AUJS POL Zine
What do the parties have to say? Find out today!
Read what happened! The Great Debate.
Hear from young voters just like you. Articles inside!
Don’t know how to vote? Learn how!
Looking forward to looking forward.
Joshua Kirsh AUJS Political Affairs Director
Often I am grateful that Australia has far shorter election campaigns than the United States. In the period that more than 20 major candidates have announced their intent to run against Donald Trump, Australia has managed to nominate (and lose) a vast swathe candidates for the House and Senate across Australia. In short pace, we will know the outcome of this election - I’ll take one month over two years any day.
Thankfully, this year’s campaign has been shorter than the last. 2016’s staggering six weeks on the trail exhausted the energy and patience of politicians and voters alike. But where last time Opposition Leader Bill Shorten was able to pick up steam as Election Day approached, this year both leaders have worn themselves into the ground.
This was no clearer than at the final leader’s debate at the National Press Club; both sounded tired - but also tired of repeating the same lines ad nauseum. The decision to allow them to ask each other two questions each was, I thought, an inspired onesomething to finally break the monotony. Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s question to Shorten regarding superannuation changes (a refreshing change from the constant back and forth over dividend imputation) opened a part of the economic debate not particularly well litigated in this campaign. By the same token, Shorten’s question on cancer treatment was a stark reminder of the comparatively small role of health in this campaign, compared to the infamous ‘Mediscare’ argument of 2016.
Both questions, and the other questions posed by the leaders, spoke to the central dynamic of the campaign. All four related specifically to policy announcements made by Labor. Much of the turf of this election has been on Labor’s plans, whether on their reforms to the tax system, climate change, or increasing access and affordability for public services. Whilst Shorten has been spruiking the merits of his policy, Morrison has done little else whilst travelling the country than ask (necessary) questions about the cost of change.
It remains to be seen which way Australians will go; whether they accept Shorten’s ideas, or heed Morrison’s warnings. Many in the commentariat have hearkened back to John Hewson’s 1993 defeat to explain why a radical policy platform from opposition proposing to move the country in a new direction may not have the intended results. Fightback! - the infamous 650 page policy document which kept the Coalition in opposition for another three years - will undoubtedly make the commentary pages if the Labor party does not seal the deal on the 18th.
Looking back at Fightback! Is not an exercise in nostalgia for me. After all, the 1993 election was fought three years before I was born. But it does seem a parable worth taking note of. In Fightback!, Hewson and the Liberals set out to, in their own words, “achieve a generational change in policies and attitudes that will give individual Australians greater control over their own lives”. Whilst Labor’s policy platform is detailed and features reforms in most every area of policy making, it would seem that this is what it lacks - what George Bush Sr. called “the vision thing”.
Australia has suffered from a dearth of long term thinking in the last two decades of policy making - an absence of governments with enough of “the vision thing” to articulate what Australia should look like. Never mind tinkering with the tax brackets, or fluctuations in expenditure on services like the ABC (which mostly signal what a party is against rather than what it believes). This campaign has sorely lacked a credible overarching tone or shape from either of the major parties. Shorten has laid out, to quote Kevin Rudd, “an agenda of work to prosecute”; whilst Morrison has painted a nightmare picture of higher taxes and fewer jobs under a Labor government.
The dynamics of this campaign in the context of global political disruption are interesting. Compared to three years ago, the Hanson phenomenon has
receded sharply. Once spoken of in the same breath as Trump and Brexit, Hanson is unlikely to retain all three of the Senate seats she brought with her in 2016 - and recent dalliances with the NRA have done real damage to her nascent credibility. And whilst Clive Palmer’s outsized red ties and boasts about having a net worth of “four thousand million dollars” were designed to drum up the same kind of interest as the current occupant of the White House, it remains to be seen whether the electorate truly believes that he knows how to “make Australia great”.
The more interesting disruptors appear to be the independents running in safe Coalition seats. Drawn into the fray by the example of newly minted Wentworth MP Kerryn Phelps, these candidates are eager to seat themselves firmly between the parties and present a credible choice for renewal on the more economically conservative side of politics. Zali Steggall’s campaign in Warringah has achieved enough cut-through to make Tony Abbott nervous, and there are signs of concern about Farrer (previously held by Deputy PM Tim Fischer) and Cowper. Labor’s big economic reforms and the Coalition’s inaction on climate change have handed them a perfect road map to the “sensible centre”.
There are a significant number of contests beyond the two-party binary this year - whether between the Coalition and Independents, Labor and the Greens, or some other combination of all the above (like Gilmore, which has metamorphosed into a four-way
Liberal/National/Labor/Independent monstrosity of a campaign) - the national two-party preferred vote is no longer the indicator of success that it once was.
Whoever takes up residency in the Lodge once all of the votes are counted will certainly have a lot of work to do. With the rise of China on the global stage, our economy and our political system will require a great deal of monitoring to respond to the attendant opportunities and challenges. Both parties have signalled an understanding that our most important geopolitical role lies with our influence in the Pacific - and how they adapt to new operating parameters will certainly be of great importance for our future.
I ran a couple of informal polls on Instagram (that great political modelling tool) in the wake of the first and third leader’s debates in the last two weeks. One thing was clear - regardless of whether people supported one side of the other, they were deeply unlikely to give up an hour to watch the leaders trade barbs and argue over quotidian details. Voters are signalling this with their feet in two notable ways; the significant rise in early voting, and a growing proportion casting a vote for someone other than the major parties. Long term thinking has been in short supply over the course of this campaign. Even once all the votes have been cast, it’s unclear what the next government will do to arrest this trend (if anything). Certainty is probably a mug’s game in politics, but I think one thing is for sure; if we voters wait to fall in love, we’ll have a long wait.
VOTING IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Each Member of the House of Representatives is elected to represent an area known as an electoral division. Each electoral division within a state or territory contains about the same number of people on the electoral roll.
The electors in each division elect one person to represent them in the House of Representatives.
House of Representatives ballot papers
The order of the candidates on the ballot paper for each electoral division is determined by a random draw conducted in the office of the Divisional Returning Officer immediately after the declaration of nominations. The House of Representatives ballot papers are green in colour.
How to complete the ballot paper
To vote for a Member of the House of Representatives, a voter is required to write the number ‘1’ in the box next to the candidate who is their first choice, and the numbers ‘2’, ‘3’ and so on against all the other candidates until all the boxes have been numbered, in order of the voter’s preference.
Ballot papers must be marked according to the rules for voting so that they do not create informal votes. Ballot papers cannot be counted if they are informal.
Polling officials at the polling place are available to assist voters in completing their ballot paper. If the voter makes a mistake on a ballot paper they may return it to the polling official who issued it and receive a fresh one.
Formal votes
To make a formal vote on a House of Representatives ballot paper, a voter needs to number every box with a series of consecutive
numbers according to their preference. A voter needs to:
• write the number ‘1’ in the bo x beside the candidate who is their first choice,
• write the number ‘2’ in the bo x beside the candidate who is their second choice,
• write the number ‘3’ in the bo x beside the candidate who is their third choice, and so on until the y have numbered every box.
Informal votes
An informal ballot paper is one that has been incorrectly completed or not filled in at all. Informal votes are not counted towards any candidate but are set aside.
A House of Representatives ballot paper is informal if:
• it is b lank or unmarked,
• ticks or crosses have been used,
• it has writing on it which identifies the voter,
• a number is repeated,
• the voter’s intention is not clear, or it has no t received the official mark of the presiding officer and is not considered authentic
MAKE SURE YOU NUMBER EVERY BOX!
Note: If a House of Representatives ballot paper has all squares numbered but one, then it is assumed that the unmarked square constitutes the last preference and the ballot paper will be deemed formal.
VOTING IN THE SENATE
Each state and territory elects multiple Senators using a preferential voting system. Each state has twelve Senate positions with six year terms and each territory has two Senate positions with three year terms.
At a federal election only half of the Senate positions for each state typically become vacant, resulting in six Senate vacancies per state, while all territory Senate positions become vacant.
Senate ballot papers
The order of the party columns on the ballot paper for each state and territory is determined by a random draw held immediately after the declaration of nominations.
Some columns on the Senate ballot paper will feature a party logo but some will likely not. This is dependent on each party officially registering a logo with the AEC.
Senate ballot papers are white in colour.
How to complete the ballot paper
On the white Senate ballot paper, you need to either:
• number at le ast six boxes above the line for the parties or groups of your choice, or
• number at le ast 12 boxes below the line for individual candidates of your choice.
Above the line
If you vote above the line, you need to number at least six boxes from 1 to 6.
Place a 1 in the box above the party or group that is your first choice, the number 2 in the box above the party or group that is your second choice and so on until you have numbered at least six boxes above the line. You can continue to place numbers in the order of your choice in as many boxes above the line as you like.
Your preferences will first be distributed to the candidates in the party or group of your first choice, then to candidates in the party or group of your second choice and so on, until all your preferences have been distributed. Informal votes
An informal ballot paper is one that has been incorrectly completed or not filled in at all. Informal votes are not counted towards any candidate but are set aside.
Below the line
If you vote below the line, you need to number at least 12 boxes from 1 to 12.
Place a 1 in the box beside the candidate that is your first choice, and the numbers 2, 3, 4 and so on to at least the number 12. You can continue to place numbers in the order of your choice in as many boxes below the line as you like.
PARTY AND CAMPAIGN SURVEYS
In the lead up to this election, we contacted 27 campaigns and asked them 5 questions.
We asked these questions because we believed that they achieved the crux of the concern for most Jewish students in this election - specifically in relation to our identities as Jewish students. Many resources exist to provide information on other issues key to Jewish students, including climate change, health, education, and the economy.
1 Do you support changes to the level of security funding for Jewish institutions (including synagogues and schools)?
2 Do you support changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act?
3 Do you support changes to section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act, which allows religious schools exemptions from anti-discrimination law?
4
5
Do you believe that, in the absence of movement in the peace process, Australia should unilaterally recognise a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza?
Do you support the movement to boycott, divest from, and impose sanctions on the state of Israel?
These parties and campaigns responded:
The Coalition (Liberal/National) - Kerryn Phelps - Greens Centre Alliance - Australian Conservatives - S cience Party
These parties and campaigns did not provide answers to our questions despite repeated requests: Labor - United Australia Party - P auline Hanson’s One Nation Liberal Democrats - Reason - S ustainable Australia
Animal Justice Party - Australian Democrats Jacqui Lambie Network - De rryn Hinch’s Justice Party Julia Banks (Flinders) - O liver Yates (Kooyong) Zali Steggall (Warringah) - H elen Haines (Indi)
Andrew Wilkie (Clark) - Rob Oakeshott (Cowper) Huw Kingston (Hume) - A lice Thompson (Mackellar) Adam Blakester (New England) - Jeremy Miller (Lyne)
Kevin Mack (Farrer)
Do you support changes to the level of security funding for Jewish institutions (including synagogues and schools)?
What they said: The Morrison Government is committed to keeping every Australian safe. No one should have to fear for their safety.
Religious freedom is not just an inalienable right as free citizens, it is important to the very cohesion of our society. The Morrison Government is committed to protecting the freedom of Australians to worship and meet safely without fear.
The Morrison Government has announced that we will extend the Safer Communities Fund. Funding will be boosted in the upcoming round of grants for religious organisations, including Jewish institutions, to increase security at their premises. $55 million will now be available in Round 4 and grants will be prioritised for religious schools, places of religious worship and religious assembly. This latest funding announcement brings the total amount available under the Safer Communities Fund to $119.9 million from 2016-17 to 2020-21.
Grants ranging from $50,000 to $1.5 million will provide for safety enhancements such as CCTV cameras, lighting, fencing, bollards, alarms, security systems and public address systems. Funding is available over three years for security infrastructure and projects.
Do you support changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act?
What they said: The Morrison Government has no plans to amend section 18C. Australia is a proud multicultural society. The Coalition is committed to ensuring that freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom from discrimination, including on the basis of race or religion, are all protected and promoted. While all Australians have a right to express their views, including people with controversial views, they must remain within the framework of Australian law.
What we know: The Coalition brought legislation to amend 18C to the Senate in 2017, where it failed.
Do you support changes to section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act, which allows religious schools exemptions from antidiscrimination law?
What they said: As part of our response to the Ruddock Review, the Coalition has delivered on our commitment to refer the issue of religious exemptions to Commonwealth, state and territory discrimination laws to the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) for inquiry and report. The ALRC inquiry is designed to ensure that legislative exemptions to discrimination based on a person’s identity are limited or removed, while also protecting the right of religious institutions to conduct their affairs in a way consistent with their religious ethos.
What we know: Coalition members of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee made the referral to the ALRC, asserting that the legislation proposed did not sufficiently protect religious freedoms. Their suggested amendments have been met with concern from LGBTQ+ legal experts, who warn that they will undermine the proposed changes and fail to protect students and teachers from discrimination.
Do you believe that, in the absence of movement in the peace process, Australia should unilaterally recognise a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza?
What they said: Australia has long held that aspirations for Palestinian statehood can only be realised through direct negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel. This is a position formally agreed in the Oslo Accords between the Palestinians and Israel, and is a long-standing position of the United Nations and many other countries.
The Morrison Government continues to encourage both Israel and the Palestinians to take the steps needed to reinvigorate the peace process and recommence negotiations on the final status issues, including the status of Jerusalem, the right of return of refugees, the status of Israeli settlements, the provision of security, and the future borders of a Palestinian state.
The Morrison Government remains strongly committed to a two-state solution, where Israel and a future Palestinian state exist side-by-side in peace and security within internationally recognised borders. The Morrison Government’s position is consistent with international law and relevant UN Security Council resolutions.
Do you support the movement to boycott, divest from, and impose sanctions on the state of Israel?
What they said: As Prime Minister Morrison stated in the House of Representatives on 19 February 2019, the “Liberal and National Parties will never walk back or shrink from the recognition that Australia now affords Israel and the commitments and support for the State of Israel, whether in the General Assembly of the United Nations or elsewhere”.
The Coalition has consistently denounced the anti-Semitic boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign and those who support it.
The Coalition, comprised of the Liberal and National parties, has been in government since 2013. Traditionally located at the centreright of the political spectrum, they believe generally in smaller government, lower taxes, and conservatism. Andrew Hirst, Federal Director of the Liberal Party of Australia, answered our questions. The Coalition is led by Scott Morrison.
The House of Representatives Senate
Do you support changes to the level of security funding for Jewish institutions (including synagogues and schools)?
What they said: [no answer]
What we know: The Labor Party most recently committed to $2m in new security funding for the NSW Jewish community during the state election in March. The ALP told AIJAC that they will “work with religious schools to ensure that their security needs are met”, and that “the distribution of funds will be determined based on risk assessment and security needs”.
Do you support changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act?
What they said: [no answer]
What we know: When this issue was put to the Senate in 2017, the Labor party voted against changing 18C. The ALP told AIJAC that “we are committed to ensuring our race hate protections are never watered down.” Shadow AttorneyGeneral Mark Dreyfus has announced that Labor would be “beefing up” enforcement of 18C if elected.
Do you support changes to section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act, which allows religious schools exemptions from antidiscrimination law?
What they said: [no answer]
What we know: Labor members of the committee to review legislation to amend the Sex Discrimination Act endorsed returning the bill to Parliament and voting to remove the exemptions. In a letter to Christian Schools Australia, Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus stated that a Labor government would “request that the [Australian Law Reform Commission] work to provide its recommendations on how best to remove the exemptions from discrimination against LGBTQ students and teachers contained in Commonwealth legislation as a priority.”
Do you believe that, in the absence of movement in the peace process, Australia should unilaterally recognise a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza?
What they said: [no answer]
What we know: A motion passed at the Labor party’s National Conference in 2018 “calls on the next Labor government to recognise Palestine as a state”. The motion was not binding, and left the final decision for the Cabinet to determine.
Do you support the movement to boycott, divest from, and impose sanctions on the state of Israel?
What they said: [no answer]
What we know: So far, former West Australian Labor MP Melissa Parke is the only Labor parliamentarian to endorse BDS at the federal level. (Parke’s candidacy for the seat of Curtin at this election was short lived due to controversies relating to her stance specifically on this issue.)
The Labor party is traditionally placed to the centre-left of the political spectrum. It has prioritised climate change, reforms to taxation, and health in this election. We contacted the Labor party to seek answers to our questions but did not receive any. The Labor Party is led by Bill Shorten.
The House of Representatives
Do you support changes to the level of security funding for Jewish institutions (including synagogues and schools)?
What they said: The Greens stand firmly with the Jewish community in the face of rising numbers of anti-Semitic attacks in Australia and around the world. We want to ensure that every individual can attend their school, workplace, community centre or place of worship in safety. That requires more than just security at the door - it requires wider societal change and preventative action, including national programs to counter violent extremism and a fully funded anti-racism campaign.
What we know: During the Wentworth by-election, Greens candidate Dominic Wy Kanak told the Australian Jewish Quarterly that an increase in the level of security funding should only occur “as part of a comprehensive analysis of risks and with minimal use of visible armed guards”, as “all community members have a right to feel safe”.
Do you support changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act?
What they said: The Greens will always defend protections against hate speech, and resist any weakening of the Racial Discrimination Act.
Do you support changes to section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act, which allows religious schools exemptions from antidiscrimination law?
What they said: The Greens support legislation to enshrine the protection of religious belief. However we also believe that actions (including teachings) must be limited when those actions interfere with the right of Australians to live free from discrimination, even when those actions are based on religious doctrines, tenets and beliefs. This would include actions in relation to the hiring and firing of staff and the enrolment or expulsion of students. We believe that there are sufficient safeguards already contained within our anti-discrimination laws to protect religious teachings, and we believe that where potential conflicts between religious beliefs and the right to be free from discrimination exist they should be considered under a comprehensive charter of rights.
What we know: Greens members of the committee to review legislation to amend the Sex Discrimination Act endorsed returning the bill to Parliament and voting to remove the exemptions.
Do you believe that, in the absence of movement in the peace process, Australia should unilaterally recognise a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza?
What they said: The Australian Greens support the recognition of a Palestinian state.
What we know: In 2015, the Greens National Council voted to endorse unilateral Australian recognition of a Palestinian state. That year, Greens leader Senator Richard Di Natale rejected the notion that, following a two state solution, Israel should be a “Jewish state”, instead endorsing an “Israeli state” and a “Palestinian state”.
Do you support the movement to boycott, divest from, and impose sanctions on the state of Israel?
What they said: Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions is not Australian Greens policy.
What we know: In their policy titled “Israel & Palestine”, as passed by the Greens National Council in 2010, the Greens endorsed ending military ties with Israel. Some Greens groups have endorsed BDS; Greens on the Marrickville Council famously attempted to enact BDS into policy in 2011 (without the support of their federal counterparts, as the BDS Movement itself begrudged at the time). NSW Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi attended a pro-BDS rally in Sydney in March of this year. The Australian has reported that at least three federal Greens cadidates - Jonathan Doig (Cook), Emmet de Bhaldraithe (Watson), and James Cruz (Kingsford Smith) support the BDS campaign.
The Australian Greens are a left-wing minor party, whose most significant representation is in the Senate, where they currently have nine seats. Established to pursue conservation and environmentalism, the party has also taken on progressive economic and social policies. The office of Senator Richard Di Natale, federal leader of the Greens, responded to our queries.
The House of Representatives
The Senate
Do you support changes to the level of security funding for Jewish institutions (including synagogues and schools)?
What they said: [no answer]
Do you support changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act?
What they said: [no answer]
What we know: The Conservatives want the terms “offend” and “insult” removed from section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. During the last parliamentary debate on the issue in 2017, their leader Senator Bernardi was critical of the government’s proposed changes and ultimately voted against them.
Do you support changes to section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act, which allows religious schools exemptions from antidiscrimination law?
What they said: [no answer]
What we know: Senator Bernardi has said that the debate around removing the exemptions is “nonsensical”. Whilst he has said that he supports gay students and teachers being treated equally by schools, he has also defended the rights of schools to set their ethos and standards. He has not made clear whether he would alter the exemptions.
Do you believe that, in the absence of movement in the peace process, Australia should unilaterally recognise a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza?
What they said: [no answer]
What we know: In 2017, Senator Bernardi said that “the ‘State’ that [Bob] Carr and his ilk want to recognise are direct sponsors of terror attacks in Israel,” and that therefore to recognise a Palestinian state would be “tantamount to excusing the inexcusable.”
Do you support the movement to boycott, divest from, and impose sanctions on the state of Israel?
What they said: [no answer]
What we know: Speaking in the Senate in 2017, Senator Bernardi referred to “BDS boycotts” as “antisemitic”.
The Australian Conservatives were established after South Australian Senator Cory Bernardi, their federal leader and only elected representative, left the Liberal party to form the new association. They responded to our questions by directing us to their website.
The House of Representatives
The Senate
Do you support changes to the level of security funding for Jewish institutions (including synagogues and schools)?
What they said: Funding should be appropriate to the institution. I would not support any reduction in funding.
Do you support changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act?
What they said: No.
Do you support changes to section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act, which allows religious schools exemptions from antidiscrimination law?
What they said: Religious schools should be able to practice and teach their faith, as long as it is not to the the detriment of its students.
Do you believe that, in the absence of movement in the peace process, Australia should unilaterally recognise a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza?
What they said: No.
Do you support the movement to boycott, divest from, and impose sanctions on the state of Israel?
What they said: No.
Centre Alliance was previously the Nick Xenophon Team, and is putting forward an agenda of centrist policies at this election. South Australian Senator Stirling Griff responded to our questions on behalf of the party. Since Xenophons departure in 2017, Stirling Griff has led the party.
The House of Representatives
The Senate
Do you support changes to the level of security funding for Jewish institutions (including synagogues and schools)?
What they said: We support funding for the security measures that are needed to keep people safe.
Do you support changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act?
What they said: We have no plans to change the Racial Discrimination Act.
Do you support changes to section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act, which allows religious schools exemptions from antidiscrimination law?
What they said: While we find it distasteful to exercise any exemptions to the Sex Discrimination Act, we think that rather than changing the SDA, any organisation that wishes to maintain the right to an exemption must clearly state that exemption, and must not receive any public funding.
Do you believe that, in the absence of movement in the peace process, Australia should unilaterally recognise a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza?
What they said: [no answer]
What we know: NSW lead Senate candidate Andrea Leong supports recognition of a Palestinian state.
Do you support the movement to boycott, divest from, and impose sanctions on the state of Israel?
What they said: [no answer]
What we know: NSW lead Senate candidate Andrea Leong supports the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.
The Science Party
The Science Party has not yet achieved election to federal or state parliaments. Their leader Andrea Leong most recently contested the Wentworth by-election and ran for the NSW Legislative Council. Leong answered our questions.
The House of Representatives
The Senate
WHY LIBERALISM IS
IMPORTANT!
In 1894 Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer in the French military, was convicted and imprisoned for treason. He was accused of passing on state secrets to the German government, despite clear proof that a French Army Major was the real perpetrator. The French state, aware of the false conviction, forged evidence of Dreyfus’ crimes as they feared that the conviction of a high-ranking French officer would undermine confidence in the military. In essence, they utilised the classic antisemitic trope of Jews having dual loyalties to sacrifice an individual for the benefit of the state. A young journalist by the name of Theodor Herzl covered the trial, with these events confirming in his mind the need for a Jewish state.
This pivotal moment in Jewish history highlights why Judaism and Liberalism are so intertwined. The French state made a decision. They were willing to sacrifice the liberty of one of its citizens to protect the
broader state. For liberals, there is no state without the individual.
Robert Menzies, the founder of the Liberal Party famously said, “We took the name ‘Liberal’ because we were determined to be a progressive party, willing to make experiments, in no sense reactionary but believing in the individual, his rights, and his enterprise”. These words form the philosophical foundation for the Liberal party and the reasons why I, as a Jewish student, identify with it.
Historically, Jews have been targeted for attack, denied the ability to practice their faith and were unable to participate in broader society. When the Jewish community has been given the ability to participate as equal citizens without statesponsored persecution, we have flourished. Liberalism is about safeguarding the individual from the tyranny of the state. Mechanisms, like the constitution, full enfranchisement, freedom to
participate in public discourse are key liberal ideas. These foundational concepts are what allows Jews to express their culture and contribute to the communities around us.
The Liberal Party believes in a bottom-up approach to governance. It believes that the best decisions are made by individuals and community leaders, not a government in Canberra. Therefore, the role of government should be to empower individuals and give them the tools to make the best decision for their own lives, as only you truly know your own circumstances.
Traditionally, the Liberal Party has acted as the party of reform. It was a Liberal government that first decriminalised homosexuality in Victoria. It was a Liberal government that provided equal recognition for same-sex couples in the public service. It was a Liberal government which expunged previous homosexual convictions. It was a “ Mechanisms, like the constitution, full enfranchisement, freedom to participate in public discourse are key liberal ideas.”
Liberal government that delivered marriage equality to all Australians.
Not all these causes were popular at the time, but they were achieved through a fundamental belief that it is an individual, not the state who should make decisions over their own lives. It is not the role of the state to impose its own moral values on individuals whose actions impact no one but themselves.
Supporting a party is not just about the promises they make 2 months before an election. It’s about having faith that if a government is faced with a moral or political dilemma, they have the values and framework to make the correct decision.
There is no liberty without respect for the individual. Alfred Dreyfus didn’t want anything more but to be treated equally, as an individual, regardless of his faith. I’m supporting a party who will be indefatigable in defending that.
Daniel Elberg
AUJS Victoria Political Affairs Director
A LABOR OF LOVE
Through my primary education, celebrating chagim and my bat Mitzvah, and experiencing life in Israel, I’ve learnt to appreciate the variety of ways that exist to practice and express our Judaism. Throughout it all, one value has been emphasised most consistently; equality. We learn from our sacred texts the importance of generosity and compassion, and from our shared history of discrimination that we have a duty to make the world a better place. We are taught the responsibility of Tikun Olam, and that we must look after the environment we are so lucky to inhabit. Equality is at the core of who we are as a community.
The tool of Government is a unique one in its capacity to create a more equal Australia, and I believe it is their responsibility to do so. Political parties’ policies should work to create
At an economic level, Labor’s policies are designed to create wage growth, improve working conditions, and assist Australian businesses to grow and prosper. They believe that middle-income families are worse off under trickledown-economics, and that to create a more equal society we need to create opportunities to enable those from lower socio-economic backgrounds to thrive. They want to create a system that looks after people who need our help, not one that looks after the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else. When it comes to education, Labor knows that equality of opportunity is essential to the growth of our country. By increasing funding ARTICLE
structures and systems that promote equality of opportunity, support our most vulnerable citizens, and foster a harmonious society. So how does Labor’s platform manifest our Jewish commitment to equality?
“As a community who value equality, I believe we have an essential responsibility to vote for a party committed to creating a fairer Australia for everyone.”
for public schools, improving the quality and availability of vocational training, and ensuring everyone who wants to get to university has that opportunity, their approach aims to make education accessible to all Australians.
They also know that millions of Australians rely on a well-funded Medicare system, and that someone’s financial situation should not determine whether they can access essen al healthcare services. Labor wants to ensure hospitals are well funded and equipped, invest in lifesaving research, and address the mental health crisis plaguing society.
Looking at the environment, Labor is the only major party with a climate policy. They know that our future is at stake, and if we don’t stop playing politics with coal and big corporations, our country and world is in serious trouble. Labor want to see a transition to renewable energy, to work with
the international community on reducing emissions, and ultimately protect our Earth. Because that’s what the future requires of us.
And social equality is of course at the centre of their en re pla orm. Labor stands together with minority groups in opposing changes to 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, and seeks to create a fairer refugee policy that sees an end to indefinite detention and unfair immigration practices. Their policies aim to promote gender equality, advocate on issues facing the LGBTQI+ community, address the lack of support for those living with a disability, and work to get homeless Australians off the streets. As a community who value equality, I believe we have an essential responsibility to vote for a party committed to creating a fairer Australia for everyone. That’s why as a Jew, I proudly vote for the Australian Labor Party.
Tobi Rosengarten Political Staffer
WHY WE AS JEWISH STUDENTS, VOTE GREEN
As Jewish Greens voters, we’ve copped our fair share of flak from some of our peers in the community. No, we’re not selfhating Jews - we’re here to talk about why we’re voting Greens in this election (a reason that transcends our Jewishness), and why we started voting Greens (reasons that were deeply informed by our Jewishness).
The most overwhelming reason we’re voting Greens in this election is climate change. Given the sheer urgency of our need to drastically reduce carbon emissions according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we believe a Greens vote is the only practical and sensible vote if we want to grow up in a world with a functioning ecosystem, or leave a decent world for generations to come.
Reflecting their wholehearted commitment to a broad, powerful response to climate change, the Australian Conservation Foundation recently gave the Greens a 99% percent positive rating for their climate policy. While it’s crucial to enact policies that take a “Green New Deal” approach, looking out for Australia’s economic welfare and creating opportunities
for workers affected by the transition to better environmental approaches, we don’t have time for compromised policies when it comes to avoiding climate catastrophe. To address the climate crisis properly means to acknowledge that the entire future of the country relies on real, effective, long-lasting action, and we believe that it is in our interests as young people to vote for a party who treats the climate emergency for what it is. To vote in any other way seems terrifying irresponsible.
For years, the Greens have been at the forefront of fighting for the rights and dignity of refugees and people seeking asylum to this country. In Australia it’s become normalised to allow reprehensible treatment of refugees, not because this treatment makes sense or is necessary, but because it appeases some of Australia’s least rational fears. It is truly unfathomable to us that holding hundreds of people in detention camps as punishment for fleeing war and persecution is still readily justified by our government, and we shudder to think of how our own families would have been treated by Australia if they’d had to flee
the Holocaust today. We’re heartened both by the Greens’ staunch refugee support, and by their approach to rising contemporary antiSemitism and other forms of baseless hatred. The Greens have made policy commitments to appropriately fund the Online Hate Prevention Institute, fund research into extremism, and combine law and intelligence approaches with evidence-based community responses to hateful radicalisation.
One thing that worries us about the hesitancy to vote Green is that some young voters seem to assume that a vote for anyone apart from a major party is wasted. Preferential voting means our votes are never wasted, but we also believe the Greens don’t need to form government in order to improve government. We started voting Greens because we noticed that often, their influence, even with only a few seats in Parliament, became the deciding factor in making policy better, or usefully shifting the Overton window on important issues – for example, pushing for the Banking Royal Commission, the Disability Royal Commission, or keeping marriage equality and a national ICAC on the agenda. The Greens purposefully do not receive any political
“ We started voting Greens because we noticed that often, their influence, even with only a few seats in Parliament, became the deciding factor in making policy better. ”
donations from the coal, gas and oil industry, and they actively look to root out corruption from all levels of politics - which makes it possible for them to take principled stances.
It’s seemingly impossible to speak as a Jewish Greens voter without talking about Israel. The Greens proudly uphold their belief in a two-state solution, and have made a resolution enshrining their commitment to supporting self-determination of all peoples, including Israel’s right to selfdetermination. Many young Jewish voters we know aren’t yet aware of the J-Greens, a group of Jewish Australians who have already been instrumental in improving the Greens’ approach to Jewish issues and international affairs policy, and who have been welcomed and supported by Greens leadership. The Greens have had some bumps in the past, sometimes leading to mistrust within the Jewish community. These issues matter to us, and that’s why we’ve joined the J-Greens – because “if I am not for myself, who will be for me?”. But being a Jewish voter also means being concerned about broader policy that will affect everyone. Because “if I am only for myself, who am I?”
Maddy Blay
Hannah Aroni
Dr. Kerryn Phelps AM MP
Dr. Kerryn Phelps AM is the independent member for Wentworth. She was elected at the Wentworth by-election in 2018. She believes that being an independent “is the best way to represent the interests of Wentworth constituents as opposed to being bound by party politics and policy.”
In particular, she believes that “being the first female Jewish member of the Lower House, I can ensure that the concerns of the Jewish community are first and foremost in my mind.”
For our spotlight, we asked Dr. Phelps, and her campaign, the same questions we posed to allthe major parties. These were the answers:
Do you support changes to the level of security funding for Jewish institutions (including synagogues and schools)?
What they said: Dr. Phelps supports an increase in funding for security for Jewish institutions.
Do you support changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act? What they said: No - it is important that the protections laid out in 18C are respected.
Do you support changes to section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act, which allows religious schools exemptions from anti-discrimination law?
What they said: Dr. Phelps supports the exemptions being removed.
Do you believe that, in the absence of movement in the peace process, Australia should unilaterally recognise a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza?
What they said: No.
Do you support the movement to boycott, divest from, and impose sanctions on the state of Israel?
What they said: No.
“For an Independent, it is not a game of party politics. Independents are people focused.”
For my whole life, the area I live in has been occupied by a Li beral candidate and so, when I turned eighteen, I thought that like my parents, friends and teachers, I would vote Li beral as well. It was a given. After all, our electorate had only two main choices; Li berals, who were economically conservative and supported the Jewish connection to Israel, or Labour, who prioritised pro gressive social values and public policies such as Medicare. I was torn between my pragmatic, religious and moral concerns. There was no sensible in-between. That is, until an Independent representative came into the picture. Dr Kerryn Phelps, our first elected Independent in Wentworth, flipped the political game on its head. She is the only Jewish, Female candidate for this upcoming election and since she was elected in November 2018 as a mem ber of parliament, people of myriad demo graphics have been reaping the benefits.
As a student, my priorities include nurtu ring the state of our natural environment, maintaining economic stability, and en suring safety from discrimination in spi te of religion/race. Thankfully, Kerryn Phelps caters for each of these concerns and beyond, and more importantly she is making these changes possible. As an In dependent she does not have to endure the relentless process of receiving approval from her political party in order to make such changes. An Independent’s policies can evolve naturally to reflect the mosaic of wants and concerns of Australians. In deed, real change can occur without being handcuffed by one’s political party, as we saw with Malcom Turnbull and the Libe ral party last year in relation to climate change. She has nobody to answer to except the Australian people and specifically, those from the Wentworth electorate. But
she also has the power and support of the cross benchers of other Independents who share her concerns. Kerryn has taken advantage of all of the flexibilities that an Independent representative has. In a mere 6 months, she has spearheaded the campaign to take all of the children off Nauru detention centre, she has advocated strongly for action on climate change and has become a nationally recognised symbol for a strong, sensible economy.
For an Independent, it is not a game of party politics - Independents are people focused. Like many Independents, Kerryn insists on protecting minorities. Whether you are Jewish, a woman or a refugee, many of Kerryn Phelps policies focus on keeping groups at risk safe. Just recently, in response to the anti-semitic graffiti plastered on the Bondi promenade two ti
mes within two months, Dr Phelps acted quickly to ensure the Jewish community was safe. She achieved a $2.2 million fun ding bump by the Federal government to ensure greater safety for the Jewish community and other ‘at risk’ groups. Kerryn Phelps’ policies are inclusive and she has stated that ‘all Australians should be free to practice their religion, provi ded that does not impinge on the rights or freedom of others’, as seen on J-Wire.
As a doctor who ran her own business she is economically astute. Her powerful sense of social justice and practical mind has worked in tandem to provide voters like myself with a real choice - the essence of democracy. There is no longer a dilemma of compromise between one value or another. Kerryn Phelps has brou ght possibility for real, positive change both locally and nationally, and I feel em powered to be able to honour my feelin gs towards my religion, social values and economic concerns in equal measure. ARTICLE
Pnina Hagege
The Great Debates:
Wentworth and Macnamara
On the 7th and the 14th of April, AUJS hosted the first youth-led Jewish community debates for federal election candidates. In Macnamara, the seat with the most Jewish constituents in Melbourne, candidates Josh Burns (Labor), Steph Hodgins-May (Greens), and Kate Ashmor (Liberal) faced off at the Glen Eira Town Hall. In the Sydney seat of Wentworth - for the first time this election cycle - sitting MP Kerryn Phelps and candidates Dave Sharma (Liberal) and Tim Murray (Labor) went toe to toe on their views. More than 500 people attended the debates, and in both rooms people were eager to hear what the candidates had to say on important issues for the community and for our country at large.
DISCRIMINATION
D iscrimination was a big topic at both debates. In Wentworth, Eli Madar asked whether the candidates believe that section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act is fit for purpose. In 2017, the government attempted to make changes to narrow the scope of what is prohibited by the law, which were rejected by the Senate. All three candidates defended the legislation as it stands. Dave Sharma argued that it gets the “balance” right between protection from discrimination and free speech; Tim Murray considered the legislation helpful and said that it should not change; and Kerryn Phelps reflected on recent changes to NSW state legislation making incitement to violence a crime.
T he issue of discrimination against LGBT students in schools was a live one. After the relevant legislation was spotlighted during the Wentworth by-election, bipartisan
support emerged for amendments - but there has been as yet no change after legislative debate stalled. Whilst Burns, Hodgins-May, Phelps and Murray’s answers reflected their (and their parties’) established positions, Sharma and Ashmor gave answers of note.
Ashmor rejected any discrimination against students, but when pressed by the moderator, would not speak to her position on whether staff should also be protected. This is consistent with her party’s policy, which distinguished itself from Labor by supporting only changes that would protect students and not staff. Sharma, by contrast, answered without hesitation that students and staff should be protected - a view which does not reflect the Coalition’s work on this issue to date.
I SRAEL
With all six candidates running to represent the most densely Jewish populated seats in the country, our audience members had a burning interest in what the candidates proposed to do with regard to Israel. All six candidates spoke in support of a two-state solution; but some offered different pathways to get there.
I n Wentworth, the candidates all agreed that the Israeli embassy should be moved to Jerusalem only after a negotiated two-state solution has been achieved. This was a topic of significant conversation during the by-election, so each gave noteworthy answers. Sharma said that he was “personally sympathetic” to moving the embassy during the by-election; Phelps suggested that “potentially adverse consequences” meant that she would require national security briefings; whilst Murray’s view calls to the fact that the Labor party has committed to revoking the government’s decision on recognition of Jerusalem if elected. Z ionism was a topic of conversation in Macnamara - leading to a widely reported and heated exchange where Liberal candidate Kate Ashmor accused Labor candidate Josh Burns of not being as proud to be Jewish as she is, as he did not have
a mezuzah on his campaign office door.
Greens candidate Steph Hodgins-May reiterated her party’s commitment to recognising a Palestinian State - without preconditions related to any agreement between the parties. Kate Ashmor represented the complete rejection of this plan from the Liberal party, noting that the situation between Gaza and the West Bank prompts many to ask “recognise what?” Our moderator pressed Josh Burns on his view of the Labor party’s resolution calling on the next Labor government to recognise a Palestinian state; he echoed Ashmor’s concerns about Hamas, but emphasised that having a Labor representative would, in his view, be essential to promoting rational policy on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict within Labor.
WHY AUJS?
I n many ways, these debates were an experiment. Some might ask why - where in previous years the questions were posed on behalf of “grown up” community organisations, or the Australian Jewish News on its own - AUJS was the right organisation to host these debates.
We made the decision to host because we had had the experience - far too many times - of sitting in the audience next to someone with a rambling, eight minute comment to make who gets the chance to ask a question because they are older, and are therefore taken seriously. We wanted to have real debates where candidates were asked strong, thoughtful questions. We wanted the chance to even the playing field.
M aking decisions about the questions ahead of time has many structural advantages. It means we can weed out who wants to ask a question and who wants to attack a candidate; but also, we can ensure a more equitable gender balance and age distribution ahead of time. At no time did we pick a question that we didn’t think was well thought out or necessary - and with so many to choose from, we had the capacity to make these adjustments.
O ur candidates took us seriously. Our audience took us seriously. In doing so, we got answers to important questions for our community with young people at the heart of the inquiry. Hopefully this will prove as a useful model for the future.
Higher Education
Why this policy?
The higher education sector faces significant challenges in the lead up to this election. Changes to funding and structure under federal and state governments have left students with uncertainty and questions. The next government will have to answer questions about how much investment and structural change is required to put the system on the right track.
Coalition
The Coalition propose to invest:
$15m to “create a further 5 Regional Study Hubs with additional Commonwealth Supported Places to support students to study their university course in their local communities.”
$2m to “expand the Country Education Partnership’s successful Rural Inspire program, which aims to engage rural and regional students with further education.”
Labor
Labor intends to:
“Create a $300 million University Future Fund for higher education infrastructure and priorities”
“Commit $3.2 million for programs to support students in country areas to go to University or TAFE” specifically out of a “$193 million commitment” which “will go towards mentoring, support and other specialised programs de signed to boost opportunities for university study in communities where graduation rates are low.”
“Uncap university places”.
Greens
The Greens plan to:
“Fund unlimited free TAFE and undergraduate university for everyone… and boost uni funding by 10%”.
Youth Mental Health
Why this policy?
With suicide among the highest causes of death for young people, youth mental health is a significant issue in this election. Both of the major parties have indicated a dedicated strategy to close the gap on mental health between the generations.
Coalition
The Coalition will:
“Expand the headspace network by 30 – from the current 115 services to 145 by 2021, at a cost of $111 million.”
Invest “$152 million in existing services to reduce wait times [and] improve the quality of care”.
Invest “$110 million to continue the Early Psychosis Youth Services program at six headspace centres nationally.”
Provide a “$2 million investment in the Young Ambassadors for Mental Health project [which] will improve awareness of these services. Young ambassadors with the lived experience of mental health issues will be in the community, promoting mental health literacy and showing people how to seek help.”
Labor
Labor plan is to:
“Invest $144 million in the headspace network over four years to trial three metropolitan headspace Plus sites –in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne.”
“Invest $36 million over four years to trial a regional headspace Plus site in Tasmania.”
“Provide $14 million over four years for Orygen to provide central im plementation support, technical guidance, research and evaluation and $3 million for an independent evaluation.”
They also intend to invest “an extra $35 million to deliver more early intervention mental health services for young people aged 12 to 25”.
Greens
The Greens plan to:
The Greens intend to provide, through Medicare, “free or low cost” access to mental health services.
The AUJS Political Magazine is always looking for contributers. If you would like to be involved in further publications please contact Josh at jkirsh@aujs.com.au.
