Whoever loses tomorrow, one thing is certain – this election will not be a victory for any major political party’s true believers. Coalition and Labor partisans have spent the last month gulping down political-DNA-corroding Kool-Aid in their increasingly desperate attempts to pimp themselves out to disengaged bogans address the legitimate concerns of those salt-of-the-earth, hearts-of-gold, marginal-seat-dwelling, mainstream Australians who embody all that is pure and noble in this great nation.

The Sex Party's Fiona Patten. Pic: Andrew Brownbill

How many inner-city ALP activists letterboxing on cold winter nights have been haunted by that image of the PM and Member for Lindsay scanning the horizon on a navy vessel off Darwin, looking as if they might at any moment rush to a gun turret to strafe an incoming boat packed to the gunwales with queue-jumping reffos? And how many small-business owners brooding about a recalcitrant employee have spluttered on their Penfolds Grange at a Liberal fundraising dinner, pondering how the party of capital lost its bottle when it came to smashing the unions?

But let’s also spare a thought for the Greens’ disillusioned libertarian voters. It was always a somewhat awkward embrace, but for years those bridling at the interference of church and state into who they marry, what they watch, how they choose to get intoxicated, or when they die felt the Greens had their backs.

Now, as even the most casual observer of politics is likely to have deduced from the dearth of ‘BOB BROWN TO SET UP FREE HEROIN DISPENSARY AT GATES OF CATHOLIC GIRLS SCHOOL’ headlines during this campaign, the Greens have tiptoed away from what, in the good old days, used to be invariably described as their ‘radical social policies’. Indeed Dr Clive Hamilton, who contested the Higgins by-election for the Greens last year, is amongst the nation’s most vociferous and erudite critics of libertarianism.

So where do those disillusioned with the social conservatism of the major parties who used to vote Green go now? In some seats at least, they have two choices come Saturday: the Secular Party or the Australian Sex Party. The former seems to have little chance of having any impact, the latter just might. Formed by longtime lobbyists for Australia’s adult industry, Robbie Swan and Fiona Patten, the Sex Party has had sufficient funds to mount a reasonably professional campaign and has fielded several candidates – notably comedian Austen Tayshus, running against Tony Abbott in the seat of Warringah – colourful enough to generate media attention.

Very few voters would embrace the Australian Sex Party’s policy platform — minimal censorship, unambiguously legal abortion, drug decriminalisation, support for euthanasia and gay marriage — in its entirety. But many voters, from across the political spectrum, are likely to find themselves supporting at least one of its policies with the kind of passion they’ve long since ceased to experience in relation to the big parties.

Swan was encouraged to form what became the Australian Sex Party by his friend Don Chipp, shortly before the anti-censorship campaigner died in 2006. Swan says Chipp, who founded the Democrats after finding himself too liberal for the Liberals, told him: “I know you want to start a political party, and the Democrats have had it, so you should do your own thing. I’ll give you a few words of advice. The first thing you’ve gotta give it a name that no-one forgets. And make sure to stay true to your core issues, which are censorship and personal freedom. In the years ahead, Labor and Liberal will desert that whole area because they’re being increasingly infiltrated by church and morals groups and the Greens will probably go the same way as they get bigger and start to take on those kind of trappings. For the next twenty years Australia is going to need a really strong civil liberties party.”

A party that stays true to its core issues? The Australian Sex Party’s backroom boys really should run that past a focus group of swinging voters out in marginal seat-land to see if there’s any chance it could fly.

Nigel Bowen is writing an article on the Australian Sex Party’s campaign, to be published in the October-November edition of GQ

Most commented

47 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • The Scarlet Pimpernel says:

      02:20pm | 20/08/10

      Don’t forget that Joolya has now said we will definitely have internet censorship if she gets in.

      If you cannot stand the thought of voting for the Coalition - Fiona and the Sex Party were the first party to issue a policy of NO internet censorship

    • Gerard says:

      05:06pm | 20/08/10

      Voting for the Coalition isn’t even an option for stopping internet censorship. I’m absolutely certain that they’re lying about opposing it.

      How do I know?
      This is without doubt the worst and most unpopular policy a party has taken to an election in my lifetime. Stephen Conroy is one of the two biggest liabilities on Labor’s front bench (the other being Peter Garrett).
      The Coalition would have had the election won by now if they’d hammered the Labor Party over it and highlighted how dangerous a plan like this is- but they haven’t. They’ve attacked Gillard, Garrett, Rudd, Swan- but they don’t seem interested in attacking the technologically illiterate Conroy, even in response to criticism of Abbott’s own lack of computer expertise. In fact, they seem to be conspicuously avoiding subjecting Conroy and his policies to media scrutiny.

      What they have done is state that they will oppose the legislation and then changed the subject as soon as possible. They want to make their official position clear, but not make such a big fuss about it that when they backflip (possibly after demanding some minor, insignificant change to the proposed legislation), they will be seen to be breaking a major campaign promise.

    • PaulB says:

      07:45am | 21/08/10

      Puppets like Obama call for a free and open Internet, while at the same time beetling away behind the scenes to redefine for us what that actually means.  That’s the way politicians work.  Its all about deception.  The Liberals will do the same because its what global Governments really want, no matter what they say.

    • LC says:

      02:25pm | 20/08/10

      The sex party doesn’t look that bad, but would they have cantidates in my electorate?

    • Tim says:

      02:40pm | 20/08/10

      You’d vote for them in the Senate.

      Anyone voting above the line should check belowtheline.org.au to see how their preferences flow and whether they agree enough to vote above the line.

    • iansand says:

      03:29pm | 20/08/10

      Senate

    • Rich says:

      02:27pm | 20/08/10

      I think if I had to pick between Labor and Liberals, as a libertarian, I would have to pick the latter. This is because once you get too much socialism such as Greens and Labor propose the popoulation becomes addicted to it and you can never get rid of it.

      I always put economic issues before social issues as I believe the real freedom that matters is acchieved by spending my money how I desire. No social policy could ever make up for lack of economic freedom, whereas economic freedom can make up for bad social policies.

      Hence Liberals over Labor

    • Tim says:

      02:36pm | 20/08/10

      Correct.

      Oh how I wish for a true libertarian party.

    • James1 says:

      02:58pm | 20/08/10

      I would have thought - this election at least - that neither major party really offers much in the way of economic freedom.  The Libs want to increase business taxes to subsidise the lifestyle of parents, and the ALP wants to slug the mining companies for I can’t really understand their reasoning.

      I’m seriously thinking of voting Secular this year.

    • Zaf says:

      03:25pm | 20/08/10

      [I believe the real freedom that matters is acchieved by spending my money how I desire. No social policy could ever make up for lack of economic freedom, whereas economic freedom can make up for bad social policies.]

      iow, if you have enough money you can buy as many drugs, abortions and legal protections for your gay relationship as you want, whether these things are illegal or not?  I am not sure that this is entirely true. 

      Bad social policies subvert constrain economic freedom, because they constrain your free choice about what and how to spend your money. (They also, btw, distort the market.)

    • iansand says:

      03:33pm | 20/08/10

      How dare those ill-educated people think for themselves.  Just because they want socialism doesn’t mean that socialism is good for them.  Don’t they know they should obey the instructions of their betters?

      Thanks for the laugh.

    • Rich says:

      05:12pm | 20/08/10

      Go live in Europe where the tax burden is high and the social programmes are endless. These countries are all broke and the populace still demands the endless services that they are so dependant on.
      Now listen to the average voter asking “what is in it for me” and the parties giving hand outs as “incentives” to vote for them. Both parties know this and keep outbidding on the incentives.

      In regards to Zaf, I would rather have money to do some illegal activities such as drugs than no money to do anything. The reality is that both parties never propose any drastic social policies that impact me as much as how much of my income I can keep. I agree with you however n social policies affecting economic freedom, but really I was looking at it in context of what these parties have to offer.

      I don’t really see Labor letting gays get married anyway.

      Im just voting the for the least damage possible.

    • neil says:

      04:49pm | 21/08/10

      Spot on Rich, I am generally left leaning but I’m very libertarian and have always voted liberal. Labor with their union affiliation are quite authoritarian and as we’ve seen with Rudd/Gillard they prefer big government so they can control all aspects of our lives.

      The Greens are Totalitarian, they not only want to control us but they believe they know what is best for us even if we don’t agree. They even believe it is justifiable too, in their words, “suspend democracy” in order to impliment important social reforms. That sounds like Starlinism to me.

    • LC says:

      02:29pm | 20/08/10

      I agree completely with Don Chipp. We really need a political party thats more than prepared to tell the ACL and the religious right to f*** off. The sex and secular parties doesn’t look that bad, but would they have cantidates in my electorate?

    • Robert says:

      04:00pm | 20/08/10

      Tsk tsk you seem like a really bigoted person making such divisive comments.  It’s a shame people like you hate freedom of speech and want to silence tax-paying members of the community who contribute a great deal to Australian society just like people from all different groups do.  The Sex Party will probably do alright.  There will be a large number of first time voters who vote for them because they have the word sex in their name.

    • Reg says:

      06:36pm | 20/08/10

      Well of course Robert there is a vast gulf between freedom of speech and freedom to preach religious fundamentalism or any other error, as “gospel” smile We do try and look the other way though, except when it gets too extreme. As a libertarian I presume you will grant us that right?

      Nor is error made correct by payment of tax, although I see your motivation. Having paid our subscription, it merely ensures the support we have come to expect from our Government, just as a Unionist expects from his Union or a Small Business from his Association.

      Careful with the “H” word please, it is emotive and does not sit well with one who claims to be libertarian, as you first sentence discloses.

    • RBSyd says:

      07:44pm | 20/08/10

      I think Robert had his tongue firmly planted in his cheek when he said that.
      Either that or a extremely short memory.
      The A.C.L headed up by trained killer Jim Wallace (former S.A.S), were the main advocates for oppressing all of us with Conroy’s internet filter.

    • Reg says:

      02:46pm | 21/08/10

      I wish it was as clear to me as it is to you RBSyd, but the depiction of bestiality on the internet causes me to pause. Perhaps we need a Bestiality Party?

      As to tongue in cheek, I call that sarcasm and sarcasm is poor communications at best and deception at worst.

    • LC says:

      02:59pm | 21/08/10

      Turns out the secular party actually did have a candidate in my electorate. Guess who got my vote…:)

      I voted below the line in the senate, numbering the Australian Sex Party, Australian Secular Party and The Greens candidates 1st, 2nd and 3rd respectively. I put Labor cantidates last (even after the socailist parts and Family First) and I said a satisfying “f*** you” under my breath as I numbered Conroy’s box very last. Fingers crossed that the next time I see him will be queue for centrelink that I pass everyday to get to work.

    • Richard says:

      02:31pm | 20/08/10

      The former LNP candidate for Griffith was an outspoken Libertarian, until he got turfed out at the last minute for some reason or another: something to do with not ironing his shirt or having an eyebrow ring or some such Statist nonsense.

    • Kordez says:

      08:43pm | 20/08/10

      @N, They crack me up! In fact so much that I’m likely to stumble into the Salvation Army tomorrow half cut and realise that I enjoy feeding my unhealthy entertainment without being frowned upon by wankers from the ACT..
      I mean, who even visits the shithole anyway? It’s smaller than TAS with more expensive buildings! Do they have any idea what the rest of the country is doing, or are we just given attention every 3-4 years to ensure tax dollars are avaliable to inflate their mates businesses?
      I’ll leave it to my hangover to decide.. Thanks for the advice Penbo, I’ll leave it to my goat face to decide tomorrow =P

    • Kinchloe says:

      02:51pm | 20/08/10

      I’m in Wentworth and we have a candidate for the Secular Party standing. All I could find on him was a short bio that says he holds Economic discussion forums.

      I have tertiary qualifications in Economics (as well as law and tax) so voting along the lines of economic credibility is important to me. I want someone that isn’t going to stand there raving about a budget surplus while everything crumbles around them.

      Thus, while I don’t really know where he stands on many economic issues I’ll be giving him my first preference because I can’t give that to Lab, Lib or Greens.

      Labor lost me when they started pitching their campaign to disengaged bogans.

      The Libs never have me because they do nothing about creating a nation and being a decent caretaker of the social fabric. Moreover they presided over the indefensible situation where private debt climbed to massive levels and allowed housing to become virtually unaffordable unless you want to live in a rathole in the middle of nowhere. I like Malcolm Turnbull but not the party.

      I can’t vote Green because they want to tax “the rich” ie anyone earning over the paltry sum of $50k.

      I know my vote won’t count for much but it’s how I’ll sleep soudly.

      And the Sex Party hopefully in the Senate.

    • Tails says:

      02:54pm | 20/08/10

      When I heard they had serious policies, I laughed. I stopped laughing after I read them. If they weren’t called The Sex Party - even if they called themselves TSP - I reckon they cold have out-polled the Greens this election.
      They’ve got the best of both big parties policies without the bullshit baggage.
      It’s a real shame they haven’t had a bigger voice.
      Yes, I’m being serious.

    • D says:

      05:59pm | 20/08/10

      Agreed. They have my vote, and I’ll allocate my own preferences so my vote isn’t wasted.

    • Tom says:

      02:39am | 21/08/10

      Yeah I agree, certainly the sex party name will get attention and garner a few votes, but they will never be a political force with such a name. It is defeatist to think a small party cannot rise up; after all, the Democrats held the balance of power from humble beginnings, the Greens (perhaps unfortunately) may well hold the balance of power after being formed by a few environmentalists in Tasmania.

      Perhaps they should merge with the Liberal Democratic Party; which is a perfectly reasonable name with a similar policy platform.

    • Liam says:

      03:00pm | 20/08/10

      The Liberal Democratic Party is the party that most closely follows true libertarian ideals. But they have some wacky preferences going on so if you are going to vote for them, vote below the line!

      https://www.belowtheline.org.au/

    • Ripa says:

      04:40pm | 20/08/10

      You can thank Natasha for destroying the Dems, she did so when she turned them into another branch of the Labor party. Since then they have been lost in total obscurity, its a shame. As for the sex party, give be a break, bunch of children trying to play politics.

    • Eric says:

      03:03pm | 20/08/10

      Did someone say ‘sex’? >____>

    • Libertarian says:

      03:25pm | 20/08/10

      Do some googling, man! There’s the Liberal & Democratic Party.

      http://www.ldp.org.au/

      It’s an actual party with thought out policies, and they’re running senate candidates in every state. Get on them (if that’s your thing)!

    • Eric says:

      03:34pm | 20/08/10

      You want the truth? Can you handle the truth?

      The truth is that either way, we win. The stated policies of Abbott and Gillard are very nearly the same. We have two good leaders, and the winner will be one of them.

      I have to say that I’ve noted Julia Gillard’s concessions to men’s issues. She promised funding for a men’s suicide help line, as well as enhanced family leave for men. These are good steps forward.

      Though I personally prefer the Liberals - for reasons that have nothing to do with Julia - I have to admit that a Labor victory would not upset me. Even though I would prefer the Libs, there really isn’t all that much difference - and at least Julia has paid attention to some men’s issues.

    • Rich says:

      05:22pm | 20/08/10

      There isn’t any difference between them because they are playing to win and trying to outdo each other on the incentives they’ll give if voted for. It’s a popularity contest.

      These parties have no clear philosophical grounding and change election to election. Where is the integrity ?

      You think Gillard cares about men’s issues? It’s only a ploy to get more male voters to vote for her, probably proposed by one of her campaign managers.

    • Nodding Head says:

      03:44pm | 20/08/10

      As good/bad as any other party

    • Chris Johnson says:

      05:12pm | 20/08/10

      @ Ripa says:
      04:40pm | 20/08/10
      You can thank Natasha for destroying the Dems

      It was Cheryl Kernot and Meg Lees who destroyed the soul of the Democrats - not Natasha Stott Despoja.

      This article is spot in in that the major parties give us very little to believe in, only things to vote against.

    • Ripa says:

      07:19pm | 20/08/10

      Sorry Chris, it was Natasha and her rants on TV against Howard and for labor, i still remember watching her on TV during election night and how deflated she looked, when asked what happened to the Dem vote, she struggled for an answer, and that was pretty much the last we heard of the Dems, and Natasha. Libs and Lab have a tonne more to believe in than the Dems.

    • Chris Johnson says:

      09:53am | 23/08/10

      “Libs and Lab have a tonne more to believe in” 
      Would they be tonnes of carbon? raspberry

      I disagree with you.  The Democrats as a party to keep the bastards honest had their soul stripped from them by Kernot and Lees.  By the time Natasha got there they were a spent force.

    • Terry Wright says:

      05:28pm | 20/08/10

      “Very few voters would embrace the Australian Sex Party’s policy platform — minimal censorship, unambiguously legal abortion, drug decriminalisation, support for euthanasia and gay marriage — in its entirety.”

      Really? I would think most rational Australians would support all of these issues.

      -Everyone is against most government censorship (except fundies and they don’t count).

      -Half of all voters are women so there’s at least 50% who want abortion legalised. The other 50% are mostly too scared to argue with the boss.

      -Anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes doing some research will know that our drug laws are useless. Anyone who spends more than 5 minutes reading media from overseas would have recently seen the countless articles about the failure of global drug policies. Anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes using drugs would know that anti-drug scare campaigns are mostly lies. Supporting a “War on Drugs” type drug policy is just sooo yesterday!

      -Why would anyone oppose euthanasia? (Again, fundies don’t count)

      -Last time I looked, over 75% of people didn’t oppose gay marriage.

      I think we need a group like this to stop the conservative major parties from sending us back into the dark ages. Leave the economics to the major parties and let The Sex Party keep us thriving as a free, progressive and mature society.

    • Sam says:

      12:07pm | 21/08/10

      I totally agree, mate.
      Unfortunately, Cardinal Pell is about to gain a lot of sway in how the country is run.

    • Chris Johnson says:

      09:56am | 23/08/10

      If only more than a few did at least 5 minutes of research and independent thinking, rather than believing the sound bites and sub-headings of mainstream media.
      This has been just another Murdoch election.

    • Pamela says:

      05:47pm | 20/08/10

      Anyone considering the Sex Party make sure you have protection or you could end up in Labo(u)r. I saw this on Facebook.

    • Kelly says:

      08:07pm | 20/08/10

      I think the Sex Party’s primary agenda is lobbying for/profiting from ‘the sex industry’. As a survivor of that ‘industry’ they will not receive my vote.

    • Chris says:

      08:59pm | 20/08/10

      What I want to know is why we can’t indicate who our votes are not to go to.
      The preference deal stuff is a rort and sounds crooked.
      But then again the whole political system is a rort and crooked.
      The people I have the least respect for are politicians and Bureaucrats. Most are only in it for themselves. Just look at all the money that gets wasted on pointless programs and projects.

    • Razor says:

      07:15am | 21/08/10

      Would you rather be outside the Tent pissing in or inside pissing out?

      While I support many of the social policy stances of the Sex Party - SFA will be achieved by them.  Much better to engage with either the ALP or Coalition annd work within the power structures that can actually achieve change.

    • Polly Waffle says:

      08:48am | 21/08/10

      Any small party can make it to the top.  When the major parties become too bigfor their boots, especially the one who won’t tax Twiggy and his ilk, and give paid leave to pregnant women earning $100,00, the people will eventually wake up and vote for a minor party even if it just to protest.

    • Gerard says:

      01:21pm | 21/08/10

      Unfortunately, people won’t wake up until the government decided that they’re not actually allowed to vote for independents or minor parties.

    • jed says:

      01:02pm | 21/08/10

      what about economic conservatism? all these middle class giveaways should be culled, i’m all for welfare for those in need, but baby bonuses, family tax benefits and paid maternity leave, well these programs are pure lunacy. if you want to have a kid, make the economic sacrifice.

      it’s always “what are you doing for my children?” or “what are you doing for my mortgage?”

      none of the politicians have the nuts to stand up to the gangsters of the electorate - working families, who continually strip wealth from others to feed their endless consumption. politicians used to warn of over consumption and encourage saving - these days they advance baby bonuses and family tax benefits because these idiots are irresponsible with their money.

      if real estate goes balls up in this country i fear no one will learn their lesson, they’ll somehow be bailed out so the debt orgy will continue.

      http://www.europac.net/commentaries/dr_keynes_killed_patient

      http://www.europac.net/voices/government_mules

    • Chris Johnson says:

      10:04am | 23/08/10

      I have long pondered the lack of sacrifice in parenting these days.  Parents are now expected to work all day, put their children in child care, and be looked after by the government financially.  I have pondered whether this has lead to greater social problems.  I do not have the answers, but I do have further questions.
      The hypocrisy of the Liberal in doling out these middle class welfare vote getters has never been questioned, yet their attack on the benefits given to the unemployed, homeless and mentally ill through the Howard reign was rarely questioned.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter