Politics, Poetry and Reviews

Tag: senate (Page 2 of 4)

Meet the Independents: Glen Floyd

It is time now to leave the world of sensible, reasonable politicians with pleasing policies, and wade cautiously into the ENTIRELY CAPITALISED world of Glenn Floyd, who bills himself as “THE-UNTOUCHABLE”, and starts his website with the following words of wisdom in large, friendly letters:

DER! – IT’S HOMELESSNESS STUPID!
IT’S HOMELESSNESS!
IT’S HOMELESSNESS!
IT’S HOMELESSNESS!

INDEPENDENT-VICTORIA, I REFUSE ALL DONATIONS, YOUR SENATE ‘CANNOT BE BOUGHT’ WITH THESE BRIBES!

Righty-ho then.  I think he might be equating homelessness with being untouchable, but I’m not sure whether he himself is homeless.  Or, actually, of what he means.  But he is obviously anti-corruption, and pro-transparency.  And also pro-capital letters.  Never have I seen a candidate who was so fond of his caps lock key.

Continue reading

Meet the Independents: Mark Francis Dickenson

Moving along as we approaching the Baltic Sea, we have Mark Dickenson, a candidate with both a GoFundMe page, a dubiously-titled Facebook page (Dicko for Senate is not the handle I would have chosen), and a rather strangely titled blog (is he a Terry Pratchet fan, perhaps?).  Clearly a man with a lot to say, and a slightly odd sense of humour.

Mr Dickenson has a press release about his campaign, titled ‘A political candidate with a social conscience‘, that begins as follows:

In an unprecedented step to regain voter confidence, an aspiring Senate candidate named Mark Dickenson is engaging the community as never before.

With a growing presence on social media and other media platforms, he actively engages his audience and is unafraid to answer the hard questions.

I’m not quite sure why I find this so hilarious, but it gives me a giggle every time I read it.  There is a certain grandiosity of language that reminds me of some of the more unfortunately-worded grant applications I have read at work.  But, hilarity aside, he does seem to want to do some good things, and there is a certain simplicity when he says ‘I’m one of you, not one of them [the politicians]’ that resonates with me even when I am tired and sarcastic.

Continue reading

New Senate Voting Rules

If your Facebook feed is anything like mine, you will have noticed a sudden and somewhat vicious outbreak of political warfare between the ALP and the Greens a month or two back.  While said outbreak covered a wide variety of contentious issues, the underlying cause appears to have been the new Senate Voting rules, which were voted in by the Coalition, the Greens, and a pyjama-clad Nick Xenophon, and opposed by the ALP, Bob Day (Family First, who has attempted to take this to Court), Ricky Muir (Motoring Enthusiast), David Leyonhjelm (LDP), Jackie Lambie, Glenn Lazarus and John Madigan.

The goal of this legislation is ostensibly to get rid of Group Voting Tickets and thus make it easier for people to direct their own preferences when they vote above the line, rather than having these directed by the party, often in directions unsuspected by the average voter.  Other goals attributed to the legislation include getting rid of microparties and independents, and making it easier for the government to get a majority in the Senate.  Whether or not the legislation will have any of these effects remains to be seen.

I’m going to discuss the Bill in detail below, but for those who want to cut to the chase, here is how you actually vote (paraphrased from sections 239 and 269 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act).

Above the Line: You can now number your political parties and grouped independents (but not solo independents) above the line!  Very exciting!  Your ballot paper will ask you to number at least six parties/groups above the line in order from 1-6, but you can do more, and you probably should if you don’t want your vote to exhaust.  However, since the government is aware that people don’t tend to read instructions and they don’t really want to have a huge number of informal votes, your vote will still be counted if you only put a ‘1’ in a single box above the line.  This just means that if your first preference doesn’t get up, your vote is ‘exhausted’, and there are no second or third preferences to count.  Voting ‘1’ only above the line will not mean that your vote then gets channelled down a list of parties determined by the party you put your vote beside – that is exactly what this Bill is meant to abolish.

However, voting above the line does still mean that the party you vote for decides which candidate gets first dibs on votes for that party, so if your party has decided to put someone loathsome at the top of their ticket, you might want to consider moving below the line.  Also, you are considered to have voted for *all* the candidates for the party you put first, then *all* the candidates for the one you put second, and so forth, in the order they appear on the party’s ticket.

Below the Line: This is now a much less risky choice than it used to be, because provided you successfully manage to count to twelve below the line, your vote will be counted.  Your ballot paper will ask you to number at least 12 candidates in order from 1-6, however once again, you can do more, and I would, once again, advise you to do so, so that your vote doesn’t exhaust.  Below the line is still the only way to vote for ungrouped independents, alas.

Oops, I voted Above and Below the Line: You enthusiastic thing, you!  Don’t worry, if only one of them is formal, they will count that.  If they are both formal, your below the line vote will be counted.

Honestly, while there are things this Bill could do better, this is pretty good as far as it goes.  My biggest issue with it is that a lot of votes are going to exhaust, leading to people not getting the full value of their vote if they only number 6 places above or 12 places below the line.  But I am definitely in favour of making it easier to vote formally below the line, as I know the huge numbers of candidates can be offputting and overwhelming.

So what about the rest of the Bill? Continue reading

Western Australian Senate Ungrouped Independent ~ Kim Mubarak

And so we come to our final candidate on the Western Australian ballot paper, and just in time, because from tonight, I’m going to be consumed with rehearsals until the big performance this weekend!  Actually, by the time you read this, it may well be nearly the weekend, because this post is going to be written in tiny bits as time permits – I apologise in advance for any lack of coherency that may result.

The first thing you should know about Kim Mubarak is that our friends from the Australian Protectionist Party want you to put him dead last on the ballot.  Since they want you to put either Teresa Lieshout or Rise Up Australia first on the ballot, I personally view this is a pretty big point in Mr Mubarak’s favour.

Of course, you can guess why they want you to put him last, can’t you?  They don’t say why, of course, but after listening to Ms Lieshout’s screed about asylum seekers, I’m pretty sure I can guess.  You see, our friend Mubarak is a Muslim man and a former refugee.  He is also black, which probably doesn’t help either.

Continue reading

Western Australian Senate Ungrouped Independent ~ Teresa van Lieshout

We now turn to the ungrouped candidates, commencing with Teresa van Lieshout (note that this page connects to a YouTube Channel, as this seems to represent Ms van Lieshout’s most current work).  Ms Van Lieshout is running as an independent, but is affiliated with the Australian Protectionist Party (I’m not sure if she is a current member, but they are encouraging their members to vote for her) and the West Australian Party (which seems to be inactive at this point).  She was briefly pre-selected as a candidate for the Palmer United Party, but parted ways with them over their stance on refugees, which she viewed as too lax.

Here’s a bit of autobiographical information from one of Ms Van Lieshout’s recent YouTube clips:

I’m an Australian born Christian Teacher, with a Master of Education, 17 years teaching experience, written and published 4 books of non-fiction literature, political candidate, the WA govt. is extorting and stealing what little wealth I have, to make me homeless, or jail me for my political and economic views; since 2008, they’ve wasted millions $$ tax money trying to destroy my life, and my family’s rights, liberal/labor/greens politicians are evil monsters, society must fight to get them out of our parliaments.

The law I follow is the law of the New Testament. We are living in the last days, in the time of the Book of Revelation, political made laws mean nothing and are made by evil corrupt greedy politicians to destroy our rights, interests, and freedoms. Christians will judge the world, so all concerned are in offence against me, the politicians are going to hell for their evil against me, my family, and our society.

Continue reading

Western Australian Senate Group Q ~ Australian Sports Party

I must admit, I’ve been quite looking forward to reading up on the Australian Sports Party, because ever since I heard that they had (possibly) won a Senate seat last year, I couldn’t help but wonder what sort of representation sport truly needed in Australia that it wasn’t already getting?  As a nation, we seem obsessed with sports  – though, admittedly, more with watching them than playing them.

Then, this morning, before I even had a chance to start looking at my blog for the day, my Facebook feed helpfully presented me with a petition about the Sports Party, which apparently likes to display topless women and make sexist jokes as part of their advertising.  Oh dear.  While I am, in fact, more disposed to be amused by this than offended by it, I have to admit, it’s pretty sad that a political party in this century could think that this would be a good way to get attention.  Do they honestly think this will lead to people taking them seriously?  And has it even occurred to them that this sort of advertising implicitly tells women ‘nope, you aren’t the people we are representing.  You are – if sufficiently attractive – the prize for the people we are representing’.

Aargh.  I’ve been trying not to do feminist rants on this blog, but seriously, Western Australia, some of your tiny political parties have issues.
(Oh, let’s be fair now.  Everyone’s tiny political parties have issues, regardless of where they originate.  That’s more or less what they are for…).

Anyway, let’s have a gander at who they are sending votes towards with their group voting ticket, shall we?

Continue reading

Western Australian Senate Group M ~ Mutual Party

We now turn to the Mutual Party, which tells me that “Australians are fed up with adversarial politics.  It runs against the Australian way of life – informality, give-and take, trust, working together, finding practical solutions. Mutuality.”  Further statements talk about the number of Australians involved in mutual organisations, sporting clubs, self-help groups, etc, and exhort Australians to take back their government!

This could go in just about any direction – though as a former volunteer and employee of an umbrella network for self-help / support groups, I do find their premises promising.  Let’s start by looking at their voting ticket.

The Mutual Party seems to be part of the little confederation of small parties that are new to me and that are preferencing each other, which I find mildly amusing.  Their first few preferences go to the two ungrouped independents, the Sustainable Population Party, and the Freedom and Prosperity Party (oh dear), followed by Australian Voice, Building Australia, the Australian Democrats, and Katter.  Rise Up Australia is worryingly high on their list, too.  They seem to be leaning mildly to the Right and a bit more definitely towards the libertarian end of the spectrum – several of the lefty libertarian groups are relatively high on their ticket, though I find the juxtaposition of the DLP right before HEMP fairly amusing.  Palmer comes in around 40,  and Family First makes it into the ticket at 50.  On the whole, large parties are not approved by this lot, and they prefer religious parties to parties like the Secular or Sex parties, and shooting parties to Animal Justice or the Greens.  The Liberal Party finally makes it onto the ticket at 60, followed immediately by the Nationals, the Socialists, Labor, and the Greens at lucky last.  The message I’m getting here is that the major parties are pretty much all alike, but God help us, let’s keep the Reds out for as long as we can.

The Greens being the Reds in this instance, of course.

As they so often are.

Let’s see what luscious and enticing policies the Mutual Party has to offer us…

Continue reading

Western Australia Senate Group I ~ Voluntary Euthanasia Party

Yeah, this is going to be a more serious one.

I’m not sure I know how to write about the Voluntary Euthanasia Party.  I feel pretty conflicted about the whole idea of euthanasia, to be honest, and I don’t quite know how I feel about a party that makes this their sole platform.  And honestly, it doesn’t really matter how I feel about it at this point, because I’m not the one voting, but it’s quite odd to write about something that I’m really not sure I have a coherent opinion about at all.

The VEP is quite a new party – they seem to have formed in around April 2013, and only contested in a handful of states – and their front page states:

The Voluntary Euthanasia Party was created to provide the choice and dignity that current legislation is denying terminally and incurably ill Australians. The party hopes to provide a clear political outlet for the overwhelming public support for voluntary euthanasia. Over four in five Australians are in favour of new legislation and we wish to allow that sentiment to be clearly demonstrated at the ballot box. The Voluntary Euthanasia Party aims to ensure dignity in the final years of life, by raising the profile of this issue in order to engender the necessary political will for change.

Four in five honestly seems really high to me on this one (they later quote 82% of Australians being in favour of allowing voluntary Euthanasia).  I’d love to see where they got their numbers from and what questions were actually asked, because I would think that the combination of conservative religious people and people who are just kind of repelled by the idea would add up to more than 20%, even if you don’t count the terminally confused, such as myself.  But perhaps I just haven’t been paying attention to this issue sufficiently.

~~~~~~~~

OK, I’ve just went to their Facebook Page, followed a link, and spent twenty minutes reading horrifying stories of insufficient palliative care and I’m beginning to get an idea of where these numbers come from.  It’s fascinating, though, that an issue with so much community support gets so little time in the media and in politics – and of course, that is one of the things that the VEP is trying to change.

Continue reading

Western Australian Senate Group H ~ Freedom and Prosperity Party

Freedom and Prosperity.  We all love those, don’t we?  How could any rational person ever vote against such magnificent things as freedom and prosperity?

OK, I’m sorry, but I just *cannot* read a party name like that without being possessed with a spirit of cynicism.  And when I click through to their page and discover that the Freedom and Prosperity Party are apparently the re-named Climate Sceptics Party, well, I’m not sure that there’s much more to say.  Except, hooray, I don’t have to write about these idiots after all.

Which, in some ways, is rather a pity, because their tag line now reads “The Australian Climate Sceptics – Exposing the flaws in the greatest hoax inflicted on the human race.”

This is an invitation to sarcasm if ever I heard one.

Continue reading

Western Australian Senate Group C: Russell Woolf and Verity James

It’s their ABC.  And our ABC.  And so it should be.  Russell Woolf and Verity James are Australian radio and TV personalities who are concerned that the ABC is under attack from the current government and have therefore joined forces to see if they can get it some representation in Canberra.  So far, so good.

Their Group Voting ticket seems to be skewed towards all the tiny parties I’ve never heard of, making it difficult to analyse at a glance!  They give their first few spots to the Voluntary Euthanasia Party, the Sports Party and the Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party, before funnelling their vote to Labor in the person of Louise Pratt.  (My Oma always did say that the ABC were a bunch of Reds…).  The Greens get next billing, for whatever good that is likely to do them, and then we get two carefully selected Liberals, David Johnston and Michaela Cash, but not the other two.  Their ticket then meanders through a number of smallish, vaguely libertarian parties, though it does avoid the more loopy ones as well as all the religious ones.  The bottom of their ticket is held, interestingly, by Family First, The Australian Voice and the Liberal Democrats, as well as the dodgily-named Freedom and Prosperity Party and Stop the Greens.  The Socialists, incidentally, are at 50 and 51 out of 77, so my Oma wasn’t 100% right about the ABC’s coloration.

Continue reading

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2025 Cate Speaks

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑