FEDERAL ELECTION 2022 PT.2

Well by the time you're reading this it may be too late, (though 
with 40% of the population early-voting this year, part one might 
have been too late as well), but here's the second and final part 
of my investigations through the micro-party microscope.

With the late nights and general frustration at the state of 
politics, the world, and everything, I burnt out by Thursday night 
so this is pretty much just the work of last night. I got stuck 
into two parties with particularly extensive and broad policies, 
necessitating much more work to sum them up than normal. I put the 
work in though because I kinda like them, and that makes me want to 
make sure that I'm not missing some "all people born on a Thursday 
will have to hop to work on one leg on every day preceeding a full 
moon" type policy burried on page 58.

There are a few parties that I haven't had time for, though they're 
all pretty extreme ones that I've disliked distinctly in past years 
anyway, so no great loss.

Now I've still got to work out all my specific 
every-box-below-the-line preferences and actually do this damn vote 
today, so let's get on with this and begin last night's brain dump:

-----------------------
Citizen's Party
https://citizensparty.org.au/

* This is the former Citizens Electoral Council of Australia and I must say I'm shocked by
  how grown up they look now. Besides a new name they've got a new website which is remarkably
  clear of headings like "Stop Nazi Health Care!" and "Diana: Unlawful Killing", though luckily
  that's still all 'archived' here:
   http://cec.cecaust.com.au

* Their website still has a strong wiff of a "we know the real truth" type narrative to it
  though.

* The big things in their policies is that they hate the banks, and there are various plans
  to increase regulation as well as altogether replace them with various new nationalised
  banking institutions. The undertone of banks in Australia having too much power may or
  may not go deeper into one of their old conspiracy holes.

* Foreign policy is fairly striking. They want to "end Australia's foreign policy
  subservience to the USA and UK", which I like. This includes "demand the UK and USA
  release Australian journalist Julian Assange", which I like to see mentioned. However
  they actually want to get into a relatively close political relationship with China.
  Not just backing down over criticism of their governance and support for Taiwan, but
  even getting involved with their Belt and Road Initiative. That's swinging way too far
  the other way for me, the Chinese government is a pretty dislikable beast in so many
  respects.

* They don't seem to have much interest in environmental and climate change issues, and
  even intend to boost domestic fuel and fertiliser production to aid farming (one of their
  banks will also give farmers cheap loans). They do point out that nuclear power has been
  classified as "green energy" in the EU, and intend to lift the ban on it. The cost of
  nuclear power is too high in my optionion, but they only specifically say that this is
  with an aim to "develop next-generation nuclear energy technologies", so maybe that's
  alright? If we're waiting for cheap nuclear power though, people have been doing that for
  a _long_ _time_.
  
* "A 0.1 per cent tax on financial speculation" charges a tax on stock etc. transaction
  amounts. This seems intended to curtail "high-frequency traders and derivatives gamblers".
  It strikes me that traders would just jump ship and take their money out of the Australian
  market though, hurting the economy overall.

They've got way to much dodgy history, but do seem to have made an effort to sound sane.
Maybe watching Trump in the US was a sobering experience? Many of their policies still
strike me as ill-considered, but not so much more than other bold micro-parties. They've
come up a little bit from the very depths of my preferences where they've sat in the past.

-----------------------
FUSION: Science Pirate Secular Climate Emergency

* I've been wondering where a lot of the single-issue micro parties from previous years have
  gone, and it turns out a few of them have, well... fused, into FUSION. They were:
  Climate Change Justice Party
  Pirate Party
  Science Party
  Secular Party of Australia
  Vote Planet
  
* OK, now I know why all the tiny parties disappeared, they explain that this was something
  of a forced fusion in reaction to changes to the electoral law raising the minimum number
  of members required in a political party from 500 to 1,500:       https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/party-registration-changes-unfair-to-small-parties-too-restrictive/
  
* Now the consequences of this are actually a bit odd. The other parties apparantly still exist
  as separate branches of FUSION, each retaining their own set of FUSION-branch candidates.
  They do however have candidate pages which claim to outline the specific policies that each
  is particularly concerned with. For example the Pirate Party's website is still current:
   https://pirateparty.org.au/
  And it lists their five candidates with links to their candidate pages on the FUSION website,
  which list the top three policies they're most concerned with ("Civil + Digital Liberties" is
  there in the case of all the Pirate party's candidates of course). Therefore you could still
  vote for candidates according to their individual branch, rather than for FUSION as a whole.
  Indeed the Pirate Party still have their own set of policies here:
  https://pirateparty.org.au/our-vision/
  But I'll take to opportunity to make this task easier and just assess FUSION as a whole.

* They're all-in on the idea of 'negative carbon' to not just stop, but reverse, global warming.
  The reversal starts after we reach zero emissions in ten years. Their long-term aim is to
  achieve an "800% renewable energy target" by turning Australia into an exporter of renewable
  energy.

* The Science party get their say on increased funding for research into clean energy including,
  heh, fusion. They are also still in favour of building up a space industry. Sounds nice.

* General increases to education funding.

* They want monetary policies to be considered in parallel with environmental and 'personal'
  ("Opportunity, Education, Health and Wellbeing") concerns, which is a mindset that I much
  appreciate. To this end they intend to "Consider a tax reform package based on land value
  tax and UBI with a negative income tax as a potential approach.". Though vague, I actually
  appreciate the cautious wording of this, as I'm vaguely attracted to the UBI concept myself.

* They're big on free speech, as I am. The former Secular Party seems to take this on as part
  of their anti-religion adjenda though, as their policy is "Remove censorship, blasphemy, and
  other laws against speech". I like a broad brush on free speech, but where in Aus are people
  getting locked up for blasphemy exactly? What rules churches apply to their members are of
  no interest to me at all, and I don't see how that could refer to anything else.

* They also want a bill of rights to help pursue individual freedoms, but again I think this
  is unnecessary for their aims and would just waste resources on excessive debate.

* They want all fossil fuel extraction to cease within two years, which is quite strong,
  possibly too strong. Does it really make sense to mandate that extraction should stop
  without also mandating that usage should stop within two years as well? One presumes
  they're not proposing the latter, it would hit aviation rather hard for starters.

* They also have a heavy focus on restoring natural environments, though they're not saying
  which environments they plan to restore. I'd fear that they're not very friendly to
  farmers.

* Similar to other parties in wanting to any religious references in government processes
  and laws, including no tax exemptions for religions. Meh.
  
* Part of their defence strategy is to "Develop strategic alternative supply chains for
  critical elements of the economy", which I like to hear. They even have a list of
  those critical elements. It would be nice if they had said they'd prioritise Australian
  manufacturers of these supplies though, it reads a bit like "anywhere besides China".
  
* Otherwise their defence policies shy away from suggesting much real change, but they want
  to expand diplomacy and foreign aid while trying to be "defence focused" and
  non-agressive. Probably much easier said than done.
  
* The pirates get their piece in the "Civil + Digital Liberties" policies, which include
  "Modernise copyright with a Creative Works Act, so that our culture is not merely sold
  back to us under the control of rent-seeking monopolies" and "Review trade agreements
  that inflict foreign regulations on Australian creators". I have some sympathy for this,
  particularly the latter, which presumably applies to things such as the partly-aborted
  Trans-Pacific Partnership deal. It's all a matter of how far it goes though. The Pirate
  party's own site has much, much more detail, and notes that the Creative Works Act is actually
  a complete replacement for the Copyright Act:
   https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Platform#Copyright
  There's a lot to it, but the stand-out difference is that copyright duration drops way
  down to 15 years after publication. I quite like this. Even movies, the most expensive
  copyrighted works, are judged on their immediate box-office profits rather than sales
  15 years later. Though one can imagine that it would piss the foreign entertainment
  industry off enough that many big players might pull out of Australia in protest - they
  haven't got a great deal to lose from that after all. Still, I see the merit on some
  levels, 15 years is probably just taking it too far. I do like the idea of an Orphan Works
  Office which can make a work public domain if rights holders stop publishing it in a way
  that's accessible in Australia. Interestingly, they want to protect software under
  separate (and unspecified) laws.

* On internet privacy the Pirates had another almost excessively detailed policy:
   https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Platform#Privacy
  But FUSION just has "Enshrine network neutrality and freedom of expression in law.", which
  doesn't even hook back into the Pirate policy like the "Creative Works Act" reference in
  their copyright policy. So, is stuff such as "End warrantless monitoring of internet use
  among the general public" and "Ensure individuals have a legally protected right to control
  data collection on devices they own" part of the FUSION policy or not? I guess on the face of
  it, not. That's disappointing because I liked that side to the Pirate party much more than
  the copyright stuff.

I've given this party a lot of focus, probably at the expense of not having time to cover
some others at all. This is because there were things in the policies of the science party
and the pirate party that I quite liked at past elections. Ideally joining up would allow
for a more rounded set of policies that I like more overall, but actually I'm very
disappointed that the Pirate's detailed privacy policies seem to have been cast aside
entirely. I'll blame the current Liberal government for this though, given that they
forced the parties together in the first place by trippling the minimum membership count.
Being able to blame the government for no longer being able to vote for who you want is
a dodgy circumstance in a democracy, for that matter.

The two candidates running for Victoria are both from the Climate Change parties. The
emissions and environmental policies read to me as both vague and potentially a bit
extreme, so combine that with the loss of what I liked most about the Pirate's policy (I
almost said "what I like most about the Pirate party", but that would of course have been
their name) and overall they end up about a mid-place pick for me. Very frustrating,
expecially after all that research!

---------------------------
# Sustainable Australia
https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/

* Their roots are as the Sustainable Population Party, but limiting population growth (from
  current 26 to 30 million by 2050) is now a little hidden inside all their policy details.
  Personally I'm fully with them on this, endless population growth is an ever increasing
  drag on the lifestyle of Australians as well as our natural environment.
  
* Lots of policies to look into. Many seem along similar lines to the Australian Democrats, but
  with a bit more of an environmental and ecological focus which flows into the sustainable
  population policy. They also have a refreshingly reasonable tone, attempting to limit scope
  within practical boundaries. Or possibly it's just that their boundaries are closer to mine
  than most.
  
* They want to minimise factory farming in preference to smaller-scale operations, which is
  nice. They also plan to end live animal exports, which I'm not so sure about.

* They're not very radical about defence (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). "Aim to avoid
  regional conflicts and failed states by linking foreign aid to environmental sustainability
  programs that optimise the management of natural resources like water and productive land" is
  an nice approach. Another nice bit is that they want to prioritise producing military gear
  in Australia.

* Hey they've got a photo of a 3D printer on their 'Economy' page, which is umm... mis-matched,
  but hey I love a photo of a 3D printer wherever I see it. Actually they're a bit more radical
  here, proposing to replace GDP with "a broader Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) as a key
  measure of Australia's progress that redefines growth and prioritises growth in good things, 
  including:
  * Health and wellbeing, including happiness
  * A more equal distribution of wealth
  * A healthy environment
  * Quality education
  * Affordable housing
  * Full employment
  * Economic diversity and self-sufficiency
  * A circular, no-waste economy
  * Stopping corruption"
  In a way, this GPI could the seen as a measure of the core objectives for their policies. It's
  also necessary because the conventional quest for endlessly increasing GDP conflicts with
  their aim for long-term sustainability. I like it, though the actual method of measurement
  is the tricky bit.

* They plan to ban all new coal mines and gas fracking schemes, while "Empower[ing] Australian
  consumers to choose and use distributed (non-centralised) energy systems including solar
  photovoltaic (PV), micro wind and ground source heat pumps, supported by battery storage".
  How that empowerment happens, I'm not so sure. They also aim to "Return energy utilities to 
  public hands where appropriate".

* National environmental standards set and monitored by "an independent National
  Sustainability Commission". Parallel with this they want "a federal Environment Protection
  Agency". I'm not sure exactly where that would improve upon state-based entites, though
  such entities have been caught in examples of extreme incompetence recently, I'm not sure
  whether adding another agency at a federal level is the answer, but perhaps it wouldn't hurt.

* Preferred target of net zero emissions by 2035, but 'minimum target' of 2050 (the latter is
  in line with the two major parties). "Reduce emissions by at least 50 per cent below 2005
  levels by 2030". They consider limiting population growth to being an essential part of the
  strategy for acheiving this, combined with more usual policies: renewable energy targets,
  phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, and "Adopt a globally consistent carbon pricing mechanism
  that does not unfairly penalise Australian industries"

* They're against foreign ownership of buildings, land, and natural resources, and will prevent
  new aquisitions of greater than 25% stakes in these things by foreign entities. I quite like
  this, and the supply of housing is so constrained at the moment that I think the market could
  handle the shock, resulting in more availability. Preventing increased foreign ownership of
  farming land also improves food security and large takeovers by dodgy foreign monopolies. If
  they can't pull this of their backup plan is extra taxes on foreign purchases of such assets.

* They want to boost public housing including a mandated "minimum 10% public or affordable
  housing" as part of signifcant new housing developments. They also want to take the wind
  out of property investment by removing tax concessions. This sounds fairly reasonable to
  me. One policy at the end of the section that I really like is "Where environmentally
  appropriate, create a 'Natural and sustainable housing' permit framework to allow for tiny
  houses, off-grid houses, and houses built from natural methods".

* A job guarantee programme grabbing unemployed people to work on environmental projects.
  Sounds good, but possibly very tricky to implement effectively.

* Various policies to provide more responable planning decisions for property developments.

* They're keen on renationalising various public assets, particularly ports and airports.
  Sounds nice if the money was there, but at least acheiving this isn't the key basis for
  acheiving their other aims, as it is for some other parties.

* They want to try and get "a majority Australian-owned electric car company" going, which
  I love. Either way they want vehicle registration discounts for electric cars. They also
  want to better popularise public transport by lowering cost by 50% and improving services.
  That's more of a state issue though.

* Transition to zero waste through a focus on supporting re-sale and re-use as well as
  recycling, which is great.

* They're vaguely in favour of introducing "Swiss-style direct democracy with
  citizen-initiated referenda and plebiscites".

* The key issue of limiting population growth is the be implemented simply by capping
  immigration at 70,000 people per year, which is perfectly reasonable in my book. They
  also plan to "abolish the open borders Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement with New Zealand".
  They also aim to promote population stability globally with targeted foreign aid
  programmes to promote family planning particularly through female empowerment and
  education.

For what was once, and a heart possibly still is, a single-issue party, they really have
worked out a remarkably extensive set of policies, and have gaven me a hell of a job
getting thorugh a decent selection of them. It's not a 100% hit rate for me, but far
better than average. They're about the only party I've seen even mentioning putting
limits on population growth this election, so that attracts me to them on its own.
Their emissions targets aresn't backed by such radical energy/transport plans as some
other parties, though they intend a lower population to help with that as well and I'd
agree to some extent. Opposition to foreign ownership, the GPI instead of GDP, and a few
fun things like the electric car company, are all nice. I do doubt the effectiveness of
their guaranteed job programme, and they're not particularly focused of foreign policy
beyond the population issue, but they're one of my favourites overall.

---------------------------
Independent: James Bond
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjpT1qgdOlObdQhgzqG0aDQ

* To finish on a lighter note, one thing that we can all agree on is our dislike of that
  damn Spectre. Always trying to take over the world, and improperly storing dangerous
  explosives at their HQs so that they explode and make a huge mess whenever a British
  secret agent goes anywhere near them. So who could fail to get behind Victoria's new
  independent senate candidate: James Bond. Duh du duh, duh du duh, duh da du duh duh...
   https://www.youtube.com/embed/nV5yI2_HJi0

* Policy? Well it's secret of course. But we can be sure he'll get the baddies in the end,
  not to mention the girl, whoever she would be (oh please not Lambie!).

I don't think he'll win any comedy awards for this, but it's a lot more fun than you get
from anyone else at this election. Except for watching Scomo tackle children to the ground
of course. A sense of humor at least is a better quality than anything some candidates can
offer.

  - The Free Thinker