A Short Summary on Wentworth

It is traditional on this blog to follow each prediction (eventually) with an analysis of how accurate the prediction was, why it went wrong and perhaps how improvement could be made.

With the wentworthby-election, however, there isn't all that much to say. The margin by which Kerryn Phelps won was larger than expected on the night, though reigned in somewhat by postal votes. Other than that the result was as I had expected and for the reasons I expected. A safe liberal seat saw an independent outpoll the ALP while feeding on a general dissatisfaction in the electorate towards the Liberal party. When the independent outpolled the ALP (and, for that matter, the Greens) they scooped up the vast majority of preferences to outperform the Liberals in the final count.

That Phelps came so close to rivalling the Liberal primary vote outright was a surprise based on the polling availible at the time, but the reasons for her popularity in the area and the reasons that the Liberal party was unpopular in the seat have been well known for a while.

As a result, theres nothing more to do but enjoy a successful prediction before we geat up to look at the US midterms on the 6th of November and the Victorian state elections on the 24th.

By-election? More like BYE-election!

Yes, it's the final week of yet another by-election, this time as federal Parliament says farewell to former Prime Minister Turnbull. Much of the commentary around the seat of Wentworth has discussed Mr Turnbull's personal support, noting the less-known Dave Sharma will lack the support that the former representative held while suffering something of a backlash for his party's ousting of yet another sitting PM. The polling certainly seems to reflect this, with the normally indomitable two-party margin of 17.75% into dangerous territory, particularly with the emergence of a popular independent candidate. However, this is a generalisation. This polling is possibly the most erratic and least conclusive data set I have had to work with in the 8+ years I've been making these predictions. At the same time, the unique situation behind this by election would make an examination of the history of Wentworth an almost futile activity.

An Almost Futile Activity

Wentworth was one of the original 1901 electorates and was first held by the Free Trade Party. The FTP became the Anti-Socialist Party, then merged with the Protectionists to become the Commonwealth Liberal Party in 1909. Wentworth went along for the ride, and stayed with the CLP until it also went through a merger to become the Nationalist Party in 1917. The Nationalists then merged to become the United Australia Party in 1931, although Wentworth came the long way round, with Walter Marks going through two bouts of Independent-ness and a short stint in the Australian Party between being a Nationalist and a member of the UAP. In 1945 the United Australia Party was replaced by Menzies' Liberal Party.

Sir Eric Harrison held the seat as the first official Liberal candidate until 56 when he was replaced by the Liberal's Les Bury. Liberal Bob Ellicott took over in 1974 until 1981 when the Liberal Party's Peter Coleman won the seat. In 1987 Wentworth passed to the eventual leader of the Liberal party, John Hewson, who held for two years after his party's 1993 electoral defeat. Andrew Thomson, a Liberal     Party member, held the seat after that, and then in 2001 the Liberals' Peter King won the seat. In 2003 King was successfully challenged by Malcolm Turnbull for pre-selection, who went on to win the seat for the Liberal Party in 2004. The seat has been in Liberal hands ever since.

 

In essence, you could call Wentworth a safe Liberal seat, having been held by the party since 1901--quite an achievement for a party that wasn't founded for another four and a half decades. Labor has come close to taking the seat a couple of times, most narrowly in the 1943 election where an ALP landslide saw the Labor party go from 4 seats down to a 26 seat lead, and most recently in the 2007 Rudd-slide.

The Curse of being Too Strong

As normally calculated, the concept of a safe seat is flawed by its preoccupation with the two-party data, which is based on assumptions of voting behavior which are becoming less and less reliable in modern Australia. The recent by-election in Mayo's return of Centre Alliance candidate Rebekah Sharkie is a good example of this, where a historically strong Liberal seat was harmed by its own dominance. The ALP vote in Mayo was (both this year and in 2016) lower than the (so-called) third-party candidate. Where a third-party candidate is not ideologically affiliated with either major party (unlike, say, the Australian Conservatives or the Greens) and that third-party drops out in the count, their votes generally divide between the two major parties in a broadly similar pattern to the primary vote for those parties. Where the supposed "third-party" actually outlasts a major party in the count, however, the major party vote almost entirely flows, for partisan reasons, against the other major party. This means "safe" seats are actually the most vulnerable to independent candidate incursions.

In Wentworth, the much-touted third option is independent Kerryn Phelps. If Kerryn drops out before the ALP, most of her votes will presumably follow the historic sentiment of Wentworth and back the Libs. If, however, she out-polls the ALP, she will reap the lion's share of ALP support which will almost certainly guarantee her win. With a majority of one seat in the House of Representatives, the Liberals desperately need to hold on to Wentworth, and thus it is paradoxically in Labor's best interests nationally to poll lower than Cr Phelps.

The Polls! The Polls!

With this in mind, what to the numbers so far show? Will Phelps out poll the ALP to take victory, or fall short keeping the nation's second smallest seat in Liberal hands?

Obviously the Liberal primary vote is a pretty solid leader, but at around 40% certainly not enough to see off a challenge from the combined remaining vote. The real question is whether Phelps will beat the ALP, scooping up the bulk of the non-Lib vote and winning, or whether the ALP will beat Phelps and see the vote scatter between the major parties pushing the Libs over the line. And on this data it's really unclear who will come out ahead in that race.

Normally the largest part of the Greens vote flows ultimately to the ALP, but that's far from certain in this race, especially with key Greens issues like LGBT rights playing well into Cr Phelps' platform. Instinctively the "other" vote might be seen as a rejection of both major parties a-pox-upon-both-your-houses style, which is promising for Phelps too, but it also includes the "undecided" category so that's not necessarily true.

The Prediction

The latest data has Phelps ahead of the ALP in her own right. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume she will also benefit the most from the Other and Greens votes to maintain this lead. The ALP-Phelps vote combined roughly rivals that of the Liberal candidate.

On those assumptions, Kerryn Phelps would be elected the new member for Wentworth.

TL;DR: Wentworth is a safe Liberal seat, and has been since federation. If Labor beats independent candidates Phelps enough of her vote will go to the Liberals to win the seat. I am expecting Phelps to outlast the ALP, however, and reap the majority of their preferences to win the seat.

Quick-Fire Round

Well, I certainly wasn't expecting to have all the results available yet, but we do, so let's look at the reliability of this week's predictions:

Braddon

Seat Prediction: Tossup, nominally ALP.
Seat Result: ALP, prediction accurate.

✔️

Secondary Prediction: Result unknown on election night, resolved around mid-week (~ Wednesday)
Secondary Result: Result known early on election night, prediction wrong.
❌

Fremantle

Seat Prediction: ALP.
Seat Result: ALP, prediction accurate.
✔️

I should probably have taken a punt at who would be second in the absence of a Liberal candidate, but apparently I forgot.
➖

Longman

Seat Prediction: Tossup, nominally LNP.
Seat Result: ALP, prediction inaccurate.
❌

Secondary Prediction: Result unknown on election night, resolved around mid-week (~ Thursday).
Secondary Result: Result known early on election night, prediction wrong.
❌

Tertiary Prediction: An LNP win in Longman (or a Lib win in Braddon) will be framed generally as a failure of the ALP and a glowing endorsement of the current government regardless of the results in the other seats. The 98-year drought of governments winning by-elections from oppositions will be cited as proof that the coalition is the real winner of Super Saturday even if they walk away with only one win.
Tertiary Result: N/A.
➖

Mayo

Seat Prediction: Centre Alliance.
Seat Result: Centre Alliance, prediction accurate.
✔️

Perth

Seat Prediction: ALP.
Seat Result: ALP, prediction accurate.
✔️

Secondary Prediction: Ian Britza (IND) emerges as the two-party competitor for the seat.
Secondary Result: Greens polled in second place, indicating exactly how left-leaning Perth is. The emerging conservative candidate was not Ian Britza, but Paul Collins with a primary vote of close to 10%.
❌

Discussion

That comes to 4/5 on seat predictions, or 80%. Three of those could be considered foregone conclusions, so that's 50% on the slose races but both looking to be very tight indeed and in the good old days would have been listed as tossups.

The secondary predictions were less successful. In both tossup seats I had expected results to take a few days to count; in practice we discovered the results in both seats quite early in the evening. I also predicted Ian Britza would emerge as the de facto Liberal-equivalent player and runner-up in Perth. In reality the Greens retained their position as the third party--something I should have forseen--and without the Liberals their primary vote took kept them in second place leaving the ALP to ultimately scoop up all the conservative votes. The strongest conservative candidate was Paul Collins, one of the three independents I had pegged as a possible Liberal substitute (Libstitute?), but the least likely of the three (after Mr Britza and Jim Grayden).

I should probably done something similar for Fremantle. I would probably have overlooked the Greens' primary vote. I even wrote that "the Greens are the most prominent option [after Labor] but their left-of-Labor position makes them an unlikely repository for would-be-Liberal votes." As with Perth they came in second, so I would in all likelihood have floundered there too. Freo has a much smaller field to begin with, and of the conservative options in my predictions for the seat I noted:

Informed voters who would have voted for the Liberals are most likely to be drawn to the Independent in my opinion, while less attentive electors may confuse the LibDems with the Libs. That being said, on the Facebook pages that we used for the party profiles the LibDems have 522 likes and 540 followers to the Independent’s 88 likes and 92 follows. On those numbers, the LibDems are more popular with informed voters too.

...

For this reason, I would expect an ALP win Freo comfortably, but with the LibDems as their rival party.

 

If you take that as a prediction, I failed to account for the Greens as in Perth but at least I was correct in picking the de facto conservatives as the LibDems with 14% of the primary vote, more than the alternative conservative/centrist options combined (AC 5.3%, IND 5.1%, APP 1.1%; Total 11.5%)

The only other prediction related to political spin in the event of a Liberal win in either marginal seat, a situation which has not evidently not occured.

Seat Predictions: 4/5 (80%) ✔️✔️✔️✔️❌

Secondary Predictions: 0/3 (0%) ❌❌❌
Other Predictions: One N/A, one unofficial prediction partially correct but technically wrong.

Super Saturday Predictions

The predictions for ‘Super Saturday’ do not allow my normal broad-brushed mathematical approach because each one needs to be considered separately. Mayo is almost universally expected to be a Liberal v Centre Alliance contest, rather than focussing on the ALP as a major contender elsewhere. In both WA contests, the Liberals are not contesting the seats, depriving us of polling data and leaving us with the task of calculating which candidate represents the main opposition to the ALP candidates. Braddon and Longman do have polls available with Labor and the Libs leading respectively, but both within the margin of error.

Mayo

Mayo is the easiest to predict by far (which invites yet another layer of egg on my face if I’m wrong) since we have rather decisive polling. On first preferences, Ms Sharkie, for the Centre Alliance, has 47% of the vote to the Liberals’ 35% and ALP’s 9%. This is roughly a margin of error away from victory on first preferences. The ABC has noted that last election 86% of Greens preferences and 80% of the ALP’s flowed to Ms Sharkie over the Libs. If similar numbers hold in this election Ms Sharkie will win the seat and as the ABC pointed out the ALP’s how to vote card favours Ms Sharkie, unlike in 2016, possibly making the flows even stronger.

Liberals’ only hope was for the ALP to outpoll the Centre Alliance; although ALP preferences flow overwhelmingly to Ms Sharkie it is almost certain that the reverse will not hold true anywhere near as strongly and the 3^rd place for the CA would probably push the Libs over the line.

On these numbers there is no real need for further examination; I would need a very strong reason to doubt such clear-cut polling and I do not have one.

Western Australia

Fremantle has seven candidates to choose from. After the ALP the Greens are the most prominent option but their left-of-Labor position makes them an unlikely repository for would-be-Liberal votes. The AJP may suffer similar problems as well as a justified perception that they are a single-issue party. This leaves the Australian Christians, LibDems, Australian People’s Party and an independent.

The AC are conservative enough to absorb some hardcore conservatives, the LibDems have the appeal of diverse free-market platforms though progressive views on some social issues may hinder them, the APP is more centrist but may appeal to the less extreme Liberal voters, and Mr Spanbroek is running on an anti-ALP platform.

Ultimately my guess for the ALP’s rival candidate depends on voter engagement. Informed voters who would have voted for the Liberals are most likely to be drawn to the Independent in my opinion, while less attentive electors may confuse the LibDems with the Libs. That being said, on the Facebook pages that we used for the party profiles the LibDems have 522 likes and540 followers to the Independent’s 88 likes and 92 follows. On those numbers, the LibDems are more popular with informed voters too.

The practical reality, of course, is that the traditional Lib vote will be divided several ways. While this is not the catastrophe it would be under a first-past-the-post system where spoiler candidates can be devastating, it seems certain that we will see several candidates drop out (with a few direct or indirect votes flowing to the ALP) before we even have an obvious rival emerge. It is also worth noting that in 2016 Fremantle had an ALP primary vote of 41% with another 18% for the Greens and that the last time the ‘Liberals’ held the seat was 1934—about a decade before the Liberal Party was founded. (The candidate, William Watson, was therefore actually a member of the Lib’s prior incarnation the United Australia Party). For this reason, I would expect an ALP win Freo comfortably, but with the LibDems as their rival party.

Perth is tighter, with a 2016 primary vote of 42% to the Libs vs the ALP’s 37% and Greens’ 17%, and a liberal candidate in the seat as recently as 1983. Replacing the Libs in this 15-horse race will, in my opinion, be one of the three independents. Mr Grayden is positioning himself as the true Liberal in the seat, Mr Collins has run as a Liberal in at least one previous state election and Mr Britza has served as a somewhat-well-known former Liberal MP in state parliament. For simplicity, we will simply call the most successful of these the IND opponent to the ALP, and I would expect strong preference flows between the candidates’ supporters making it a matter of luck which becomes the de facto Lib replacement.

Braddon and Longman

Considered the two closest races on Super Saturday, Braddon and Longman are expected to be ALP v Coalition contests and are therefore follow normal polling practices. The latest Braddon poll at the time of writing has the ALP ahead on 2-party terms at 52%, and with undecided voters tending to prefer Labor over Liberal. The previous poll had the Libs winning at 54%. It is worth remembering that the margin of error on these polls is usually around 2-3 percentage points nationally, and seat polling is far less reliable. Additionally, this polling will be 2 weeks old on polling day.

Longman has five polls published so far: four have had the LNP narrowly ahead, the other calling the election a dead heat.

Predictions:

Braddon

The polling suggests an ALP will win, but with large inaccuracies typical in this kind of polling and a very mixed electoral history (the last time a party held the seat more than 6 years ended in the 90s), this would be a prime candidate for a tossup. It is true that by-elections on average favour the opposition party, but this can vary greatly. It is also true that It has been roughly a century since a sitting government won a by-election from the opposition, but that is because most by-elections have been in safe seats and the requisite 2.2% swing is well within the norm.

I noticed that the candidates’ Facebook pages have the Libs’ Brett Whiteley far ahead of the ALP’s Justine Keay in terms of likes, but this is represented in the polling by the higher primary vote; this seat will be won on preferences and probably will not be called on Saturday night. THAT is my honest prediction, but for the sake of throwing my hat in the betting ring, I will narrowly back the ALP now, subject to change if more up-to-date polling is produced.

Fremantle

Freo is one of those urbanised, traditionally working-class rusted-on ALP seats. It has been in Labor hands since John Curtin, the WWII era Prime Minister, won the seat in 1934. In other words, when the ALP took control of this seat, Hitler had been Fuhrer of Germany for about a month, Elvis hadn’t been born and the world had not yet witnessed the invention of the drink can, Monopoly or the Liberal Party. On those facts alone one would be tempted to say Labor has to be the favourite, but obviously, every good run has to end eventually.

Labor holds the seat with an 8% margin, generally recognised as ‘safe’, there is no Liberal party candidate (so while traditional coalition voters will vote elsewhere, the seat has not had the highly funded campaigning seen in Braddon, Longman and Mayo), and because of the citizenship situation the ALP candidate has (unusually for a by-election) the advantage of also being the incumbent. I’m happy on those facts, without any maths this time, to predict an ALP win here.

Longman

Historically mixed but with an obvious coalition lean, Longman is only held by a 1% margin by the ALP. As with Braddon, the fact that this would be the first government win of a seat from the opposition at a by-election since 1920 means nothing when the swing required is so narrow. Polling, though unreliable, is consistent in its suggestion of a narrow coalition win, with the latest numbers showing the LNP ahead on first preferences and the dominant 3^rd party being the conservative-leaning One Nation. Longman will also come down to preferences and the result may not be known for several days, but unless more recent numbers emerge I am leaning towards an LNP win (despite the military medal controversy) which the coalition will trumpet as a major victory and sign of support for the Turnbull government as a historic break from the pattern of governments losing by-elections.

Mayo

Polling here is pretty conclusive. The Centre Alliance’s Rebekah Sharkie should hold onto this traditionally safe Liberal seat with ease.

Perth

Another inner-city traditional ALP seat, Perth is only held by 3% and could realistically fall this election. The absence of an endorsed Liberal candidate, however, leaves the conservative primary vote split across a number of minor parties and independents. Independents Grayden and Britza, in particular, will probably benefit as de facto Liberal candidates and on name recognition alone I think Britza is the one to watch. (Anyone with local knowledge of the attitudes in the seat, feel free to correct me here). The absence of a single conservative focus or dedicated coalition campaign funds will probably hurt the right-wing vote, with the ALP holding the seat.

TL;DR:

My predictions are:

• Braddon: Tossup, nominally ALP.
• Secondary prediction: result unknown on election night, resolved around mid-week (~ Wednesday)
• Fremantle: ALP
• Longman: Tossup, nominally LNP
• Secondary prediction: result unknown on election night, resolved around mid-week (~ Thursday)
• Tertiary prediction: an LNP win in Longman (or a Lib win in Braddon) will be framed generally as a failure of the ALP and a glowing endorsement of the current government regardless of the results in the other seats. The 98-year drought of governments winning by-elections from oppositions will be cited as proof that the coalition is the real winner of Super Saturday even if they walk away with only one win.
• Mayo: Centre Alliance
• Perth: ALP
• Secondary prediction: Ian Britza (IND) emerges as the two-party competitor for the seat.

Super Saturday Summary

On July 28 this year, five by-elections will be held resulting primarily from the dual-citizenship problems that have plagued this parliament. The five seats in contest are:

• Braddon, Tasmania - Currently ALP
• Freemantle, Western Australia - Currently ALP
• Longman, Queensland - Currently ALP
• Mayo, South Australia - Currently Centre Alliance
• Perth, Western Australia - Currently ALP

Obviously, with four of the five being ALP-held and all being non-coalition seats the Turnbull government is very keen to boost its majority from the one-seat margin it currently holds.

Formulation of a prediction for each seat will come in the following weeks when more timely polling is available but with the candidates well and truly finalised this by-election bonanza allows us to not only look at the parties running but the individuals too--something that is simply impractical in a general election...

Which is exactly what I was going to do this week until I realised the ever-vigilant ABC elections team had beat me to it. You can find the bios for most candidates in the following links for Braddon, Fremantle, Longman, Mayo and Perth.

The ABC coverage does have a couple of gaps worth noting, though. Longman vetenarian Jackie Perkins was not found by the ABC, but her own bio can be found on a popular professional networking site here. [EDIT: The ABC now provides a link to Dr Perkins' new website.]

Mayo's Christian Democratic Party candidate, Tracey-Lee Cane, is much harder to track down. The AEC lists her profession as 'pastor', and the second google-search result for her name is the Mount Barker Uniting Church, although there is no pastor listed in the chruch leadership team and the minister is the Reverend Juleen Villis. The only other lead I could find--apart from a possible goolwa-based business with no address, contact details or obvious actual purpose called A Touch of TLC (Recreation and Research Consulting) (Interantional Pty Ltd)--was this private facebook page, which may not even be the same person and from which I was not able to discern any details at all except that she liked the Australian Christian Lobby and the Prime Minister of Israel. [EDIT: The Victor Harbor News has since tracked down Ms Cane and produced this profile.]

That does not leave much to discuss in terms of the candidate themselves, but we can at least try to pin down some policies the candidates hold as priorities...

There is always a risk of bias and selective reporting in any attempt to reduce complex and diverse party platforms to a simple summary, but that has never stopped me trying. My previous attempt at impartially reporting on each party was to roughly three key policy areas that each party cares about more than others, often by considering the layout of their website or party slogans and summarising these policies. A similar approach has been adopted here, drawing from the candidate websites linked to in the ABC links. Interestingly the candidates' positions can deviate from the core planks of the party policy where the candidate and party websites differ. For the general platforms of federal parties, the summaries from the last election can be found on this blog for June 2016. Obviously, there are more details and other policy subjects on the websites I have linked to as well, and I encourage all voters to inform themselves thoroughly before voting.

Braddon

Jarrod Edwards - The Greens (GRN)

Policy Source: The end of Mr Edwards' bio states "I look forward to championing the values of the party and really enjoy putting myself out there." The Greens website identifies four pillars that underpin the party: ecological sustainability, grassroots participatory democracy, social justice and peace and non-violence. The first three are discussed below with selections from the policy pages, non-violence being viewed here as concerned with means rather than ends.
Policy 1: Ecological Sustainability. Most famous for their environmental policies, the Greens' positions on many such areas are unsurprising. The Greens want a shift to renewable, clean energy technology and a stronger Renewable Energy Target, with the aim of being at 0 net emissions by 2040; they support sustainable agriculture and farming while seeking to limit the use of pesticides, reduce methane emissions from livestock (presumably by reducing livestock farming) and a moratorium on GMOs; they want greater legislative protection for ecological diversity and natural habitats.
Policy 2: Democracy. The Green's list of desired changes to Australian democracy include establishing a Bill of Rights; Constitutional recognition not only of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, but also of multicultural diversity and local government; reduced voting age to 16; voting eligibility for long-term prisoners; fixed parliamentary terms; allowance of dual-national citizens to stand for parliament; an Australian republic; independent oversight of FOI requests; stronger whistleblower protections; parliamentary review of international treaties and domestic legislation to implement the UN charter of human rights as law.
Policy 3: Social Justice. The Green's support equality in law of de facto relationships and marriage, regardless of sex or sexuality, including support for same-sex adoption; diversification of age-appropriate sex education to include LGBT+ issues; recognition of trans peoples' gender identity on all legal documents; removal of requirement for a court order prior to juvenile hormone treatment; removal of religious exemptions to discrimination laws; establishing consistent age-of-consent laws; legalising consensual sex work; fully funding the NDIS; fully funding old-age incomes; ending off-shore detention; increasing Australia's humanitarian immigration quota; signing a treaty with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; establishing an Indigenous advisory body to the government and changing the date of Australia Day.

Brett Neal - Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party (SFFP)

Policy Source: Policy on the Facebook page linked to from the ABC site above is fragmented often into two- or three-sentence posts, and it is unclear how much is contributed by the candidate and how much by various party representatives. The closest thing to a multi-issue statement I could find is this radio interview in which the following three issues were discussed. Each is also referenced individually on the facebook page, with a link to a news story which I have also provided for each heading.
Policy 1: Support for farmers. Unsurprisingly for a candidate for a farming- and country-oriented party, there is a policy to increase support for farmers, such as the Landcare programme. The candidate feels this has been insufficient and should be a higher priority than certain other areas of government funding. He also cites the importance of agriculture to the seat of Braddon. [News Article].
Policy 2: Pepper Spray for Women. The SFFP and its various former names have always had a strong focus on shooting and easier access to firearms, so it is perhaps unsurprising that they also support relaxing restrictions on pepper spray. Though I haven't found anything that expressly rules out legalising the spray for other sections of the community, every instance I've heard of relates specifically to arming women. [News Article].
Policy 3: Seconds. The SFFP candidate has already begun looking into a way to get 'seconds'--produce that does not meet the strict aesthetic standards of supermarkets--redistributed to people in food-insecure households, and wants a federally funded pilot scheme in Tasmania. [News Article].

Donna Gibbons - Independent (IND)

Policy Source: Political pamphlet, with the points condensed under three headings.
Policy 1: Government Services. Ms Gibbons lists among her current objections to government administration of services the length of Centrelink witing times, healthcare waiting times, a shortage of preventative healthcare initiatives (particularly for obesity and diabetes), and the quality of treatment in aged care and the NDIS.
Policy 2: Workers and Corporations. This candidate has concerns about international corporations avoiding Australian tax obligations, the underpayment and casualisation of workers and the current state of superannuation which is described as having "too many snouts in the trough".
Policy 3: Refugees. Ms Gibbons has written that "hoping that out of sight is out of mind is not showing leadership", the implication being that she opposes offshore detention and would presumably prefer onshore processing.

Joshua Boag - Liberal Democrats (LDP)

Policy Source: Policies on the ABC recommended Facebook page were hard to find with details, so I have deviated from the ABC's link and policy topics are taken from the LibDem's bio for Josh Boag, which helpfully states three policy areas "Joshua strongly advocates". Policy detail is taken from the LibDem policy pages.
Policy 1: The Right to Self Defence. In particular it is long-standing LibDem policy that gun control should be relaxed, that firearms should be available for self-defence, that anyone over 18 (excluding people with violent criminal history etc.) should be automatically entitled to a gun licence and a concealed-carry licence, that long-arms should not need to be registered and that semi-automatic firearms should not be limited or prohibited.
Policy 2: Cannabis Legalisation. The party supports the legalisation of cultivation, processing, possession, transport and sale of recreational cannabis, medicinal cannabis and cannabis products while supporting limits on selling cannabis to minors or driving while impaired by cannabis use.
Policy 3: Freedom of Association. "Restrictions on freedom of association, assembly and movement represent government over‑reach.  Freedom of association should not be limited by bans on membership of bikie gangs or groups deemed to be terrorist organisations. Long-standing laws against conspiring to carry out a crime are sufficient.  Freedom of association should not be limited by prohibitions on joining a trade union,  nor on requirements to join one.  Freedom to gather in public places without hindering the movement and peace of others should not be limited by curfews, ‘move along’ powers, or laws against loitering and peaceful protests." [Quoted from the Freedom of Speech policy.]

Brett Whiteley - Liberal Party (LIB)

Policy Source: I could not find a decent policy summary, as the ABC's link to the relevant Facebook page provides a series of promises and announcements without a centralised platform. The Liberals' website offers general policy initiatives, but nothing targetted to Braddon. Instead, I have drawn from the image galleries of the Facebook page, specifically listing the policies provided by this series of images.
Policy 1: Infrastructure. Promises include Flood-proofing the Latrobe, a half-million dollars to upgrade the Montello soccer ground, $10 million to upgrade the Murchison Highway and a further $100 million for roads west of Wynyard. There is also a promise of mobile upgrades along the West Coast.
Policy 2: Mental Health. Quite simply, the Libs have promised $4.8 million for mental health.
Policy 3: Employment. The focus on jobs is quite apparent reading through the Facebook page, but the only policy in the format I'm considering here is an announcement of training for 600 young people.

Craig Garland - Independent (IND)

Policy Source: The aim of the three-policy approach to summarising candidates is to give every candidate a fair representation in terms of space and diversity of views. In this case, however, I fell like it would be a misrepresentation of Mr Garland to do so. I could write briefly about his second and third policies as restoring Tasmanian AFL and opposing the extreme industrial deforestation while supporting sustainable forestry, but it is obvious Mr Garland's chief passion, as a fisherman, is the protection of marine diversity. So I will simply post this extract from his Facebook page:
Policy 1: Fisheries. "Our fisheries and our fishing communities deserve more from our elected members and it’s my hope that my run will raise our issues and Help protect the generations of jobs our waters have supplied. The cult of success can become a source of instability in an open society because it can undermine our sense of right and wrong. This is happening in our society today, our sense of right and wrong is endangered by our preoccupation with success as measured by money. Anything goes as long as you can get away with it. A classic example is the salmon farm industry of today. You can shoot our wildlife, relocate problem seals shutting down wild fisheries, kill a harbour and create dead zones in world heritage areas, have mass fish kills from overstocking and take over common property waterways without social licence and without the communities input and all on the back of a massive turnover."

Bruno Strangio - Australian People's Party (APP)

Policy Source: The party's policy page has several policies to sort through, so I have taken the three most expansively discussed as the "main platforms".
Policy 1: Taxation. This party wants to end tax deductions for work expenses*, increase the tax-free threshold, replace tax offsets for carers and people with disabilities with a payment, remove the beneficiary tax offset, reduce marginal tax rates, simplify GST and expand it to financial services, a 20% corporate tax rate with very few possible deductions; tax on all foreign businesses selling to Australians, and a 50% tax on property sales by foreign investors.
Policy 2: Immigration. The APP wants to reduce immigration for a 5-year period by: reducing visa numbers; abolishing temporary skilled migration; relying on temporary protection visas for refugees and repatriating them when it is safe to do so; providing visas for migrants to settle and remain in regional centres for 5 years; deporting all illegal immigrants; requiring family-sponsored immigrants of working age to have full-time employment for 5 years and not rely on welfare payments, with minors to be supported by family sponsors; and requiring immigrants to live here for 5 years, speak English and receive no convictions before seeking citizenship.
Policy 3: Social Security and Living Standards. APP policies call for: a $50 increase in the fortnightly single pension, $90 increase in the couples pension, Reduction of retirement age to 65, a reduction of gas and electricity bills by 50%, the implementation of a gas reservation policy, no expiration dates on any phone/internet data, unemployed people being made to work for councils or the military after 1 year, all welfare recipients to require photo ID, changing the NDIS to the National Investment Scheme, fully fund childcare only for working parents passing a means test, and all businesses with over 100 employees to have in-house childcare.
*The exact wording of this policy is "allow no work-related deductions". Though purely speculative, it is possible this should read "allow non-work-related deductions" which has the opposite effect of expanding rather than restricting tax deductions.

Justine Keay - Australian Labor Party (ALP)

Policy Source: Deviating again from the ABC's links, I consulted the ALP's bio on Ms Keay, which identified the following specific achievements she intends to fight for, quoted directly here:
Policy 1: End corporate tax cuts. Stop the $80 billion tax handouts to big business, especially the $17 billion to the big banks.
Policy 2: Essential services. Increased funding for local hospitals and health services; put more money back into local schools.
Policy 3: Apprenticeships. Restore the 704 apprentices lost on the North West Coasts under the Liberals.

Fremantle

Mark Staer - Australian Christians (AC)

Policy Source: There are 9 policy areas listed on the party's website with no obvious way to pick the main ones, but most can be folded into their broadest policy heading of 'Social Policies'. Three others remain: 'Environment and Climate' and 'Economy' which are long enough to deserve description below and their 'Religious Freedom' policy which is summarised in this one-page document they provide.
Policy 1: Social Policies. On the topic of family, the AC believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and supports adoption only by heterosexual couples, mentoring programs for men and boys without fathers, pre-marriage education for all couples, perjury laws to be applied to the Family Court, declassifying 'economic abuse' as a criminal offence. They oppose the introduction of voluntary euthanasia, abortion and IVF outside of heterosexual marriage. The party opposes the Safe Schools program, wants the national curriculum to be developed by stakeholders and supports the inclusion of Australia’s Christian heritage in the curriculum. It supports medical uses of cannabis but not recreational use. They oppose the inclusion of home ownership in the means testing of pensions, wants pensions to be indexed by a measure other than CPI and supports fully funding the NDIS. The party opposes prostitution but believes punishment should fall on the clients of sex workers rather than sex workers themselves, and ISP filters on pornographic material by default in Australia.
Policy 2: Environment and Climate. This party does not believe there is sufficient evidence for human-caused climate change and opposes any form of taxation or other burdens to this end, but supports "sensible pollution controls that do not unnecessarily and excessively burden businesses and increase the cost of living". This position heads all of their policies on the environment, be that generally, carbon taxation specifically, and even water management. These policies then all provide the '10 key aims' of their subsequent policies: recognition of pollution harms and adapting [sic] evidence-based solutions; land use management geared towards environmental sustainability; protecting natural biodiversity; ensuring air and water quality; managing vegetation and soil quality for agricultural sustainability; improving waste management; protecting coasts and rivers; ensuring sustainable resource development; balanced and sustainable consumption; promoting energy and resource production without favour to any approach.
Policy 3: Economy. The AC opposes keeping the minimum wage as high as it currently is, increasing taxes on businesses or implementing greater employment regulation (particularly in child care). They support income splitting for single-income families and the establishment of specialist banks for small and medium businesses.

Darinda Cox - The Greens (GRN)

Policy Source: Conveniently, the Greens have released specific policies for the WA by-elections in Fremantle and Perth. There are three policies from their general platform--'Ending Corporate Influence', 'World Class Social Services' and 'A Future For All Of Us'--and two other policies specifically released during WA by-election season--'Beyond Waste' and 'Getting Big Money Out Of Politics'. The latter are used as main policies below. Ignoring 'Ending Corporate Influence' as being synonymous with 'Getting Big Money Out Of Politics', the other two policies 'World Class Social Services' and 'A Future For All Of Us' are discussed as the third policy for Perth and Freemantle respectively, decided by a coin flip. Voters in either seat would do well to read both summaries.
Policy 1: Beyond Waste. The Greens' waste management policy is set out over four steps: investment in resource recovery (i.e. recycling) initiatives including through community grants, ending federal funding for waste incineration, phasing out single-use plastic products and introducing mandatory schemes to encourage the manufacture of recyclable products.
Policy 2: Getting Big Money Out Of Politics. The Greens' plan to limit the monetary influence of politicians is two-pronged: first by introducing a $30 carbon price on major polluters and removing fossil fuel subsidies which they argue encourage pollution thanks to the influence of the fossil fuel lobby, and secondly by banning political donations from mining, development, tobacco and alcohol industries, capping all other donations and demanding all donations over $1000 are reported to the public. Their ending corporate influence policy also mentions making corporations pay their 'fair share' of tax, opposing a corporate tax cut from 30% to 25%, and establishing a government-backed People’s Bank.
Policy 3: A Future For All Of Us. The party also wishes to: establish treaties with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, change the date of Australia Day, establish a Federal Multicultural Act, end off-shore detention and close Manus and Nauru, encourage new meat processing facilities to create jobs and prevent live export, and make WA's electricity 100% renewable by 2030.

Katrina Love - Animal Justice Party (AJP)

Policy Source: The AJP is a single-issue party, with all the risks that entails when unrelated legislation is before parliament. At times they have been referred to as extreme, for example in their push for vegetarian or vegan diets. A summary of their political positions on animal welfare can be found in my previous summaries (see Group K), but for Ms Love's specific interests I have singled out three projects she has been involved with according to her bio.
Project 1: "Katrina is also the Campaign Manager for ... Stop Live Exports, and has been involved in that campaign for 12 years, and is a very active animal advocate and activist."
Project 2: "She [Ms Love] was actively involved in the WA No Shark Cull movement which saw the Barnett government shelve plans to trial lethal shark drum lines off Perth and South West beaches for three years."
Project 3: The candidate also contributes at the Happy Hooves Farm Sanctuary, which is more or less exactly what it sounds like but you can read more about here if you wish.

Josh Wilson - Australian Labor Party (ALP)

Policy Source: There are plenty of posts on the ABC-linked Facebook page, but I am finding more and more the best way to narrow down the actual promises of the major parties is to go to the photos section and look for graphics like these. These are the four images I could find, and without an NBN policy on the ALP website, I have used the other three below. Further details, where available, are provided from the national ALP campaigns page.
Policy 1: Penalty Rates. The cut to penalty rates for hospitality, retail and fast food workers is not supported by the ALP, and currently, the party promises to reverse these reductions.
Policy 2: TAFE and apprenticeships. According to the posted graphic, Labor will waive upfront fees for 100,000 TAFE places, and the ALP website adds that Labor will guarantee TAFE funding, employ apprentices as one in ten employees on priority government infrastructure projects and Labor will crack down on the abuse of 457 visas by big business and ensure jobs are advertised in Australia first.
Policy 3: Hospitals. Labor is arguing against what they calculate to be $715 million in cuts to hospitals nationally from 2017 to 2020. Locally, Mr Wilson has announced Labor will invest $5 million to establish an urgent care clinic at the Fremantle hospital.

John Gray - Liberal Democrats (LDP)

Policy Source: Following my approach in Braddon, I have deviated from the ABC's link and policy topics are taken from the LibDem's bio for John Gray. Five policy areas are listed as Mr Gray's areas of interest. One is 'Getting a fair GST return for WA' which seems inconsistent with the LibDem policy of stop the federal government giving any GST revenue with the states. Another, 'Lowering the cost of living', is a broad aim scattered throughout various party policies. The other three are easier to summarise and are dealt with below. Policy detail is taken from the LibDem policy pages.
Policy 1: Reduced regulation of business. The party argues for the immediate deregulation of the taxi industry; removal of licensing and certification for various industries including auctioneers, hairdressers, bar workers and casino workers; deregulation of retail trading hours, gambling and poker machines, liquor licensing, radio and television broadcast licensing and workers compensation insurance.
The party also wants the immediate privatisation of the NBN, ABC, SBS, Australia Post, electricity and public transport, with TAFE, universities, schools and hospitals to follow.
Policy 2: Legalising cannabis. The party supports the legalisation of cultivation, processing, possession, transport and sale of recreational cannabis, medicinal cannabis and cannabis products while supporting limits on selling cannabis to minors or driving while impaired by cannabis use.
Policy 3: Legalising euthanasia. The LibDems support the right to euthanasia, the decriminalisation of assisting a person to die, and the right to access information about euthanasia "provided there are appropriate safety mechanisms to ensure consent is given freely and confirmed."

James Harfouche - Australian People's Party (APP)

Policy Source: The party's policy page has several policies to sort through, so I have taken the two most expansively discussed as the "main platforms", along with the policy that university education should be free which is emphasised in Mr Harfouche's party profile.
Policy 1: Taxation. This party wants to end tax deductions for work expenses*, increase the tax-free threshold, replace tax offsets for carers and people with disabilities with a payment, remove the beneficiary tax offset, reduce marginal tax rates, simplify GST and expand it to financial services, a 20% corporate tax rate with very few possible deductions; tax on all foreign businesses selling to Australians, and a 50% tax on property sales by foreign investors.
Policy 2: Immigration. The APP wants to reduce immigration for a 5-year period by: reducing visa numbers; abolishing temporary skilled migration; relying on temporary protection visas for refugees and repatriating them when it is safe to do so; providing visas for migrants to settle and remain in regional centres for 5 years; deporting all illegal immigrants; requiring family-sponsored immigrants of working age to have full-time employment for 5 years and not rely on welfare payments, with minors to be supported by family sponsors; and requiring immigrants to live here for 5 years, speak English and receive no convictions before seeking citizenship.
Policy 3: Education. The APP policy on education, as set out on the party website is, in full:

• Australian born school and university students will receive free education. Foreign students will pay fees
• Emphasis on literacy and numeracy in all government schools. Ensure year levels, student age of entry and curriculum is uniform across the nation
• Fund TAFE system to provide Australia with skilled workers

*The exact wording of this policy is "allow no work-related deductions". Though purely speculative, it is possible this should read "allow non-work-related deductions" which has the opposite effect of expanding rather than restricting tax deductions.

Jason Spanbroek - Independent (IND)

Policy Source: This image is the closest thing to a policy document I could find for Mr Spanbroek. Policies have been sorted into three categories below.
Policy 1: Traffic. Mr Spanbroek promises to 'activate the Coogee corridor' with a modern and sustainable transport solution, develop a long-term solution to congestion and oppose vehicle congestion charging.
Policy 2: Clean up the streets. I cannot say if this is intended as a literal anti-litter policy or a tough-on-crime metaphor, having been to Fremantle only once and not noticing either pollution or street crime to be particularly common. Either way, this promise is supposed to make the streets "safe and prosperous again."
Policy 3: Harbour development. The candidate opposes Chinese-owned development at Kwinana but recognises the need for a sustainable and publically owned expansion of Fremantle Port and improvements to the passenger terminal.