They also want more "free market energy", as if energy companies were not already transitioning to renewable energy sources as the cheapest form of energy production. Look, this is ideological nonsense from the Lib Dems, bending their own words back on themselves.

"Decentralised education" – I'm terrified already. Schools should be able to opt out of the national curriculum, apparently, abolish NAPLAN, pay for education with student vouchers not government funding to institutions, more homeschooling co-ops, and reform universities to have less regulations. Astonishingly, every single policy they've listed sounds like it would decrease educational outcomes by removing any way to benchmark education received or expect a minimum level of competency. Also universities are silencing people without enough free speech.

Free speech gets its own topic! Apparently we need a constitutional amendment to protect free speech (because we are apparently need to import the US Constitution wholesale by using the exact text of the US Constitutional First Amendment rather that rewriting in plain English. Says a lot). Also we have to abolish Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, as racial vilification is apparently more important that the rights of people so vilified. We also need to stop internet censorship and blocks, and encourage tech companies not to censor misinformation. I feel the poor Lib Dems are feeling targeted by COVID misinformation being banned on platforms. Look. Free speech not being a right in Australia is a controversial issue, and there are arguments both ways on this, but the Lib Dems are very clear in their policies that they want to blow it right open, without any ways to regulate misinformation, hurting other people, or damaging comments. Their proposals would cause at least as much harm and likely more as the current rules.

Finally, the Liberal Democrats want Freedom from Surveillance. This is both "stop collecting so much internet data and metadata", don't ban cash, less surveillance, wind back surveillance laws. Do I think that some surveillance legislation is a wild overreach? Of course. There are pieces of anti-terror legislation that were written largely to be able to prosecute a single person. On the other hand, in an environment where people and ideas can have an immediate, global reach, protecting the public does become harder and require broader ways to slap problems down. What's the correct balance? I don't know, but I do know I don't trust the Lib Dems to have outlined the best policy here. In a world where surveillance was unable to identify and prevent Christchurch from happening, yet also manages to foil other terror plots without the public becoming aware, judging the balance here is difficult.

Oh and there's a "Free Julian Assange" point. BINGO. You know, this is the first party I've looked at this year who have been brave enough to just say that, rather than talk around general whistleblower protections, which is honestly a better policy aim. Pick a better champion. I tend to feel anyone who advocates at this point on a blank "Assange" platform, rather than advocating for reform of the laws he's likely to be tried under, is resistant to the evidence of how poor an exemplar case Assange makes. In law, when we find a loophole or bad law that needs a determination made to clear up the gap, we run test cases. Test cases tend to be highly vetted and sympathetic, so they're not carrying excess baggage obscuring the issue in question. Assange is none of those things.

Is this party trying to kill me?

Well the Lib Dems are against COVID regulations, don't believe in climate change action, and want the ability for businesses to opt out of regulations (with the first thought coming to my head being raw milk). They haven't specifically stated a gun policy this time around, but given their love of removing regulation, I cannot imagine they are into stricter gun laws. That's multiple methods that cross the line, in my view.

Is this party trying to harm me?

Did I mention the bit where they want to allow businesses to choose to opt out of regulations? I work in workers compensation. This is a spectacularly bad decision. Regulations exist to protect people. Do you know why raw milk is bad? Because it used to kill thousands of people every year from diseases in the milk. And that's just one regulation, that's the lowest hanging fruit for appeals to not have to follow "nanny state regulations".

Conclusion:

The Liberal Democrats are libertarians who believe in the power of the free market and that rules shouldn’t be compulsory and apply to everyone. It’s all about individuals, not community. Their previous representatives have been largely loathesome individuals. I cannot spot anything recent on their social media calling for the Convoy to Canberra, so there is at least that, but they’re definitely among the radical right cohort.

Informed Medical Options Party

Website: https://imoparty.com/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/IMOParty_AU
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/imoparty/

It’s time for the anti-vaxxers! If the name sounds familiar but not quite right, that’s because these are the artists formerly known as the Involuntary Medication Objectors (Vaccination/Fluoride) Party, who clearly changed their name to sound less objectionable. Apparently, according to the party secretary, being called anti-vaxxers is “insulting”. They were formed in 2016 and their name change came through in early 2020, making their timing to hide their feelings about vaccines by changing their party name slightly hilarious, given they have spent the two years since then screaming about vaccines mandates and dangers. You will not be shocked to hear they were initially Covid-deniers. Their hobbies include attending Freedom Rallies and the Convoy to Canberra.

They also have formed some sort of alliance with Great Australian Party and Australian Federation Party for the sort of cookers who enjoy Americans screaming about Australia’s lost freedoms in lockdowns.

Party Analysis

Look, these people don’t like vaccines or fluoride. It’s all going to kill you.

Vaccination policies include: ending No Jab No Play (I’d be more concerned about this policy if it didn’t trip the most annoying people, rather than the poor. The poor get their kids vaxxed); removing Covid and flu vaccine mandates (I think these have had important health outcomes, so no); ending all Covid restrictions (look we are moving to a community management model, but restrictions saved lives while we were getting vaccinated); provide a legal ‘conscientious objector to vaccines’ exemption (ahaha no. This is a Very Bad Plan), and then a lot of policies that essentially boil down to “I’m just asking questions” and “we should study vaccines more (even though they are already heavily studied) for largely illusory factors”.

They have a parental rights policy section! This can only go well. The good: 12 months parental leave policy. The bad: remove all the laws and systems to get kids in precarious situations vaccinated, including when kids are removed for parental neglect (and neglect of the kids health). Also stop the Family Court being able to have a single parent agree to get the kids vaccinated.

The Fluoride policy is “remove fluoride from all Australian water supplies”. And do they mean added fluoride, or remove any natural fluoride as well? In any case, RIP all the IMOP kid’s teeth.

Health policies (that aren’t vaccine ones) include paying for “traditional and natural” therapies in the public health system, because it’s useful to waste money on ineffective treatments, legalise medicinal cannabis in all states (it’s been legal federally for medicinal use since 2016, though you need a prescription, IMOP – you need to agitate for general legalisation instead), promote organic and GMO-free foods (sigh, this isn’t health related), develop (unspecificed) ‘complementary’ therapies for psychiatric illness, not just medication (I am guessing this isn’t just ‘more psychological treatment strategies, tell me what you mean please), and this absolute policy “Remove any ties between Australia and World Health Organisation”. Someone is still feeling very sore about the fact we’ve had a global pandemic for the past 2 and a bit years, clearly.

Abortion policies are very angry at QLD proposing no time limits on abortions. One, this is the wrong forum to campaign on this – the federal government has been very clear that abortion decriminalisation is a matter for the States and Territories, and secondly, barriers to abortions just cause more harm. Nobody is out here killing full term babies for fun – any late term abortions are generally the result of a medical issue with a very wanted pregnancy. For this reason, this proposed bill to “offers medical assistance to children who are born alive after an attempted abortion” is generally scaremongering. This is a strawman. The very rare occasions you might see something like this is in extremely sad cases where a baby is not expected to survive outside the womb and they’re delivered in the safest way possible for the mother and then allowed to spend the last few minutes of their lives with their parents. IMOP also want a ban on the use of fetal organs for scientific experimentation, which from what I understand does not happen in the way IMOP are trying to imply. We do use tissue samples to produce cell lines in petri dishes, but there is a lot of study trying to replace these with more reliably available options.

Apparently IMOP also believe that 5G is coming to get us, and we need studies into what it is doing to us.

Their Climate policy is called “Planet Pollution” and focuses on fracking (it’s bad), pesticides (also bad), polluted river run off (also bad), and environmentally sound energy production. Honestly, this policy reads like something from the 1980s or 1990s. It’s just very old and more hung up on Roundup/glyphosates than climate change.

Education! IMOP want more support for alternative and home schooling, presumably to keep their children from learning about the general world opinions (and so they don’t have to vaccinate their kids).

The Indigenous policy revolves around “use traditional healthcare on country” and the loss of culture leading to loss of spiritual health leading to loss of actual health. Which, yes, there are some links between health and cultural issues, but not in the way they are implying here.

IMOP also want a Bill of Rights (that’s coming up quite a bit this election), and more disclosure of politicians conflicts of interest. Also to “Investigate the negative legislative impact of Australia's membership of the United Nations” which I am confused over what they mean, but suspect this is yet another “we don’t like vaccines or COVID restrictions and we believe in the New World Order” policy.

Is this party trying to kill me?

These are anti-vaxxers, during a pandemic. Fortunately I am vaccinated, but yes they hit the “trying to kill me” goal.

Is this party trying to harm me?

Anti-vaxxers. Pandemic. Also they don’t like fluoride, so they’d prefer my teeth were also less healthy.

Conclusion:

I actually miss Health Australia Party a little (deregistered under the 1,500 member change) because HAP tended to hide their absolute vaccine crankery a little better. IMOP are absolute loons and conspiracy theorists fixated on vaccines, fluoride and 5G killing us all, with a side of conspiracy about international organisations.

Do not vote for these people. They are actively dangerous. They are allying themselves with GAP. They were part of the Convoy to Canberra. The only thing I’m surprised to see in their platform is a lack of sovereign citizen content – apparently they haven’t quite gone that far off the cliff yet.