Australia One
https://australiaoneparty.com/

* Not running in the upper house, but I discovered that they're backing an
  independent running in my electorate for the lower house.

* Their website is full of conspiracy click-bait/social-media links. Lots of
  stuff about COVID-19 Vaccines being a conspiracy, 5G being a conspiracy,
  even a COVID-19 vaccines containing 5G-powered nanotech conspiracy. I'm not
  impressed.

* They do have a nice page of specific policy dot-points, though most are
  actually federal issues so not really relevent for now. The general theme
  is strong defence of civil liberties, backed by a general fear of islam,
  foreign relations, and pretty much all modern politics. They actually want
  to revert to the original 1901 Australian constitution, repealing all
  incompatible legislation. Also reinstate the death penalty for treason, and
  constitute citizen-initiated referenda.

* Sticking to stuff that's relevent at a state level, they're big on local
  manufacturing, general deregulation, and agriculture.

* They're also keen to kick people off welfare.

* Civil liberties stuff is of course: no mandatory vaccinations, and they like
  vaping too, though unlike other civil liberties parties they're not rushing
  to mention cannabis.

* Big on freedom of speach as well as self defence. Not really specific on
  privacy, but it's one of their better points in my book overall.

* As you'd expect, seeing as they view climate change to be another conspiracy,
  they want to cease subsidies to renewable power projects, and increase
  production of fossil fuels.

* Anti-abortion.

* They want to "conduct a lawful referendum to determine the Australian
  definition of marriage", which I guess they mean one to overturn the last
  which established same-sex marriage.



Their support for more national self-sufficiency is good, and general freedom
of speach (unless you're speaking about islamic stuff, anyway), is also.
Otherwise though they're just caught up in every right-wing conspiracy theory
around and therefore pretty much a loose canon policy-wise. Behind that, their
eithical views seem to be on the Christian values side, one of their stated aims
is even to recognise the beneficial role of the "Christian world view and its
teachings", so I'm not with them there either.