|Facebook — Twitter
|Australia’s Anti-Corruption Party
|A Federal ICAC. Now.
|Upper House: New South Wales, Queensland and West Australia br>
Lower House: none
|not yet available
Policies & Commentary
So, Federal ICAC Now! or FIN only has one issue they are running on. Did you spot it? 🙂
More seriously, the issue they’re running on is an important one and it’s a serious enough concern to enough voters in recent polls that it’s likely that FIN will attract a few votes. Maybe even enough to get the sixth spot in a Senate race. Which would be a problem.
FIN’s anti-corruption wishlist, aside from supporting the version of the ICAC that the Greens have come up with (which will be covered in more detail when we do them), is pretty solid. They want:
- Real-time political donation disclosure
- a five-year moratorium during which no retiring elected official can be appointed to any government funded position
- former ministers prohibited from employment in any commercial sector formerly under the authority of that minister or engaging in any lobbying activity regarding any aspect of their previous portfolio/s
- limits on donations to political parties by corporations, trade unions, lobby groups and other entities
- strengthened whistleblower protections
These are all reasonable measures, although the lack of much detail regarding them is a little worrying. Single-issue parties are not typically known for nuance, and FIN seems no exception.
However, it’s what they plan to do in the event of literally any other issue at all coming before them in the Senate that’s the real concern:
When elected, FIN parliamentary representatives(s) will, regardless of which party forms government, vote on any bill by the following method:
- Each proposal will be closely scrutinised for possible corrupt content. FIN parliamentary staff will be carefully selected and FIN will utilise external consultants to assist in this regard where necessary. If the possibility for corrupt conduct is identified the bill would be rejected until that possibility is removed.
- If no adverse matters are identified, any proposal would then be considered against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Australia was a signatory when this succinct 30 article Declaration was adopted by the UN in 1948. It remains both relevant and in effect. If the possibility for contravention of the Declaration is identified the bill would be rejected until those contraventions are remedied. You can read the bill here https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
- If these two conditions are satisfied, FIN representatives will refer the matter to its members before a decision is made.
Now, don’t get me wrong, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is one of my all-time favourite Declarations, but there are a lot of situations that it wouldn’t be great for – it’s not particularly good on, for example, environmental issues, nor the intricacies of international trade, or even who we should buy submarines from. Which means that, in these situations, the party too easily becomes a rubber stamp for whoever’s in power. I’d rather see a small party that pushes back across a wider range of issues – and given that their ICAC policy is literally the policy of the Greens, why not just vote for them instead?
I’m in sympathy with your goals, my fine FINny friends (by the Hoary Hosts of Hoggoth, am I in sympathy with your goals), but I want a party with more vision. Federal ICAC Now will be landing somewhere around the middle of my ballot, with the other parties and candidates I feel meh about.
Just a reminder that Maz and I lack the necessary Eurovision knowledge to choose the songs that Catherine liked to include, but we’d love to see what you suggest in the comments below 🙂