Yep, as do One Nation- I have checked them both out (when I said I check all candidates, I mean it!). And I must admit, although I am not too thrilled by the extent they actually go on about race/culture-relations issues in their speeches, I am inclined to support their CIR policy and pro-public-rights, sovereignty and security stances.

As such, they sit about middlish on my ballot paper- I can't follow the multiculturalism opposition priority so much, and can't forgive ON's opposition to native title, reconciliation and ingigenous sovereignty rights (and AFP's lack of detail of stance on the issue at all) puts them below any more liberalistic Direct-democracy/public-accountability/rights advocate in my area.

And although people insist on voting for the Democrats, aside from them not actually having a binding CIR policy at all as ON/AFP (but merely non-binding symbolic one- which has no point), they're just TOO liberal-right (and their crumbling on the Telstra sell-off was unforgivable).

At least we have the candidate numbering system (probably the only thing Australia's voting system can actually boast).

As I understand it AFP is pitching itself as a "Popular front" type group for a range of tendencies from nationalism to libertarianism, protectionism and so forth. It'd be a matter of running something up the flagpole and seeing if it'll fly.
I suspect the "Blood and soil" element is only the part of their platform that gets the most attention from the Media, in any event it's not going to be something that will make or break the party unless they insist on playing "the Game" like One Nation did.
One thing is for sure AFP is less likely to turn into a divisive BNP type farce than any other nominally "Right" group, their "Neither Islam nor Israel" stance is to be commended.
It's the people who make the Party, if you want to influence outcomes get involved would be my advice.