This Saturday, 3 May 2025, is federal election day in Australia. If you are unsure who all these parties are on your ballot, I’m here for you. I’ve reviewed all parties registered with the Australian Electoral Commission except for the most widely known ones: Labor, Greens, and the Liberal/National coalition parties. I have also reviewed the teal independents, a couple of unregistered parties who are endorsing independent candidacies, and two independent Senate candidates in Western Australia.

What you will find below: an index to all my reviews, a classification of parties by broad categories of recommendation, recommendations of other sites reviewing the parties, and some voting tips and advice. It should be obvious but these are my personal views and should not be construed as reflecting those of my employer or anyone else. I write from a left-wing perspective sympathetic to democratic socialism and green politics, mixed economies and urbanism. If you have even halfway similar political perspectives to me, I hope this might be useful. Please feel free to share with anybody whom you think will also be interested.

Index to all my reviews for 2025

Read the list below as: party name (ideology / where running). For the locations, a plain state abbreviation means the party is running a Senate ticket in this state; check with the AEC here to see if they also have a candidate in your electorate of the House of Representatives. A state abbreviation with an asterisk (*) indicates that in this state, the party is running only for an electorate or electorates in the House of Representatives; again, check the AEC here to see if it is yours. In some instances, though, I have listed the specific seat.

Animal Justice Party (animal rights / all states + ACT)

Australia First, who are unregistered (neo-Nazi scum / Division of Lindsay)

Australian Christians (Christian fundamentalism / NSW, WA)

Australian Citizens Party (conspiracy theorists / all states + NT)

Australian Democrats (centre-left / NSW*, QLD, VIC, WA)

Australia’s Voice (centre-left / NSW, QLD, SA, VIC, WA)

Centre Alliance (centrism / Division of Mayo)

Dai Le and Frank Carbone W.S.C. (centre-right / Division of Fowler)

David Pocock (green social liberalism / ACT)

Family First (Christian fundamentalism / ACT*, NSW, QLD, SA, VIC)

FUSION | Planet Rescue | Whistleblower Protection | Innovation (centre-left-ish hodgepodge / NSW, QLD, SA, VIC, WA)

Gerard Rennick People First (far-right cult of personality / NSW, QLD, SA, VIC, WA)

Good Party, who are unregistered (centre-left / Divisions of Kingsford-Smith and Page)

Great Australian Party (sovereign citizens / QLD, WA)

Health Environment Accountability Rights Transparency (HEART) (antivax far-right woo / ACT, NSW, QLD, VIC)

Indigenous–Aboriginal Party of Australia (Indigenous rights / NSW, NT*, QLD, VIC, WA*)

Jacqui Lambie Network (centre-right cult of personality / NSW, QLD, SA, TAS)

Katter’s Australian Party (right-wing cult of personality / QLD)

Legalise Cannabis Australia (single issue / all states + NT)

Libertarian Party (far-right libertarianism / all states and territories)

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (xenophobic far-right populism / all states + NT)

Shooters, Fishers, and Farmers (anti-environmentalist gun nuts / NSW*, TAS, VIC)

Socialist Alliance (socialism / NSW, QLD, VIC*, WA)

Socialist Equality Party, who are unregistered (antisocial socialism for cantankerous people / NSW as Group B, VIC as Group G, and indies in seats of Calwell, Newcastle, Oxley)

Sustainable Australia–Universal Basic Income (anti-immigration NIMBYs / all states and territories)

Teal independents (centrism / assortment of lower-house seats in all states and territories)

Trumpet of Patriots (lunar right / all states)

Ungrouped independent candidates for the Senate in WA (right-wing or plain odd personalities who should receive a low preference)

Victorian Socialists (socialism / VIC)

Classification of all parties by broad category of recommendation

At the end of each review is a recommendation of how positively or negatively you should preference each party. Let’s see how all the parties have shaken out. Within each category, I am presenting parties alphabetically rather than suggesting an order for your preferences. I have written a separate entry on how I decide the ranking of unpalatable parties.

Good preference: David Pocock, Indigenous–Aboriginal Party of Australia, Socialist Alliance, Victorian Socialists

The parties above have a positive overall platform that has few or no significant flaws for the left-wing voter.

Decent to good preference: Australian Democrats; Australia’s Voice

The parties above have a positive overall platform, but I have minor reservations.

Decent preference: Animal Justice Party, Good Party, teal independents

The parties (or independents) above have a generally positive overall platform, but I have reservations.

Middling preference: Centre Alliance, Legalise Cannabis

The parties above have a balance of positive and negative qualities, or a decent platform undermined by a notably terrible policy or characteristic.

Note on Legalise Cannabis: middling is a generalisation as candidate quality varies. In Victoria, for instance, give Fiona Patten (lead Senate candidate) a decent to good preference; in Queensland, give Belinda Jones (lead Senate candidate) a weak preference.

Weak to middling preference: Dai Le & Frank Carbone W.S.C., Fusion Party, Jacqui Lambie Network, Socialist Equality Party, Sustainable Australia

The parties above are problematic, but better than what comes below.

Weak or no preference: Australia First, Australian Christians, Australian Citizens Party, Family First, Gerard Rennick People First, Great Australian Party, HEART, Katter’s Australian Party, Libertarian Party, One Nation, Shooters, Trumpet of Patriots

The parties above have more negatives than positives (usually many more!). In the House of Representatives, where you must give full preferences, put these parties as low as possible. In the Senate, I recommend you do likewise to maximise the potential power of your vote; but I recognise that some of you prefer not to express preferences between varying gradations of undesirability or prefer not to rank the most odious parties.

Other good reviewers

For further opinions, b_auspol has reviewed parties and independents contesting NSW, Kevin Bonham has summarised those contesting Tasmania, Notionoriety has concise left-wing overviews for QLD, NSW, and VIC, Anthony Zougras has overviews of all registered parties (more concise than me, less than Notionoriety), and Something for Cate is very comprehensive, with a Victorian emphasis, continuing the tradition of much-missed Cate Speaks.

Voting tips and advice

When you go to vote, you will receive two ballots. The smaller green one is for the House of Representatives, the lower house; whichever party/ies command a majority on the floor of the House forms government. You must number EVERY SQUARE on the small green ballot for the House. Many seats have independent candidates; make sure you look into them as they vary substantially in their platforms and competence.

The larger white ballot is for the Senate, the upper house. This is the house of review. We are voting for roughly half the Senate, as state senators serve six-year terms. This means each state elects six senators, requiring 14.3% of the vote to be elected; each territory elects just two (who serve terms aligned with the House), requiring 33.3% of the vote to be elected. On the Senate ballot you can vote above the line for PARTIES or below the line for INDIVIDUALS. Above the line you must give at least six preferences; below the line you must give at least twelve; beyond this point, you can do what you like. You can stop preferencing entirely or you give as many more preferences as you want. I strongly recommend you preference as far as possible because this increases the potential power of your vote.

If you want something more visual (and humorous), Patrick Alexander has two handy cartoon explainers: you can’t waste your vote for the House of Representatives and what’s the go with voting for the Senate?

If you want to vote below the line in the Senate, you can make your own custom how-to-vote card using Cluey Voter. It is the only site of which I am aware that allows you to construct a below-the-line vote (Donkey Votie and Build a Ballot can only make above-the-line cards). Print it off and take it into the booth with you! And do you need to find your nearest democracy sausage or cake stall? This website has you covered.

Running where: for the Senate, NSW, QLD, and WA; for the House, Newcastle and Sydney (NSW), Rankin (QLD), Corio and Wills (VIC), and Fremantle (WA)

Prior reviews: federal 2016, NSW 2019, federal 2019, federal 2022, VIC 2022, NSW 2023

What I said before: “If you believe in the principle of ‘from each according to their ability, to each according to their need’, then you’ll find much to like in Socialist Alliance’s platform.” (NSW 2023)

What I think this year: "Last will be first and first will be Last!" Something to that effect ought to be the Socialist Alliance (SAll) slogan for Fremantle, because the candidate there is called Joshua Last and he drew last place on the ballot.

But seriously. Australia has a long tradition of socialist, communist, and Marxist political activity, which in its electoral success peaked in the 1940s, gaining control of councils in the Hunter region of NSW and in Townsville, and electing Fred Paterson to the Queensland state parliament for Bowen (believe it or not, North Queensland was at the time dubbed the “Red North”). But during the second half of the twentieth century, the movement waned steadily. Come the 2000s, Socialist Alliance coalesced from the fragments of various far-left organisations, and in the past couple of decades it has provided a mainstream, multi-tendency socialist option on Senate ballots around the country. It currently has one local councillor, Sue Bolton in the City of Merri-bek (formerly Moreland, in inner north Melbourne), and has also had representatives on councils in Geelong and Fremantle.

Socialist Alliance contributed to the formation in 2018 of the state-based collective Victorian Socialists, whom I will review separately. But two years later, SAll withdrew from Victorian Socialists with no small measure of acrimony (my socials for a time were full of recriminations from both sides). In some elections since then, the two parties have fielded rival candidates. This year, though, they are not competing against each other, hence there is no SAll ticket in Victoria for the Senate. Victorian Socialists are promoting SAll candidates on their how-to-vote page, and similarly the SAll how-to-vote cards for Corio and Wills recommend Victorian Socialists for the Senate.

Socialist Alliance should not be confused with Socialist Alternative, which is best known for its organising on university campuses and which also participated in forming Victorian Socialists, or with other smaller and often quite fringe groups (such as the cantankerous Socialist Equality Party, review to come). If you have encountered the socialist press, Green Left Weekly is aligned with SAll and Red Flag with Socialist Alternative. I could not possibly attempt to summarise the whole scene and its evolution; sadly, Stuart Macintyre did not live to write a third volume on the history of communism in Australia to cover the most recent decades. His award-winning The Reds: The Communist Party of Australia from Origins to Illegality is one of the works that defines Macintyre’s reputation as one of Australia’s greatest historians, and just before his death in November 2021 he completed the sequel The Party: The Communist Party of Australia from Heyday to Reckoning. I recommend both books unreservedly. But I digress.

If you support a socialist platform, particularly one that emphasises environmental concerns, you will find a lot to like in the Socialist Alliance. Personally? If you look at my bio you will see I describe myself as a “small-g green democratic socialist”. To put things simply, with the qualifier that I am eliding a lot of nuance on specific areas, my economic views favour a welfare state and a mixed economy (which we have in Australia, although not as mixed as I would like), with some inclination towards market socialism. I support nationalisation of essential services and natural monopolies; I support tighter regulation and greater taxation of businesses and high-income earners; I want greater public funding of education, healthcare, and public and active transport; I would like governments to act on climate change more comprehensively and with greater urgency. My acceptance of market competition in a mixed economy does put me at odds with some on the left. Broadly, though, I find more in common with socialists and environmentalists than Laborites, despite the Labor Party originating from a socialist trade union agenda.

One thing that is important to me are cities. I am an urbanist and if you have read this blog for any length of time you know I oppose car-centric policies and places. I am a great fan of the concept of walkable 15-minute cities and if I could swap the relative level of funding for road and rail, I would. I like greater density for its agglomeration effects and to stop environmentally-destructive suburban sprawl. To my mind, socialism and YIMBYism are aligned: I want urban and housing policies and public investment to ensure everyone can live where they want to live and access the services they need and want.

But this is where I differ with many socialists, and for this review most notably with Sue Bolton, SAll councillor in Merri-bek and candidate for Wills. She is more ideologically opposed to market-based solutions than me, and in an article attacking (and in my view mischaracterising much of) the YIMBY movement she uses the “legitimate concerns about development” line to try to distance herself from self-serving NIMBYs despite taking positions that impede the development of more housing. To be blunt, as soon as I hear “legitimate concerns” in any political context, a red flag goes up—it’s a phrase that suggests I am about to read something along the lines of “we are not x, but our positions are almost indistinguishable from x”. Now, sure, I share some of Bolton’s suspicion of developers (I spent my teenage years on the Gold Coast, for heaven’s sake!), but I think she fixates on one component of addressing the housing crisis—public housing—to the exclusion of other complementary measures, some of which she opposes for anti-market ideological reasons that I do not share. I also think her preference for “mandatory height limits” is explicitly NIMBY and misguided; damn right I think we should build up, not out.

I am formerly a voter of the Division of Wills, and for full disclosure I sometimes voted 1 for SAll candidates ahead of the Greens. This year, however, if I were still in Wills I would vote 1 for the Greens' Samantha Ratnam over Sue Bolton (and both ahead of Labor's Peter Khalil). I have a lot of time for Ratnam, having had positive experiences with her as my councillor a decade ago and endorsing her in my 2016 South Ward review. In any case, Wills is going to be a two-candidate-preferred race between Ratnam and Khalil. The Greens have coveted Wills for a long time; when Khalil successfully retained it for Labor after Kelvin Thomson retired, I thought it would not be back in play until his own retirement—but this year I think Ratnam is very competitive. If pressed for a prediction: Ratnam will eke a close victory, say a 2CP result of 50.2–51.5% in her favour.

Sorry for the tangents in this entry but this was a good opportunity for me to reflect on a few things. Perhaps, given I am somebody who has never been able to toe party lines on anything, it's unsurprising I have some reservations. But be those what they are, I am overall favourably disposed to Socialist Alliance.

Recommendation: Give the Socialist Alliance a good preference.

Running where: well it’s not going to be Queensland now is it?

(but seriously, they are running in VIC for the Senate and for four seats in the House: Bendigo, Cooper, Fraser, Scullin)

Prior reviews: VIC 2018, federal 2019, federal 2022, VIC 2022

What I said before: “Victorian Socialists are exactly what they say they are. No misleading party name here, just a straight-up socialist platform.” (VIC 2022)

What I think this year: Much like my review of Socialist Alliance, I am broadly sympathetic to the platform of Victorian Socialists (VS), with some specific quibbles. You will probably be favourably disposed towards it too if you are interested in things such as greater taxation of multinational corporations and wealthy individuals, scrapping negative gearing, greater royalties on resources, nationalising essential services (VS focus on energy, telecommunications, and the Internet), investment in a rapid transition to renewable energy, increasing the minimum wage from $24.10/hr to $30/hr, improving the rights of workers (especially casual employees, and restoring rights to strike), and opposing the AUKUS deal.

Certainly some of VS’s taxation proposals might not instantly appeal to more moderate voters, let alone the right (e.g. marginal tax rate of 90% above 300k/pa, scrapping GST, ending tax exemptions for religious institutions). But given the state of tax discourse in Australia, I welcome any attempt to pull the Overton window back towards systems of higher taxation, given Australia's tax-to-GDP ratio is below the OECD average and has been for a long time. We are a low-taxing country and we should have a conversation about all the things we could afford and all the people we could lift out of poverty if we simply taxed at the OECD average. VS’s proposals are a provocative and useful part of that conversation.

My qualms are with VS’s housing policy and, by extension, a certain candidate. If I’m honest, since I began this edition of the reviews, this entry is one I’ve been least looking forward to writing, a stark contrast with my review of Trumpet of Patriots yesterday. It’s great fun to rip into the platforms of unhinged far-right parties whom I can assume my regular readership also scorns unreservedly. In this case, however, I have previously reviewed VS positively and once voted 1 for them, but if I still lived in Victoria I would not do so this year: I’m not hugely keen on Purplepingers, or as he is listed on the Senate ballot, VS lead candidate Jordan van den Lamb. I know my social media circles include fans of him, but he does not excite me. I’m not saying I dislike him: shitrentals.org is great and I contributed a review of one of Melbourne’s very worst agencies, Walshe & Whitelock. Nonetheless, the fact so much of the VS campaign is based around him as if he is a “celebrity” candidate makes me less enthused about the party as a whole.

I like VS’s strong emphasis on renters’ rights—I rent and don’t expect to ever not rent—but I feel that their response to the housing crisis is incomplete. VS emphasises rapid expansion of public housing, which I think is an important part of the response but not the only part or even the main part in the short/medium term. Australia has lower levels of public or social housing than the average advanced economy, so I agree we certainly need more. But I don’t think it can immediately be the leading plank of a response, and it will take time to erode widespread perceptions of public housing as undesirable or an option of last resort (we won’t become Singapore overnight).

As noted in my Socialist Alliance review, I support a mixed economy, and I think there will be (and should be) a role for private housing development for years to come. Hence, for me, VS need to articulate broader policies to foster dense, walkable cities that are accessible and efficient. We should build up, not out, for social, environmental, and economic reasons alike. VS, however, do not have policies for this; at the end of their climate policy is a point about “new regulations for urban planning and design to ensure environmental efficiency and sustainability”, but nothing about ending restrictive zoning or absurd heritage policies that limit housing supply, lock people out from many suburbs, and impede the replacement of mouldy old homes with warm modern ones. I am a professional historian who is not a fan of heritage regulations in their current form; perhaps that is surprising, but urban history shows us that the most vibrant cities are those that grow and evolve, while those put in aspic stagnate.

I see why VS chose Purplepingers as lead candidate. I’ve said before that VS has a younger vibe than Socialist Alliance, and Pingers made his reputation on social media. VS would certainly hope that he brings with him a cohort of socialism-curious voters and reach new audiences. But as well as exposing shit rentals and appalling landlords, Pingers also promotes squatting, which I don’t think is a meaningful solution; it is not pro-housing praxis to occupy dwellings so rundown that they fail paltry minimum standards for slumlords to rent them on the open market. Last week a story broke that a woman found the locks had been changed on her deceased father’s house, the address of which Pingers had shared. What struck me on my socials was that people who were already voting for him thought this was great and spent the day mocking the woman, while many who were not already in his camp found it questionable or distasteful, and saw his "I don't want her to feel bad" response as unserious. So, he’s shoring up a base but I’m not sure he’s the candidate to bring socialism to more mainstream audiences who need persuasion—and I very much want a seat-winning constituency for socialist candidates.

We have too much of the far-right in state and federal parliaments; a socialist MP would be a tonic and expand our political discourse. VS are exactly what they say on the tin and I think they will appeal not just to self-identified socialists but also to other left-wing voters. And despite my reservations above, Pingers and I concur about needing more homes—ultimately, my view is that his activism ironically does not go far enough and that there are more levers to pull. Like him, I want to stop land-banking and negligent landlords, and to ensure good minimum standards. I want more houses, I want them to be part of dense and accessible cities, and I want this yesterday. So, VS has what I consider to be part of the solution, and many of their other policies sit in a similar ideological area to my views. I hope they grow their vote this year.

Recommendation: Give Victorian Socialists a good preference.

Running where: Five states for the Senate (not TAS)

Prior reviews: none, this is a new party

My first new party for the election season! And it is a party that emerged amid a fair degree of parliamentary rancour. This is the party of Fatima Payman, elected in 2022 as a Senator for Western Australia, third on Labor’s ticket. That is normally not an electable position on the Labor ticket at a half-Senate election now that the Greens consistently win one seat, but the swing left in WA in 2022 was so strong that Labor got three in their own right alongside one Green. Payman was a breath of fresh air, a young and articulate Muslim woman who represented a generation and a community who don’t yet see themselves in parliament a lot.

Unfortunately, it all went sour a couple of years later. Australian political parties in general have strict parliamentary discipline even compared to other Westminster democracies with similar traditions, and the Labor whip is the firmest of the lot. It’s not just that Australian political parties are unlike the US Congress, where Democrats and Republicans alike have weak party discipline; there is also no tradition here of one-, two-, and three-line whips like in the UK. In the early 2010s this caused Labor to look a bit silly when Penny Wong, a Labor woman in a same-sex relationship, stuck to the party line against legislating for marriage equality despite the fact everybody knew she supported it and argued for it within the party. Payman, in the end, proved unwilling to similarly parrot the party line on an issue at the centre of her political identity: the right of Palestine to statehood and the urgent need to end Israel’s war on Gaza.

Frankly, I think the Labor whip hand is too firm and that Payman was—and sometimes still is—treated shabbily by her former comrades. When Payman held to the courage of her convictions and crossed the floor to support a Greens-led crossbench motion to recognise Palestinian statehood last June, she was suspended indefinitely from the Labor caucus. I had hoped for better, that her colleagues would recognise how unreasonable it was to ask her to betray her values, but they proved unwilling to budge. The Liberals and Nationals accord more freedom to backbenchers to exercise a free vote (yes I’m saying something about the Coalition parties in an approving tone, believe it or not!), and even its MPs rarely do so; a recent parliamentary research paper emphasises the loneliness of crossing the floor. So, with her position in Labor untenable, Payman quit the party in July 2024.

That’s the back story, and after briefly sitting as an independent, Payman registered Australia’s Voice as a new political party. One of its key policies is a “genocide red-line package”, three bills that Payman introduced alongside ex-Greens independent Senator Lidia Thorpe, but contrary to what you (or at least I) might have expected, it’s not the first thing you see on the party’s website. Instead, an image with unflattering headshots of Albanese and Dutton urges you “don’t waste your vote this election” (a pretty common statement from minor parties of all persuasions) and then a list of “what we are fighting for” policy pages. Presented in rows of three, the top row is housing, banking reform, and supermarket divestiture—it’s only the next row that has Palestine, along with ending politicians’ perks and support for a republic.

The FAQ page pushes the anti-major-party line even more strongly: “The major parties are two sides of the same coin. They’re out of touch and too busy bickering to get on with the job.” (and Payman sure did feel Labor was tinkering while Gaza burned) But the statement that “Australia’s Voice is a new political party formed because we hear the same thing from Australians everywhere—we don’t feel heard” is pablum that micro-parties across the political spectrum say. It doesn’t tell us much about the party’s identity.

The policies on the website are very “Labor centre-left but we support Gaza”, although it seems they’ve been caught on the hop, despite it being a poorly kept secret for ages that the election would fall in April or May: the policies page has a banner that “Australia's Voice is building its policy platform to take to the next election. Below are just some of the things we are fighting for.” This suggests the platform offered just a few weeks out from the election is incomplete. Interestingly, the banking policy shares similarities with, of all people, the Australian Citizens Party, as the party promotes a government-backed bank using Australia Post’s established systems and networks—fortunately, in this case, not because of delusional conspiracies about worldwide finance but to service regional communities and provide low-interest loans.

What they’ve got is generally unobjectionable stuff, with some of the objectives quite good while other components feel incomplete or that not all the implications have been thought through. Moreover, I think much of the party's website has the same problem as the Democrats: what is Payman offering that established players are not? She does have a distinctive offer for voters based on multiculturalism, Australia’s role on the world stage, and concerns about Palestine and global crises, and she can speak especially effectively to young people and Muslim voters, but this is less prominent than I expected. Payman herself isn’t up for re-election until 2028, but I still think promoting her individual political appeal alongside candidates who share her vibe, would help set up the party with a clearer identity long-term than what’s here.

Anyway, no loud alarms going off in my head, only modest caution about a new party yet to find their feet. I hope Payman comes back with a stronger offering in 2028 so that she can conduct a competitive re-election campaign; our democracy would be better if somebody like her can at least stay in the mix rather than be a clear no-hoper if/when she seeks a second term.

Recommendation: Give Australia’s Voice a decent to good preference.

Running where: for the Senate in NSW, QLD, and VIC, and in the House divisions of Parkes (NSW), Lingiari (NT), and Durack (WA)

Prior reviews: federal 2022, VIC 2022, NSW 2023

What I said before: “Their policy platform is really simple stuff: a community that wants to be taken seriously and not treated paternalistically. They seek the space to address their own issues on their own terms.” (VIC 2022)

What I think this year: The Indigenous–Aboriginal Party of Australia (IAPA) first contested the federal election in 2022, having been formed in the remote NSW town of Wilcannia, and then endorsed independent candidates at Victorian and NSW state elections because they did not yet have registration at state level. They also contested the 2023 federal by-election for Fadden (QLD), placing seventh in a crowded field of 13. I am pleased to see the IAPA is back contesting this election, with many candidates familiar faces from those prior campaigns, and I'm especially glad that they have been able to expand their efforts to contest two seats covering remote areas in NT and WA. I will be curious to see how much support they obtain in those seats at polling places for predominantly Indigenous communities.

The IAPA’s focus is firmly on the Indigenous communities whose interests they formed to promote and their goals are often rather simple things that reflect the unacceptable level of disadvantage many Indigenous people experience. Their focus is on an “Indigenous voice IN parliament”, seemingly a riff on the Uluṟu Statement’s call for a Voice TO parliament. There are, of course, Indigenous MPs in parliament, but the IAPA wants representation from a party devoted to Indigenous issues specifically. One of the main reasons the IAPA was created was to address environmental damage to Baaka (the Murray-Darling river system), which has profound spiritual significance as well as practical importance to the Indigenous peoples who live along and with it. This year the party’s “Healthy Rivers, Healthy People” policy also explicitly names the Martuwarra (Fitzroy River), which sits within the WA electorate of Durack, where they are fielding a candidate. This policy goes with two others emphasising the protection of sacred sites and management of water resources.

You will not be surprised to learn the IAPA wants to end the removal of Indigenous children from their families, with much greater support to be provided for in-home support instead, and that they want to stop the incarceration of Indigenous children. They promote a policy of prevention not punishment, with an emphasis on stopping youth offending to break the cycle of young people whose damaging experiences of incarceration lead to a lifetime of going in and out of prison.

IAPA’s approach to housing issues is a bit different from many parties, and it is informed by their distinctive purpose. Rather than discussing urban zoning, first-home buyers, negative gearing, or any of the usual suspects, their policy is about Indigenous housing especially in regional and remote areas. Their emphasis is straightforward and reflects the appalling housing conditions of some remote communities. They want provision of “basic services, materials, facilities and infrastructure; habitability; affordability; accessibility; legal security of tenure; and location and cultural adequacy”.

I said in 2022 that a lot of the IAPA's requests are so basic that they are depressing in how starkly they highlight the challenges and disadvantages experienced in many Indigenous communities, especially in remote areas. That remains true, as the housing policy shows, but happily they are also able to celebrate a couple of gains since their first platform was formulated. One is the introduction of an Indigenous crisis support line, 13YARN, which received over 70,000 calls in under three years (especially during the Voice debate) and one of the co-designers was recently awarded NSW Aboriginal Woman of the Year, Gamilaroi woman Marjorie Anderson. The IAPA is also glad that the federal government has acquired the copyright to the Aboriginal flag from corporate owners, although they qualify this with a note that “like the continent itself, the Aboriginal flag is not rightfully or morally owned by the Australian Government”.

The IAPA's Senate how-to-vote card for Queensland recommends preferences to Socialist Alliance, Legalise Cannabis, Australia’s Voice, Fusion, and the Greens, in that order. For Victoria, they haven’t issued a similar card but urge their voters to “please include a progressive party likely to win [in] the 6th spot, otherwise you may accidentally contribute to the election of a racist party”. It’s interesting they make no specific recommendation for Labor despite the Albanese government holding the Voice referendum.

Recommendation: Give the Indigenous–Aboriginal Party of Australia a good preference.

Running where: ACT for the Senate

Prior reviews: federal 2022

What I said before: “Normally, individuals running on a ‘don’t ya know me and what I stand for?’ platform tack on something so that they are the Jacqui Lambie Network or the Rex Patrick Team or Katter’s Australian Party. David Pocock, however, has had an inspired moment and simply registered his party’s name as his personal name. This isn’t the David Pocock Group, Network, or Team. This is David Pocock.” (federal 2022)

What I think this year: Pocock has been a pretty decent Senator. He had a shaky first few months as he learnt how it all works, but once he figured out whose advice to take, whose to ignore, and what were the signs of a self-interested chancer in the setting of parliamentary lobbying, he got to work in a left-leaning way on issues affecting Canberrans and the nation alike. And, given that his victory at the 2022 election denied the Liberals a seat, his presence is all the more welcome—our parliament is better for Pocock ousting Zed Seselja.

Word on the street is that Pocock has done so well to cement his position in Canberra that he might even outpoll Labor. I will believe that when I see it, but in the contest with the Liberals for his seat, he’s the favourite to retain it. I have seen some speculation that Labor’s vote could drop low enough that Pocock scoops the left-leaning vote while the Liberals do enough to win the second seat ahead of Labor, but I don’t see this as likely. The fact that under Dutton the Liberals have taken aim at the public service and work-from-home policies makes me suspect they might register their worst ever result in Canberra.

Pocock’s website touts his “Wins”, including his ongoing goals. I like he opens with stats that he has given 617 parliamentary speeches, attended 167 ministerial meetings, considered 349 items of legislation, and negotiated 221 amendments. Canberrans, of all people, are most likely to appreciate this kind of info. He then sets out his main issues, and the left-leaning voter will find a lot to like in what he promotes that he is “still fighting for”. Not much leaps out at me as unappealing; he supports 4-year fixed-term parliaments, and while I think parliament should have fixed terms, I have seen no evidence that 4-year terms result in better governance than 3-year terms (and given Australia’s lengthy experience with both at state level, this evidence should be easy to produce if it exists). I prefer not to make politicians less accountable to electors. But this doesn’t seem to be something for which Pocock is fighting especially hard. His leading goal for political reform is to have the ACT’s Senate representation expanded from two to four Senators, which I agree is long overdue.

Pocock has been out the gates campaigning effectively for re-election and he has been busy releasing policies. Alongside climate action, for which he is well known, and action on cost-of-living issues, this year he has a strong focus on health, including more investment in the ACT’s healthcare system, better access to bulk billing GPs, and subsidies for longer appointments so that people with complex conditions don’t have to pay so much. I really like that he is pushing to overturn the ban on gay men in monogamous relationships from donating blood. It is an outdated policy that is no longer necessary for safety and repeal would bring Australia into line with other comparable countries and improve our blood supply.

On the housing front, he emphasises the need for much more investment in public and social housing, which should please many left-wing voters, and I’m happy to read that “the Territory must do more to relax zoning and other rules that restrict permissibility of ‘missing middle’ townhouse and medium-rise apartment buildings. More medium-density housing must be allowed … [and] The ACT Government has to find ways to speed up the development assessment process.” Build! Additionally, Pocock promotes “reform” of negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions. This would be welcome but other parties have stronger positions. I suspect he is right, though, that to make such reforms palatable—especially as this is such a hot-button issue among Australia’s chattering classes—provisions for existing investments will need to be grandfathered in to any reforms.

All in all, I think Pocock is a very good option for left-wing voters in the ACT, and I would unhesitatingly rank him above Labor. I would possibly (probably?) put him above the Greens too. I’m not an ACT voter though, so I don’t have to decide that one for myself.

Recommendation: Give David Pocock a good preference.

I’ve already published one edition of the Blatantly Partisan Party Reviews for 2025, the WA state election; now, we turn to an even bigger electoral event, the Australian federal poll. A decade ago, with lax registration laws and the possibility of scoring a Senator off a minuscule vote thanks to the undemocratic distortions of Group Ticket Voting, a dizzying number of parties cluttered the ballot nationwide with misleading names and fringe platforms. Senate voting has now been reformed so that preferences only go where voters themselves direct them, and tighter enrolment laws have removed many chancers from the party register of the Australian Electoral Commission.

This year, I will be reviewing almost all parties contesting the election nationwide. I do not review Labor, the Liberal/National Coalition parties, or the Greens, because if you’re reading this blog you almost certainly know what you think about those parties. I have not yet decided if I will include One Nation in this edition. Otherwise, I am seeking to cover all registered parties who are fielding candidates, whether nationally or in just one state, and I will do my best to identify individuals standing nominally as independents but who represent an unregistered party. I will also cover independents contesting the Senate in Western Australia, where I live and vote; if I have time, I will cover any that catch my eye elsewhere (particularly Victoria, as I still think of Melbourne as “home”).

Time for my usual disclaimers: I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of a political party. I review from the perspective of a small-g green democratic socialist. I am trained and work as a political historian of Australia and New Zealand. This background guides my reviews, which originated as—and remain—notes to inform my own vote. I do not aim for any false neutrality or objectivity, and I share these remarks in the hope they are useful to others trying to navigate Australia’s plethora of micro-parties. It should be obvious but these are my personal opinions, which should not be construed as representing the views of my employer nor of any other organisation with which I am affiliated.

I am, of course, not alone in reviewing parties. Leading psephologist Kevin Bonham has already released his rundown of Tasmanian Senate candidates. The b_auspol blog will review the parties and independents that are contesting the Senate in NSW and, if the past is any guide, those reviews are certain to be smarter and more clear-eyed than mine. And Something for Cate is a blog continuing the thoughtful election-reviewing traditions of deeply-missed Catherine of Cate Speaks; it has been three years since we lost Cate and election season still feels empty without her, but I am so glad her legacy endures.

If you are unsure how to cast a ballot, Patrick Alexander has two handy explainers: you can’t waste your vote for the House of Representatives and what’s the go with voting for the Senate?

I will start posting reviews tomorrow. Early voting begins on Tuesday 22 April and I want to post as many reviews as possible by then. Each review concludes with a recommendation. Before I explain this, I should clarify that in the House of Representatives (small green ballot), you must number every square; in the Senate (large white ballot), you must number 1–6 above the line or 1–12 below the line, and then distribute further preferences if you want. I recommend giving full preferences in the Senate because failing to number all boxes weakens the power of your vote. The more preferences you give, the more powerful your vote is; it will stay in the count longer.

Here is my recommendation system for this year:

Good preference: a party with a positive overall platform that has few or no significant flaws for the left-wing voter.

Decent preference: a party with a generally positive overall platform but I have some reservations; or, a single-issue party with a good objective but by definition too limited in their scope to encompass the fullness of parliamentary business.

Middling preference: a party with a balance of positive and negative qualities, or a party with a decent platform undermined by a notably terrible policy or characteristic.

Weak or no preference: a party with more negatives than positives. In the House of Representatives, put these parties as low as possible. In the Senate, I recommend you do likewise to maximise the potential power of your vote; but I recognise that some of you prefer not to express preferences between varying gradations of undesirability or prefer not to rank the most odious parties.

This schema is flexible; I may, for instance, suggest a “middling to decent preference”.

A new state election, a new edition of this blog’s reviews! Hello everyone, it’s time to discover what weird micro-parties are cluttering the ballots in Australia’s western third. Let’s have some fun.

It’s my first state election since moving to WA, and I have come here at the right time: Labor won such a massive landslide in 2021 that it could take control of the Legislative Council (the upper house of parliament) and they introduced a much more democratic method of election. This year is the first election under the new system, where the state at large will elect the upper house, replacing a gerrymander that favoured WA’s most lightly populated regions. I’ll say more about this below.

Election day is Saturday, 8 March 2025. Early voting commences today, Monday 24 February. As usual I will not review the Liberals, the ALP, or the Greens, because I assume that if you are reading this blog you probably already have some idea about where those parties stand and how you feel about them. I will review every other party contesting the election, plus all the independents contesting the Legislative Council. For the first time ever, I will review the Nationals because of the distinctive nature of WA state politics (I normally do not review any members of the federal Coalition), and although I had previously sworn off reviewing One Nation after getting bored of writing the same thing about a party everybody knows just as well as they know the majors, this time I have something to say about them.

You will receive two ballots at the polling place. The smaller one is for your local seat in the Legislative Assembly, the lower house of parliament, where government is formed. The Legislative Assembly has 59 seats that each elect an individual member via full preferential instant runoff voting. This means that on the ballot for your local seat, you must number 1 for your first preference, and then number all the remaining squares in the order of your preference.

No matter what happens, your vote will shape the two-candidate-preferred outcome: it will either sit with the elected candidate, or with the last remaining unsuccessful candidate. This means you should think carefully about the order of all candidates: the final contest for the seat might come down to your two least favourite candidates, so who do you hate less? For instance, you might have a raging disdain for the Liberal Party—but there’s a good chance you despise far-right racist or religious fundamentalist parties even more.

As for the Legislative Council (the upper house, a house of review), it used to have 36 members: six elected from six regions. These were designed to favour rural WA so strongly that in 2021, 25% of the state elected half the members. In the three regions covering metropolitan Perth, a candidate needed about 52,000 votes to win a seat; by comparison, in the most sparsely populated region, Mining and Pastoral, a candidate needed just 7,010! Most Australasian parliaments have in the past had a “country quota” to give regional areas more seats than they are entitled on a population basis. WA clung to such a system for the longest. It effectively meant Labor could never win a majority in the upper house—until McGowan’s landslide in 2021. Labor was therefore able to enact democratic reforms that embody the principle of “one person, one vote, one value”.

So, at this election, WA will elect 37 members to the Legislative Council on a statewide basis. Your vote is worth just as much as any other voter anywhere in the state, and the only people mad about this are furious idiots in towns nobody else wants to live in who think they deserve more of a say than anybody else. Here’s a tip for regional areas upset about not getting enough representation in Perth: be somewhere that more people want to live! But apparently “attract more residents by having more of the things people like and less of the things they don’t” is too much to ask for these entitled whingers.

Anyway, to win a seat on the Legislative Council, a candidate will need 2.63% of the vote. It’s going to be fascinating to see who gets in, as this is the lowest quota anywhere in Australasia. Labor and Liberal should each win somewhere between 10–15 seats, the Greens can hope for 3–4, the Nationals 1–2, and then we will see which of the minors get in. Preferences won’t play a tremendously large role but they will matter. Most seats will be won on a quota, but the last few will come down to preferences—either for a minor party seeking their one and only seat (say from a primary vote of 2.1%) or for the last candidate of a bigger party (e.g. Greens primary vote might be good for 3.7 quotas and they get the remainder of the fourth quota via preferences).

There are two ways to vote for the Legislative Council:

Above the line: you vote for a party or group of independents and accept their candidates in the order they are listed below the line. You must number 1 for your first preference, and then distribute as many preferences as you want. To get a square above the line, a party or group of independents must nominate at least 5 candidates. All parties/groups this election nominated at least 5 people; the one group of independents (column M) does not have their box labelled—only registered parties get that.

Pros: it’s much quicker; it is sufficient for the average voter to express their view

Cons: you cannot reorder candidates within a group; you cannot give preferences to ungrouped independents (there are five people standing solo, listed in the rightmost column)

Below the line: you vote for individual candidates in any order of your choosing. You must give a minimum of 20 preferences, and then you can keep preferencing as far as you want.

Pros: you can change the order of a group’s candidates; you can mix preferences between individuals from multiple parties; you can vote for ungrouped independents

Cons: it is way more time consuming; none of the ungrouped independents have a chance of victory and nor do down-ballot candidates for many groups (below about 3rd for most), so is it worth your time?

Whichever way you vote, I recommend distributing as many preferences as you feel you can—it makes your vote more powerful.

Every review will end with my recommendation of how favourably to preference a party. This is the recommendation system I will be using:

Good preference: a party with a positive overall platform that has few or no significant flaws for the left-wing voter.

Decent preference: a party with a generally positive overall platform but some reservations; or, a single-issue party with a good objective but by definition too limited in their scope to encompass the fullness of parliamentary business.

Middling preference: a party with a balance of positive and negative qualities, or a party with a decent platform undermined by a notably terrible policy or characteristic.

Weak or no preference: a party with more negatives than positives. Either give this party a poor preference or (in the upper house only) you might prefer to let your vote exhaust before reaching it.