Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Tomorrow, Australians head to the polls once again.

We know that quite a number of people reading this (or their family members) are standing as candidates across a range of parties. We salute you for your efforts, no matter the result!

There are numerous online resources aiming to guide voters in making their decision.

Some favour individual candidates. Some favour parties as a whole.

Some guides are based purely on life issues. Some are based on a broader range of social issues.

Some are based purely on ‘freedom’ issues (i.e. relating to COVID restrictions and mandates).

To compile all of these resources and make a decision seems a massive challenge, especially when many would lead to contradictory views.

We don’t propose to add to the noise — and AFC does not tell people how to vote (which is a relief to some and source of frustration to others).

What we will do, however, is provide you with some serious thoughts for your consideration.

Make your preferences count FULLY

As you probably know, you must number ALL the boxes on your lower house ballot for your vote to be counted. When it comes to the Senate, however, many parties suggest you just vote above the line.

We highly recommend numbering ALL boxes on the Senate ballot BELOW THE LINE. This is the only way to maximise your vote and ensure the candidates you don’t want are placed at the very bottom of your order.

If you struggle with numbering so many boxes, particularly when you don’t know all the parties or their candidates, one method is to number your top preferences, then work backwards from those you really don’t want to see win, and then number the remaining boxes.

This is also a method of helping good incumbent senators like Amanda Stoker (QLD) and Eric Abetz (TAS) who will struggle without being higher up more people’s preferences because of where their own parties have placed them.

Who would you prefer in Government?

As we stated earlier, AFC doesn’t suggest who you should vote for. We also know our supporters are involved in a broad range of parties and we respect this.

It’s a fact, however, that only two groups will be able to form Government after this weekend: either the Liberal/National Coalition or the Labor Party.

This means that, even if the major parties are not your first preference, careful consideration must be given to where your preferences go.

It’s true that the current Coalition Government has disappointed many people. It also promised much that it hasn’t delivered. And it even contains so-called ‘modern Liberals’ who worked against their own party’s pledge to preserve our freedoms.

But the Coalition is also home to hope in the form of people like Amanda Stoker, Eric Abetz, Claire Chandler, Andrew Hastie, Alex Antic, Gerard Rennick — to name but a few – and other good MPs and Senators fighting for your values.

It has also allowed people like Warringah candidate Katherine Deves a platform to say what many others dare not.

Contrast this with the Labor Party, home of Penny Wong, Tanya Plibersek, Louise Pratt and others.

Labor’s policies, past and present, regarding abortion, gender ideology, and religious freedom should leave voters in no doubt as to what will happen should Mr Albanese become Prime Minister.

And this is to say nothing of a Labor Government working with a significant Greens presence in the Senate — a truly scary prospect.

Should I just “put the majors last”?

Polls indicate that roughly a third of voters will not vote for either major party. This is democracy.

There are certainly campaigns encouraging voters to “put the majors last”. But there are also many people calling for voters to consider the candidate rather than the party. These two views are obviously irreconcilable.

In terms of putting the majors last as a blanket policy, it suggests a moral equivalency between the two major parties. For the reasons we’ve outlined above, we don’t believe this is true – and it doesn’t do justice to those good MPs and Senators fighting for our values.

And just as importantly: what’s the benefit to be gained from putting major parties last as a blanket rule? Ostensibly, it’s to punish them and their MPs for their failings, real or perceived.

On the surface, this might make sense. We only have this incredible power every three years.

But then what? If we kick out the current crop of MPs, who takes their place?

South Australia shows us exactly what would happen.

Just two months ago, the Liberals were turfed out of office after just one term. Many pro-life and Christian voters turned on them over the radical abortion bill crafted by one of their MPs and given Government time for debate. This ignores the fact that more Liberals voted against the bill than Labor members.

Likewise, many who were angry about the Liberals’ stance on COVID restrictions and mandates, feeling them to be draconian, also pushed for the Liberals to be punished.

Now, barely two months later, the newly minted Labor Government is already foreshadowing “conversion therapy” laws and is moving to legislate (that is, make permanent) the penalty of jail time for COVID-related breaches.

A cautionary tale if ever there was one.

So, what’s the take-home message?

1. Putting the “majors last” risks presenting the two major parties as morally equivalent.
2. Simply turfing MPs out and praying parties will miraculously “get the message” is a doomed strategy.

The only way to get MPs willing to promote your values is to join a party and have a direct say in who becomes a candidate in the first place. It’s that simple, yet so few people do it.

Leaving our choice until polling day is leaving it too late.

___

Originally published by the Australian Family Coalition. Photo by cottonbro.