Election Challenge – 2016

Scoresheet

Background

Prior to each federal election, the APF presents Parties with an Election Challenge.

On 12 May 2016, 23 Parties and registered groups contesting the 2 July 2016 federal election were invited to make their positions clear on 10 Vital Privacy Issues. Responses were requested by 6 June.

The Parties' positions were then scored, based wherever possible on their responses cross-checked against their public platforms, and failing that on what could be found in the way of relevant statements in their platform.

A mark of up to 9 points was awarded for each of the 10 topics, plus up to 5 for the published Platform, and up to 5 for the Response.

A summary of the results is below, in both text and tabular forms.

Summary of APF's Conclusions

1. If you value privacy highly, only two Parties deserve your vote:

• The Pirate Party scored 95/100 on the Challenge. The Party has a very comprehensive platform, which is very positive on human rights and privacy issues, particularly in its heartland area of the digitally literate. The Party provided specific, clear and positive responses to the APF's Election Challenge.
• The Greens scored 94/100. The Party remains close to the people who they represent. They have long had, and retain, an enlightened set of policies. Senator Ludlum has led the Parliamentary fight against privacy-invasive technologies. The Party's Platform is reasonably comprehensive, and has specific segments on Human Rights and Constitutional Reform and Democracy. The Party's Response was clear and to the point.

2. All other Parties failed the Challenge. The comments below are in descending order of inadequacy.

The Sex Party has a limited platform, but it has been consistently pro-privacy, it claims to have "a broad civil libertarian policy suite", and it has some specific policies that are significantly supportive of human rights. This includes a statutory right to privacy and stronger protections agains breaches of privacy, particularly in relation to data retention and CCTV. (20/100)

The Labor Party platform contains only 3 mentions of 'human rights', two relating to immigration and and one to a promised LGBTI Discrimination Commissioner. Of the 100 policy areas, 4 do relate to 'Workers Rights' (sic), and a dozen more to 'Tackling inequality and disadvantage'. However, the 'National Information Policy' and the policy on Comprehensive Credit Reporting include elements that are actively anti-privacy in nature. The Party had claims in relation to several initiatives some years ago, but its current stance is grossly deficient. Labor provided a Response, which in a number of respects was positive. But it did not score very highly at all in relation to the challenges that we posed. A vote for Labor is a vote for privacy-abusive laws. (19/100)

The Xenophon Group has a narrow platform, and its response was limited. The platform provides very little meaningful about human rights or privacy, but a couple of minor statements have been provided about betting agency access to personal data, and warrants for metadata collection (5/100).

The Liberal Party platform contains nothing whatsoever relating to human rights or consumer rights. The Party has been actively hostile to privacy in recent years, and its commitment to 'Combatting Terrorism' appears to be as unbalanced as ever. In addition, the Party failed to provide a response. From 11/100 in 2013, the Party's score has actually gone backwards. A vote for the Liberals is a vote for privacy-abusive laws, and against privacy protections (2/100).

The National Party appears to sub-contract its platform to the Liberal Party, and hence earns the same abysmal rating (2/100).

3. All other Parties have very limited platforms containing little or nothing on human rights generally, let alone on privacy. Brief comments on them are provided below the tabular listing.

Ratings for the Main Players

Scoring: Up to 9 points for each of the 10 Challenges, plus up to 5 for the Party's Platform and up to 5 for its Response. Total Possible = 100

Assessments of Other Parties (16)

1 Party may be privacy-supportive, but it's difficult to tell:

• The Liberal Democrats (David Leyonhjelm) are strongly 'libertarian', in the US sense, ("favouring individual choice and freedom over government intrusion"), although they're less extreme than the word would imply in US politics. The Party has firm policies on freedom and civil liberties and democracy, but they're not detailed enough to apply a score.

2 further Parties responded to the APF's Challenge, but without sufficient substance to earn a score:

• Consumer Rights and No-Tolls is generally supportive of human and consumer rights, but does not have any specific policies in place in relation to privacy.
• Glenn Lazarus Team provided no meaningful response in relation to human rights or privacy.

The remaining 13 Parties offered virtually nothing of relevance to the analysis:

• Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile) appears not to have a platform.
• Family First appears not to have a platform.
• The platform of the Democratic Labor Party contains nothing about human rights or privacy, and is largely hostile to them.
• Justice Party (Derryn Hinch) appears not even to have a functioning web-site, let alone any meaningful policies.
• The platform of Katter's Australian Party refers to the advancement of "individual’s [sic] rights and freedoms", but appears to be silent on the specifics of human rights and privacy.
• Jacqui Lambie Network appears not to have a platform.
• Manufacturing and Farming Party (John Madigan) provides nothing meaningful about human rights or privacy.
• One Nation's Platform appears to contain nothing about human or consumer rights, and it mandates a National Identity Card as a condition of use of "tax payer funded services" – "This is not an invasion of privacy, it is a matter of national security".
• Outdoor Recreation Party (ORP) is vaguely libertarian, but provides nothing meaningful about human rights or privacy.
• Palmer United appears not to have a platform.
• The platform of RiseUp Australia contains only a limited amount about human rights.
• Shooters, Fishers (and Farmers?) Party provides nothing meaningful about human rights or privacy.
• Socialist Alliance provides nothing meaningful about human rights or privacy.