axvoter

[axvoter]

Hello folks, if you live in NSW and you are still making up your mind about how you will vote today, particularly in terms of how you will distribute your preferences between quixotic and cantankerous micro-parties, I hope my reviews are helpful. They cover all micro-parties and independents standing for the Legislative Council (i.e. the big ballot paper that everyone in the state receives). Good luck and I hope your polling booth has delicious democracy sausages.

Index to the Blatantly Partisan Party Reviews, 2023 NSW state edition

Saturday 25 March is election day in NSW, and it's going to be a fascinating and most likely close contest. As well as the major parties, there is a veritable constellation of micro-parties, independent groups, and solo independents running in the election.

I’ve written my blog entries to demystify these micro-parties and indies. I'm sorry I did not post these until the final days of the election; life got in the way. I do not review Labor, Liberal/National, Greens, or One Nation, as I assume anyone reading this blog already has views on them. All entries are written from a left-wing perspective sympathetic to democratic socialism and green politics, so calibrate according to your own predilections. I make no pretension to false objectivity—that’s why these are blatantly partisan party reviews.

When you go to vote, you will receive two ballot papers. One will be a very large ballot for the Legislative Council (the upper house). This is elected at large by the entire state: a candidate requires ~4.55% to win a seat. But the Legislative Council is the house of review; government is formed in the Legislative Assembly (the lower house). It contains 93 seats, and the number of candidates—both party-affiliated and independent—varies significantly between electorates.

On the small ballot for the Legislative Assembly, you must vote 1 for your preferred candidate and then distribute as many or as few additional preferences as you want. Your vote will be more powerful if you distribute as many preferences as possible. Do not skip or repeat a number. If your preferred candidate is not elected, your vote transfers at full value to your second preference, and so on. You might receive a how-to-vote card from party campaigners: this is a suggestion only and you can fill out your preferences in any order you like.

On the large ballot for the Legislative Council, you can either vote above the line or below the line. Whichever way you vote, you control your preferences—NSW does not have a dodgy system to harvest voter preferences like in Victoria.

Every grouping that has registered at least 15 candidates receives a square above the line; if the square is unlabelled, it is because the group does not have formal party registration. Groups with 2–14 candidates receive their own column but no square above the line; you can only vote for them below the line. Solo independents appear in the furthest right column and can only be voted for below the line.

For most voters, voting above the line will suffice: after you vote 1 for your preferred group, you can distribute as many or as few preferences as you like. You accept the order of candidates registered within each individual group, but you control the order of the groups. You will be able to express preferences for any party/grouping likely to win a seat; it is well nigh impossible for candidates who can only be voted for below the line to win a seat.

You should vote below the line if the following apply to you: a) you want to reorder candidates within a group and/or mix and match candidates across groups, b) you want to vote for ungrouped independents or a group of independents without enough candidates to receive a square above the line, or c) you are a completist like me who wants to indicate a preference for everyone. You MUST give at least 15 preference. Be warned that if you want to preference all the way, it will take a while—it took me over 20 minutes at the 2019 election.

In both cases, the further you preference, the more powerful your vote will be. Distribute as many preferences as you feel you can distribute in an informed manner.

This entry includes links to my reviews of each micro-party. There are 8 groups of independents or unregistered parties. These are noted below by their group letter on the ballot. The format is "party name (rough ideology / recommended preference)". A good preference is a party with few or no significant flaws for the left-wing voter; a decent preference indicates a generally positive platform or a single-issue party with a good but limited objective; a middling preference is a mix of positive and negative qualities; a weak or no preference is mainly negative and either you should give them a poor preference or let your vote exhaust—as noted above, your vote is most powerful if you preference as far as possible.

Animal Justice Party (animal rights / middling to decent preference)

Australia One / Riccardo Bosi—Group U (conspiracy theorists who are a threat to public safety / lowest possible preference)

Call to Freedom / Milan Maksimovic—Group E (Christian fundamentalism / weak or no preference)

Christians for Community / Milton Caine—Group T (Christian fundamentalism / weak or no preference)

Elizabeth Farrelly Independents (centre-left NIMBY / middling preference)

Family First / Lyle Shelton—Group A (Christian fundamentalism and conspiracism / weak or no preference)

Group P—Danny Lim (anti-racism personality / middling to decent preference)

Indigenous–Aboriginal Party of Australia (Indigenous rights / good preference)

Informed Medical Options Party (uninformed anti-vaxxers / weak or no preference)

Legalise Cannabis Party (single issue / decent preference)

Liberal Democratic Party (far-right libertarian cookers / weak or no preference)

Public Education Party (single issue / decent preference)

Revive Australia Party / Silvana Nile—Group G (Christian fundamentalism / weak or no preference)

Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party (fans of gun violence / weak or no preference)

Socialist Alliance (socialism / good preference)

Socialist Equality Party / Oscar Grenfell—Group K (socialism but for crackpots / weak or no preference)

Sustainable Australia—Stop Overdevelopment/Corruption (anti-immigration NIMBYs / weak or no preference)

United Australia Party / Craig Kelly—Group B (covid conspiracists in a policy-free space of grievance / weak or no preference)

Ungrouped independents (mix of ideologies and recommendations)

Happy voting and enjoy your democracy sausage!

[axvoter]

Index to the Blatantly Partisan Party Reviews, 2023 NSW state edition

Saturday 25 March is election day in NSW, and it's going to be a fascinating and most likely close contest. As well as the major parties, there is a veritable constellation of micro-parties, independent groups, and solo independents running in the election.

I’ve written my blog entries to demystify these micro-parties and indies. I'm sorry I did not post these until the final days of the election; life got in the way. I do not review Labor, Liberal/National, Greens, or One Nation, as I assume anyone reading this blog already has views on them. All entries are written from a left-wing perspective sympathetic to democratic socialism and green politics, so calibrate according to your own predilections. I make no pretension to false objectivity—that’s why these are blatantly partisan party reviews.

When you go to vote, you will receive two ballot papers. One will be a very large ballot for the Legislative Council (the upper house). This is elected at large by the entire state: a candidate requires ~4.55% to win a seat. But the Legislative Council is the house of review; government is formed in the Legislative Assembly (the lower house). It contains 93 seats, and the number of candidates—both party-affiliated and independent—varies significantly between electorates.

On the small ballot for the Legislative Assembly, you must vote 1 for your preferred candidate and then distribute as many or as few additional preferences as you want. Your vote will be more powerful if you distribute as many preferences as possible. Do not skip or repeat a number. If your preferred candidate is not elected, your vote transfers at full value to your second preference, and so on. You might receive a how-to-vote card from party campaigners: this is a suggestion only and you can fill out your preferences in any order you like.

On the large ballot for the Legislative Council, you can either vote above the line or below the line. Whichever way you vote, you control your preferences—NSW does not have a dodgy system to harvest voter preferences like in Victoria.

Every grouping that has registered at least 15 candidates receives a square above the line; if the square is unlabelled, it is because the group does not have formal party registration. Groups with 2–14 candidates receive their own column but no square above the line; you can only vote for them below the line. Solo independents appear in the furthest right column and can only be voted for below the line.

For most voters, voting above the line will suffice: after you vote 1 for your preferred group, you can distribute as many or as few preferences as you like. You accept the order of candidates registered within each individual group, but you control the order of the groups. You will be able to express preferences for any party/grouping likely to win a seat; it is well nigh impossible for candidates who can only be voted for below the line to win a seat.

You should vote below the line if the following apply to you: a) you want to reorder candidates within a group and/or mix and match candidates across groups, b) you want to vote for ungrouped independents or a group of independents without enough candidates to receive a square above the line, or c) you are a completist like me who wants to indicate a preference for everyone. You MUST give at least 15 preference. Be warned that if you want to preference all the way, it will take a while—it took me over 20 minutes at the 2019 election.

In both cases, the further you preference, the more powerful your vote will be. Distribute as many preferences as you feel you can distribute in an informed manner.

This entry includes links to my reviews of each micro-party. There are 8 groups of independents or unregistered parties. These are noted below by their group letter on the ballot. The format is "party name (rough ideology / recommended preference)". A good preference is a party with few or no significant flaws for the left-wing voter; a decent preference indicates a generally positive platform or a single-issue party with a good but limited objective; a middling preference is a mix of positive and negative qualities; a weak or no preference is mainly negative and either you should give them a poor preference or let your vote exhaust—as noted above, your vote is most powerful if you preference as far as possible.

Animal Justice Party (animal rights / middling to decent preference)

Australia One / Riccardo Bosi—Group U (conspiracy theorists who are a threat to public safety / lowest possible preference)

Call to Freedom / Milan Maksimovic—Group E (Christian fundamentalism / weak or no preference)

Christians for Community / Milton Caine—Group T (Christian fundamentalism / weak or no preference)

Elizabeth Farrelly Independents (centre-left NIMBY / middling preference)

Family First / Lyle Shelton—Group A (Christian fundamentalism and conspiracism / weak or no preference)

Group P—Danny Lim (anti-racism personality / middling to decent preference)

Indigenous–Aboriginal Party of Australia (Indigenous rights / good preference)

Informed Medical Options Party (uninformed anti-vaxxers / weak or no preference)

Legalise Cannabis Party (single issue / decent preference)

Liberal Democratic Party (far-right libertarian cookers / weak or no preference)

Public Education Party (single issue / decent preference)

Revive Australia Party / Silvana Nile—Group G (Christian fundamentalism / weak or no preference)

Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party (fans of gun violence / weak or no preference)

Socialist Alliance (socialism / good preference)

Socialist Equality Party / Oscar Grenfell—Group K (socialism but for crackpots / weak or no preference)

Sustainable Australia—Stop Overdevelopment/Corruption (anti-immigration NIMBYs / weak or no preference)

United Australia Party / Craig Kelly—Group B (covid conspiracists in a policy-free space of grievance / weak or no preference)

Ungrouped independents (mix of ideologies and recommendations)

Happy voting and enjoy your democracy sausage!

[axvoter]

Blatantly Partisan Party Review XIX (NSW 2023): Ungrouped Independents

Phew! I was worried I had started my reviews too late to cover all the Legislative Council candidates before election day. Life might have got in the way, but here we go: the final review!

At the far right of your large Legislative Council ballot paper, you will find a column of 11 ungrouped independents below the line. These are people running solo campaigns without a running mate, so they do not get a separate column below the line nor a square above the line. The only way to vote for any of these candidates is to vote below the line. This means none of the 11 has a chance of winning a seat, but they’re always interesting to look at anyway.

I covered one of the ungrouped candidates, Colleen Fuller, when reviewing the Indigenous–Aboriginal Party of Australia. She’s second in the list of ungrouped indies. Let’s run through the other 10 in ballot order.

Stefan Prasad (Facebook profile)

Recommendation: weak or no preference

Prasad has done a politics degree but he does not seem to have learnt much about how to campaign effectively. He has a limited web presence and an even more spare policy platform. A Facebook post urges people that “if you don't know who to for Vote for, Vote for me!!” This is not a very compelling pitch. In response to a reply asking for his policies, he says that “since the needs of the NSW constituents are ever changing, I didnt think it was necessary to provide a set of fixed policies, policies need to change in accordance to the needs of the people”. Yep, this is a policy-free space from a guy who does not seem to stand for anything.

Warren Grzic (Facebook)

Recommendation: decent preference

Grzic is a bit of a serial candidate—he has stood in state and federal elections before, both as an independent and for Sustainable Australia. I haven’t reviewed him previously but here’s last year’s b_auspol review. He’s a big fan of greater investment in railways—to quote from a page he made for the 2022 federal election, “Expand railway networks across Australia to fight traffic and pollution and climate change”. This is pretty much the quickest way to get me onside and he pushes railways and public transport more than anything else. Indeed, he’s not just focused on one aspect of the system but makes comments on urban commuter networks, freight rail, and long-needed regional upgrades alike.

But let’s consider his other priorities. He supports striking nurses and better investment in staffing throughout the healthcare sector. He wants better management of water infrastructure. I’m a little unsure about his attitude on development and housing—his prior SusAus involvement makes me wonder if there’s a bit of NIMBYism, but if there is, it’s not prominent. I’m also not clear exactly what he wants when he calls for the tax system to be simplified: is this an inane demand for flat taxes, or untangling arcane parts of the tax code? All in all I’m favourably disposed towards him but with some queries.

Van Huynh (website)

Recommendation: middling to decent preference

Van George Huynh—his website is votegeorge dot org but the name on the ballot will be Van Huynh—offers an ambitious and eccentric plan for NSW. The first thing you see when opening his website is that “we will win this war on inflation” but oh boy his ambitions go well beyond beating inflation. He wants to “Convert Chatswood into the new world financial capital”, create a new Silicon Valley stretching from the North Shore to the Central Coast, establish major new business centres in Sydney suburbs and the Illawarra, build more universities, found a “cinema of Australia” in Newcastle and “one of the world largest entertainment centre in the state's outback near Griffith”, and much more. He would add two new public holidays: Multicultural Day in February and “Christ Day” on 31 July (mate you are aware of Christmas, right?).

Some of his ideas are good, some are complete pie-in-the-sky, some are best left unrealised. I suggest a middling to decent preference if you’re voting below the line because he is far better than a lot of the racists and cookers clogging the ballot.

Archie Lea

Recommendation: weak or no preference

Lea stood at the 2021 Upper Hunter by-election as an independent and came last in a crowded field of 13. He had previously run for Fred Nile’s now defunct Christian Democratic Party in 2016 and 2019, a big red flag. In his entry in the NSWEC’s register of candidates, he describes himself as an “Independent Christian conservative for member of Legislative Council. Independent Candidate.” It’s hard to find much more on him. At the 2021 by-election his HTV was openly pro-coal and pro-mining. Naturally I think poorly of a conservative anti-environmental candidate.

Michelle Martin (how-to-vote card)

Recommendation: weak or no preference

Martin has not made much information available online. She was listed fourth on the UAP’s Senate ticket for NSW at last year’s federal election, so that’s a bad sign. Her HTV is in milder language than many cookers, but “ensure your health choices are YOURS” leans very much towards anti-vaxxer and anti-fluoride suspicion of effective public health measures. Her open rejection of digital IDs and “cashless society” refers to two tropes currently prevalent in Australia’s conspiracist circles. She is best avoided.

Lee Howe (website)

Recommendation: decent to good preference

Howe is running on a platform of “vote 1 homes first”. She wants a fairer and more equitable society achieved through “access to safe, suitable and affordable housing”. She highlights that only 9% of rentals in NSW are affordable for those with very low incomes and that rental stress is widespread. Expanding public housing stock is a major priority for her, alongside repairing existing public housing to modern standards. She wants new developments to contain at least 15% social and affordable housing, with specific targets for houses for elderly and Indigenous people. She would abolish “no grounds” evictions, place caps on annual rent increases, and otherwise pursue positive reforms to protect tenants’ rights. Her approach is neither urbanist nor NIMBY, but focused on addressing poverty, homelessness, and insecure housing. She’s a little bit of a single-issue candidate, which always makes me hesitant, but in this case her core issue speaks to a range of policy areas.

Mick Allen (website)

Recommendation: middling to decent preference

Well this fella is entertaining. His campaign page is “Mad Mick for a Better World”. It has links to some specific policy pages… and then just a bunch of photos of his sustainable garden and the wildlife in it. It’s wonderfully eccentric. What do his policies cover? He is concerned with climate change and wants to act on UN IPCC reports—or at least “tak[e] their recommendations into consideration”. It’s no more specific than that. He’s justly angry that women still earn on average less than men: “it is bloody stupid they haven’t got it [equal pay] yet”. He suggests “We should be learning more about Aboriginal culture”, without specifying how this might occur other than that Indigenous knowledge should inform more environmental planning. He wants to stop public housing being demolished or sold, and he has very nebulous concerns about redevelopment in Blacktown that has some possible NIMBY vibes. Finally, he wants to limit vaping to reduce how many children vape—by making it subscription-only! These are all pretty simple thought bubbles, but on the other hand there’s more here than some parties and much of it trends in the right direction. Seems harmless enough.

R Cheetham

Recommendation: weak or no preference

I can find virtually no information about the candidate R Cheetham, whose registration details with the NSWEC indicate this is short for Ruth Cheetham. I cannot find a social media profile or website for a Ruth Cheetham that is definitively this candidate. She is, however, aligned with Lee Howe: one of Howe’s HTVs is authorised for both her and Cheetham, with Howe 1 and Cheetham 2. It’s strange that Howe and Cheetham didn’t run as grouped independents to get their own column on the ballot. This alliance implies Cheetham is also concerned with the social and affordable housing issues that underpin Howe’s campaign, but it's certainly not a given. The joint Howe and Cheetham HTV indicates that they feel they both have the most in common with Labor, Greens, Animal Justice, and the Public Education Party. That’s promising but again tells the prospective voter nothing about Cheetham. In the absence of any substantive information, if you’re voting below the line and preferencing fully, I’d suggest Cheetham get a weak preference but one above the cookers, fundies, and similar crackpots. If she wanted better preferences, she should have campaigned more effectively.

Guitang Lu (website)

Recommendation: weak to middling preference

Guitang Lu, a migration lawyer who in some documents also goes by the name Luke, is running on a platform of anti-racism and anti-bullying. It is based on his own experiences, which he describes here. It is the most detailed part of his site. His policies on anti-racism focus largely on remedies relevant to his complaints, but they are beneficial more broadly and extend to gender discrimination as well as racial discrimination. A bit of a single-issue candidate, but an important issue and my initial impressions were positive.

I was, however, concerned by his how-to-vote card and his instructions to potential voters. He tells voters to “Just give me ONE – 1”, or to vote below the line 1–15. The crucial word here is “or”. There is no square above the line to just vote 1 for Lu. Any voter who interprets his advice in such a way they only vote 1 for him will not cast a valid vote, as you can only vote for him below the line, in which case you must distribute 15 preferences. Worse, his HTV’s suggestion for preferences is bizarre: he suggests preferencing the top 7 candidates from the Public Education Party, which is fine, then… the top 7 candidates from the anti-vax lunatics at Informed Medical Options. This gives me serious cause for pause. I was going to suggest a decent preference for Lu but this advice to voters is misleading and implies sympathy with cookers.

George Potkonyak (website)

Recommendation: weak or no preference

Potkonyak is standing as an independent on behalf of Capellia Children Inc. It’s hard not to view him as a bit paranoid when you read “the NSW Liberal government has sold your children into the hands of the so called ‘charities’ (private subcontractors)”, as in child protection agencies. It gets worse: he has been struck off as a lawyer on the basis of professional misconduct. He is described as misinterpreting relevant legislation, behaving offensively in court, misleading the court, and “consistently engaged” in conduct “falling short of the standard of competence and diligence expected of a reasonably competent legal practitioner”. Oooof.

I think we can safely ignore anything this guy has to say. He also has a quixotic account on academia dot edu, a for-profit site which obtained its dot edu domain before this address was restricted to educational institutions. I can’t say I’m in a hurry to read his piece about whether Jesus was born of a virgin. (h/t to the author of the aforementioned b­_auspol blog, who hasn’t had time to do reviews this election but confirmed my bad vibes here)

[axvoter]

Blatantly Partisan Party Review XVIII (NSW 2023): Indigenous­–Aboriginal Party of Australia

Prior reviews: federal 2022, VIC 2022

What I said before: “Their policy platform is really simple stuff: a community that wants to be taken seriously and not treated paternalistically. They seek the space to address their own issues on their own terms.”

What I think this year: The IAPA is not registered at state level in NSW but it is endorsing two candidates. One, Brett Duroux, is standing in the Legislative Assembly electoral district of Clarence. The other, Aunty Colleen Fuller, is running for the Legislative Council as an ungrouped independent—this means she appears in the column at furthest right of the big ballot for the upper house. Her name is second in the list of 11 ungrouped indies. Neither Duroux nor Fuller will get to specify a party affiliation on ballots. Note that Colleen Fuller is not the woman of the same name who is a Gunnedah shire councillor.

The party retains the purpose and goals described in my previous reviews to promote Indigenous communities, provide them with political representation, stop Indigenous deaths in custody, and improve services for Indigenous peoples. The very existence of some of these challenges and unmet needs should shame Australia.

All NSW voters can express a preference for Fuller, but only if you vote below the line. Fuller’s leading goal is to protect the Kariong sacred lands near Gosford. She also wants to protect the right to protest, stop child removals (she is a descendant of the Stolen Generations), and provide more affordable housing. She and two other independents were profiled as the Three Sisters of the Sacred Sites and Environment. I’m a little confused why the other two—Gab McIntosh in the seat of Terrigal and Lisa Bellamy in Gosford—do not have IAPA endorsements, particularly McIntosh because she is featured on the IAPA’s About Us page as their education spokesperson! But both the IAPA homepage and Facebook only feature Fuller and Duroux as endorsed independents.

As for Duroux in Clarence, he has a mix of local policies and statewide goals. The statewide goals concern things such as sacred site protection, better relationships between land councils and traditional owners, better housing for Aboriginal communities, no children in jail, and healthy rivers and forests. His local goals include no mining or fracking in the Clarence Valley, better mental health services in Clarence hospitals, and restoring local swimming pools and allowing kids to swim for free. It all seems positive.

Recommendation: Give independents affiliated with the Indigenous–Aboriginal Party of Australia a good preference.

Website: https://www.indigenouspartyofaustralia.com/ and Duroux’s HTV is here

[axvoter]

Blatantly Partisan Party Review XVII (NSW 2023): Group U (Riccardo Bosi / Australia One)

Prior reviews: federal 2022, VIC 2022

What I said before: “This party is completely cooked, peddling covid conspiracies, antivax campaigns, sovereign citizen bollocks, and claims that a shadowy cabal of elites, freemasons, and the Chinese Communist Party have enslaved Australia. The leader of Australia One, Riccardo Bosi, is one of the most extreme of the ‘freedom’ conspiracists. It takes effort to stand out as unhinged within that crowd, and Bosi has assuredly put in the effort.”

What I think this year: Unlike most other independent groups, Bosi has managed to cobble together enough friends to get a square above the line (18 total candidates, three greater than the minimum required). He still doesn’t have enough mates to actually register his party, mind you, so the square will be unlabelled.

If you are voting above the line, Bosi is probably who you should put last—he and his group are aggrieved and dangerous conspiracy theorists. They are the sort of covid cookers who openly seek the death penalty for anyone they accuse of “treason”, which happens to include nurses and much of Australia’s public sector. Their election Q&A is peddling nonsense that “We don’t expect a free and fair election” and uses various conspiracy tropes. It’s all just so wearisome.

I honestly don’t know how Bosi & Friends have the energy to sustain such anger and vitriol. I’m not going to link their site because they don’t deserve the hits, but you can look it up if you want to see the most unhinged take on virtually every possible topic. There is not a word of sense in their rhetoric, but there sure are a lot of violent threats against the “evil” organisations they wish to destroy, the people from whom they want to “take back control”, and groups they wish to disfranchise. It’s vile and unpleasant.

Recommendation: Give Group U (Riccardo Bosi / Australia One) no preference or the lowest possible preference.

Website: Get real.

[axvoter]

Blatantly Partisan Party Review XVI (NSW 2023): Group T (Milton Caine / Christians for Community)

Prior reviews: None, this is a new unregistered party

Milton Caine is standing as the lead candidate of an independent group of two candidates. This means he will not get a square above the line (you need 15 candidates for that) and you can only indicate a preference for him if you vote below the line. He has previously stood for the Liberal Party and for Fred Nile’s Christian Democratic Party, and now views himself as representing a remnant of the CDP “to negotiate a solid and Christian path forward”. He is intending to register Christians for Community as a formal party. I hope he doesn't.

I am quite concerned that Caine takes a theological approach to government: for him, the first question to ask about government decisions is whether it is “in agreement with God? (God’s will, as revealed in the Bible)”. This is a wholly inappropriate attitude to take towards governing a secular country of many faiths and where roughly four-tenths have no faith. He espouses the sort of US-influenced and ahistorical claims that Australia was “established on Christian principles” (it was not! the colonies were founded for imperial purposes and they federated for pragmatic reasons! yeesh!).

In general, Caine wants to mandate conservative forms of Christian observance, and this is entirely unjustifiable even from a Christian perspective, never mind a pluralistic one, as any serious student of theology would reject enforced faithfulness as insincere. When you turn to his attitudes towards other faiths, it exposes how self-serving his ideology is. He “opposes any formal legal recognition of sharia law or aboriginal tribal law”. Now, I’ve seen plenty of xenophobic beat-ups about Sharia in Australia over the years, but it’s quite something that he groups this with Aboriginal traditions and that he opposes the First Peoples of this land from exercising their laws despite the fact they never ceded their sovereignty. This is unpleasant stuff.

Some of his home-page rhetoric seems superficially reasonable, as he gestures positively towards environmental needs, poorer communities, and particularly disabled people. But the more you dig into his policy pages, the worse it gets. His media policies, for instance, mandate very narrow conservative morality (he seems to have a bee in his bonnet not just about pornography, nor just about the ABC, but that “Reality television is just one genre where there has been flagrant abuse”). This guy is a boring prude. He could never advance policies for the benefit of all, nor legislate without religious prejudice.

Recommendation: Give Group T (Milton Caine / Christians for Community) a weak or no preference.

Website: https://miltoncaine.com/

[axvoter]

Blatantly Partisan Party Review XV (NSW 2023): Sustainable Australia—Stop Overdevelopment/Corruption

Prior reviews: federal 2013, federal 2016, VIC 2018, NSW 2019, federal 2019, federal 2022, VIC 2022

What I said before: “This party has a habit of scooping up some votes from people who see the name and think ‘oh “sustainable” sounds good!’ They gain the rest from anti-immigration NIMBYs, at least some of whom think that their weird phobia of apartments is environmentalist praxis. SusAus have realised that people on the left are increasingly calling them out, so they try to claim they are pro-immigration and that they are jUsT aSkiNg QuEsTiOnS about migrant numbers. It’s rather easy to pick holes in their rhetoric and expose it for what it is: racist bullshit that won’t make Australia any more sustainable.” (VIC 2022)

What I think this year: I’ve said my piece in the reviews above. SusAus are not all bad, but besides how cringe it is that they shoehorn a slogan into their registered name, it is tremendously telling that they were originally the Stable Population Party. I am aware of some well-meaning people in this party with centrist or centre-left environmental views, but the overall thrust is NIMBY and anti-immigration and I cannot in good faith offer any endorsement. The fact they’ve drawn the column immediately to the right of the Greens means they’re quite likely to fare well off preferences from “oh ‘sustainable’ sounds good!” voters misled by the party name. Don’t be one of them!

Recommendation: Give Sustainable Australia–Stop Stupid Party Names a weak or no preference.

Website: https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/

[axvoter]

Blatantly Partisan Party Review XIV (NSW 2023): Group P (Danny Lim)

Prior review: NSW 2019

What I said before: “This is the guy who, for years, has shown up around Sydney wearing politically themed sandwich boards. Famously, his billboard calling Tony Abbott a cunt was found to not be offensive under Australian law.”

What I think this year: Lim has become the face of opposition to police brutality after images of him being thrown to the ground in the Queen Victoria Building went viral. Despite how he was treated, and the enduring physical consequences for an elderly man, he has maintained a positive attitude towards the police.

The thing is, although Lim is something of a folk hero on Sydney’s streets, what does he stand for? The second article that I linked above includes a quote that he is campaigning “more about social justice” than anything else and he “care[s] about the future”. Pretty vague. Another article specifies that he supports free dental care, legalising marijuana, and affordable housing. The broad tenor of his activism over the years has been anti-racism.

Lim strikes me as a harmless option but there isn’t much of substance here and you can't draw many firm conclusions about what his legislative approach or priorities would be. In any case, he won’t get close to a seat in parliament because he has stood in a group of just two candidates, and you need 15 to receive a square above the line. Nobody reliant on below-the-line votes can win a seat.

Recommendation: Give Group P (Danny Lim) a middling to decent preference.

Website: None that I found.

[axvoter]

Blatantly Partisan Party Review XIII (NSW 2023): Legalise Cannabis Party

Prior reviews (most as the Help End Marijuana Prohibition Party): federal 2013, federal 2016, federal 2019, federal 2022, VIC 2022

What I said before: “They want cannabis to be regulated no differently to alcohol and tobacco. In the last couple of years, they have clearly matured in their approach and become more organised. But, being the party that they are, they promote legalising cannabis for a whole host of reasons, some of which are quite sensible such as medicinal use, industry regulation, public revenue, and reducing expenditure on law enforcement, while some of the larger claims about economic and environmental transformation are, um, optimistic.”

What I think this year: What I said above. Blaze it, but don’t blaze it too much.

This is a single-issue party and their policy platform does not come close to providing a framework for addressing the bulk of parliamentary business. They’ve won representation in WA and Victoria, and in WA one of their two MLCs was suspended from parliament after spouting anti-vax nonsense. It’s a good lesson on why you should be cautious with single-issue parties, but my main concern remains with ideology rather than personality: no single-issue party can possibly present a platform that gives voters an adequate idea of how a prospective parliamentarian will vote on most legislation. Get an ideology or go home.

Recommendation: Give the Legalise Cannabis Party a decent preference.

Website:https://legalisecannabis.org.au/

[axvoter]

Blatantly Partisan Party Review XII (NSW 2023): Shooters, Fishers and Farmers

Prior reviews: federal 2013, VIC 2014, federal 2016, VIC 2018, NSW 2019, federal 2019, federal 2022, VIC 2022

What I said before: “This party would dismantle every policy that confines gun ownership to its legitimate grounds ... It’s not even funny to scroll through their ranting.” (federal 2022)

What I think this year: Yeah, that’s pretty much it. Amazing how they manage to be wrong on everything: the lead articles on their website are anti-environment rants and shilling in favour of problem gambling. But of course worst of all is their approach to firearms. I reiterate what I’ve said before: I’m from a rural family, I know the value of a rifle on a farm, and I know this party is full of shit.

Australia has had extraordinary success with its gun laws, but it produced the Christchurch terrorist and it has not adequately faced up to this legacy of armed violence. Do most voters even realise that the last NSW election happened in the shadow of an NSW-raised terrorist murdering 51 people in Christchurch, or that the fourth anniversary was earlier this month? The fact the answer to this is obviously “no” reflects very, very, very poorly on Australia.

When I voted in the 2019 NSW election, I made a point of putting the SFF last. A fortnight out, it possibly seemed like a tough choice, with the likes of Mark Latham and David Leyonhjelm also on the ballot, but I have always possessed a special derision for gun nuts and the tragedy in Christchurch confirmed my choice to place the lead SFF candidate last. This party has not been properly asked to face up to the consequences of their pro-gun ideology and this is frankly poor form by the NSW political media.

As it happens, the SFF has experienced quite significant ruptures in the past year. Helen Dalton, member for Murray, quit the party in 2022. SFF’s leader, Rob Borsak, remarked in parliament that Dalton should be “clocked”, and when he failed to apologise or retract his remarks, two other MPs quit the party. This meant SFF lost all three of its lower house members, leaving Borsak and Mark Basaniak in the upper house.

What a surprise the leader of a party called the Shooters would be unapologetic about violent language. You should be unapologetic about giving SFF a tremendously bad preference.

Recommendation: Give the Fans of Gun Violence Party a weak or no preference.

Website: https://www.shootersfishersandfarmers.org.au/

[axvoter]

Blatantly Partisan Party Review XI (NSW 2023): Informed Medical Options Party

Prior reviews: federal 2019, federal 2022

What I said before: “If there is one thing this party is profoundly uninformed about, it is medical options.” (federal 2022)

What I think this year: These bad-faith actors were active prior to the covid pandemic peddling misinformation about vaccination and fluoridation of drinking water. Of course, the pandemic only heated up their rhetoric, which seeks to undermine vaccines and other public health measures that are proven to be safe and effective.

Broadly put, this party supports all sorts of woo. Worse, they sow public doubt and hesitation during a pandemic. Their Q&A page actively tries to undermine confidence in medical science, disingenuously exaggerates scientific uncertainty, and casts responsible public health measures in an authoritarian and threatening light. If you want your teeth to fall out and to die of preventable diseases, this is the party for you.

Recommendation: Give the Informed Medical Options Party a weak or no preference.

Website: No.

[axvoter]

Blatantly Partisan Party Review X (NSW 2023): Public Education Party

Prior reviews of parties related to this entity:

Voluntary Euthanasia Party: federal 2013, VIC 2014, federal 2016, VIC 2018; NSW 2019

Reason Party/Australian Sex Party: federal 2013, VIC 2014, federal 2016, VIC 2018), federal 2019, federal 2022

There has been an interesting and somewhat quixotic evolution here. In 2014, the NSW branch of the Voluntary Euthanasia Party was founded. It became the NSW branch of the Reason Party in 2019, in part because it believed it was too narrow as a single-issue party and wished to ally with a federal party that shared its platform on euthanasia. Then, in 2022, Reason NSW considered winding itself up after state parliament legislated for voluntary assisted dying, and because the party had had a consistent lack of electoral success. Instead, it announced it would merge with the obscure and never-registered Fairer Education Party (so obscure I hadn’t heard of them until the merger), which had been formed in 2021 to promote the interests of government schools.

After this merger, the party changed its name to the Public Education Party. So… now they’re a single-issue party again. Jane Caro, who has been a consistent advocate for public education, led the Reason ticket in NSW at last year’s federal election, so a bunch of us micro-party watchers assumed the name change had something to do with her making a run for state parliament. But she is nowhere to be found on the ballot. There is, though, some continuity with the old Voluntary Euthanasia Party: the registered returning officer of the Public Education Party was the lead candidate for the VEP back at the 2015 NSW state election.

Anyway, you’re absolutely never gonna believe the Public Education Party’s main purpose is to promote government schools and the public education sector. They believe that the sector is underfunded and that governments are routinely reluctant to invest in it properly. The policies about education are, consequently, fairly detailed and seek more equitable funding and other reforms to staffing and resourcing in line with the recommendations of the Gonski Review.

I’m pretty sympathetic to this. I went to public primary schools and a private high school; on reflection, my views are strongly in favour of public education and of funding the system to a much greater extent. To me, many private schools would be best nationalised, and the privileges of elite private schools need to be reined in (and certainly not have their handsome income topped up with public money). Indeed, my views on this are stronger than what the Public Education Party says explicitly, which is simply that public schools should be “the preferred educational setting for young people”.

This party is a single-issue vehicle, unlike the more broadly conceived Reason NSW, and I’ve said many, many times that single-issue parties are conceived too narrowly for the fullness of parliamentary business. The background in Reason NSW means I anticipate this party would generally take a centre-left approach to other policies, but all they say is that they are “advocating for social justice and equity, and fighting for a fairer, more cohesive, and productive society”. This is a motherhood statement that doesn’t tell the prospective voter an awful lot. I cannot give any single-issue party an unqualified endorsement.

Recommendation: Give the Public Education Party a decent preference.

Website: https://www.publiceducationparty.org.au/

[axvoter]

Blatantly Partisan Party Review IX (NSW 2023): Group K (Oscar Grenfell / Socialist Equality Party)

Prior reviews of the Socialist Equality Party: federal 2013, federal 2016, federal 2019, federal 2022

What I said before: “Simply put, the SEP are the cranks of the Australian socialist space. That’s saying a lot given some of the weird units out there too. The SEP are still ranting that all other left-wing parties and trade unions, including other socialist parties, are on the ‘pseudo-left’. It’s tedious and childish. Just because you have minor ideological disagreements does not mean everyone else is some stooge of global capital.” (federal 2022)

What I think this year: The SEP failed to retain federal registration when parliament raised the membership threshold from 500 to 1,500 members, leading to a comical sequence of events detailed in my federal 2022 review. They did, nonetheless, run grouped independents at the federal election: in NSW, these were Max Boddy and Oscar Grenfell. Both of them are back for the NSW state election. Boddy is standing as an SEP-endorsed independent in the seat of Bankstown, while Grenfell leads a two-candidate SEP-endorsed ticket in the upper house. You need 15 candidates in a group to get a square above the line, so obviously this SEP tilt at office (like all their tilts at office) is a non-starter. They are whinging that they don’t get the SEP name on the ballot because of NSW’s “anti-democratic electoral laws”, when if they simply had 13 more friends they’d get an unlabelled square above the line and if they could sign up 750 members they would be able to get their name on the ballot. If they truly were a party of the workers, 750 would be no problem.

Anyway, the SEP is the most disagreeable wing of socialism in Australia. If you’ve been following this blog for any length of time, you know I think they are petty and narrowminded, habitually condemning everyone else for even the slightest disagreement. The hubris of their rhetoric is in inverse proportion to its persuasiveness. If you want a socialist option in NSW, go with the Socialist Alliance rather than this bilious not-a-party.

Also, predictably, the SEP’s rhetoric about the war in Ukraine is “look what you made me do” bullshit sympathising with Russia. Indeed, Grenfell claims in the above-linked article that this is a “US-NATO war against Russia”, which is so comical even the most craven Putin apologist would surely blush. It seems strange to me to need to reiterate to some on the left that sovereign states can freely choose their memberships of international organisations, and these choices do not justify military assaults, not even from Russia. But it seems some remain wedded to “the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and my enemy is always the US”, or to blindly supporting Russia as if the Soviet Union never collapsed. Yawn.

Recommendation: Give Group K (Oscar Grenfell / Socialist Equality Party) a weak or no preference.

Website: https://www.wsws.org/en/special/pages/sep/australia/home.html

[axvoter]

Blatantly Partisan Party Review VIII (NSW 2023): Liberal Democratic Party

Prior reviews: federal 2013, VIC 2014, federal 2016, VIC 2018, NSW 2019, federal 2019, federal 2022, VIC 2022

What I said before: “This is a cynical and callous party for people who lack empathy. Its economic and social policies are destructive; its approach to firearms is dangerous; its blinkered hostility to government accepts no possibility it can be used for—or that there even is such a thing as—collective good.” (federal 2022)

What I think this year: Welcome to the worst of far-right libertarianism, now with a generous helping of covid conspiracism. You have been warned.

Recommendation: Give the Liberal Democratic Party a weak or no preference.

Website: https://www.ldp.org.au/nsw

[axvoter]

Blatantly Partisan Party Review VII (NSW 2023): Elizabeth Farrelly Independents

Prior reviews: none, this is a new party.

Where do I start with Elizabeth Farrelly. There was a point a few years ago where I would often sleep in of a weekend and log on to Twitter to find some baffling new discourse, which invariably turned out to be because Farrelly had published another ridiculous column in the Sydney Morning Herald. She had—and has—a particular propensity to piss off urbanists with her NIMBY anti-density views, but her takes on culture and lifestyle were equally good fodder for a solid day’s discourse and in-jokes. It’s hard to convey the depth of eye-rolling Farrelly induces if you didn’t participate in the social media banter about her columns of the late 2010s.

Farrelly’s tenure at the Sydney Morning Herald ended in bizarre circumstances in 2021. In the Strathfield local government elections, she registered for campaign finance purposes with the NSW Electoral Commission as a candidate for the Labor Party, although she was ultimately not chosen to be a Labor candidate; by her telling, she was simply interested in standing for the party either at that election or at state or federal level later. Farrelly did not run in the 2021 local elections, but she did criticise non-Labor candidates in her column without disclosing her affiliation, and the SMH’s editor Bevan Shields (another name to make you roll your eyes firmly if you’re SMH-adjacent) abruptly terminated her employment when he found out.

Ultimately, not only did Farrelly fail to get Labor preselection at local level, she stood against them as an independent at the 2022 by-election for the state seat also called Strathfield. She came third on primary votes—a distant third (9.85%) to the majors (41.05% ALP, 36.24% Liberal) but ahead of the Greens (6.67%). This seems to have made her sufficiently confident to attempt a tilt at state politics. After all, if she could replicate 9.85% statewide, she and her second candidate would both win seats—but rarely can anyone turn modest popularity in their home electorate into anything approximating statewide appeal.

What does Farrelly and her independent grouping actually stand for? They explicitly say they are “not a political party” (despite the fact they’re registered as one), but it is not clear the extent to which two hypothetical parliamentarians would be expected to work together. The platform that Farrelly and her independents share has three main planks: climate action, honest government, and liveable communities.

The climate action policy is pretty decent: net zero commitment for 2030, energy efficient building standards, moving away from mining fossil fuels, getting rid of draconian laws that stop climate protests, all that sort of stuff. The honest government policy is more mixed. Positively, it would strengthen ICAC’s ongoing financial position so that its base funding does not become subject to the whims of government. I’m concerned the proposal to stop “jobs for mates” goes too far—I’m happy with MPs being restricted from moving directly into jobs related to their former portfolios, but Farrelly also wants to stop them from taking any job in other specific sectors for three years: mining, energy, development, gambling, racing. These all just seem to be sectors she’s personally suspicious of, rather than any clear overarching rationale. It would mean an MP could get a job for a trucking company—despite how much the road lobby has skewed Australian transport policy towards unsustainable car-centric choices—but not with a renewable energy company.

The third plank, “liveable communities”, sounds nice until you realise that its contents are what you get when you have full-blown NIMBY brain. Farrelly proclaims to be a lover of cities, but it seems that what she loves is to put cities in aspic. She talks extensively about “over-development”, despite the fact Australia’s cities are horrendously sprawling and that it would be more efficient to start building up and to boost density along existing corridors. There’s a classic NIMBY trick of opposing public transport proposals because existing housing is insufficiently dense and opposing housing developments because there is no public transport, and Farrelly’s played both cards while also citing “heritage” to oppose a range of projects. I’m a historian by profession but I am no fan of how “heritage” often gets cited to protect vast swathes of wealthier suburbs—rather than protecting specific buildings and other historical objects of enduring value, it has often been used to boost property values, enforce certain aesthetic preferences, and keep out imagined "undesirables" (there is a part of the NIMBY brain that bafflingly equates apartments with slums).

It’s hard to imagine how NSW can boost its housing stock and make it affordable when Farrelly wants to implement every possible planning restriction and heritage overlay in the book. Planning processes already skew strongly towards the most conservative, change-averse local residents who have the time, money, and networks to participate, while younger, busier, and poorer residents are either unable to do so or unaware they even can—and prospective future residents get no say at all.

This is easily my longest review of the election, and I’m holding back from an even more sustained critique of the kind of regressive urban planning perspectives that Farrelly champions. I’m passionate about making cities better places to live: more walkable, more PT, more green spaces, more cafes and retail, and more homes, all in a more compact space. These things require density and a readiness to accept that the fabric of cities must keep evolving. Farrelly has some nice lingo but it is all in service to a NIMBY agenda that I do not believe would improve Sydney or any other part of NSW.

Farrelly would lean left on a range of environmental and social issues, and she and her associated independents would be much better than a lot of the rabble contesting the election, but I am on the whole unenthused.

Recommendation: Give Elizabeth Farrelly Independents a middling preference.

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

[axvoter]

Blatantly Partisan Party Review VI (NSW 2023): Group G (Silvana Nile / Revive Australia Party)

Prior reviews (as the Christian Democratic Party): federal 2013, federal 2016, NSW 2019, federal 2019

What I said before: “The CDP sees no place in society for people who think, behave, or believe differently to them. Unless you worship the strict, narrowly-defined, judgemental, petty god to whom the CDP claims allegiance, this party is not for you.” (federal 2019)

What I think this year: This is all just a little bit weird really. Fred Nile was first elected to the NSW Legislative Council in 1981 for the Call to Australia Party, the predecessor of the Christian Democratic Party. He has been in the NSW parliament for over 40 years now; he is 88 years old. He secured the election of his first wife alongside himself for 14 years, the late Elaine Nile, and his second wife Silvana is running this year.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Fred announced his retirement in 2021, endorsing Lyle Shelton as his successor. But then he rescinded the deal (eat shit Lyle) and has served out his term. The CDP dissolved in 2022 and Nile joined Seniors United, but it too has been dissolved. He again announced his retirement in October 2022, but—you can see where this is going—announced last month that he’d stand again. Weirdly, he’s the second candidate to his wife Silvana, and they are the only two candidates in Group G. They do not get a square above the line (you need 15 candidates for that) and even if they had a square above the live and Silvana won election, there’s no chance they’d get a high enough vote for Fred to win a seat from second place. Why is he going out on a loss rather than retiring with dignity? Strange stuff.

Anyway, don’t vote for the Niles, they’re awful bigots. I would say they’ve leapt on the latest bandwagon of bile against drag queens, but Fred’s been pulling that particular wagon since he came to prominence as an opponent of Mardi Gras in the 1980s. Forty years down the track and he has not become a better person.

Recommendation: Give Group G (Silvana Nile / Revive Australia Party) a weak or no preference.

Website: https://www.facebook.com/fnileindp/

[axvoter]

Blatantly Partisan Party Review V (NSW 2023): Socialist Alliance

Prior reviews: federal 2016, NSW 2019, federal 2019, federal 2022, VIC 2022

What I said before: “Do I really need to tell you much about this party’s platform? They’re proper eco-socialists whose policies cohere around a belief in workers’ solidarity, hostility to capitalism, and radical action on climate change.” (federal 2019)

What I think this year: Socialist Alliance are here for you if you’re seeking a socialist option in NSW. The policies are what you’d expect: there are no surprises. Their policy statement starts by highlighting cost-of-living issues and criticising governments and corporations that “put profits before people’s needs”. If you believe in the principle of “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need”, then you’ll find much to like in Socialist Alliance’s platform.

This said, I’m no shill for Socialist Alliance—or any party. I self-identify as a small-g green democratic socialist, but I have never belonged to a party and have no intention to change that. Ever since I became engaged in electoral politics in the mid-00s, I’ve felt that Socialist Alliance has done a poor job of engaging the voting public. Their lack of electoral success evinces their inability to persuade the masses in the way the Communist Party of Australia did in the 1940s, and I’m not sure they’ve figured out what it takes to cut through. I can’t help but suspect a lot of socialists and communists are too busy fighting niche ideological disputes.

But, look, I live in hope that Socialist Alliance or another socialist party will find the candidates, the networks, the rhetoric, and the wherewithal to restore socialism to electoral significance within Australian political discourse.

Recommendation: Give Socialist Alliance a good preference.

Website: https://socialist-alliance.org/2023-new-south-wales-state-election/people-before-profit-nsw-election-march-25