Eve Fisher
Independent

Summary

Policies & Commentary

Eve Fisher lists far-right thinkers Ayn Rand and Margaret Thatcher as her heroes, but insists that her personal politics cross traditional political divides. She considers some of her policies to be hard Right, and characterises her pro-choice stance on reproductive rights as hard Left. This last one is particularly startling, and is a stark example of just how far political discourse – what’s called the Overton window¹a concept formulated by American policy analyst Joseph Overton, to explain how lobby groups and think tanks shape popular ideas of what is and isn’t acceptable in politics – has shifted to the Right. Less than 20 years ago a pro-choice stance was considered centrist.

In general, Fisher’s policies tend to lean Right, only veering Left when it comes to some environmental issues. The one unifying factor behind all of them is that every one of her policies is deliberately vague as to spending or saving – something Fisher makes very clear on her website. She has taken a stance that she will make no commitments to spending until Victoria’s financial records are made public and, as she puts it, the debt is exposed. This renders her policies difficult to evaluate, but let’s have a try anyway.

The flagship policy is a call for a razor gang. Fisher wants every department audited, line by line, spending cuts across the board, and the implementation of a register for all government contracts.

The idea of a register is an excellent one. There is a real need for greater transparency in the deals made with companies to implement government projects (indeed, in some cases, any transparency at all would be an improvement). This isn’t a recent thing, either – lack of transparency runs through both Coalition and Labor governments, at least as far back as the 1970s.

The razor gang, though, is more problematic. The call for an across-the-board cut to spending sounds sensible on its face, but doesn’t take into account that there is always an imbalance between departments in terms of funding. Some are bloated, others operate on the bare minimum needed to keep going. It might be just rhetoric, but Fisher’s sweeping judgment without even examining the books seems premature, at best.

On law and order policies, Fisher is firmly on the right, proposing tougher bail laws that are better enforced and prison sentences that match the crime. In principle, there’s little to argue with her. In practice, however, history has shown that when these laws are toughened up, they are primarily used against Indigenous people and those who come from socioeconomic disadvantage. I wonder if Fisher has developed a policy to ensure this does not happen, and I’d welcome her input if she’s reading this article.

There’s also a curious proposal to abolish soft prisoner rights. This isn’t explained, although the language does seem punitive. Again, I’d welcome Fisher’s clarification.

Potholes have become an unexpectedly large issue in this election. Fisher’s policy on this involves finding out why roads have not been maintained, and to prioritise freight, farm, and school bus routes for repair. These are sensible ideas, certainly better targeted than the scattershot arbitrary target number approach of Labor and the Coalition. A former Surf Coast Shire Councillor, Fisher is perhaps still thinking at the local government level when she also calls for councils to publish reports on the condition of their local roads. It’s doubtful this could be enforced from a state level.

Fisher appears to be a big fan of citizen-initiated referenda (what some refer to as “direct democracy”), noting in one of her flyers that such an approach is used in 26 US states. Briefly explained, this is a process whereby unelected citizens can propose new legislation that is put to a public vote. In Fisher’s model, this would also involve citizens being able to veto government legislation.

This is another policy that seems to work in principle. The problem with citizen-initiated referenda, however, is that they inevitably become the province of loud, well-funded minorities who are unconstrained by an obligation of political fairness – or, indeed, of truth. The classic example is Proposition 8, a ban on same-sex marriage passed in California in 2008. That campaign was flooded with out-of-state money, much of it flowing undisclosed from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Although later overturned as unconstitutional, for the brief time it was in effect Proposition 8 caused legal, social, and personal turmoil.

Fisher does have one policy on government operation that is an unequivocal good – plain language guides for every piece of legislation. Although this is linked to her idea of citizen-initiated referenda, it’s absolutely applicable to our current system. People often simply don’t understand what a proposed Act would entail – and how could they? The language is specialised to the point of being impenetrable. It’s all very well for government to allow public submissions and have committee hearings, but when the average person is struggling to comprehend walls of barely-recognisable text, it has a chilling effect. Mandatory plain-language guides that result in a better-informed public would bridge the gap between the rarefied atmosphere of Parliament and those who will be directly affected by proposed legislation.

There are a series of other policies on Fisher’s website, although these do not have any detail. Some are straightforward, with much to recommend them, such as the proposal to pay first responders what they’re worth, or to address the problem of loneliness and isolation (something keenly felt in the regions). It’s a real shame there’s not more detail on these.

On the environment, Fisher says our rivers, land, and wildlife need a hand. No argument there. But what does she want to do to help them?

There’s also this: make it ok to love Australia and our unique culture. I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one to hear a faint dogwhistle in this, particularly when there is no explanation whatsoever for what that means.

Then Fisher takes a turn for the hard Right, and even bumps up against conspiracy theory territory.

First up, she wants no jab mandates. This is a policy that probably had its origins in initial Covid-19 vaccine measures, when conspiracy theorists spread misinformation claiming that vaccines caused everything from chronic disease to death to the implantation of nano-machines in the body designed to allow the “Deep State” to control us. Fisher’s policy might just be a hold-over from them. If it’s not, however, it’s alarming. There are certain professions in which it is crucial that providers be vaccinated against a number of diseases, in order to protect those they care for. To do away with those would deliberately put vulnerable people at risk, which is unconscionable.

And then we get to the transphobia.

It’s the same tired song – force trans women out of sport and into situations which will place them in danger, keep children ignorant, force minors to suffer gender dysphoria rather than access gender-affirming care. Of course, Fisher doesn’t put it like that. She uses the language of the TERF²Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist, which I won’t repeat here. It’s all predicated on deliberate misinformation and a denial of reality. Fisher talks about gender ideology as though it’s a terrible thing, but what she’s proposing is, in fact, an imposition of an ideology utterly contradicted by science and basic human decency.

In conclusion, it’s difficult to know what to make of Eve Fisher. A look at her timeline on X shows that her political stance has hardened recently, taking on an extremely aggressive tone. She lashes out at Liberal leader Jess Wilson, calling her a “coward” and a “joke“, and at Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who she describes as “a lying, thieving communist piece of kak“. One truly appalling tweet accuses all Labor voters of supporting paedophilia.

Fisher stated in a Surf Coast Times interview that she believes the crossbench needs to be a rabble, otherwise nothing will keep the major parties in line. Certainly, a strong, vocal crossbench can be an asset to a Parliament, but there’s a huge difference between advocacy and disruption for its own sake. Resorting to personal attacks and outrageous accusations doesn’t foster communication or co-operation – and it doesn’t get things done.

In the same interview, it was noted that she has changed her political stance many times over the years, going from Left to hard Right (declaring a vote for One Nation in 2022) to now declaring herself as spanning the entire spectrum. With the policies as they stand, Fisher’s platform comes across as confused. The flirtation with conspiracy theory is also very worrying.

All in all, give Fisher your vote at your own risk.