Australian Privacy Foundation home

The association that campaigns for privacy protections

Election 2016

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:

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

Party
Score %

Platform
Response

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Pirate PartyResponse
95
 
5
5
 
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
4
9
9
GreensResponse
94
 
4
5
 
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
4
9
9
Sex Party
20
 
4
0
 
0
9
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
LaborResponse
19

3
4

3
1
1
5
2
0
0
0
0
0
Nick Xenophon Team
5
 
1
2
 
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
Liberals
2

2
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nationals
2

2
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Assessments of Other Parties (16)

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

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

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


APF thanks its site-sponsor:     Hosted by GoWeb image This web-site is periodically mirrored by
the Australian National Library's Pandora Archive
and by the Wayback Machine since March 2000

Created: 23 May 2016 - Last Amended: 23 June 2016 by Roger Clarke - Site Last Verified: 11 January 2009
© Australian Privacy Foundation Inc., 1998-2016  -   Mail to Webmaster
Site Map   -   This document is at http://www.privacy.org.au/Directory/Page.html  -   Privacy Policy