The 2025 Federal Election is nearly, finally, upon us. If you've come across this blog post, you've likely already seen my less subjective 'guide' to the parties running for the election. If you somehow have managed to get here without doing so, check it out here. This post is not meant to have even a nuance of objectivity; rather, these are my full thoughts on each and every party. This is the first time I've done an overview like this, I normally have stuck to the aforementioned guides in the past, so let me know your thoughts. I'll be looking at a lot here, from policies to logos to how annoyed their websites made me when trying to figure out their policies, so sit back and enjoy my review of the parties contesting the 2025 Federal Election.
Each review will end with a rating for each party's vibe (how much I personally 'vibe' with them), their aesthetics (looking at logo and colours), and their website. In addition, I will be predicting how each party will go in the election, as I tend to find no one else really does predictions this low on the card.
Animal Justice Party
Incredibly Intense Animal Lovers
Always first on these lists due to the alphabet, Animal Justice is a doozy to start off with. I've heard them called hyper-vegans, animal-marxists, and a variety of pejoratives that essentially describe the same thing, a hard-left single issue party. And when I say single issue, I mean it, unlike some other 'single-issue' parties on this list who embody the term but not the spirit, AJP makes Animal Justice the heart of everything they discuss.
They're not shy about it either. The party is very upfront regarding their desire to put an end to animal use entirely, looking to end everything from greyhound and horse racing to the consumption of animal meat. And on one side, I admire the confidence to be fully dedicated and out there with their policies, integrity in belief can be a major thing for a minor party looking to build up a base. But at the same time, it does make the target audience for AJP quite small, atleast for people who read their policies. If you read into their policies, their one on Animal Agriculture explicitly states that their number one aim is to "Abolish all farming of animals", which, I suspect, is a rather fringe view in Australia. However, for most people, their more prominent policies like Veticare and the banning of live exports will be eye-catching, and for most who don't delve deeply into policy, that might be enough to get them preferences. They've done well in WA for instance, snagging a seat on the Legislative Council when many thought they would not, so I don't see why their gradual growth can't continue.
All that being said, my love of meat means that AJP is not the party for me. I love animals, and I can respect the dedication to the cause, but they're not my cup of tea. What is my cup of tea is both their logo and their site. Maybe this is a controversial opinion, but using animal tracks to make up a silhouette of Australia is both interesting and fun. I also enjoy their party colours. Their website is also just excellent, they've got policies and policy details for days, to the point where I'm even abit overwhelmed (which I do think could be a problem trying to connect to most voters, but I digress). They've also got their candidates in an easy-to-find and search-through place, you'd be shocked how hard some parties make it, so bonus points for that. There's not much I can say bad about their site, it works well and makes my life far easier.
Vibe: 6/10
Aesthetics: 9/10
Website: 10/10
Prediction: The Animal Justice Party is in a good place right now. They've been growing slowly but surely over the last decade, and now have an MLC in NSW, Victoria, and WA, while also gaining at every federal election. While I don't think they won't see major growth at this election, they represent a niche rather than a specific side of politics, it is not impossible that they break past 2% of the national vote (in the senate) this time round. They won't win any seats, but they'll keep going up.
Australian Christians
Bible Bashers in the form of a political party
First things first, I am not a Christian, so immediately, I am not the target audience for this party. Before the WA election, I'd also assumed that most people aren't either, as a fundamental Christian party feels very out of touch with modern Australia. But, they got a seat in the Legislative Council, so there must be something there...right?
Well, some of their policies are on the basic side, like introducing income-splitting (a favourite of many parties this election), removing stamp duty for first home buyers, or even supporting context-based sentencing for young offenders. Quite quickly, though, you get into the things you expect from a party like this, including being anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, and anti-LGBTQIA+. They also oppose vaccine mandates and want to enforce the teaching of Judeo-Christian values in schools, because of course. Its horrible, but with a name like Australian Christians, these policies may as well be engraved on the tin. There's also a bit on supporting live animal exports, which I can only assume is a dig at the Greens/AJP. All of this is to be expected, though, but this isn't the end of it. They want to legislate an IP filter on all devices in Australia to block kids from viewing explicit material at school or even at home. It gets even wilder, though. They want to create a Special Assistance Visa Category for persecuted Christians. Sure, that policy haphazardly throws in a part about other minorities, but its very clearly about bringing in Christians they believe are being persecuted. Not much to say on this besides that its bonkers, and somehow a policy by a party in 2025.
If it isn't clear, I do not vibe with the Australian Christians at all. I also don't vibe with their logo, which I assume is an awkward attempt at doing the Icthys (Jesus Fish) symbol but using their initials? Their yellow is fine, even if I think too many parties use yellow these days. What isn't fine is their website, which is mostly based on scrolling down long webpages, rather than fitting things into subpages or drop-down boxes (like, they aren't using blogger, they can do abit more). Most offensive is their policy page, which has two versions of the exact same things stuffed into one page. The first is a weird box-click bit with 10 policy categories, which you can also scroll through for some reason. A few of them also have a button saying 'More', but when you click it you just get sent down the same page, like 10cm. The second version is just a basic drop-down menu that gives you the exact same information but in a worse way on your eyes (white on black is far better than light grey on yellow). I don't know why two of the same thing exist in different ways on the same page, but its there and I hate it.
Vibe: 1/10
Aesthetic: 4/10
Website: 2/10
Prediction: A surprise winner in WA's state election, I am not certain that success will translate nationally. Besides the fact they're only running in WA, and having a small go at NSW's sentate, which will obviously limit any success, they're competing with a surplus of active right-wing parties. If we're looking at WA specifically, they may hit closer to 3%, but even if this gets them near the quota, its more likely that the final/6th seat goes to One Nation or Legalise Cannabis. They'll see growth, but not enough to gain anything concrete.
Australian Citizens Party
Wait, someone still believes in La Rouchism in 2025?
I need to start by getting the elephant out of the way. I am not certain these guys are La Rouchists. I think I saw somewhere that they moved away from his ideology recently, but I cannot tell. In any case, their website still glorifies their anti-environmentalist past and, while its toned down, still has books on conspiracies for sales, both of which make me believe any move away was simply in name only.
Their policies are, on the surface, enticing to many. Their against AUKUS, pro-nuclear, pro-republic, want to kill Coles/Woolies, want a public bank through Australia post, and oppose Israel. Alot of these wouldn't seem out of place in a left-wing parties policy platform. Even things like abolishing negative gearing, establishing a whistleblower commission, and banning corporate donations can get the ears perking. But you have to read between the lines. They want to reiterate the One China policy with no decleration of supporting Taiwan (the socialist parties want better relations with China but atleast note that they also support Taiwan for instance), that is why they're against AUKUS. They want to ban corporate donations, and include unions in this ban, while also not including a limit on personal donations which could still be horrific. There is plenty of these little hints that make my gut super suspicious of the party still. And that includes what they don't say. Their environmental policy includes being pro-nuclear, but scarcely makes mention of renewables except to say we should treat nuclear as one. When combined with still having glorification of an anti-environmentalist past, this silence is incredibly suspicious. The biggest red flag, in my opinion, is their policy of wanting a Royal Commission into the Covid-19 response. This is a standard policy of far-right/right parties, and is a major dogwhistle for Covid denialism.
All of that combines to simply mean that I do not trust the ACP. Some of their policies are interesting and perhaps even good, but it all feels like a thin veneer over what the party really wants. Looking at their logo, its okay, I think its incredibly outdated though. Something which is objectively outdated is their site. It looks like a 2000s conspiracy site, complete with poorly formatted mentions of conventions, badly taken photos, and random books it tries to sell you or pdfs it wants you to download. Lets say my gut feeling is off, these guys are doing themselves no favours by having their site look like something you'd accidentally stumble upon while browsing the Wikipedia citations for Graham Hancock.
As an aside, I am certain their Wikipedia page was made with AI. Sentences like "The ACP’s limited electoral success may stem from its fringe positions, such as climate change denial, which contrast with mainstream Australian politics. Its association with the LaRouche movement and historical controversies may also limit its appeal to the general voterbase" exist, which screams ChatGPT to me. Maybe I'm off here as well, but I am so sure that someone's used ChatGPT to redo the party's page.
Vibe: 3/10
Aesthetics: 2/10
Website: 1/10
Prediction: The party's attempts at obscuring its past (and current) ideology may help it in some ways, as there is only so much people like myself can do to combat that, and I know that some people in my life who should've known better were drawn in by the allure of some of their policies. I don't think they'll gain much from it, and since they are one of the most obscure parties in this election, it isn't likely they'll see major growth. ACP will probably sit between .10% - .30% of the national vote.
Australian Democrats
The ghost of the centre-left
Perhaps the party that originally defined the notion of being a true 'third' party, the Australian Democrats, are a shell of what they once were. Their policies aren't the worst; we'll get into those soon enough, but their existence at this point baffles the mind in the same way that the continued existence of the Democratic Labour Party does. I'm not against parties trying, if they genuinely believe that they offer an alternative that hasn't or isn't being explored, but the heyday of the Democrats has long passed, and they exist as only the most minor of parties.
Now, their policy list is actually decent. While it won't knock the socks off of anyone to the left and far-left, were this a new party coming in us politics-nerds would probably suggest that they could serve the centre-left which lies between Labor and the Greens. Their policies include everything from raising income support and the minimum wage, to removing fossil fuel subsidies and ending new coal/gas projects, to establishing a bill of rights and becoming a republic. These are bread and butter policies for much of the Left, and yet they also aren't all prevelant in Labor for instance, while at the same time many of these lack the ambition (what some may call overambition) of the Greens. Perhaps their most ambitious goals include transitioning Australia's aviation industry to hydrogen/electric propulsion by 2040, something that not even the tech-forward Fusion party propose, and using AI to detect potential predators interacting with children. These are abit out of left-field, and don't really align with the centre-left vibe that the rest of the party's platform is. Rather, they stand out like a sore-thumb, and really don't do anything beyond confuse the small base of voters the Democrats can target, like some abortive attempt at being a technology-based party.
All in all, the Democrats are the centre-left party of the past. Their continued survival is impressive, but their policies are perhaps too 'average' for most voters who know enough to know that they still exist. In terms of their logo - this is possibly a hottake but here goes - I still very much like it. It's a classic design, backed by some easy on the eye colours that are easily understood as 'Australian'. Their website is showing its age at this point, with some of the formatting seeming quite outdated, but their policy list was easy enough to navigate through and their polices were, for the most part, detailed enough. Much like their policies proper, not much to complain about but also not enough to really write home for either.
Vibe: 7/10
Aesthetics: 7/10
Website: 6/10
Prediction: The Democrats exist in such a weird place that it is difficult to predict where they'll go next. They've been, very slowly, increasing their vote share from 2016 when they were deregistered, but who knows where their limit will be. Some on the Centre-Left might see them as an opportunity to vote for something that isn't Labor or the Greens first, so its possible they still gain some votes this election. Expect a maximum of 0.5% nation-wide from the Democrats, and not a cent more.
Australian Greens
What the Murdoch Media believes Communism is
Its interesting to think that there is a possibility, not a certainty but a possibility nonetheless, that all of us will soon have to stop calling the Greens a minor party. Even nowadays it feels wrong to call a party with balance of power in the senate, seats in the lower house, and a vote sharing nearing half that of the majors a 'minor' party. But nonetheless, here it is, because unless the Greens can keep up momentum, it is always possible they'll backslide. It happened to Lang Labor, to the DLP, to the Democrats. But maybe the Greens are different. Maybe this election is different.
Often times you'll hear it said that the Greens have no policies, just aspirations. I'm here to say that is wrong, as until I cut down, the Greens looked like they may end up taking over 5 pages on my election guide, when scarcely any other party besides the socialist ones were going past 3. There are too many policies to talk about in this review, that's what the guides for, but I'll be upfront in saying that many of the Greens policies are ones that I support. Things like increasing Youth Allowance payments, fighting wealth inequality in ways that aren't just income tax changes, and net-zero quicker than the major parties are all excellent policies. And there are plenty more for people who are on the Left. There are some I disagree with, such as the sheer amount of offices and departments the Greens wish to establish, which, by themselves, seem like good ideas but together seem far too many. And I know for a fact that their establishment of a military policy this election has turned some off some of those in the far-left, who see it as the Greens simply sliding into an establishment position and shedding their left-wing credentials. Whether that is true is up to you to decide, but I know its a position I've seen from some on the left. All of this is to say that the Greens policies are ambitious, but they are there, they are detailed, and they are plentiful. Whether they are good policies comes down to how left-wing you are, because, as I say in the tagline, these guys seem like the new communists on the block to many.
I will say though, that I do not care for their logo. Yes, its clean and modern, but a triangle with their party name inside it is about as inspiring as a startup tech companies logo which is destined to fail in the next year. Their colour is nice though, it obviously fits their brand and their version of green does separate them quite well from the Nationals. And their website is exceptional, perhaps the best in this election. Its easy to use, incredibly detailed, and well-made. No complaints here.
Vibe: 9/10
Aesthetics: 6/10
Website: 10/10
Prediction: Well, here's probably the hardest prediction I'll have to make on this review. Where will the Greens end up? Senate-wise, I think balance of power is easily secured for them, though I don't think they'll see their senate seats increase this election. The House is where things get very spicy though. It seems likely that the Greens will lose atleast a couple of there seats there. And I can't disagree, it is almost certain they'll lose atleast one seat in Queensland. However, I also think they may gain a seat or two, either in Victoria, or, and this is my dark horse prediction, in the electorate of Sturt in SA. Also, expect them to end up above 13% of the vote, and don't be shocked if they hit 14%.
Australia's Voice
The Party for Australia's Sigmas
What is up my sigma's, here we have one of two parties this election created by a sitting senator (I promise this is the last time I'll bring up the speech). To make a long story short, Australia's Voice is led by Fatima Payman, an ex-Labor senator who, in 2024, broke ranks with the Labor party over the Israel-Palestine conflict, initially undertaking a speech supporting Palestinean independence and ending by crossing the floor to vote against the Labor government/Liberal opposition to support Australian recognition of Palestinean statehood. This break would lead to Payman leaving the Labor party to stand as an independent senator after significant controversy, and in turn would end with her forming Australia's Voice as a party. All of this is to say that one would expect her party to lean on the more ambitious side of the Left.
The party's policies, however, do not really follow through with this line of thought. That is not to say they are bad, the party's policies hit all the standard left-leaning boxes, such as increasing jobseeker, reforming the HECS system, reducing the Capital Gains Tax Discount, and even touch on some areas you'd expect from Payman's brand, such as being pro-Palestine and wanting to end AUKUS. There are even some parts that extend into the areas that socialists want, such as introducing a Public Bank (though, this is also a favourite policy of the right this election too). But that is where the policies end. Such a small policy list fails to really excite the mind, and really limits the potential of the party. Perhaps the thing that'll turn most people who might vote for Australia's Voice off is the lack of any proper energy or climate policies (besides wanting a gas reserve). The policy page for Climate Change contains only platitudes, no policies, and not even a mention towards when the party would envision something like Net Zero to occur (a staple for every other party on the left). Such a lack of Climate policies will not help the perception of Payman regarding the issue, specifically since her sinking of the Albanese government's environmental reform bills. This is, to be blunt, incredibly disappointing. The party's policies set themselves up as a potential alternative for left-wing voters looking for something besides the Greens or Socialist parties, however, there is no follow-up. In what will become a running theme of criticism in these reviews, their lack of policy depth limits them from really being appealing, and limits the people who will find themselves attracted to the party, as it ultimately fails to differentiate itself from the other parties on its side of politics.
All of this is to say that, Australia's Voice fails at the starting point. It has potential, and perhaps since Senator Payman still has an election cycle to go, that potential isn't at risk this election, but without some significant work, Australia's Voice is dead in the water.
In terms of logo, I'm biased because I like the colour, but the minimalist speech bubble and AV initials make it seem more like a consulting or even government agency than a political party. Its not terrible, its just not good, and if you want to see a good way to do this type of logo, check out the Australian Democrats. That being said I do still like the colours of the party, and the website, befitting of a party seemingly aimed at younger people, is well-done. The policies (or lack thereof) are easy to find and go through (besides them being under a tab titled 'What We Stand For' rather than 'Policies'), and the candidate pages are accessible in a neatly organised home page. At the very least in the end, they make everything easy to find, even if, much like their policies, their logo doesn't stand out.
Vibe: 7/10
Aesthetics: 5/10
Website: 9/10
Prediction: With the relative dearth of left-wing parties compared to 2022, and, anecdotally, the fact that some socialists in states without socialist parties feel better served by Voice than the Greens (a combination of Payman's increased focus on Palestine and a dislike of the Greens taking on a military policy) it is possible that Australia's Voice sees some success. And by that, I mean not the lows that parties like TNL saw in 2022. Expect around 0.3% of the national vote going towards these guys, maybe closer to 0.5% if they get lucky.
FUSION | Planet Rescue | Whistleblower Protection | Innovation
A Mixed Bag aiming, inexplicably, for the centre
I must start this review by stating my personal connection with FUSION. I volunteered for the party in the 2022 federal election, and did so because, at the time, I genuinely believed their policies served the best interests of myself and Australians. Various issues, which will appear throughout this review, have led me to no longer support FUSION.
With that out of the way, FUSION is a party made up of smaller parties. Initially, including the Pirate Party, Science Party, Secular Party, and Vote Planet, the party formed as an environmentalist, science-focused, pro-freedoms party. More recently, the party has allied with the Australian Progressives, a de-registered left-wing party turned centre, and Democracy First, a political group led by Vern Hughes. I don't want to go too deep into this issue, but Vern's association is perhaps FUSION's biggest downfall. As a serial party hopper and diehard supporter of right-wing social issues (including a massive dislike for immigration), Hughes has been a part of the Democratic Labour Party, the Australian Voice Party (not the same as above), and the Australian Federation Party, and formed Democracy First as the Conservative Party initially. Now, as much as I've been told Hughes is a changed man, the fact that right-wing dogwhistles such as the "removal of ideological zealotry in the humanities" or "a cumbersome and inorganic ‘multiculturalism'" still exist in the party's charter is telling that he is not (so to is the fact he literally states the charter is "an outline of our philosophy of sensible conservatism"). However, I don't want to spend this entire review ragging on Vern Hughes, so we'll move on.
FUSION's policies, on the face of it, are quite left-wing. They support UBI, free childcare, Net-Zero by 2035, the introduction of mental/dental healthcare onto Medicare, euthanasia, and cannabis legalisation, all policies you'd find within the Left, floating around the Greens. The party also wants a bill of rights, to lower the voting age to 16, and wants a Royal Commission into Australia's news media. all of this is to say that, on the surface level, much of their policies are still on the Left. However, some of their other policies can set off alarms. Their policy to remove all laws against speech is certain to have many on the Left giving them a side-eye. Other policies, especially those around Housing and Energy, are beyond aspirational. In energy, the FUSION policy stands at increasing renewable energy production to 800% of Australia's needs, to make Australia an energy exporter, and also pushes for nuclear fusion (not fission) as well as other 'sci-fi' technologies to help solve the climate crisis. This isn't terrible, mind you there are far worse climate policies out there, but the aspiration leans abit too much into dreaming at times. Furthermore, their Housing policies are abit out there. While the area isn't my strong suit, the policy webpage is nearly impossible to get through, and reads far more like a personal project than a finalised policy plan. All of this is to say that FUSION policies, on their surface, aren't terrible. However, their story doesn't end here.
FUSION has been one of the parties most plagued by issues this election period. From controversies over the use of AI Art on their webpages (which led to a rather lacklustre response written up by a key candidate), to HTV card controversies aplenty (this site does a good job at explaining it), it seems issues just keep appearing for them. Most important for this review though, is the 6News interview done by Miles Whiticker, which realises shows that policies aren't always the whole story. In the interview, Whiticker claimed FUSION did not have central values, that it was neither Left nor Right, and that it wanted to try and compromise across the isles to find solutions. This, alongside the alliance with Vern Hughes and candidates attacking the Greens while preferencing parties like the Libertarians (who don't believe Climate Change is real) or Family First (who believe gay marriage should be revoked) high, demonstrates a marked shift to the centre for the party. FUSION, in my opinion, did have values, and it did stand on one side once. Now, it doesn't, and many of its candidates are happy to work with parties antithetical to some of FUSION's core policies.
Rounding that all up, lets look at FUSION's aesthetics. Now, purple, pink, and blue are some of my favourite colours, so FUSION instantly wins for that. Their logo, while abit too 'tech-company' for me, is still pleasing to the eye and identifiable, so it works well. Their website would be near perfect too - it does its pages well, it has good colours and text sizes, and is easily navigable - if it didn't contain the AI Art, which I find to be both an eyesore and completely soulless. Their policies are detailed (and besides the Housing policy neat and to the point), easy to find. Same goes for their candidates. All in all, quite a good look.
Vibe: 5/10
Aesthetics: 9/10
Website: 7/10
Prediction: FUSION's luck could go one of two ways. Either, it's compromise strategy could get it voters from a wide umbrella, increasing its voterbase and knowledge of the party, or it could alienate 'core' members while failing to entice those on the right. While I can't be certain which it is (I lean to the latter), what I do know from experience is that FUSION did best when it had volunteers at booths. If FUSION's changes alienate active volunteers, this could be a large wound for the party. All of that being said, I expect stagnation in regards to the party's vote share, taking 0.20%-0.40% in the senate and maybe 0.10% in the House.
Family First Party Australia
Did you know Lyle Shelton was being sued by two 'drag queens'?
Where to even begin with Family First? Atleast with the Australian Christians they try to keep a thin veneer to hide their true goals (Steve Klomp on 6New's minor party debate was a prime example of this, as he did everything in his power to obscure the party's core and more controversial policies). But with Family First, their abhorrent nature is on full display. As a quick note on their history, Family First was initially created by Assemblies of God (a group of Pentecostal denominations) pastor Andrew Evans, who was elected to SA's Legislative Council in 2002, and has since seen notable members elected to the same LC such as Steve Fielding, and to the senate with the infamous Bob Day. Day would end up being forced to resign due to financial difficulties, and that would lead to the original Family First being absorbed by Cory Bernardi's Australian Conservatives. This new iteration of Family First has been revived by a few people, most notably, the man I probably have the most opposite political views in Australia too, Lyle Shelton. There's a lot to say about Lyle, but most prominent is that he wants to reverse the legalisation of gay marriage in the year 2025. He is adamant about this by the way, as made obvious in the NSW minor party debate (in doing so he also massively screwed over Family First's SA candidate, Frederick Brohier, who spent the entirety of the SA minor party debate stating that no one wants to do what Lyle Shelton does). Just to be abundantly clear, I want to state that I find Lyle's stance plain horrible, and that a lot of his policies don't really matter, because, just like the Australian Citizen's Party, there is a fundamental ideology spurring this on that many of the policies simply serve to hide.
To start, Family First are against net-zero, want to pull out of the Paris Climate accords, and support nuclear and coal-fired energy. Already ranking very low on my list. It gets worse though as they're against the Human Rights Commission, think the Covid-19 pandemic was sketchy, and push for weird tax incentives designed literally to get people to just push out as many kids as possible. Somehow, it gets even worse than this. They want to abolish diversity training in, and I quote their site here, "woke corporations" and also want to abolish the use of preferred pronouns in email signature blocks of public servants. Like, talk about the most inane culture war policies ever. But the real horrific icing on this terrible cake is their anti-LGBTQIA+ policies. They don't support transitioning for minors, which is just a dogwhistle for them to say they don't support transitioning at all, they want to legislate the right of schools to hire staff based on religion, and make it an offence to fire them due to their beliefs (aka, a dogwhistle implying that schools couldn't fire teachers who are homophobic), and sincerely believe that "LGBTQIA+ gender fluid ideology" has taken over our schools and must be removed (they also want to restore the 'primacy' of Western civilization and Australian achievement in history teaching as well). Just to add another cherry on top of all this, they want to pause only the migration of Muslims to Australia as per their site, and are against abortion and euthanasia while being for guns. Literally the only policy here that I can even agree with is their want to phase out poker machines, but even then I know they only want to do that due to Christian values surrounding temperance and gambling as a sin. All of this is to say that they have the policies one might expect an American church mega-pastor to have, and so if you don't align with that, you won't align with them at all.
Moving to their party looks, their colours aren't terrible, just a sort of bland blue and orangy-red. Their logo isn't bad either, but it is incredibly dated and reads far more like the logo of an old GP than a political party in the 2020s. If I had to place an era, it probably would have been cutting edge back in the 1980s. Their website, compared to all of this, is shockingly decent. Their policies are easy enough to find, as are their candidates, and while they are all on one page each just as dotpoints or in tables, that is more readable and accessible than many other sites. Their amount of policies is decent too, nothing outstanding in terms of quantity or detail, but I know what they stand for based on their list atleast.
Vibe: 0/10
Aesthetics: 4/10
Website: 7/10
Predictions: Trying to predict where Family First will end up is difficult. They weren't around in the last two elections, and politics has somewhat moved past them. Despite this though, their name is known, and the values they represent are supported by some in our society. Looking at the field they're contending with, they'll probably slot into a comfortable spot for a revived party. Nothing above 1%, but also not completely forgotten. Expect something below 0.5% nationally, but don't be shocked if it is abit higher.
Gerard Rennick People First
The illusion of a united Right, spawned from the wounds of the Liberals
People First is, on the surface, a very interesting party to consider. Led by a sitting senator with highly controversial views who formed the party after leaving one of the majors, it seems very much the right-wing equivalent to Fatima Payman's Australia's Voice. However, it is there where the similarities end. AV is not presenting itself as a player in a potential unification of one side of politics, and it has set its targets small this election, with the senate being the goal. People First, on the other hand, is deeply embedded in the war that's being held for the 'soul' of the Right. It, alongside the Liberals, One Nation, Trumpet of Patriots, and many more are struggling to represent a fractured right-wing, and considering Rennick's group voting alliance with the HEART party and Great Australian Party, one must keep this in mind. Furthermore, Rennick's resignation from the Liberals is quite a different circumstance to Payman's. Payman left due to ideological differences in which she took a principled stand in the vote regarding a heated topic. Rennick left due to losing his pre-selection bid for this year's election. Perhaps the biggest difference though is the size of their campaigns. People First is not a Senate-only party, it has lower house candidates in all three of the eastern states, making it clear that Rennick is gunning for a high-risk, high-reward strategy. Whether it'll pay off is not too hard to tell.
Policy-wise, Rennick securely fits in with this right-wing populist trend of thought that exists throughout the Anglosphere. While he isn't a full-on Trump imitator, it gets close at times. He has too many policies to explain here, but I did want to hit on some high-...more likely low-lights. Firstly, he wants to raise the tax-free income threshold to $40,000, reinstate a public bank, and introduce a Government Insurance Office and Infrastructure Bank while also removing payroll tax, franking credits, making superannuation voluntary, and lowering the Corporate Tax Rate to 25%. Now, there's a lot of things to dislike there, but a lot that might appeal to some, and its very clear to me that Rennick's big ideas, beyond culture war, really stick in the economic side of things. His culture war stuff is made of nightmares though. He wants to establish voter ID, reduce pre-poll voting to only 3 days, and abolish the 'departments' of Climate Change and Multiculturalism. While occasionally he'll hit on some interesting ideas, like reducing the funding threshold for parties to 1% of votes received in an electorate/state or banning all paid political lobbying, his nightmare ideas appear far more often, such as his (and other parties) endless obsession with opposing vaccine mandates. Quickfire round of these other horrible policies including wanting to leave the WHO, to deport 75,000 immigrants and cap immigration at 100,000 people from countries with views 'compatible' with Australia, to abolish the national curriculum leaving it up to states and schools to decide what is taught, and removing all use of Welcome to Country and Acknowledgement of Country practice. All of these are just plain bad, and I could not think of voting for this party in the slightest. There is worse though, as Gerard Rennick literally does not believe in Climate Change. So, his policies include no net-zero, abolishing all subsidies for renewable energy while funding coal, gas, nuclear, and hydro powerplants (wait, isn't hydrogen classically considered a renewable energy source Gerard?), and actually placing a 10% royalty on the sale of renewable energy to retailers (5% higher than the royalty he wants to put on offshore gas for instance). He hates renewables so much, that he doesn't just want to revert to the classic dogwhistle of 'let the free market (and sneaky subsidies) decide'. No, he actually wants to fund near coal plants while charging the production of renewable energy. Insane behaviour. On the funny side atleast he, for some reason, wants to "repatriate" Australia's gold from the Bank of England, so I guess he actually might just be a little insane.
Looking at People First's logo, I unironically like it. The shapes are smooth, its identifiable at a distance, and it has an identity to it. Its one of the better ones to come out in recent years, which is shocking when you consider whose party its for. The colours are abit basic, essentially using a very similar blue to the Liberal party, but that makes sense when you consider the party's origins. Their website is also one of the best throughout this election, with detailed, easy to find and use policy subpages and candidate pages. It is astounding to me that Gerard Rennick of all people can get it right, and honestly the fact that he meets the bar for what a party's website should be in 2025 means that the parties who don't are even more disappointing in my view.
Vibe: 1/10
Aesthetics: 8/10
Website: 9/10
Prediction: Rennick's put a lot of work into this party, and the party itself seems to have dedication throughout it, however, I don't see where Rennick can really look to gain seats. The Liberal party isn't dead yet, nowhere near it, and One Nation is the party gaining the most from those on the Right who find the LNP to no longer represent them. Even in terms of Trumpian politics, the Trumpet of Patriots has the name brand and money behind it to outdo People First. Expect People First than to end up in a similar place like the many left-wing minor parties last election, with less than 0.30% of the overall vote. No seats are to be had here, and even Rennick will be in for the fight of his life (I suspect a fight which he is likely to lose).
HEART (Health, Environment, Accountability, Rights and Transparency) Party
Anti-Vax, Conspiracy Theorists
I'll be honest, I've thought long and hard about what there is to say about this party. With the others, I can atleast 'understand' the mindset which goes behind them and their voters, even if I massively disagree with them. HEART, on the other hand, is just a souless grift made to try and capitalise on conspiracy theories, and that's a generous summation on my part because if their leaders are genuine, I worry.
The long and short of HEART is that they were, back in 2016, known as the Involuntary Medication Objectors (Vaccination/Flouride). Simply put, they were conspiracy theorists who were everything you think when you describe that label, and even when they attempted to rebrand to the Informed Medical Opinions Party in a lame attempt to hide their true colours, those colours shone through. They were a big part of the anti-vax movement during the Pandemic, and are led by Michael O'Niell, the husband of barred medical practitioner Barbara O'Neill. They went through a weird merger in 2023 with the Health Australia Party which led to the new name, and nearly led to them being deregistered in time for this election, but we couldn't be so lucky, now could we?
Their policies are super easy to detail, because they suck. They talk about opposing smart cities, safety reviews into 5G and geoengineering, removing fluoride from tap water, and leaving the UN and WHO, all sustained by reasons you'd find on r/conspiracy. Most obviously, they're against vaccines, and a royal commission into not only the Pandemic, but vaccine harm as a concept. There's a few more things they have, like decriminalising cannabis or ending factory farming, but these are also only sustained by conspiracy theory logic, so its not like they can even be described as a saving grace. Not much more to say here, these guys suck.
Their logo is fine, it seems more like a healthcare logo, which I assume was their plan, than a political one. Purple and Yellow are nice colours, so I guess I have to give something there. Their website seems fine, but there are these quirks that make it clear that not enough effort or thought was put in. Their policies, for instance, seem easy to find, until you realise they have both a subpage and dotpoints on the main page for every policy. And there is no difference between those two versions. I don't know who needs to hear this, but in 2025, stop making two versions of your policy list on one site, it only serves to muddle your message and confuse people. One of the most annoying things isn't even their policies specifically. Its that, when you click on a specifically on policy platform and look at the google tab associated with it, it still says it's an Informed Medical Options Party policy, y'know, the party name they used to have (and have since tired to hide away, as their mention of it on their summary only uses the acronym IMOP, not the full name).
Vibe: 0/10
Aesthetics: 5/10
Website: 5/10
Prediction: I want to predict that these guys will get 0 votes, but considering the fact that RFK Jr. sits in the white house as I write this post, that is obviously not going to happen. They got 0.3% in the senate last time, and I suspect that they might get similar this time, though with the Pandemic not on as many people's minds these days it is also likely they'll end up with less votes.
Indigenous - Aboriginal Party of Australia
An interesting concept done poorly
There's not too much I can say about these guys. They're completely out of my political sphere, as in, I am in tune with nearly every other party but know little about these guys besides their short policy listings. They seem genuine, with photos and write-ups on their site that say more, normal human-made than politician-made, but that's the most I could really get. Their concept is interesting, a party for the Indigenous people of Australia, and has precedents around the world, but I think their execution is lacking (that being said, they did finish with nearly 0.5% of the vote, so maybe they know more than me).
As I said, their policy list is lacking. The name would initially suggest an Indigenous 'nationalist' party, but their policies do not fit that concept. They're mostly about changing or removing current policies that disproportionately affect Indigenous Australians, such as juvenile detention laws, the polluting of rivers (and ending industries like cotton farming) and establishing a treaty between the Australian government and Indigenous Australians. It's pretty straightforward, and mostly fits the policies you'll find Labor and Liberal arguing over but often either not doing, or sometimes doing quite poorly on.
Their logo is one of the coolest, I will admit, I love the use of Indigenous dot painting as a logo. Their colours are abit all over the shop, so there's not much I can say there. On the other hand, their website is trash. It feels very 2000s internet, but without the knowledge or effort put into making it clean and usable. Text boxes have different background colours from the pages they are on (most noticeable with their policies), and their front page is abit of a mess all over. Combine this with a relatively lacking policy sheet, and its really just not a good time.
Vibe: 6/10
Aesthetics: 6/10
Website: 2/10
Prediction: It is quite tough to predict how these guys will go. They're pushing for a niche beyond the regularly left and right fight that you see in Australia's elections, and so it'll be up to them to get their name out to that niche and show that they are the best option for them. That being said, they did receive nearly 0.5% of the vote last election, so don't be shocked if they end in a similar place this time round.
Jacqui Lambie Network
Autonomous independents working together in a party, like the Teals but formalised
The JLN is the brainchild of the titular Jacqui Lambie. Forming in the 2010s as Lambie's notoriety and particular style of politics grew, its been through ebbs and flows ever since as it picks up seats only to lose them to members being expelled or leaving. A small party in 2025, running on 4 candidates including Lambie herself, its choice of candidates means that it cannot be ignored. At the same time though, each candidate gets a significant amount of autonomy, so trying to really knuckle down the party's stances as a whole is quite difficult to do.
Nonetheless, I have looked through the parties relatively scarce policy page, and it is quite centrist. JLN wants to break apart Coles and Woolworths through diverstiture laws, establish a national gas reserve, introduce a senate inquiry into China's political influence in Australia, establish a real time disclosure for political donations amounts up to $2,5000 in a 6 month period, and freeze foreign investments into residential policies. That is the grand sum total of JLN's proper policies, not including aspirational pieces that all parties include. This does come with a significant caveat though. Each candidate, as I've mentioned, is quite autonomous. This includes policy-wise. Meaning that if a candidate interests you, it is worth doing additional research to see what other policies the candidate might be promoting which may or may not align with your interests.
JLN's logo is nice, not perfect, but I think it catches the eye and separates them quite well while also demonstrating the party's growth from a regional to national party. Yellow is such an overused colour but it works especially as a 'tribute' to the Australian Democrats, the catchphrase of which (Keep the Bastards Honest) gets a lot of use by JLN candidates. Finally, their website isn't horrible, with well-made pages for each candidate and the party's policies, but it still feels more like a website for Jacqui rather than a larger party. That, plus their lack of policies, is a big downside.
Vibe: 7.5/10
Aesthetics: 8/10
Website: 6/10
Prediction: Beyond Jacqui probably retaining her seat at this election, it is unlikely that the other candidates will see much success. That is, of course, excluding Rex Patrick, who I've seen personally win over crowds he has no right in winning over. While I don't think he's a shoe-in, his name brand, prior experience, and enthusiasm give him the potential to be a big underdog for the 6th senate seat in South Australia. It's too fine to say whether he'll make it or not, but expect him and One Nation to be in a big fight over the seat this election.
Katter's Australian Party
America's Deep South, but in Australia's North
Ahhh Bob Katter, the forever politician of Kennedy (and while technically not the leader of his party...still the real leader of his party) and the rest of the country's political meme. Katter's Australian is as much Katter as he is the party. It stands for North Queensland Regionalism, re-enacting the movie/book Holes, and trying to take that slice of Australia back around 60 years. The party is essentially a single candidates personality taken to the extreme and made into a somehow 'successful' party (weird how Queensland keeps creating those), so the history is essentially just, Bob Katter.
Now Bob hasn't changed his policies much from 2022, so if you're familiar with that policy set you're pretty much set. He's got all his best hits still, such as sending repeat youth offenders to remote facilities to work as their punishments, culling crocodiles and flying foxes, and abolishing the stamp duty but only for North Queensland. But these policies hide the true nature of Katter, because we all treat him like abit of a joke but he does actually present a rather dangerous set of ideas. Firstly, he wants to abandon emissions-cutting targets, which means, since he's always going to have his seat, he'll always be a voice against stopping climate change in parliament. He's also pro-nuclear energy and coal/gas power plants. Furthermore, his laws around crimes, including the one above, are from a far-older time and will only serve to hurt more kids than it helps. Perhaps the biggest issue that I see from Katter this election though, is that he had added a new policy to his set, the introduction of Castle Law, aka Castle Doctrine in the USA. For those not familiar, Castle Doctrine lets you use any force you deem necessary to defend your home and property and not face legal consequences. Combine that with his want to loosen restrictions on guns, and you get an implication that is quite obvious when you lift the veneer of comedy. Katter, slowly but surely, wants to introduce an American-South style society into Australia, and since he'll always be in parliament, he'll always be a voice for this. Other parties like Trumpet of Patriots or People First may be bigger and more popular in the moment, but he is always there, moving that ideology along. And so as much as Katter does come across as the clumsy, funny grandfather that he probably is, he is also someone promoting a culture I do not want to see imported here.
Katter's logo has similar issues to Family First's. It looks fine, but its just really old, and while that makes sense I guess, it doesn't catch the eye anymore. His colours are also fine, though I do like the use of dark red, normally kept for far-left parties. Its an eye-catching colour. His website is also quite old, and while its not inaccessible, its just filled with too much nonsense to make for a quick overview for anyone interested in the party. The site literally has a random survey for some reason, as well as comments of praise on its homepage. The worst part though, is that every policy you click on opens as a new PDF at ~200% magnification, for no apparent reason. It does mean his policies have detail, always a plus, but the format is so bad and annoying to use that any bonus is lost.
Vibe: 2/10
Aesthetics: 5/10
Website: 4/10
Prediction: This is probably the easiest call I will make in my life. Bob Katter will win his seat, every other KAP candidate will lose. Not much more to say, honestly.
Legalise Cannabis Australia
"The Hemp Industry will be bigger than the Resources Industry"
I guess we'll take that sentiment into this review, as its Australia's most successful single-issue party. There's genuinely not too much to say here. I could do a deep dive into their policies or candidates, but I feel that effort is better served elsewhere. In short, you get whats on the tin here. A bunch of candidates have attempted, in various forums, to suggest higher ideals around the hemp industry and what not, but foremost, they simply want to legalise cannabis. If you're into that, this party may be for you, though each candidate is their own kettle of fish so do you're research, buyer beware. Also there are plenty of other parties that want cannabis legalisation, so perhaps think of voting for them. I guess, if your sole care in this world is cannabis, these guys are the best party.
Their logo's just as obvious as their name, a green cannabis leaf. Its sharp and to the point, so points there, and greens a nice colour, even if the Greens have kind of cornered the market there. Their website is nice enough, its easy to find their candidate and the few policies they do have, so that's also a point to them.
Vibe: 6/10
Aesthetics: 7/10
Website: 7/10
Prediction: Legalise Cannabis has been growing around the country, as it becomes quite clear that Australians want the plant to be either legal or decriminalised. Last election, they received over 3.3% of the vote, and I don't see that going down any time soon. Their goal, alongside their name, mean they will get votes, and be shocked to see that number jump past 4%. 5% is abit of a stretch, but in the senate it is anyone's game.
Libertarian Party
If these guys knew what Anarcho-Capitalism was, they'd call themselves that
Initially starting life as the Liberal Democrats (with all the furor that name brought) today's Libertarians are an odd, terrifying bunch. Their policy list is brought from what I can only assume is the nightmares of anybody on the Left, with their party essentially being devoid from reality when it comes to their politics. While their campaign isn't massive, it does include infamous names such as Clive Palmer, as well as literal fraudster and thief Jordan Dittloff. Absolutely terrible company all round. This party genuinely sucks, but the unfortunate reality is that I know these people also genuinely believe in what they're proposing.
Their policy list is insane, and not even just in the easily understandable way like with HEART or Family First. They want to increase the tax-free threshold to $50,000 for individuals and $100,000 for couples while instituting a 20% flat income tax rate for all and removing all company taxes except for another flat 20% tax on distributed earnings. This would reduce revenue in an insane way, while also decreasing taxes immensely for the richest in Australia, but don't worry, the Libertarians have thought of this. They want to cut the ATO's staff by half, abolish the federal Department of Education, remove all subsidies for any sources of energy and defund and privatise the ABC, SBS, and NBN. These horrible policies are just some of the ways the Libertarians would pay for their reduced taxes. They also want gold and BITCOIN to be a legal currency here in Australia, so y'know, they really know their way around the economic stuff for sure. Also, despite being for the free market, they want to ban wind and solar projects specifically on public land, so I guess the government can meddle, just a little bit, as a treat. This, of course, brings us to the reality that they are against net-zero as a policy, want nuclear power, and want to abolish the renewable energy target (reminder, Fusion in Victoria put these guys 5th on their preferences, no I am not annoyed you are). Their other policies aren't any better, shockingly. They want to remove the current quota system for migration and replace it with a "market-based solution", which is a terrible way to phrase the movement of humans, while also implementing a fee for all migrants as well. They want to leave the UNCHR, WHO, ICC, OCED, and G20, because any organisation is too much for them, and restrict citizenship to people who've been in Australia for 10 years and who can pass a test and show their self-sufficiency. Finally, despite being the party that is for letting people do what they want, going so far as wanting to enshrine free speech in the constitution and repeal hate speech laws, they are also against people transitioning. Because it wouldn't be a Libertarian party if there wasn't some hypocrisy, I guess. But hey, they want to legalise cannabis, so I guess if you like that and are also an edgelord who thinks taxes are theft this party is for you.
Unfortunately, I do have to give props to the Libertarian's logo. Its sleek and eye-catching, and I like the maroon they use as their colour. Sucks that such a good logo and colour has been wasted on such a terrible party. Their website is pretty good as well, annoyingly, with easy ways to find their candidates and a relatively detailed policy list. If there's anything you can say about these guys, they're atleast dedicated to their cause, as stupid as that cause is.
Vibe: 0/10
Aesthetics: 8/10
Website: 8/10
Prediction: Now, despite doing terribly last election in the lower house, the Liberal Democrats actually polled well in the sentate, earning around 2.2% of the vote. This time around, they are fighting a more fractured and prominent right-wing scene, so they may struggle. They are also missing the crutch of the Pandemic, which helped propel them. All of this being considered, I think its likely that they dip below 2% this election, though someone like Craig Kelly might do well in their state.
Pauline Hanson's One Nation
Hansonism is back, and bigger than ever
The ever-present spectre of the Right lives on in Pauline Hanson. She isn't a money-loving, corrupt businessman like Clive Palmer, and nor is she an uncertain politician with an inability to save her image like Peter Dutton. She knows her policies, believes in them genuinely, and bathes in the image we all see her as. While this isn't praise of her or her policies, it is an acknowledgement that, unfortunately, Pauline does represent the interests of a sizeable chunk of Australians. Her and her party have had many ups and downs in the past two and a half decades, but this election seems to be perhaps her crowning moment. I'll talk more about that in the prediction part, but suffice to say, One Nation is a big player. Why is that though? Well, quite simply, the Right in Australia is fractured. And even more specifically, the Liberals are a party without a base these days. Peter Dutton and the party try to wear far too many hats with far too limited competency to do so, and so they struggle to appeal to both centre-right Australians who care little for culture war or climate change denial, but also to right-wing voters who do care for those things. Pauline, for those right-wing voters, has a base in those politics, and so serves their interests far better.
Now, One Nation's policies are nearly identical to their listing last election, and I suspect much hasn't changed over time. Their marquee policy is, of course, net-zero migration, in that they want as many migrants coming in as needed to keep population at a stable rate, not a single one more. Mind you, this time round they have added the want to deport 75,000 immigrants, which is terrible. One Nation is also a climate change denier party, wanting no net-zero policies, to abolish the Department of Climate Change, and pushing for both nuclear and coal to power Australia. Culture Wars are also on the menu at One Nation, with the party explicitly wanting to remove "Western, White, Gender, Guilt Shaming" education from classrooms, being against abortion, wanting to abolish the National Indigenous Australians Agency, and wanting to leave the UN, WHO, and Paris Agreement. Classic right-wing stuff it seems, this election. There are also policies supporting Citizen Initiated Referendums and a Royal Commission into the Covid-19 Pandemic, if One Nation wasn't right-wing enough for you. Now, One Nation is also famous for Hansonism, the concept that Pauline will not just be labelled a generic member of the Right. So, it has some off-centre policies, such as very much wanting medical cannabis to be legalised and widely accessible, raising the tax-free threshold to $35,000 for self-funded retirees only, providing a significant wage subsidy to apprentices, and wanting to for the HECS debts of medical professionals. Quirky, right? Well One Nation also wants to ban foreign investment into essentially everything from homes to power to farmland, and would also abolish the Therapeutic Goods Administration, because why not, its something to do. In the end, One Nation is a product of its owner, anti-immigration, anti-climate change, and anti-'woke', but with a hint of confusion to suggest there's something more under the hood. There isn't, but who doesn't like a tease?
Onto their logo, and its not horrible, but much like many others, its starting to get quite dated. To be fair, I guess that makes sense considering the demographic its aiming for, but light blue and orange isn't the best colour combination. Website-wise, it's good looking, well-designed, and accessible, so I can't complain. One Nation's policies are a mix of detailed and single sentences, so its not great but not terrible in that area.
Vibe: 1/10
Aesthetics: 6/10
Website: 8/10
Prediction: One Nation is in an incredible spot right now, as the party on the Right with the most clearly-defined base. This is being reflected in the polls, which have seen One Nation's share rise all the way into the double digits at times. Should such polls be replicated on Election Day, One Nation would end up with its best results in its lifetime. Does this mean One Nation will win any seats? Well, I suspect that One Nation will be in the running for multiple senate seats, with states like Queensland and South Australia being their most likely places to win. Expect the party to end up with 2-3 Senate seats once counting is done, and maybe up to 5 depending on how other states do. And while I don't think they'll win anything in the House of Representatives, I do think its more than likely that they will end up in the 2PP race for atleast one seat. In the end, looking for a total vote share of just under 10%, I don't think they'll hit double digits just yet.
Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party
What if we took the Animal Justice Party and reversed it?
The forgotten step-cousin of the right-wing, the SFFP is a party long past its time and with little reason to keep moving. At the last election alone, it lost nearly half its votes, as more modern and up-to-date right-wing parties cannibalised it. It still exists though, and am I happy it does, because its atleast insane enough to justify a review.
Now, when I say that SFFP are the AJP but reversed, I mean it. They want to do the opposite that AJP wants, on everything, its like this weird layered dichotomy of the left and right where it goes Labor/Liberal, Greens/One Nation, and than Animal Justice/SFFP. The party is obsessed with ensuring that live animal exports continue, opposes any ban on recreational fishing, and is obviously against any and all net-zero policies. They've got some interesting policies which do set them apart from the usual suspects, to be fair. They want to completely redo the national curriculum, but in conjunction with Indigenous communities, allowing them to modify it to fit their cultures. They want a 24/7 all-year health emergency and pandemic control centre, and there's weirdly not a whiff of anti-vax policies in their listing. All of that might also play into why they aren't doing as well as they once did. Now, to be fair, they do still have some insane policies. Most notable are their policies around defence. As a party that supports guns and gun-use heavily, it probably isn''t surprising to see that they want defence spending to be increased to 3% immediately, and than to 5% in the next two decades. What may surprise you though is how pro-nuclear they are. They legitimately have a policy for Australia to procure nuclear weapons. Let that sink in. Consider all the insane policies you've seen so far, and contemplate that. They want nuclear weapons for Australia...
Their logo is abit too complicated, especially when miniturised, but it shows everything they stand for so its very direct. Their colours, while not bad, just remind me far too much of surf lifesavers to be taken seriously. And their website is horrific. Their entire policy listings are done via separate PDFs, again a terrible way to do it, and their 2025 candidates are all on a single, poorly designed webpage. Its an outdated website that is in desperate need of renewal.
Vibe: 1/10
Aesthetics: 4/10
Website: 2/10
Prediction: These guys are relics of a conservatism that time has somewhat passed by, in this current moment. They are and will continue to be swamped by newer parties, and simply won't be able to retain votes over time. They probably dip below 0.5% of the vote share for the senate this election, and into the next period, I think they'll have to have a serious conversation about their party's future.
Socialist Alliance
Socialism but for tree-huggers
And so we hit the first Socialist party of this election (spoilers: there is only one more to go). Socialist Alliance is a very interesting party, as despite their wider spread across the nation, they tend to get far less coverage and publicity than the Victorian Socialists. Socialist Alliance has long ties to Australian Socialist parties, going all the way back into the Vietnam War, though despite this, it doesn't really have a direct link to the Communist Party of Australia. Nonetheless, as one of only two representatives for Socialism these days on the party scene (no, I will not include the Socialist Equality Party), they are bound to be interesting to look at.
Their policies are massive by the way, so I'm not going to list them all here (check the guide for that). They do obviously include mostly Democratic Socialist policies though. Things like capping private rent, increasing the minimum wage to $35/hr, ending the causalisation of workers, pushing for earlier retirement, scraping all anti-union laws, raising the tax free threshold to $56,000 and including a top tax rate of 70% for incomes over $300,000, abolishing HECS debts, making all education free and democratising University/TAFE governance all show upm in rapid succession. They're for net-zero by 2035, against nuclear power, for ending live animal exports and banning the logging of old-growth forests. They want to support Palestine, withdraw from AUKUS and ANZUS, close Pine Gap, cut military spending, abolish ASIO, and plenty more. Like I said, if I were to list them all, we'd be here all day. Now, as someone on the Left, I find many of these policies appealing. They are like the Greens, but on crack. However, the key thing to remember with them is that voting for Socialist Alliance includes voting for their ideology. These guys do want the revolution to occur, and so any vote for them is a vote for the revolution. If that is what you want, this is one of the two parties for you, but if it isn't, it might not be. Furthermore, some might see Socialist Alliance's policies as too aspirational and far-fetched. While I don't necessarily agree, especially on all counts, its true that some, such as dismantling the ABF or ASIO probably wouldn't happen until after a revolution had occurred. Do I like Socialist Alliance's platform? Yes. Do I agree with everything said here? Not at all.
Now, aesthetics and logo are something I expect a socialist party to get right. So, their logo, which is just a typeface of their party name, is quite boring. Their colours, a harsh red and green are also not the most enjoyable. Their website is good, even if I think a single page for the amount of policies they have is absurd, but atleast there is copious amounts of detail.
Vibe: 8/10
Aesthetics: 5/10
Website: 7/10
Prediction: Socialist Alliance won't be winning any seats (if they were close we'd be in a new red scare). However, I do think many on the left are disillusioned with Labor and even the Greens in some places. Socialist Alliance, therefore, only stands to gain from those on the far-left who cannot find a home in the more mainstream parties. I don't think such a left-wing flight will be massive, but possibly enough to get Socialist Alliance 0.3-0.4% of the vote share.
Sustainable Australia Party - Universal Basic Income
Malthusian thought wrapped up in the centre-left's clothing
Here we have one of the biggest offenders when it comes to 'parties hiding their true intentions behind what seem like reasonable policies'. As I will get into shortly, Sustainable Australia, or SusAus as I enjoy calling them, has a deep secret. Despite all the policies in the world, they're actually just anti-immigrationists whose fundamental ideology is Malthusian and obsessed with overpopulation as a concept. Its like voting for Socialist Alliance or even the Australian Citizens Party, but with their ultimate ideology hidden so far back its actually 'well-hidden' without a deeper look.
Now, their policies are what you'd expect from a centre-left/left party. They want a Universal Basic Income (so much so they've done the horrible thing and made it part of their name, likely to get more people to vote for them without doing enough research), to make university and TAFE free (to citizens only), are against nuclear power and fossil fuels, and a litany of other policies that would initially make you think that they are a worthwhile party to vote for, if you're on the left. And I won't lie, when I was younger, I did nearly get caught into this trap as well, overlooking the immigration stuff for the rest of their policies, which seemed, to me atleast, reasonable and worthwhile. However, you cannot ignore the immigration aspects of their policies, because every single long-term issue they describe is met with the same solution, simply reduce the immigration coming in and the population overall. And so, fundamentally, these policies don't matter, because the only way half of them come about is by ensuring a reduction in immigration and population, all backed by the Malthusian idea of population bombs and overcrowding that is quite outdated at this point. There's also a lot of NIMBYISM, so if you're a fan of increased population density, these guys aren't for you.
I don't want to linger on SusAus for too long, so lets move onto their logo. Its not the worst in the world, infact, its quite decent all things considered. Australia inside a speech bubble ironically demonstrates it being isolated from the rest of the world, which may have been the point to be fair. But, it is an interesting logo and one which makes sense from afar. Their colours, a deep blue and light orange aren't great together, with the orange clashing hard with the deeper blue. Their website is quite good though, it is well-made, its easy to find candidates, and their policies are filled with overwhelming amounts of detail at times.
Vibe: 4/10
Aesthetics: 7/10
Website: 9/10
Prediction: 2022 saw SusAus end up with just over half a percent of the vote share in the Senate, up only 0.1% from the year prior. This time round, I can't really see why they would increase much. They shouldn't appeal to many on the left, though some who like social democratic style policies but who are also anti-immigration might find their place there. Furthermore, I can't see them appealing to the right, as their policy list besides their anti-immigration stuff is simply too left-leaning. I suspect that SusAus will stagnate at this election, remaining at 0.5% of the vote at most.
The Great Australian Party
If Australia's so Great, why didn't they make a second one?
To understand the Great Australian Party, you must understand the man who is their leader, Rod Culleton. Rod Culleton has been held bankrupt atleast three times, lied twice to the AEC about those bankruptcies because he doesn't believe they're real (both in 2022 and 2025), has committed larceny twice and plead guilty to that charge once, breached pandemic restrictions in 2022, and has the blurriest photo you've ever seen at the top of his Wikipedia infobox. The fact that Culleton is still active in Australia's political scene is a testament to just how much we let our politicians get away with before we start asking the question, "why would anyone want this guy to represent them?" The GAP is the brainchild of Culleton, and it shows, though if rumours are correct it is possible Culleton is no longer around to lead them.
GAP has some of the most insane policies you have ever seen. They want to abolish the GST and replace it with an Electronic Debit Tax, to reinstate a public bank, to set naturopathy and homeopathy on the same level as GPs, they want to bring Analog TV back (I guess Culleton doesn't like digital?), abolish family law court for a family tribunal with priority given to grandparents and extended family in cases of separation, and pass the Nuremberg Code as law in Australia. These range from harmful to downright wacky. This wackiness continues, as Rod Culleton believes that all of Australia's heavy vehicles should run on propane, rather than diesel. Why? Because apparently its cheaper, atleast according to him. All the wackiness aside, Culleton does have some very harmful views. He doesn't have any policies about climate change, but is pro-nuclear and wants to leave the Paris Accords, so I think you can get his gist. He wants to leave all UN treaties on migration, implement net-zero migration, and abolish the income tax with essentially no plan to replace it. He wants education to start 6 months before birth, emphasising "competition, discipline, respect of religious values, patriotism, and morality" while banning political leanings in teaching (nice dogwhistle there), and forcing tertiary education to be 70% TAFE and 30% universities. He's against vaccines, against fluoride in drinking water, and opposes private-IVF clinics. But just to switch it up, also wants to make standard healthcare completely free for all Australians, adopt far more strict animal rights laws (yet is pro-live animal export?), implement the fantasy that is the Great Water Project scheme (search it up for a laugh), and opposes privitisation of most government properties. In a nutshell, GAP and Culleton are weird, less so in the funny way, and far moreso in the harmfully odd way.
The GAP's logo is a mixed bag. I hate the use of a bold letterhead for most of the logo, but a red kangaroo is an excellent touch, even if it does just scream plagiarism from Qantas. Their colours, red and black, are fine, although they can be abit hard on the eye depending on the screen you use. Their website is actually well made, though some poor design choices do shine through which mean it is not the best.
Vibe: 1/10
Aesthetics: 5/10
Website: 7/10
Prediction: Its hard to predict where the GAP will land. Last election, they got above 0.5% of the vote share, but this time round they seem far less likely to do so as other right-wing parties appear with the resources and people to take that vote away from them. And with, rumour has it, Rod Culleton not in the picture right now, it seems unlikely the party will do much better this time round. I expect a small decline to below 0.4%, but wouldn't be shocked if GAP remained at 0.5%.
Trumpet of Patriots
Clive Palmer in the skinsuit of Donald Trump
Just to set the record straight, Trumpet of Patriots is not a 'new' party founded by Clive Palmer or anything like that. It was the old Australian Federation Party (which itself has a long and torrid history) which had transformed into ToP late last year, and was a weird hyper-environmentalist, anti-woke, libertarian party. Clive jumped in, or brought, the party early this year, after realising that he couldn't reregister the United Australia Party, and has quickly transformed it into a vessel for importing Trump's policy and 'ideology' onto Australia's shores. I may dislike ToP the most out of all the parties contesting this election, just because not only are their policies terrible and the ideology they're trying to import horrendous, but unlike people like Pauline Hanson or even Lyle Shelton, Clive Palmer does not genuinely believe his policies are the right way to go for Australia. He's an insincere, corrupt businessman, whose only want with the ToP is to try and force Australia to make him more money.
There aren't too many policies to really talk about here. ToP is against digital currencies, wants cash back in businesses, and wants to reduce all regulations and taxes on businesses too. They're against a net-zero policy, want nuclear power, and want to restore all shutdown coal power stations, while also leaving the Paris Agreement. Culture war is one of their few themes, as they want to "remove the woke agenda" from schools and "stop trashing Australian history", so in case you liked the History Wars, the ToP is dedicated to bringing them back. They also want to remove the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Flags, end Welcome to Country ceremonies, leave the WHO, UN, and WEF, establish a Department of Government Efficiency, and push for a Royal Commission into Covid-19. The lump sum of that horrible pile of policies screams Donald Trump, and it genuinely blows my mind that people would vote for Clive Palmer again. These policies don't inspire anything, they're not even unique or new, and if you're interested in this side of politics multiple parties do it better. But I guess because Clive has a hoard to spend, he can try and buy a few percentages of Australia's vote share. The only interesting policy on their entire list is establishing high-speed rail networks up to 120kms outside of Major CBDs to satellite cities. Its this weird anti-density but pro-growth argument that could be interesting, if any thought was given behind it and it wasn't presented by the failed version of Donald Trump in Australia.
Their logo is terrible, just straight up. It's AI-generated, it has a lion for no good reason, and it just looks like someone trying to steal military valour and insert it into a terrible political party. ToP has gone for the most bright and ugly yellow you've ever seen, likely because the UAP had that colour. Their website is decent, with easy-to-find candidates and policies, but that is only after like a month of what seems like them actively working to try and fix it. Better late than never, I guess.
Vibe: 0/10
Aesthetics: 0/10
Website: 8/10
Prediction: Clive Palmer spending an absurd amount of money to not win a single seat but to try and influence politics is becoming a horrible but utterly predictable part of our election cycle. Trumpet of Patriots, if it was the original party, would have been a party I'd have predicted for less than a percent of the vote share, but because Clive has spent inordinate amounts of money of annoying and terrible ads, people will vote for him. I suspect that ToP might get anywhere between 1%-2% of the votes, likely buffered from gaining more to a surging One Nation, but still enough to unfortunately be relevant on the day.
Victorian Socialists
The Socialist Revolution spearheaded by influencers
Victorian Socialists are the other socialist party contesting this election, obviously, as the name suggests, only in Victoria. While I occasionally hear people in that side of politics tell me that VS will move national, it seems the party is content on slowly but surely building its profile there. To sum up VS, while Socialist Alliance is more Green Democratic Socialism, VS tends to be more activist socialism, with heavy links to Trotskyist groups. Students of Australian universities will likely know VS' close ally, Socialist Alternative, as its presence is heavy on many campuses. In the end, I would recommend getting to know your local VS candidate, if you're in Victoria, as their overall views may vary from the party line. Also to note, VS' face this election has been Jordan Van Der Lamb, also known as the social media influencer PurplePingers. While I don't specifically have much against Pingers, what I will note is that having seen him speak twice now, once on national TV and the other in a debate, he fails to live up to the name and concept he is meant to embody. He's not a bad speaker, but he lacks the firebrand nature of many in VS (truly, I know many socialists who'd seemingly wipe the floor with him), and if he's going for a calmer, more approachable tone, it doesn't work when he casually throws out wanting the Revolution, a policy commitment which will turn off most voters.
Now, a lot of VS' policies are quite similar to those of Socialist Alliances, so I won't go over them all here. They do have some noticeable differences though, so we'll talk about those. They want a new public bank (weirdly a unity issue from the far-left and far-right in Australia this election), to put a 10% wealth tax on billionaires, and to put a 90% tax rate on all income made over 300,000 in a year (Socialist Alliance went for 70%). They want to abolish the GST, end NAPLAN testing, and essentially give democratic control over the mining and education sector. They want to renationalise Telstra, make the basic salary of all MPs equal to that of a 6th-year nurse ($92,000), and abolish Private Prisons. There's plenty more, but these are some of the policies that stand out, and demonstrate what I mean by doing your research. One might think that Socialist Alliance and VS would be the same, and while they are quite similar, there are key differences. Mind you, this is also another case where you need to understand that a vote for VS is a vote for Revolution. Pingers made that clear in his minor party debate, stating that getting a seat means little beyond simply assisting the goal of Revolution. So while these policies are often good, its the ideology which can make or break whether someone votes for them.
The Victorian Socialist logo is not terrible, and while I do like it, I also feel like its a bit too new. It stands out at least, even if I do dislike the use of just a party name typeface as a logo. Their colours of black and some pastels do stand out, as most parties stay away from using black, so that is a plus. And their website is superb, one of the best this election, which makes sense considering the younger age of VS' target audience. Things are easy to find, its laid out well, and there is a wealth of detail for those who want that.
Vibe: 7.5/10
Aesthetics: 9/10
Website: 9/10
Prediction: Last election, Victorian Socialists managed to get just 0.5% of the vote share in the lower house and 0.7% in the upper house for Victoria. With an influencer behind them, an army of active volunteers, and a significant dearth of left-wing parties this year, it seems possible that VS might be able to capitalise and grow. While they won't win any seats, not even close, do not be shocked if VS hits above 1% in either the lower or upper house.
Conclusion
While there aren't as many minor parties this election when compared to 2022, there are still a significant amount for Australians who do not feel served by Labor or Liberal. And while most will not gain votes above a single percent of the vote share, it seems likely that many will see growth this year, as more and more Australians feel disillusioned with the current status quo. This will be most obvious with the Right this time round, as the large amount of parties there will likely get enough votes together to represent a percentage equal to what the Greens get. Will this lead to a three or four-party system? I can't say, as it is possible a strong and ambitious leader in either major party could turn the trends we see today around. But at the current rate, it seems likely that within the next election or two, a majority of Australians will be voting for parties who aren't Labor or Liberal-National.
No comments:
Post a Comment