#ausvotes22

[axvoter]

Index to the Blatantly Partisan Party Reviews, 2022 federal edition

Tomorrow, 21 May, is election day. If you are unsure who all these parties are on your ballot, I’m here for you. I’ve reviewed all parties registered with the Australian Electoral Commission except for the most widely known ones: Labor, Greens, One Nation, and the Liberal/National coalition parties. I have also reviewed all independent candidates in Western Australia and a selection of others from around the country, including a number who represent unregistered parties.

You will get two ballots. The smaller green one is for the House of Representatives, the lower house; whichever party/ies command a majority on the floor of the House forms government. You must number EVERY SQUARE on the small green ballot for the House. Ignore the “no preference” in the recommendations below; that applies only to the Senate.Many seats have independent candidates; make sure you look into them as they vary substantially in their platforms and competence. View your candidates here.

The larger white ballot is for the Senate, the upper house. This is the house of review. We are voting for roughly half the Senate, as state senators serve six-year terms. This means each state elects six senators, requiring 14.3% of the vote to be elected; each territory elects just two (who serve terms aligned with the House), requiring 33.3% of the vote to be elected. On the Senate ballot you can vote above the line for PARTIES or below the line for INDIVIDUALS. Above the line you must give at least six preferences; below the line you must give at least twelve; beyond this point, you can do what you like. You can stop preferencing entirely or you give as many more preferences as you want. I recommend you preference as far as possible because this increases the power of your vote.

I posted a cheat sheet with my recommended preference categories earlier. If you want to vote below the line in the Senate, you can make your own custom How to Vote card by using this site. Print it off and take it into the booth with you! And do you need to find your nearest democracy sausage? This website has you covered.

If you want my pithy takes rather than full reviews, see this Twitter thread. If you want NSW-focused reviews, see b_auspol; if you want Victorian-focused reviews, see Something for Cate; if you want a Tasmanian overview, see this blog entry by Kevin Bonham.

The index below is alphabetised and ignores “the” at the start of a name (the AEC’s party register alphabetises parties without ignoring “the”). If a party has a Senate candidate in a state, I have named that state—i.e. wherever you live in the state, you can preference this party on your Senate ballot. It might or might not have lower-house candidates in that state too. I have only named a lower-house electorate if a party is standing a candidate there but has no Senate candidates in that state. If the party name is in the form of “party name—state Group XYZ”, this means it is an unregistered party that you will find in column XYZ of that state’s Senate ballot.

Key: party name (ideology / where running)

Animal Justice Party (animal rights / all states + ACT)

Australian Christians (Christian fundamentalism / WA)

Australian Citizens Party (conspiracy theorists / NSW, NT, QLD, SA, WA, VIC)

Australian Democrats (centre-left / NSW, QLD, SA, WA, VIC)

Australian Family Party—SA Group E (Christian fundamentalism / SA)

Australian Federation Party (antivax lunar right / all states)

Australia One (antivax lunar right / see entry for seats in NSW, QLD, SA, VIC)

Australian Progressives (centre-left / ACT, VIC, Ryan [QLD], Sturt [SA])

Australian Values Party (right-wing veterans’ rights / NSW, QLD, VIC, WA)

Centre Alliance (centrism / Mayo [SA])

David Pocock (green social liberalism / ACT)

Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party (tough-on-crime cult of personality / VIC)

Drew Pavlou Democratic Alliance (Sinophobic centre-left stupol / QLD, SA, Bennelong [NSW])

Federal ICAC Now (single issue / NSW, QLD, WA)

FUSION: Science, Pirate, Secular, Climate Emergency (centre-left / NSW, QLD, SA, VIC, WA)

The Great Australian Party (sovereign citizens / NSW, NT, QLD, SA, VIC, WA)

Indigenous–Aboriginal Party of Australia (Indigenous rights / NSW, QLD)

Informed Medical Options Party (antivax / all states + ACT)

James Bond (left-leaning joke candidate / VIC)

Jacqui Lambie Network (centre-right populism / TAS)

Katter’s Australian Party (cult of personality / QLD)

Kim for Canberra (left-leaning social progressivism / ACT)

Legalise Cannabis Australia (single issue / all states and territories)

Liberal Democratic Party (right-libertarian / all states and territories)

The Liberty Party of Australia—ungrouped independent Glenn Floyd (fringe antivax even by antivaxxer standards / VIC)

The Local Party (centrism / SA and TAS)

Max Dicks (left-wing / VIC)

Nick Xenophon—SA Group O (centrism / SA)

No Mandatory Vaccination Party—WA Group P (antivax / WA)

Reason Australia (centre-left civil libertarian / NSW, QLD, VIC)

Reignite Democracy Australia—VIC Group R (antivax far-right / VIC and see entry for sympathetic indies in all states)

Rex Patrick Team (centrism / SA)

Seniors United Party of Australia (right-wing seniors’ rights / NSW, WA)

Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party (anti-environmentalist gun nuts / NSW, TAS, VIC, Maranoa [QLD])

The Silent Majority—QLD Group A (really niche right-wing / QLD)

Social Justice Independents—WA Group K (left-wing / WA)

Socialist Alliance (socialism / NSW, QLD, VIC, WA)

Socialist Equality Party—NSW Group F, QLD Group I, VIC Group Y (cantankerous socialists / NSW, QLD, VIC)

Sustainable Australia Party–Stop Overdevelopment/Corruption (anti-immigration NIMBYism / all states and territories)

Teal Independents (mostly centre but variation / NSW, SA, VIC, TAS, WA)

TNL aka The New Liberals (social liberalism and Modern Monetary Theory / NSW, QLD, Sturt [SA], Aston and Hawke [VIC])

United Australia Party (antivax far-right populism / all states and territories)

Victorian Socialists (socialism / VIC)

Ungrouped independent candidates for the Senate in Western Australia (too little info or antivax or otherwise problematic)

Western Australia Party (centre-right parochialism / WA)

[gemshuffla]

Lmao, a Frydenberg ad on tumblr, the Libs are getting a little desperate

[axvoter]

Blatantly Partisan Party Review XIV (federal 2022): Indigenous–Aboriginal Party of Australia

Running where: NSW and QLD

Prior reviews: None, this is a new party

The Indigenous­–Aboriginal Party of Australia (IAPA) is, as the name implies, a party run by and for Indigenous Australians. Membership is open to all; the leadership comes from multiple Indigenous nations. The homepage has a tagline that Indigenous issues are Australia’s issues, and their goal is specifically to have more Indigenous voices in parliament.

The party emerged in Wilcannia, NSW, from a deep sense of grievance that other parties paid lip service to Indigenous needs and aspirations but that nothing much ever seems to change. They emphasise that this has led to disengagement from politics, especially among youth, and so they aim for IAPA to provide them with a voice and rekindle public engagement.

All of these are noble, important goals.

The policies are exactly what you would expect, in particular a firm commitment to the Uluṟu Statement. Their other policies include saving sacred sites (especially from mining companies), greater use of traditional practices of caring for Country, no child removals, stopping Indigenous deaths in custody, reducing the alarmingly high Indigenous incarceration rates, and Indigenous control of education in Indigenous communities. Given the geographical origins, there is a profound concern with the health of Baaka (the Darling River), and they want to encourage Indigenous business with government committing to making 10% of its purchases from Indigenous businesses. I’m not sure how feasible that is in all types of procurement but it's a straightforward policy that opens discussion of how governments can contribute tangibly to Indigenous economic prosperity.

It's horrifying how straightforward and basic some of this is. They want an Indigenous suicide prevention hotline staffed by trained Indigenous volunteers. That really can’t be much to ask. And the housing policy is just depressing: all they want are habitable homes with secure tenure and in culturally appropriate locations. It’s the least a community deserves.

This is a party that simply wants an opportunity for their people to thrive.

My recommendation: Give the Indigenous­–Aboriginal Party of Australia a good preference.

Website: https://www.indigenouspartyofaustralia.com/

[axvoter]

Blatantly Partisan Party Review IX (federal 2022): David Pocock

Running where: ACT

Prior reviews: None, this is a new party

Yes, I mean this is a new party. To have a name appear above the line on Senate ballots, you must be a registered party (hence no-party-no-more Nick Xenophon getting the unlabelled Group O in SA). Normally, individuals running on a “don’t ya know me and what I stand for?” platform tack on something so that they are the Jacqui Lambie Network or the Rex Patrick Team or Katter’s Australian Party. David Pocock, however, has had an inspired moment and simply registered his party’s name as his personal name. This isn’t the David Pocock Group, Network, or Team. This is David Pocock.

I should explain what’s going on in the ACT for those unfamiliar. The territory leans strongly left: it has had a Labor territorial government since 2001, currently in coalition with the Greens (and the Liberals have only held power for approx. 8 years since the first territorial election in 1989). At federal level, however, it only elects two senators, each requiring a quota of 33.3%, so (since no party is ever getting 66.6%), it always elects one Labor and one Liberal. This means that the ACT’s senate representation is often seen to not really reflect Canberrans’ views. Labor always gets a quota, but sometimes the Liberals drop below it—usually so slightly that they get over the line with just a handful of preferences, but this has led some others to sense opportunity. The Greens have polled as high as 22.9% (2010) but they have not drawn enough of that vote from former Liberal voters to leap into the second seat. This year we have two high profile independent campaigns hoping they might succeed instead: Kim Rubenstein (see forthcoming review of Kim for Canberra) and David Pocock.

If you're a rugby union fan, you already know Pocock from his playing days, during which he captained the Wallabies. He had strong and outspoken political views as a player, and now he's trying to go a step further and win office. Pocock has been involved in conservation activities for about as long as he’s been in the public eye. His commitment is such that he was arrested in 2014 for his role in a non-violent protest against coal mining expansion in northern NSW.

Pocock declared his candidacy for the ACT last year and is running hard with a focus on climate policy and integrity. These two issues form the core of his platform. Moreover, he is committed to a First Nations Voice to Parliament (the first step in the Uluru Statement’s call for Voice, Treaty, Truth) and to territorial rights and equality across Australian society.

If I have a critique, it is that his enviro policy is a bit too obsessed with electrification for electrification’s sake. It needs more attention to the source of the electricity (is it renewable?) and electric cars have so many non-tailpipe-related environmental issues that Pocock really needs clearer policies to expand and improve active and public transport.

As I browsed Pocock’s policies, I found myself wondering why he is not simply running for the Greens. I suspect it is that he thinks he has a better chance of peeling off socially-liberal, climate-conscious Liberal voters this way. It appears, too, that he is uninterested in being subject to party discipline and wants independence beyond parroting a party line. Given that one of the main reasons I’ve never gone into politics is because I prize my own independence and would struggle to toe a party line on all occasions, I respect that.

It seems his policies and principles suggest he would make reasonable independent judgements on issues that come before parliament. I find little objectionable in his platform, which seeks greater equality and future opportunities. And, look, you know someone is on the right path when I—a New Zealander whose first and firmest sporting love is the All Blacks—am prepared to talk positively about a man who scored a try against us in a Rugby World Cup grand final (we won, though).

My recommendation: Give David Pocock a good preference.

(Indeed, if you are tossing between voting 1 Greens or Pocock, there are some strategic implications to consider in terms of who is more likely to get ahead of the Liberals if there is a tight count)

Website: https://www.davidpocock.com.au/

[axvoter]

The reason for the season—election season!

It's official: the Australian federal election will take place on 21 May 2022. I will as per usual be doing my reviews of all the weird and wonderful micro-parties.

Work commitments are such that I might have to do shorter reviews than in the past or defer to previous reviews when a party's platform and characteristics are essentially unchanged. I will prioritise parties who are newly registered.

I have never reviewed the ALP, Liberal/National, or the Greens, as they are sufficiently well known that if you are the sort of person who reads this blog, you probably already have opinions on them. I am also adding One Nation to my exclusions list: by now you know who Pauline Hanson is and what her terrible opinions are.

I will start posting my reviews shortly after the declaration of nominations on 22 April so that I can specify in which states each party is fielding candidates.

This election is for the entire House of Representatives (the lower house, where government is formed) and just over half of the Senate (the upper house).

Senators for the states serve six year terms, hence half the senators for each state are voted on at an ordinary election. The two senators from the ACT and the two from the NT serve terms aligned with the House of Representatives, so they are up for re-election every time the lower house is.

I write this update with a sense of sadness. Reviewing this election won't feel the same, because the delightful Catherine of Cate Speaks died suddenly in February. Her party reviews were thoughtful, generous, and full of heart, less cynical than my own, deeply engaged with what a party was trying to articulate and why—but her generosity was never uncritical and she did not flinch on condemning policies or overall platforms that offended her principles. My reviews were never half of what hers were. If I was behind schedule and struggling to make sense of a perplexing party, I always hoped she had reviewed it already. Beyond our shared interest in elections and micro-parties, she was one of the world's truly good and radically kind people, and she is truly missed.

[axvoter]

Blatantly Partisan Party Review XVIII (federal 2022): Kim for Canberra

Running where: ACT

Prior reviews: none, this is a new party

There are two prominent independent campaigns in the ACT seeking a seat in the Senate. One is David Pocock; in my earlier review of his campaign I described the distinctive characteristics of the ACT’s representation and of this contest. The other indie is law professor Kim Rubenstein, who has registered her party with the name Kim for Canberra.

I work in academia, and although I do not know Rubenstein personally, some of my colleagues do. The volume of favourable material on my timeline suggested that Rubenstein was the more popular of the indies, but this was a false impression. Redbridge polling—with the disclaimers that Senate polling is generally unreliable and that this polling was done for Climate 200, who gave the indies seed funding—has Rubenstein around 6–7%, while their most recent poll today puts Pocock’s vote as high as 21% after earlier reports of 11–13%. If, and this is a big if, he gets around 21%, that might be enough to be a chance at winning a seat. Both Rubenstein and Pocock recommend their voters preference the other second, but are otherwise not recommending specific preferences.

Rubenstein has four policy priorities. First is accountability and integrity in politics—yep, she wants a federal ICAC, one of the most popular demands this election across the political spectrum, and to my relief she says “an effective federal ICAC” rather than the cliché about “a federal ICAC with teeth”. Second is urgent climate action, proposing a “Climate Compact” to bring together stakeholders and legislate for emissions reductions as part of the May 2023 budget. Third is a “standing up for Canberra” policy that sounds generic, but she fleshes it out with a notable specific policy: legislation, which she has already drafted, to boost the ACT’s representation from two to four senators. This, to me, is a bare minimum (but good) goal—and the same should be offered to the Northern Territory.

What perhaps distinguishes Rubenstein most from Pocock is her fourth priority: her focus on women’s safety. This is a huge part of her campaign, harnessing the anger of many woman that has been mobilised effectively by Brittany Higgins and Grace Tame. Rubenstein uses the example of parliament as an unsafe workplace for women as a launching pad for policies that seek gender equality and a safer society for women. She would also extend paid parental leave from 18 weeks to 26, which to me still isn’t enough—a year minimum—but it’s something.

It’s an appealing platform. Also, I love that this is actually Kims for Canberra: Rubenstein’s support candidate is Kim Huynh, an ANU politics and philosophy researcher and ABC Radio presenter.

My recommendation: Give Kim for Canberra a good preference.

Website: https://www.kim4canberra.com.au/

[axvoter]

Blatantly Partisan Party Review VII (federal 2022): Australian Values Party

Running where: NSW, QLD, VIC, WA

Prior reviews: None, this is a new party

Does the name Heston Russell mean anything to you? Because, if it does, there’s a good chance you just winced. He is a former soldier whose headline-grabbing activities include selling explicit pornography ostensibly to raise money for a veterans charity, despite telling the charity the content would be PG-rated, and then did not pass on all the money he raised. He also refused to pay the supplier of pins that he tried to sell in an unauthorised Anzac Day fundraiser, and earlier this year he was the subject of a police investigation over an alleged assault at a Sydney party (an allegation that he denies).

The reason he came to prominence after his military service, however, is because of his criticism of investigations into (and media reporting on) alleged war crimes by Australian troops. He’s had a good run on the likes of Sky News getting very mad that anyone would dare assume regular Aussie troops have ever acted in any ignoble way, and even more mad that the Brereton Report did indeed uncover evidence of war crimes and there were actual consequences for those involved.

To this end, the Australian Values Party has a policy for tighter media regulation to stop “trial-by-media”. This is quite funny right now, given another high-profile former soldier, Ben Roberts-Smith, is currently the plaintiff in an extraordinary defamation case. The allegations that are emerging in court—including two witnesses being excused from answering questions on the grounds of self-incrimination, and revelations of murder allegations that were not previously public knowledge by his own key witnesses—are far worse than anything in the “trial-by-media” that prompted Roberts-Smith to pursue the defo action in the first place. It is sure to be the most sensational court case of the year in Australia, and now is hardly a wise time for Heston Russell to be making noise that the media has been so unfair on Australian troops. It appears the opposite is true: the media has been too cautious!

Anyway, such is the character of a man who has decided to call his party Australian Values, which I can only conclude is either a piss-take or a reflection of a very warped idea of “values”. The focus is all about defence and veterans, with a generous side offering of generic anti-mandate rabble-rousing about covid. Given Heston’s colourful personal life, it’s ironic the party has a parliamentary conduct policy demanding that politicians and their staffers meet “exacting ethical and moral standards”, including intrusive drug and alcohol testing.

While scrolling the party website, a pop-up encouraged me to stop voting for policies and start voting for people. Well, if the people you are offering me are Heston Russell & Friends, I will send my preferences elsewhere.

My recommendation: Give the Australian Values Party a weak or no preference.

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

[axvoter]

Blatantly Partisan Party Review XXV (federal 2022): Socialist Alliance

Running where: NSW, QLD, VIC, WA

Prior reviews: federal 2016, NSW 2019, federal 2019

What I said before: “This is quintessential ‘people before profit’ stuff: tax corporations, nationalise things, and make policy for the betterment of the population rather than maximising profit for private companies.”

What I think this year: Socialism in Australia has been notoriously fractious, especially in recent decades. In 2019, in an attempt to counter this, Socialist Alliance (SAll) participated in the state-level Victorian Socialists (VS; 2019 review, 2022 review to come) in an attempt to present a united front with other groups. This included Socialist Alternative (SAlt), who had previously eschewed electoral politics and focused heavily on uni campus organising. Unfortunately, in 2020, SAll walked away from from VS.

I have no particular inside line on the rights or wrongs of the SAll/VS split. SAll have set out their perspective here, arguing that “we no longer feel that the Victorian Socialist project is capable of uniting broader layers of socialists”. I am unaware of an official VS statement. The vibe I have got from asking around, and from observing online discussion, is that VS are just as annoyed at SAll for walking away. I suspect this dispute is cross-cut by generational, ideological, and state-based reasons. To me, the most disappointing thing about leftist and particularly socialist politics in Australia over the last few decades is how fragmented it has been, and this is yet another example.

But if I put aside that disappointment, what do they want? Socialist Alliance is the straightforward socialist fare you know and (maybe) love from past elections. They have a strong environmental angle: their 2022 federal election slogan is not simply “for people before profit” but “for people and planet before profit”. They demand system change—i.e. socialism via electoral politics—rather than climate change. To them, covid-19 and climate change are twin crises that expose the Australian government prioritising billionaires. Climate change, yes, you won’t see me disagreeing that our sluggish response is to protect the likes of mining magnates, but on covid-19, Australia frankly has performed very well. SAll has a legitimate criticism that working people have been hardest hit, and other important criticisms can be made, but there was nonetheless a sense of (at least state-based) solidarity that has led to some of the very best health outcomes on the planet. So I dunno, I feel some of this content is a bit “this current crisis is actually all about our core issue” over-reach.

Anyway, enough of me criticising their election pitch, because if I am honest with you, I am a stereotypical watermelon: green on the outside, red on the inside. And SAll offer pretty watermelon policies. They are strong on climate, demanding drastically increased taxation on wealthy elites to fund an emergency transition to renewable energy, a sustainable economy, and a prominent role for Indigenous peoples in restoring and caring for Country. As you might expect, they are keen on nationalising things, a large welfare state, removing anti-union laws, accepting refugees, a guaranteed livable income, gender equality, free tertiary education—you name it. Their First Nations policies appear to echo ideals of the Uluru Statement but it is unclear to me if they specifically support the Statement and its process.

Once you start digging into their policies, you’ll find that if you are sympathetic towards socialism or social democracy, you will broadly agree with the contours. You will also find they have a bit of a grab-bag of ideas, some of which you'll really like and others that leave you much less enthused. For me, they back something I very much want: parliament being reformed to have proportional representation. But they also support a governmental reform I dislike: all governments subject to a recall election if a petition is signed by 10% of the electorate. I think in principle these measures are liable to abuse and instability, and with such a low threshold it definitely is.

All in all, a good, but not great, socialist option.

My recommendation: Give Socialist Alliance a good preference.

(not Socialist Alternative, as I originally wrote, and which one commenter pointed out. SAlt are not on the ballot! They are involved in Victorian Socialists, a review of whom is coming shortly; I confess I have spent my whole life since starting uni writing SAlt's name when I meant SAll and vice versa)

Website: https://socialist-alliance.org/