Incoming Feed Items

There were two in the first federal parliament, and between 1980 and 2004, 56 Independent MPs were elected to parliaments across Australia.

At times, they have held the balance of power and decided the fate of governments.

Of the 151 lower house MPs elected in 2022, 10 were independent candidates, and a further 6 represented minor or micro-parties.

Recent elections in comparable democracies have returned fewer, if any, Independents.

The UK’s 2019 election returned no Independents to the House of Commons, and the 2024 election only six (out of 650 members).

Neither Canada nor New Zealand elected any Independents in their most recent elections, nor did the US House of Representatives in 2022 or 2024.

Australia’s uniqueness has several causes.

Compulsory voting means that even disaffected or apathetic citizens show up to vote.

Preferential voting benefits independent candidates because major party voters usually preference independents ahead of the other major party.

In the Senate, proportional representation increases the chances of a well-organised independent or micro-party, and at double dissolution election the reduced quota gives them even better odds, as we saw in 2016.

Local candidates with existing name recognition (or the patience to build a public profile over successive campaigns) can be highly competitive in these circumstances.

For years, I thought that there were two "sides" to the discussion around climate change. There were the people who believed in the science and the people who thought it was all a farce. Often, they could segregated into Democrats and Republicans. Of course, there were plenty of people who believed in the science but didn't give a hoot - and certainly didn't want to be forced to stop what they were doing. These believers happily leveraged those who didn't believe to minimize regulation. Needless to say, I was long infuriated with the financial interests involved in ensuring people questioned the science, doubted the issue, and opposed regulatory action.

Over time, more and more people have come to believe that climate change is real. There are still plenty of capitalists who don't care and don't want regulators to get in their way. But I've started to realize that entirely new responses to climate change have started to emerge. And some of them scare me. So I'm going to attempt to articulate them in buckets. I'd love to hear if you see different buckets.

It means none of the Liberals, Labor, Nationals, Greens, One Nation and Independents believe the multi-national gas exporters’ claim that there is a shortage of gas in Australia.

“People say we have plenty of gas in Australia and that is true, a lot gets exported,” said Chris Bowen, Federal Energy Minister during a debate at the National Press Club.

Peter Dutton has already acknowledged Australia has an abundance of gas, and his idea to tax gas exports to ensure our gas flows first to Australian businesses and households is a good idea.

“It is ridiculous to say we have a gas shortage in Australia when we export so much of it,” said Richard Denniss, Executive Director of The Australia Institute.

“Our research shows we are giving away more than half the gas we export for free, with zero royalties paid on 56 per cent of all the gas we sell overseas.

“It is good to see agreement across the political spectrum on this issue.

“There is also no need for new gas or coal projects in Australia, there is gas there now.”

The post All sides of politics agree – there is no gas shortage appeared first on The Australia Institute.

1. Aggregation of donations for the purposes of both the gift cap and disclosure

The failure of the Act to aggregate donations to different party branches for the purposes of the gift cap and disclosure means that wealthy interests will be able to continue to access the political process in a way the average Australian can’t. This is inequitable.

In respect of associated entities, when such an entity is controlled by, or operates solely or to a significant extent to the benefit of one or more political parties, donations to that associated entity should be aggregated with donations to the party for the purpose of the disclosure threshold and donation cap.

2. Spending caps: lower national cap, higher per seat cap and ‘anti-piling in provision’

The national cap of $90 million will be able to be used by parties to flood key races and will do nothing to alleviate the arms race for funding. The setting of the per seat cap also disadvantages new entrants and independents. Our solution is three-pronged:

Professor James Hankins has proposed a grand bargain on immigration. He has the right idea: with an issue as thorny as immigration, on which the views of the American electorate are split, one might even say schizophrenic, the solution must be some kind of compromise. In order to strike a lasting bargain, each side must be satisfied with what it receives in return for giving up some of its demands.

Alas, in the Hankins bargain, what the Right gets, it doesn’t want, and what the Left gets, it doesn’t need.

The Left’s preferred policy solution for illegal immigration is amnesty. Their plan has always been to get as many people as possible over the border and then, when the congressional winds are favorable, grant them citizenship. They think they will be able to get enough conservative crossovers to pass an amnesty. There have always been Republican defectors who are either naïve would-be humanitarians and think amnesty is the compassionate solution or cynical friends of big business who want to maximize immigration as a source of cheap labor.

Plus, it would take some very compelling sweeteners to get the Left to agree to accept the half-loaf of guest worker permits, since they fully expect to get the full loaf of amnesty soon enough. None of the concessions Hankins offers are anywhere close to sweet enough.

The Coalition’s plan to scrap the Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF) will leave tens of thousands of Australians without a roof over their heads, as homelessness continues to soar and crisis services buckle under pressure.

A discussion paper modelling three future scenarios of the HAFF, by national housing campaign Everybody’s Home, shows the real-world human impact of political decisions on social housing.

With more than 76,000 Australians seeking support from homelessness services but missing out on long-term housing every year, the paper reveals:

• If the HAFF continues as is, delivering 20,000 social housing dwellings: 65 per cent of those who missed out on housing in 2023-24 could be housed over five years
• If the HAFF is abolished by the Coalition: Only a few thousand Australians who missed out on housing in 2023-24 could be housed, leaving at least 70,000 without homes
• If the HAFF is expanded to deliver 80,000 social housing dwellings: it could house every person turned away in 2023-24, and an additional 123,312 people over a decade or more.

*Assuming 2.5 people per household.

The modelling comes as Housing Minister Clare O’Neil calls on shadow minister Michael Sukkar to allow the government to continue approving HAFF projects during caretaker mode.

Public opinion has turned against DEI. It is tempting for DEI advocates to wish this reality away and call the DEI rollback part of the “white backlash.” Or claim that people just don’t want to learn real history. Or keep DEI in place under another name. Some administrators in academia are simply rebranding DEI as “community engagement” or “belonging centers.” But we all know what you are doing—it’s the same thing with a slightly different label.

DEI advocates are no doubt convinced of their position. They do not want to change. Their jobs depend on DEI policies. They think the DEI cause is righteous and central to the mission of higher education.

A majority of Americans find DEI policies objectionable, however. My home state of Idaho recently banned DEI policies, joining many states in passing sweeping bans. The recent dismantling of DEI at the University of Michigan may be a watershed moment for DEI in higher education. Michigan had been a leader in DEI advocacy, when measuring its funding of DEI initiatives and the number of DEI administrators on its payroll.

Something is happening here. What it is, is rather clear.

Let’s face facts: DEI advocates are increasingly in the minority. They are fighting rear-guard actions against a majority of people in the country, and in many states. They are fighting against democracy to preserve their DEI domain.

In 2022, the Labor Government received just 33% of the primary vote – but won a majority of the seats. In Australia’s single-member electorate system, a minority of votes easily becomes a majority of seats.

New Zealand adopted proportional representation in 1996 after an election where a majority government formed with a record low vote share of just 35%. Since then, most of its governments have formed from parties that won a majority of the vote.

In the 2023 New Zealand election, the incoming three-party coalition of Nationals, ACT, and NZ First had 53% of the vote between them. Another proportional system (Hare-Clark) is employed for elections in Tasmania and the ACT, where governments generally have the support of half or more of the primary vote.

While no Australian government has won a majority of the primary vote since 1975, the Gillard government was in some ways the closest to it.

Only 38% of Australians voted for Gillard’s Labor in 2010, but 13% voted for the Greens and independents who made formal confidence and supply agreements with the government.

That makes the 2010 election is the only time since 1975 where confidence in the government was based on MPs receiving the votes of most Australians.

Imagine if next week you predicted that you would earn 20% less than your actual salary. When you earned your actual salary, would you have just earned a windfall!? No, but that is what the LNP is saying would be the case with their new funds announced today.

Today, the Liberal and National Party announced that they will set up two news funds that will be part of the Future Fund. They are the “Future Generations Fund and the Regional Australia Future Fund”. It all sounds quite nice – who wouldn’t love future generations and regional Australia! Alas, as with the ALP government’s Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF) the best parts of these funds are their names.

These funds, like the HAFF, use meaningless figures to make them sound big, but are purely set up to put off doing things.

Rather than spend money on vital infrastructure, health care, and education services now, these funds instead put money into an account and will only spend money once the funds earn a return on their investments.

But by the time these funds have made a return, the infrastructure needs will be much greater, and Australians will have gone without vital improvements in health, education and other services.

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg and Elinor discuss Trump’s tariff turmoil, the dodgy numbers doing the rounds in the election campaign, and the Coalition’s big fund boondoggle.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 10 April 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Follow all the action from the federal election on our new politics live blog, Australia Institute Live with Amy Remeikis.

Host: Greg Jericho, Chief Economist, the Australia Institute and Centre for Future Work // @grogsgamut

Host: Elinor Johnston-Leek, Senior Content Producer, the Australia Institute // @elinorjohnstonleek

Show notes:

‘Trump’s tariffs could push Australia into recession town. So why is the RBA waiting until May to meet?’ by Greg Jericho, Guardian Australia (April 2025)