aesmael

This afternoon I found this anonymous comment on my post listing Australia's major political parties:

Family First
Why not check out the Family First website. You may be pleasantly surprised. I certainly was.

    I was going to go in alphabetical order but what the hey. Family First is up first.
    Their 'who we are' page not surprisingly emphasises their claim to represent families. The phrase "FAMILY FIRST is independent represents commonsense, mainstream values and ordinary Australian families" is repeated twice on the page, so it looks to me like they think it important.
    Perhaps it is the bias I have picked up from their minor media coverage so far, but to me this looks like the kind of thing I see in US politics which is coded social conservatism specifically including homophobic policies.
    Further down the page we have in their list of beliefs: "That people must accept personal responsibility as well as community obligations". The people I most commonly see lines about personal responsibility are, again, social conservatives and specifically anti-abortionists, so this line also makes me suspicious.
    Finally we have their belief that something must be done to reduce what they call the "crippling number of marriage and relationship breakdowns". I happen to disagree with the idea that people should be expected to mate for life. If they wish to, fine. If they do not, also fine. Although I believe resources should be available in the way of, for example, counselling, should people wish it, I do not believe there is necessarily a problem if many marriages end in divorce. I certainly do not believe it is the government's place to step in and specifically encourage monogamous lifetime marriage (which you may note, dear reader, is what I have assumed they are referring to) above other romantic relationships.
    The rest of what they say on that page looks okay to me, although I may change my mind depending on what precisely they mean to do about it. Someone else better versed in political language may find things I missed or mistook too.

The Long List of Policies
    WHY A PARTY TO STAND UP FOR FAMILIES [PDF]
       Looks okay. Bit too focused if they actually came into power but presumably being a relatively small and new party their main intent is to act as an influence on the government in their favoured direction. But I should not assume.
    WHY CREATE A PARTY FOCUSSING ON THE FAMILY [PDF]
       A couple of paragraphs saying they represent families as their constituency in the same way other parties represent businesses, etc.
    ABORTION [PDF]
       Two pages explaining their opposition to abortion. They claim "that many women are deeply hurt by the widespread promotion of abortion as the solution to crisis pregnancies and by their own experience of abortion." Their proposed solution is greater support and resources directed at pregnant women so they can still whatever (educational, financial... ) they were up to. That seems extraordinarily impractical, although I would like it if resources were such that no one faced pressure to abort a pregnancy from any source, it is still ver right not to be pregnant if ve does not wish to be.
       They do not at any point in this document indicate a desire to outright ban abortion that I saw, however they do imply that most abortions happen due to outside social pressure and doctor autocracy forcing it on unwilling people and they propose an extensive set of requirements before a person would be allowed to have one done which seems designed to make it as difficult and stressful as possible:

Family First believes that a woman who has sought medical advice should be
advised of the following as a minimum to ensure that women considering
abortion are able to give truly free and informed consent and so as to avoid
regrets:

1. Comprehensive information on the nature of the termination procedure.

2. A woman should be given comprehensive and accurate information about
foetal development and assistance in relating that information to the stage of
her own pregnancy in light of current medical evidence. In particular, women
should be given the opportunity to view an ultra sound of the woman’s foetus
prior to any decision being taken to terminating the pregnancy.

3. Family First believes that a woman should be given comprehensive
information as to the long term medical implications on her health including
infertility, damage to the cervix, haemorrhage and death, as well as standard
surgical risks as well as possible increased risks of breast cancer.

4. A women should be advised of the high risk of long term psychological
impact of the abortion including profound and sometimes lasting post abortion
grief and depression.

5. Information about independent counselling services

6. Information about available services and options for support and assistance
through pregnancy and in caring for the child in infancy and beyond.

Family First supports the view that women seeking information on abortion be
given adequate time in which to consider the advice and information before
making a decision to proceed to termination ( this could taker the form of a 72
hour cooling off period).

At no point in that document did I see any phrasing indicating that a person might make the choice to terminate a pregnancy.
For me, this is a deal-breaker. I would have to be convinced the other parties all have worse policies before I would consider voting for Family First.

    ASYLUM SEEKERS [PDF]
       Longer than the others. Five pages. They want neighbouring countries to take in a larger share of refugees. They want refugees applying for asylum to have their applications processed more quickly. If an application is successful the very first thing they want is to see if they can possibly be sent to settle in some other country. They wish to give priority to keeping families together.
       They do seem to wish to reduce mandatory detention for asylum seekers, for the purpose of assessing health or security risks only before releasing them to stay in a supervised hostel. I do not know if this is good but it is better than the current system. Their stated intention is to give people who have been in detention a long time under the current situation an opportunity to apply for residency.
    There is probably a lot I am missing because these are issues I am especially ignorant of. It looks mostly good to me, although the part about preferentially sending people elsewhere makes me suspicious.

    CUSTODY OF CHILDREN [PDF]
       Another area I have little exposure to. Family First says they want the default state for children of ended relationships to be joint residency. They do not say at any point if there would be an option for a parent to opt out of this arrangement; the only exclusions they offer are if it is argued not to be in the best interests of the child, such as from travel arrangements or the possibility of harm for the child.
       I am not sure of my stance on this as so many things. While it may be generally in the best interest of the child to do so - for the moment I shall take them at their word - in cases where a parent is unwilling or uninterested in participating in the raising of a child it seems a poor idea to require it of them.

ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT [PDF]
I do not know economics, I can not pass judgement on this. For all I know it is rubbish and I would not be able to tell.

    EDUCATION [PDF]
       I read "Defend parents’ rights to choose schooling that supports their family’s values" as being in support of the existence of religious schools, which I cautious think is a bad idea but should not be shut down, though nor should they receive government funding. It also brings to mind the following question: If organisations wished to set up Labor or Liberal schools, would that be allowed too? Is it somehow different to set up schools to raise children with a particular political philosophy? We already do try to raise them to approve of capitalist democracies, I think, so perhaps people would not mind. Might be worth a new post some day.
    "Improve and broaden the provision of financial life skills education" seems like a good idea. Certainly there were skills I did not learn in school which I feel the lack of. Hey, I did not complain about that one. Whaddya know?
    "Defend the right of independent schools to employ staff who uphold the values of their school community" Is this code for allowing discrimination?
    Supporting funding equity between public and private schools rubs me the wrong way at first, but if memory serves private schools actually receive more funding. I am not firm on that, but either way I think private schools should not receive government funding.
    What does it mean for schools to be more accountable to parents? If this were the US I would think it a sneaky way of getting evolution removed.
    Increased funding of tertiary institutions and reduction of HECS costs is a good thing. So are "reforms that promote improved research, teaching and learning outcomes[.]"

ENVIRONMENT & RESOURCES [PDF]
I actually like what they have to say on this one. There may be important things left out but they made no sins of commission.

    FAMILY IMPACT STATEMENTS [PDF]
       If I read this rightly they wish to establish a commission to analyse all current or proposed legislation in the context of its effect on families, results available to government and community. They sure do seem serious about their main focus.
    My opinion of this is highly contingent on how it is done. For example, I do not know quite what to make of the first foundational principle behind this commission:

Principle 1
The family is the foundational unit that provides stability, wellbeing and
sustainability to our society

The fourth one makes me queasy:

Principle 4
The interests of children are best served by growing up in a happy,
understanding, safe home created by a loving mother and father
supported by the extended intergenerational family and a supportive
social, legal and economic foundation.

Especially when coupled with the sixth and last principle:

Principle 6
Marriage between a man and a women is the surest approach to the
establishment of stable family life and is therefore worthy of positive
support and promotion by government and society[.]

If they still had my support (which you will note they lost their chance at already), it would be gone now. The impressions I formed from their initial statements have been borne out: Family First is a party founded on sexist, homophobic principles and no one should give them any support.

HEALTH [PDF]
They make mostly good noises here, although also slipping in an anti-abortionist phrase:

"Family First will promote respect for all stages of human life and upholds the fundamental responsibility of members of the medical profession to safeguard human life[.]"

I suppose they are opposed to voluntary euthanasia too.

Family First rejects harm minimisation as the primary strategy for
combating substance abuse. The Party favours prevention,
rehabilitation and avoidance as more acceptable primary strategies.

I am not sure what that means but it looks to me like they wish to put an end to safe injecting rooms. Since I think those drugs should be as legal as cigarettes I disagree with that idea, but I would go along with funding for rehabilitation and the education they mentioned earlier provided it were sensible.

HOUSING [PDF]
Meh. Looks good.

ILLEGAL DRUGS INCLUDING MARIJUANA [PDF]
Basically a repeat of what they said in the relevant section of their health policies.

And now I am growing too tired to continue. The rest will have to wait for another day.