Tag: politics

Will “the peace” hold in Gaza?

There is intense emotion in Israel and in Gaza. Hundreds of Israeli families are mourning the deaths of the 1200 people killed on 7 October 2024, the deaths of scores (perhaps even hundreds) of the 251 hostages taken on that day, the 468 Israeli soldiers who have died since that day.

At the same time, the families and friends of the nearly 68,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza over the same timeframe, and especially the 20,179 of them who were children, are experiencing a similarly intense sense of grief.

It’s a region bubbling with all that unrequited grief brings: sorrow, despair, anger, a festering hatred, a resolve to “never forget”. It’s hardly a fertile ground for peace to flourish. Will the “peace agreement” hold? Will the “peace plan” prove to be effective?

As the latest group of hostages return to Israel, giving understandable joy to their families and friends, and hope for an enduring peace in the region, let us not forget that the displaced Gazans returning to the homes will find 78% of the structures in Gaza are damaged or destroyed; 22 of the 36 hospitals in Gaza have been destroyed, and some of the remaining 14 hospitals are only partially functional; and 1.5% of the viable cropland in Gaza is able now to be used for cultivation. They are not simply “coming back home”; they are returning to scenes of devastation and destruction that will surely intensify their despair.

This is the third ceasefire since the events of 7 October 2023. Will it last? Relations between many (not all) Israelis and Palestinians are incredibly complex, and an enduring peace amidst the aggressive antagonism and intensifying hatred that has marked recent years (indeed, decades) does not give me confidence. 

The US has provided $21.7 billion of military aid to Israel since 7 Oct 2023. If Trump really wants peace, he could cease all future military aid and divert funds to the needs in aid supplies, health, and restoration of infrastructure in Gaza.

I’ve taken these figures from an article by NPR, a media organisation in the USA that is “an independent, nonprofit media organization … founded on a mission to create a more informed public”. (Thanks to Megan Powell du Toit for the link.)

https://www.npr.org/2025/10/13/g-s1-92205/ceasefire-gaza-war-key-figures?

The history of “the peace” in this region over the past 50 years does not give grounds for hope. The establishment of Israel in 1948, as important and necessary as that was after the horrors of the Shoah (a Hebrew word meaning “desolation, sudden destruction, catastrophe”), caused the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of inhabitants of that area, in a catastrophe called by Palestinians the Nakbah (an Arabic word which also means “catastrophe”). 

The Camp David Accords (1978) ultimately led to an agreement in which Israel agreed to “resolve the Palestinian question” and permit Palestinian self-governance in the West Bank and Gaza within five years. It never happened. 

The Oslo Accords (1993) included a pledge to end hostilities, and the second Accords (1995) provided that Israel would accept Palestinian claims to national sovereignty. As an interim measure, a Palestinian Authority was established, to govern designated areas (see the map) in a phased process leading towards Palestinian self-determination. The Palestine Authority still exists today, and the goal of the Accords has never been reached.

See https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/13/what-were-oslo-accords-israel-palestinians

Indeed, from 1993 onwards, Israel increased its building of settlements in the West Bank, leaving that area utterly fragmented between Israeli and Palestinian areas—a process deemed illegal under international law. Families who had lived on their historic lands were expelled so that new Israeli settlements could be built. It’s been an utterly unjust process.

When PLO leader Yasser Arafat gave up the right for Palestinian refugees to return to their historic lands which Jewish settlers had seized from them in 1948 when Israel was created, many Palestinians became disenchanted with him. The ground was fertile for dissent and revolt; Hamas emerged out of this situation as the leading organisation advocating for—and acting to gain—a Palestinian right to return. Peace was never possible while such an ideology was the key driving force.

Chris Hedges, an American journalist, author, and commentator (and also an ordained Presbyterian minister, as of 2014) writes that the current “peace” is simply “a commercial break … a moment when the condemned man is allowed to smoke a cigarette before being gunned down in a fusillade of bullets”. He foresees the crumbling of the current ceasefire, on the basis of the history of these recent decades.

“Once Israeli hostages are released, the genocide will continue”, he writes. “A pause in the genocide is the best we can anticipate. Israel is on the cusp of emptying Gaza, which has been all but obliterated under two years of relentless bombing. It is not about to be stopped. This is the culmination of the Zionist dream.”

He notes the staggeringly obscene amount of military aid that the USA has given Israel, and observes that the US “will not shut down its pipeline, the only tool that might halt the genocide”. He then goes on to argue that “of the myriads of peace plans over the decades, the current one is the least serious”. He details all the flaws and inadequacies in the much-trumpeted 20-point “peace plan” that has been advocated recently and claims that “there will be no peace in Gaza; only the temporary absence of war”.

Hedges notes that this “peace plan” fails to mention Palestinians’ right to self-determination; it ignores the advice of the International Court of Justice that Israeli settlements are illegal; it places no brakes on Israel’s continuing military power; it does not provide for Israel to provide anything in the way of reparations for Gaza, the area which it has mercilessly bombed; and many provisions are vague to the point of being unenforceable. You can read his scathing analysis at https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/trumps-sham-peace-plan?

Eric Tlozek, the ABC’s Middle East correspondent, observes that “Israel gets to keep troops in Gaza instead of having to withdraw, but that only signifies that the key issues in this conflict — disarmament, security, governance — are far from being resolved”. What will change once the thousands of displaced Gazans return?

He continues, “Hamas still refuses to disarm and remains in control of large parts of the [Gaza] strip. The US may claim the war is over, but Israel’s defence minister has already flagged plans to attack Hamas, and Israeli fire and air strikes continue in Gaza. The violence has not ended, it has only decreased in intensity.”  Tlozek’s pessimism is, nevertheless grounded in reality.

See https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-15/donald-trump-should-not-be-thanked-for-the-gaza-ceasefire/

Will the current “peace” last? How long will it last? How long before the genocide of Palestinians resumes and continues to its inexorable end? As a person of faith, I can join with people of faith around the globe, to pray and to hope. As a citizen of the world in 2025, however, I think that, sadly, we must temper this with realism about the situation and the prospects of an enduring peace. 

*****

See my other, earlier, ruminations at

Peace with Justice: end the genocide in Gaza
Israel, the West Bank, and Hamas: a prayer for peace, and a yearning for justice
Significant days, reflecting Shoah, Independence, Nakba, and 7 October.

So how did your bloke go?

“So how did your bloke go?” Have you been asked this question in the weeks since the election? Recently a group of local leaders and volunteers in the Jeremy Miller for Lyne campaign met with members of the central campaign team to look at the future for an Independent candidate in Lyne. As part of that exploration, we heard an overview of what the polling in the booths reveal about how “our bloke” Jeremy actually went in the 2025 election.

1 The overall result

Now that the poll has been declared, we know the big picture: he didn’t win the seat—but, realistically, that would have been a huge achievement, which was somewhat unexpected. Yet, he did do remarkably well for a first-time community-supported candidate. Jeremy gained just under 16% of first preferences across the whole electorate, which was about 8% more than the votes that independent candidates gained in the 2022 election. 

And by the way: that 8% came from an 8% swing away from the Nationals candidate, for the 36.24% of first preference votes for the Nationals candidate was a healthy 7.27% less than the first preference votes for the Nationals in the 2022 election— and a massive 20% less than the 56.31% of first preferences that voters gave to the National Party way back in the 2004 federal election. That’s been a significant drop in the Nationals votes over the past two decades. Do they really think they are serving the electorate well, if one in five voters has stopped supporting them?

Looking at the longer-term trends, like this, as well as the detailed votes from booths across the electorate (discussed below) certainly indicates where our attention needs to be focussed in the next election in 2028: on “soft” Nationals voters who are open to being persuaded to change the way they vote. Are they happy with how the electorate is being represented in Canberra? Or are they discontent with the way the Lyne electorate is being treated? Might they be open to a different way of seeing things? After all, “if you want things to change, you need to change the way you vote”.

2 Where Jeremy polled best of all

If we look at the first preference votes cast booth-by-booth, we can see that in a good dozen or so booths, Jeremy’s vote was over 20%. He did best at Tinonee, with a wonderful 28.82% of first preference votes (more than the Labor vote and just under the Nationals votes) and at Old Bar, with 27.6% of first preferences there (ahead of both Labor and Nationals). At Taree West, where he attracted 26.2% of first preferences, he received the same number of votes as the Nationals and almost double the votes for Labor. 

A more detailed breakdown of statistics indicates that Jeremy did indeed gain votes “where it matters”—in the larger population areas of Greater Taree and Forster—Tuncurry, where 40% of the voters live.

That detailed breakdown (which you can skip if figures befuddle you) is: in the Taree area, where Jeremy’s recognition is high, he attracted over 20% of the vote at Tinonee (28.82), Old Bar (27.6), Taree West (26.28), Cundletown (25.31), Purfleet (24.00), Chatham (22.08), and Taree (21.85). The exception in this area was the lower vote of 18.5% at Taree North. Nevertheless, all of these booths are significantly higher than the 15.8% primary vote across the electorate.

Further south, in Forster—Tuncurry, the best results were achieved at Pacific Palms (24.17, higher than each of Labor and the Nationals), Coomba Park (21.67), Forster East (21.67), Forster (21.50), Bungwahl (20.55), and Tuncurry (17.09). Other good results in this part of the electorate were at Hallidays Point (23.11) and Diamond Beach (24.78). At Lansdowne, Jeremy received 19.69, and at Coopernook 16.81, whilst at the two booths in Wingham, Jeremy secured 16.84 and 14.20. Again, these booth results are higher than the average.

So this is further cause for reflection: what was it in these particular areas that helped Jeremy to push his vote up, higher than the 15.8% average for the whole electorate? Clearly, the fact that he lives in the area and that he is a very active Councillor on the MidCoast Council must both have helped in securing that higher vote. Being “known” in these areas was a strong positive for Jeremy. These results again point to an area where our energy might best be focussed in the time leading up to the next election (presumably in 2028). 

The largest blocks of voters live in the two main urban areas—Greater Taree (including Wingham, Old Bar, and surrounds) and Forster—Tuncurry. This is where the influence of the National Party is less, by comparison, than it is in the inland rural areas. And these are amongst the areas in the electorate where we might expect population growth in future years. How do we plan and implement effective campaigning in these areas in the next few years?

3 In other places across the electorate of Lyne

In the north of the electorate, at Barrington, Jeremy secured 20.99, and in Gloucester itself 16.38. In Wauchope, he obtained fewer votes: 11.28 at Wauchope and 10.53 at Wauchope South. Nearby in Beechwood, the vote was 13.26, and in King Creek 15.27. These are promising results, offering a good base for future campaigning.

In the Dungog Shire, there was a good result at Paterson (16.46), and less at Seaham (12.59), Dungog (12.57), and Clarence Town (11.92). Closer to the coast, Jeremy’s share of the votes ranged from Krambach (17.00) to Bulahdelah (11.01) and Karuah (10.19). In polling places in the Port Stephens Council, votes ranged from Hawks Nest (16.74) to North Arm (14.13) and Tea Gardens (12.60).

4 Votes for Jeremy and votes for Labor

Another area of particular interest is in the area immediately to the north of Maitland which are currently included in the very southern end of the electorate. Whilst some votes for Jeremy were under 10% (in the more rural locations), better results were gained at Largs (10.81%), Lorn (11.67%), and Bolwarra (11.86%). These percentages are still below the average vote across the whole electorate. But a significant factor in this area is the support for Labor.

At these three polling booths, Labor’s share was consistently over 27%, although in Lorn it was 40.14%, the highest of all the booths in Lyne. This reflects the strong Labor base in Maitland itself (where the seat of Paterson saw a swing of 4.2% to Labor, despite the massive resources allocated to this seat by the Liberal Party). Making any headway in this area by attracting hesitant Labor voters would need a sustained campaign leading into the 2028 election.

And finally, if we look to places where Jeremy polled better than Labor, we can see some striking margins. At Old Bar, the 27.66 primary vote for Jeremy was greater than Labor’s 18.59. There were good margins also at other eight booths in this region: Taree pre-polling (21.93 to 16.47), Taree (21.85 to 14.94), Taree West (26.28 to 14.46), Cundletown (25.31 to 10.05), Chatham (22.08 to 15.35), Tinonee (25.82 to 13.64), Taree North (18.50 to 17.22), and Wingham West (16.84 to 13.46).

Jeremy also secured more votes than Labor at another seven polling booths: Hallidays Point (23.11 to 16.49), Diamond Beach (24.78 to 16.34), Pacific Palms (24.17 to 21.87), Krambach (17.00 to 14.41), Beechwood (13.26 to 12.80), King Creek (15.27 to 14.34), and Barrington (20.99 to 14.36). In all cases except for Old Bar and Pacific Palms, however, the Nationals still out-polled both Jeremy and Labor at these booths.

5 The future

So we can see from this just how well “our bloke” Jeremy did, and also just what work lies ahead for an even more successful campaign in 2028. I hope that lots will stay on board and even more sign up for that ride!

***** ***** *****

Written by John Squires, Member of the Central Campaign Team for Jeremy4Lyne, drawing on data prepared by James Foster, Polling Coordinator, Central Campaign Team, and data on the website of the Australian Electoral Commission.

See also

Why vote for an Independent?
A growing presence of Independent candidates and Members of Parliament

A tale of the times (in the aftermath of the federal election)

For a good month, the adults were out and about across the country. “Tell me what you need”, many of them said—and stopped to listen. “This is what I think we can do”, others said— and gave indications of what they could offer to people who were listening. Why,some of them even said how much it would cost to do what they were offering, and where the money would come from to pay for that.

And then the people came, and considered, and voted, and told the adults what they wanted. And the adults all nodded, and said, “yes, indeed,the people have spoken: we respect that, and we will do what we said”.

Then the adults caught planes and drove cars and gathered in their sandpits in the special place that had been made for them to come together and play. Some of the adults said they needed a bigger sandpit, because there were more of them. Other adults said they didn’t want little Eddie and Mackie to play with them any more in their “special” sandpit. Amd other adults started a very public squabble about who would have the best toys and the most play space in their sandpits. Why, one of them even decided she didn’t like the sandpit where she said she would play; so she decided to join the adults in another sandpit, just across the way.

But by then, it was apparent to all the people who had listened, and talked, and voted, that the adults had become children, once again. Which was, after all, what they had been before they had spent that month as adults, amongst the people.

*****

Or, in plain language:

MPs are elected to represent the people of their electorate, first and foremost. National policy needs to be formulated with due awareness of the impact across the board: each MP ought to be advocating for the needs and concerns that they are hearing from their electors.

Instead, party members focus on climbing the factional ladder (in both “majors”) and gaining the prestige, power, and salary of the next few rungs “up”. Leadership competitions and factional deals reveal that once they return to Canberra, they have a completely skewed and unpredictable upside-down set of priorities.

To me, that is more reason next time around NOT to vote for “the major parties”—especially since they are funded by gambling companies, fossil-fuel industry, multi- million dollar magnates, and, in the case of the National Party, the tobacco industry.

*****

For my posts on the election from my perspective in Lyne:

https://johntsquires.com/2025/03/13/our-meet-the-candidate-event-jeremy-miller-comes-to-dungog/

https://johntsquires.com/2025/03/27/donations-as-a-means-of-political-support-and-political-influence/

https://johntsquires.com/2025/04/02/if-you-want-things-to-change-you-need-to-change-the-way-you-vote/

https://johntsquires.com/2025/04/04/why-vote-for-an-independent/

https://johntsquires.com/2025/04/10/but-where-does-your-funding-come-from-political-candidates-and-their-donors/

https://johntsquires.com/2025/04/13/politics-in-the-pub-with-jeremy-miller-at-stroud/

https://johntsquires.com/2025/04/15/seven-reasons-not-to-embrace-nuclear-power-as-the-basis-for-electricity-generation/

https://johntsquires.com/2025/04/19/woke-and-teal/

https://johntsquires.com/2025/04/21/which-candidates-in-lyne-are-committed-to-reconciliation/

https://johntsquires.com/2025/04/29/meet-the-candidates-for-lyne-at-dungog-28-april-2025/

https://johntsquires.com/2025/05/08/a-growing-presence-of-independent-candidates-and-members-of-parliament/

A growing presence of Independent candidates and Members of Parliament

National results as of late afternoon, Thursday 8 May,
as displayed on the ABC website Australia Votes

People standing as Independent candidates have done very well in the recent federal election. While Labor attracted 34.7% of the national vote and the Coalition dropped to 32.3% of the vote, Independents collectively secured 13.1% of the national vote—a rise of 2.8% compared with 2022. On the left flank, the Greens had a small drop of 0.5% in their votes, to 11.7%, while on the right flank, One Nation rose by 1.3% to 6.3%. 

While Labor has more than twice the number of seats in the lower house than the Coalition, and neither Greens nor One Nation now have any seats (nor the Trumpet of Patriots and the Libertarian parties, for that matter), Independents look set to hold at least 10 seats in the House of Representatives. 

A number of Independent candidates have clearly been returned to their seat in the current election. Allegra Spender returns to Wentworth, former seat of John Hewson and Malcolm Turnbull, with an increase in primary votes of 7.7% from the 2022 result. Kate Chaney has also returned in Curtin, WA, where Julie Bishop had long been member; she has a 3.2% swing to her on primary votes. Both of these candidates come from long-established Liberal families; they have well exemplified the disenchantment, over a number of years, with the veer to the right that Abbott, Morrison, and Dutton engineered in the Liberal Party. 

Other seats once considered safe Liberal seats are now in Independent hands. Dr Sophie Scamps returns to be the representative for Mackellar, NSW, where Bronwyn Bishop once held sway, with an estimated gain of 2.0% after the distribution of preferences. To her south, in Warringah, the old stamping ground of Tony Abbott, Zali Steggal has been returned for a third term, with 40.2% of the primary votes (an increase of 0.4%), substantially outpolling the Liberal candidate, who dropped 1.9% of the votes gained in 2022. Two more blue-ribbon Liberal seats where Independents are now ensconced!

The group of eight community-supported Independents
at the start of the 2022 Parliament

The Queen of the Independents, Dr Helen Haines, who was elected to the seat of Indi after Cathy McGowan had served two terms (2013–2019) and has held the seat each time, was returned this election with a swing of 2.1% on the primary votes. Always returning a conservative member before this, long ago Indi was held by Isaac Isaacs (later a High Court Justice) and “Black Jack” McEwen (Country Party leader and briefly acting Prime Minister). 

Alongside her, in the seat of Clark in Tasmania, Andrew Wilkie retains his seat with an increase of 3.8% in his primary votes. He has held the seat since 2010, when he was a surprise winner, coming from third in the primary vote to win the seat. He was only the sixth House candidate in seventy years to win an election from third position in the vote! This seat is named after Andrew Inglis Clark (1848-1907) a lawyer and politician who introduced proportional representation in Tasmania using the electoral system that has come to be known as Hare-Clark. If this excellent system was used in federal elections, we would have a very different configuration of members in the Federal Parliament!

Another candidate who could possibly move up from third place in the primary vote once preferences are distributed is the Independent candidate Kerryn Jones, in Fisher, Qld. Although she has only 16.5% of the primary vote, Labor has 22.2% and the front runner, the Liberal-National Party candidate, has 37.8% of the vote, which puts him in the “danger zone”. The ABC notes that the Independent candidate “could yet move into second place which will create an interesting final count” because of the low LNP primary vote. Interesting! 

There’s a similar scenario in Grey, in SA, where first-time Independent candidate Anita Kuss has secured 18.4% of the primary vote. She is only4% below the votes for Labor, and the leading candidate, the Liberal, is also in the “danger zone” with 35.2% of the primary vote. The Independent would need a good proportion of the 24.3% of votes gained by the Greens and four rightwing minor parties.

Similarly, in Forrest, WA, Independent Sue Chapman has 18.4 of the primary vote, again only around 4% behind the Labor candidate, on 22.7%, and the Liberal candidate, who is very much in the “danger zone” on 31.7% of the primary vote. The 27.2% of the votes gained by the Greens, Legalise Cannabis, and three minor parties from the rightwing will be determinative. Accordingly, the ABC is calling this as a win for the Liberals.

In the seat of Bean in the southern part of Canberra, an Independent candidate with 26.9% of the vote is running close to unseating the Labor member, who suffered a swing of only 0.7% against him. We previously lived in this seat and know that David Smith is a very popular local member. The Liberals dived down 6.7% and the Greens 5.7%, so the Independent candidate, Jessie Price, has attracted votes from all directions—she is a good chance to win.

Alongside this, in the ACT as a whole, Independent David Pocock has decisively won a seat in the Senate, attaining a massive 18.59% increase in primary votes when compared with 2022. That gives him a primary vote of 39.8%, ahead of Labor on 31.6%, with 1.19 quotas on his primary vote alone. That’s a ringing endorsement!

In the seat of Calwell on the northwestern outskirts of Melbourne, three Independent candidates have run. They have secured 30.9% between the three of them, with Labor suffering a swing of 14.2% against it and the Liberals dropping by 8.1%. It is not yet clear who will emerge as the final winner in this seat, although the ABC is leaning towards Labor, with 30.9% of the primary vote, over the Liberal candidate, with 15.6% of the vote.

In Flinders in Melbourne, where the Liberal candidate scored 41.7%, there is a possibility that an Independent might take the seat. The Independent currently has 21.6% of the vote, just behind Labor on 22.2%. The ABC website says “Flinders remains in doubt as it is unclear who will finish second. A Labor second place win would deliver victory to Liberal MP Zoe McKenzie. But if Independent Ben Smith finishes second, he will attract a big majority of Labor and Green preferences. The AEC is currently trying to resolve who might finish second.”

In Kooyong, also in Melbourne, the sitting Independent candidate sits on 34.5%, a swing of 3.7% to her. The Liberal candidate drew a small swing of 0.6% but this may not be enough to enable her to take the seat from Independent Dr Monique Ryan. This seat is mighty close!

In Bradfield in northern Sydney, Independent Nicolette Boele has also almost made it over the line, with a swing to her of 4.6% taking her to 27.5% of the vote. With a possible preference flow from Labor, the Greens, and another Independent candidate, she may well just win this seat.

Dai Lee, a longterm Councillor and former Deputy Mayor of Fairfield Council has been returned in Fowler, NSW, with a 6.2% increase in primary votes, while Andrew Gee, a former Nationals MP for Calare, looks set to take the seat, with a massive 17.2% swing against his old party, the Nationals. A second Independent running in this seat obtained 15.8% of the votes, so together the Independents have 39.6% of the votes. 

In Adelaide, Rebekah Sharkie of the Centre Alliance will retain the seat of Mayo, with a projected swing to her of 1.5% after distribution of preferences. And, of course, in far North Queensland, the maverick Bob Katter is returned in the seat of Leichhardt with 40.8% of the primary votes.

In the Melbourne seat of Goldstein, Tim Wilson has claimed victory, to regain the seat he lost in 2022. He has 44.2% of the primary votes, against 31.7% for Independent Zoe Daniel, who is currently tracking about 1500 votes behind Wilson after preferences are distributed.

In two rural seats, pundits were tipping wins by two strong community-supported Independents, but these did not materialise. In Wannon, in western Victoria, Alex Dyson ran for the third time against the Liberal incumbent. Although he increased his vote by 12.9%, preferences in this seat are set to deliver it to the Liberal incumbent. In Cowper, on the mid north coast of NSW, Caz Heise ran for the second time against the Nationals incumbent. She increased her vote by 3.5%, but also in this seat the preferences are pointing to a win for the Nationals incumbent.

Just to the south of Cowper, in Lyne, Jeremy Miller ran with the support of the community organisation, Independent Lyne. A primary vote of 15.84% was not enough to put him into second position, so the likely outcome will be that the new Nationals candidate will keep this as a Nationals seat. There is, however, a rather slim hope that he may receive enough preferences from the Greens (6.0% primary vote) and assorted minor party candidates in the seat (with 22.3% between them) to “catch” and then overtake the total number of votes (primary plus preferences) for the Labor candidate. There are just under 4,000 votes (not quite 4% of the votes cast) between the two candidates. 

If the preferences distributed from all the minor party candidates largely avoid the Independent, he remains in third place, so his preferences would then be distributed amongst Labor and Nationals. Given the rightwing leanings of all but one of those minor parties, this seems most likely.

Or: if, perchance, the Independent candidate has attracted enough preference votes from those minor parties to put him ahead of Labor, then the preferences of the 20,000 plus votes for the Labor candidate will be distributed—and that could well push Jeremy Miller close to the 50% mark; although obviously he won’t reach that. Just how far short he falls, ultimately, is an interesting feature for those of us involved in the campaign to watch in the coming week.

Whatever the result, it is clear from this national overview that the movement to elect community-supported Independent members of parliament is strong. As Joshua Black of the Australia Institute notes, “Australia is a world leader in electing Independent MPs”. He points to the two elected to the first federal parliament—both from electorates in Queensland. Alexander Paterson was elected as an Independent Free Trade member, and James Wilkinson, elected as an Independent Labour member. 

Alexander Paterson, left, and James Wilkinson, right

Black then notes that “between 1980 and 2004, 56 Independent MPs were elected to parliaments across Australia”. As well as those noted above, the list includes Ted Mack, Phil Cleary, Peter Andren, Pauline Hanson (for less than a year, before she formed her party), Bob Katter (still counted as an Independent although he also formed his own party), Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott, Kerryn Phelps, and Kylea Tink (whose seat was abolished ahead of this election). It’s a strong, enduring, and growing movement!

See

https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/election-entree-australia-is-a-world-leader-in-electing-independent-mps/

and

https://www.indiewins.com.au

“Meet the Candidates” for Lyne, at Dungog (28 April 2025)

Five of the ten candidates standing in the electorate of Lyne came to Dungog yesterday at the start of the last week of campaigning. They were attending a Meet The Candidates forum organised by the Dungog Chamber of Commerce and held at the Dungog RSL Club.

Amongst the almost 50 people present were the Mayor and two Councillors of Dungog Shire Council. Three candidates had sent their apologies for the event. Each of the five candidates present were given ten minutes to speak about themselves and their policies. They spoke in the order that they appear on the ballot paper.

Digby Wilson (Labor) began, declaring that he is always energised by working with people. He spent 30 years working in telecommunications (with Optus and Telstra) before,retiring. He currently volunteers at St Vincent de Paul and is a councillor on Mid Coast Council; in these roles he meets many people struggling to make ends meet.

Digby spoke about the deteriorating roads and decrease in medical funding during the time that the Coalition was in power. The Coalition policy allowing people to empty superannuation savings is causing an increase in housing prices. 

He affirmed that policy and character are the fundamental bases for deciding how to vote. Misrepresentation by Nationals candidate has not been fair. His speech was a little hesitant at times, but overall it was a thoughtful presentation.

Alison Penfold (Nationals) noted that she has visited Dungog on many occasions in the past and is aware of the challenges Dungog faces as the smallest shire council in the electorate. Tied funding is the way to ensure that money comes to regional councils; it is not ideological, but practical. She spoke of plans to establish a fund that will prioritise roads, healthcare, and medical needs.

She noted that “if renewables can deliver, I will support them; but I don’t believe they can. I will not be ideological, but practical.” Her focus will be to develop a cost of living plan to get the country back on track, with cuts in fuel costs, tax offsets for up to $140k, cheaper energy, and a nuclear programme that will cost far less than $600billion. The Coalition will offer incentives for first home buyers; she also rattled off a list of specific proposals in terms of health care. 

Alison has worked in private enterprise and also on the staff of a member of parliament in both government and opposition. She is not interested in personality politics. However, throughout her presentation she was loud, assertive, even aggressive, which was noted by other speakers and in the informal conversations taking place after the event amongst those who had attended.

Jeremy Miller (Independent) is standing with the support of Independent Lyne, a local community movement. He has lived 30 years in the area, after moving from Canberra to Taree. Married with three kids, two at university, he now runs two businesses in Taree, employing 14 people. “I am not a typical politician”, he said; “I am not a lobbyist, but a business person who wants to get things done.” He believes it is time for something new, other than “the two tribes”. 

Independent Lyne has been modelled on the process used in the Indi electorate, with a strong grassroots movement developed by Cathy McGowan, and then used by Helen Haines. Kitchen table conversations were held across the electorate, with the results reported in a Listening Report. The group called for applications, then chose a candidate through a grassroots process. If he is asked “what do you stand for?”, Jeremy points to the results of that listening phase, which has shaped the policies he stands for.

He wants to see three levels of government working together (he is also a councillor on Mid Coast Council) rather than pointing the finger at each other as to why it does not work. In Lyne, he maintains, “we can feel it in our bones” that we are getting left behind. Jeremy offered an energetic and enthusing presentation.

Keys Manley (Legalise Cannabis) has family links with Taree and Wingham, where he grew up. In 2017, he was diagnosed with a genetic mutation predisposing cancer. After a series of operations, he was introduced to medical cannabis, with oils and balms used as well. At a fourth operation to remove polyps, he was given a clean bill of health. He has since learnt about the many benefits of cannabis across many industries. It has saved his life. It offers many benefits in so many areas. 

Keys advocates for civil liberties and social tolerance. There is a wastage of resources consumed by the policing of cannabis; we could free all of this by legalising it. It is safer than alcohol and other drugs. Cannabis is a rich nutrient food and it can provide a more sustainable future. “Let’s embrace this industry and funnel the resources saved into what we need to build locally”, he concluded his passionate speech.

Stephen John Burke (Australian Citizens Party) also spoke passion  a speech filled with his key themes: Our system is broken, with policies of destruction, fostered by the rich, who benefit from and manipulate the current system. The ACP, he noted, is not a splinter party but has worked for over 30 years to achieve some important gains. 

He then ranged over the various policies of the party, which included: No totalitarian censorship. Liberty of expression. Religious liberty. Moving away from the digital scenario—“cash is king”. A Post Office Bank so that in person banking facilities are available directly in each rural town. The speech was delivered with some humour and intensity of commitment to the issues and the solutions he proposed.

The night ended with three specific questions relating to Dungog Shire being put to the candidates for their short response each in turn: recognising some local roads as State roads, thereby attracting funding; keeping in person government services in the town; and how to maintain more youth in the town. The answers given reflected the varying experiences of the candidates, in local and Federal roles, as well as the general policy platforms on which they were standing.

Unfortunately there was no opportunity to ask questions from the floor. However, the general feeling was that the evening was a useful event for those who attended. 

See also

Which candidates (in Lyne) are committed to reconciliation ?
But where does your funding come from? (political candidates and their donors)
Standing4Lyne in 2025

Woke and Teal

The term “Woke” was first used in a positive manner by Afro-Americans. It can be traced back to an 1891 book by Joel Chandler Harris (best known for his “Uncle Remus” stories). In the 1930s, it was used by Blacks quite often to describe being aware of racial prejudice and discrimination, often in the phrase “stay woke”. That usage continued through the decades and was picked up by the Black Power movement in the 1970s, and then increased in usage in the Black Lives Matter push of the 2010s.

See more at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/woke-meaning-word-history-b1790787.html

In 2017, the Oxford English Dictionary added “woke” to its official lexicon, noting that it was most often used “in a derogatory sense”. This reflects the reality that the term had been picked up and hijacked by people of more conservative political and social perspectives (predominantly white people), and employed as a way of denigrating people with a social conscience committed to social justice. It’s a strange recent twist to what had been a proud Black statement.

The same development in meaning can be seen with the word “Teal”, with a much more recent origin and a highly-compressed trajectory in turning from a positive to a negative meaning. It was first used as a political label in the 2019 federal election campaign of Zali Steggall, when she defeated Tony Abbott in the seat of Warringah (NSW). 

The term (and the campaign colour) was then picked up and used in a constructive sense by some (but not all) community-supported independents in the 2022 election: Dr Monique Ryan in Koorong (Vic), Allegra Spender in Wentworth (NSW), Dr Sophie Scamps in Mackellar (NSW), Zoe Daniel in Goldstein (Vic), Kate Chaney in Curtin (WA), and Zali Steggall in her successful re-election campaign in Warringah.

The colour has successfully differentiated community-supported Independents from the “old parties” of Labor (bright red), Nationals (deep green), and Liberal (royal blue), as well as the Greens (light green).

However, the word “teal” has been adopted by uncritical conservative people as used as a way to lump together a widely-disparate group of independents and frame them all as “Labor lite” or “pale Green”. It has become a derogatory term for such people, as they look for an easy (and lazy) way to caricature those standing as Independents, dismissing them all as “leftwing woke ideology” (three slurs in one phrase!).

Too often there is a conflation of “Teal” and “Climate 200”, with the implication being that all candidates supported by C200 are Teals who are climate change warriors—“leftwards”, as some derogatorily call them. However, the C200 website clearly shows that the independents they are supporting are using a range of colours. 

Quite a number of the Independent candidates that the Community independents Project is supporting are using teal, but others are using orange, and a few are using yellow. Standing against Peter Dutton in Dickson (Qld), Ellie Smith is using magenta. Overall, the choice of colour for Independents it is made on an individual basis. That’s far from the monolithic imposition by the parties of the red of Labor or blue for the Liberals, the lighter green for Greens and the deeper green for the Nationals. These are required of all of their candidates around the country. Community-supported Independents each choose their colour and their marketing strategy.

For myself, I am wearing orange and supporting Jeremy Miller as the Community Independent for Lyne. Jeremy has been chosen by community members across the Lyne electorate in response to a twelve month listening campaign aimed at prioritising the local needs of the Lyne electorate. His fundamental commitment is to listen to the people of the electorate and advocate strongly for the needs of people in Lyne.

See more at https://www.jeremy4lyne.com.au/what_i_stand_for

Seven reasons NOT to embrace nuclear power as the basis for electricity generation

Is moving to nuclear power as the basis for electricity generation in Australia a reasonable move? There are many problems with this idea. Here are seven key reasons that come to mind for me.

1. Time. We are a long way from having the capacity for nuclear power to provide electricity in Australia. If we were to start work right now, there wouldn’t be any nuclear-generated electricity before 2040 at the earliest, according to the CSIRO. Even then, it might take years longer. Nuclear energy is not an immediate solution to our energy production issues.

2. Pollution. In the meantime, while we wait for the nuclear power plants to be built, there will be about a billion tonnes of climate pollution from burning more coal and gas. It would be more sensible to spend money in developing truly renewable sources of energy. These will cause far less climate pollution than nuclear power. Nuclear energy produces lots of pollution.

3. Cost. The cost of building nuclear power plants to generate electricity is much higher than any other source of power. Small Modular Reactors cost more than four times more than Solar Farms to build and maintain. Even larger-scale nuclear plants (which are not in view for Australia at the moment) are two and a half times the cost involved in harnessing renewable sources of energy. Nuclear energy is bad economic policy.

4. Efficiency. For the seventh year in a row, the CSIRO has said that renewable sources of energy are the most cost-efficient way of generating electricity. Large scale Solar PV farms is the most efficient. Gas turbine costs are rising. Nuclear power is the most expensive and least efficient way to generate electricity.

5. Risks for the environment. There are large environmental risks associated with nuclear power. Radioactive waste is a by-product of producing nuclear energy. This waste needs to be transported safely and stored securely. If it escapes, it can cause significant damage to human beings and to the whole environment. The risk lasts for thousands of years. Again: nuclear energy is bad environmental policy.

6. Risks for people. We have seen that even nuclear power plants that have high safety standards have failed to keep radioactive materials safe (see Chernobyl in 1986, and Fukushima in 2011). Many people have suffered from the breakdown of these nuclear reactor sites. Playing with this risk in Australia is unacceptable. Nuclear energy is risky.

7. Water. Nuclear reactors would require massive amounts of water to keep them running. A typical 1600MW nuclear facility uses 2,000 litres of water per second—that’s how much water four average households use in one year! With increased risks of drought in Australia, the driest continent on earth, this is bad management of our resources. Again, nuclear energy is bad environmental policy.

Sources consulted:

Centre for Independent Studies, “The six fundamental flaws underpinning the energy transition” (2 May 2014)

Centre for Independent Studies, “Nuclear vs Renewables—which is cheaper?” (Energy News Bulletin, 12 July, 2024)

Climate Council, “Why nuclear energy is not worth the risk for Australia” (media release, 28 January 2025)

Climate Council, “CSIRO confirms nuclear fantasy would cost twice as much as renewables” (explainer, 10 December 2024)

CSIRO, “GenCost: cost of building Australia’s future electricity needs” (Consultation Draft released February 2025; final version to be released in the second quarter of 2025)

Politics in the Pub with Jeremy Miller at Stroud

Jeremy Miller has been out and about around the electorate this past weekend, with appearances at “Politics in the Pub” at Stroud on Friday, “Meet and Greet” at North Haven on Saturday, and Gloucester Markets on Sunday. He was also on ABC Mid North Coast radio early this morning, in a debate with the National Candidate. He is getting around!

On Friday night, a crowd of interested folks gathered in the Central Hotel at Stroud to hear Jeremy speak about his life, his commitment to the community-supported model that Independents are following around the country, and his views on a range of issues.

The style wasn’t a typical “town hall meeting” where the candidate stands and speaks for a time before taking questions. Rather, it was more of a “kitchen table conversation”, with people sitting around the tables in the pub’s dining room and Jeremy fielding questions as they were raised. The back-and-forth meant that people could sense the integrity, knowledge, and commitment that Jeremy brings to his candidature.

No question was out of order for Jeremy. “What will you do to help address the changing climate?” He affirmed that the evidence of science should always be the guide to what we do. “How will you help motorists who are frustrated with the long wait time to get onto the highway, with flyovers not likely for at least 15 years?” Jeremy indicated he will take this on notice and investigate this once elected; “it’s a complex matter”. “How can we improve the roads in the electorate?” Jeremy noted that funding for roads in this electorate has declined $18mill in real terms over recent years; a restoration of the 1% of tax paid to councils for roads would be good!

“What do you think about nuclear power?” He responded that he is not convinced this is either environmentally or economically sensible, and does not see that government should run such a business. “What do you think about windfarms?” He noted that he is supportive, in principle, of renewable energy, but can see some unresolved issues with the specific proposal off Port Stephens). And “what are your views on immigration?” Jeremy’s answer began by affirming that Australia has been built on immigration; “we need a balanced intake but there are international agreements that we need to keep”, he noted.

A particularly important question put to him was “what would you do if you heard a clear view in the electorate that they want something that conflicts with your personal values?” Jeremy spoke about needing to hear the message clearly, but also about the role that a parliamentarian has in educating the electorate about complex issues. He cited the model of Participatory Democracy used by the Independent Member for North Sydney, Kylea Tink, who regularly gathers a “representative jury” from across the electorate to speaks a day considering expert views. At the end, the matter is presented to a Citizens Assembly for wider discussion. Jeremy plans to implement this if he is elected.

Finally, in response to the question, “why are you doing this?”, he cited his approach during the two decades that he worked as a DJ on local radio in Taree. “If I have the attention of people, I need to do something with it”, he said. “I didn’t want to squander the influence that this job gave me on silly and irrelevant things.” He cited the fact that, over the years, he has been active in his local P&C and in community action groups seeking to improve things in the community. He brings this same commitment to his role as a federal MP, representing the people of the electorate.

Jeremy Miller is the Community Independent for Lyne, chosen by community members across the Lyne electorate in response to a twelve month listening campaign aimed at prioritising the local needs of the Lyne electorate.

(Yes, that’s the left-rear perspective on yours truly
in the front of this photo!)

But where does your funding come from? (political candidates and their donors)

One of the questions that is often put to Independent candidates relates to the issue of funding. “Where is your funding coming from?” “Your candidate is on the Climate 200 website—that means they’re a Teal, doesn’t it?” The implication is that Teal is somehow “Green-lite” and that there are murky climate-change figures lurking behind the group, feeding it money. Some basic figures might be helpful here.

For the 2022 election campaign, Climate 200 raised over $12 million and used it to back 23 independent candidates. These include Dr Monique Ryan, Zoe Daniel, Kylea Tink and Allegra Spender. The crowdfunded initiative received donations from every electorate in the country, with 11,500 donors in total. One third of these came from rural and regional areas. 

Over the past financial year, Climate 200 has disclosed that they have received a total of $4.4m in donations. One donor, Robert Keldoulis and his investment firm Keldoulis Investments Pty Ltd, gave $1.1 million. Climate and energy market-focused trader Marcus Catsaras also donated $1 million. Other donations came from the large number of individuals, located right around the country, who are keen to support independent candidates who support an evidence-informed response to climate change, integrity in parliament, and gender equity. That’s all they ask for; they don’t govern the policies of each candidate.

Alongside that $4.4 million given to Climate 200, we should place the major parties. The Australian Electoral Commission recently published a report which indicated that almost $160m flowed to the established major parties (Labor, Liberal, National, and Greens) in the past financial year, in preparation for the 2025 election. Labor’s branches received a total of $67.5m in receipts in the past financial year, compared with the Liberals’ and Nationals’ combined $72.2m. The Greens received $17.1m.  

Whilst the majority of these donations were declared, the source for $67.2m was not declared. That’s troubling. The major parties apparently have ways around the laws that are still in place for this election. About half of what was donated to the Coalition has not been publically declared. It’s a lesser proportion for Labor. But that is still a worry.

Betting companies gave large amounts to Labor. In 2022, Sportsbet donated $88,000, Tabcorp $60,500 and the peak body Responsible Wagering Australia gave $66,000. Overall, Labor received almost $300,000 in 2021–2022, the Liberals a little over $100,000, and the Nationals received around $80,000. 

Figures reported to the Australian Electoral Commission and analysed by the parliamentary library, show donations from the biggest gambling companies involved in horse betting to the major parties have increased from $66,650 in 2013–14 to $488,000 in 2022–23, representing a 632% growth. The major parties have taken this money without gumption. It’s a disgrace.

The Labor Party and the Liberal Party do not accept donations from tobacco industry players, but other parties do. In 2021–22 for example, Philip Morris Ltd donated $110,000 to political parties, split between Liberal Democratic party and the National Party.

The two major parties continue to receive donations from fossil fuel companies. Gina Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting donated $500,000 to the Coalition, while the Minerals Council of Australia gave $382,465 in donations to several Labor and Coalition branches. 

A report released this week predicts that a Coalition proposal to limit the rollout of renewable energy could stop at least $58bn of private investment in new developments and halt billions of dollars in flow-on spending in communities. Although it has not said it would limit renewable energy to 54%, the Coalition has said that it would not support as much solar and wind energy, and that it would scrap Labor’s $20bn rewiring the nation fund to build transmission links across the country.

That’s what comes from accepting fossil fuel money and supporting a destructive, dying industry. The policies of the Coalition—and, indeed, the policies of Labor—continue reflect that they cannot give up their damaging addiction to fossil fuels. We are helping to sign the death warrant of humanity and the planet by continuing on this path.

Climate 200 passes on all donations received to community-supported Independents. They report that their donors come from all walks of life. “They include entrepreneurs, farmers, tradespeople, professionals, teachers, pensioners, and health care workers. One-third are from rural and regional Australia and collectively they hail from every single electorate in the country.”

They note that “All our donors hoped for a better future for the planet and a more civilised politics.” That’s a markedly different motivation from the donations made by commercial business interests, who lobby the government incessantly and fund all major parties with the intention that they will be able to influence legislation. It’s a cancer at the heart of our system.

Climate 200 also notes that all their donors who give above the disclosure threshold each financial year “will be disclosed in accordance with AEC regulations, [however] the majority of our donors are below this threshold and have agreed to share their identity anyway.” There is full, open, transparent disclosure. Unlike the major parties, who are shifty and reticent about the declarations that they do have to make. It’s a clear contrast, offering a clear choice. 

*****

In writing this blog, I have consulted the following websites:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/feb/03/dark-money-political-donations-labor-coalition-liberal-greens-ntwnfb

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/nov/04/how-donations-to-political-parties-from-gambling-companies-linked-to-horse-racing-have-surged

https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/professional/ban-tobacco-and-vape-political-donations-racgp

https://www.acf.org.au/fossil-fuel-interests-big-donors-to-major-parties-in-election-year

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/apr/10/coalition-nuclear-plan-will-plough-58bn-wrecking-ball-through-renewable-energy-projects-analysis-warns

https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/factlab/australian-federal-election-simon-holmes-a-court

See also 

Why vote for an Independent?
If you want things to change, you need to change the way you vote

Why vote for an Independent?

An independent can:

• Represent your interests not party or big business interests

• Collaborate across party lines and take the best of both views

• Prioritise practical solutions over party driven agendas

• Speak up on important issues as they’re not silenced by party interests

• Reflect your values and concerns, not the party platform

 

True Representation of Local Interests
Independent candidates are not bound by party lines, meaning they can focus entirely on the needs and concerns of their local community. This ensures that your voice is heard without the influence of national party politics.

Greater Accountability
Independent MPs are directly accountable to their constituents, not a political party. They must work to earn your trust and support with every decision, giving you more direct influence over the political process.

Less Partisan Gridlock
With no allegiance to a political party, an Independent can work across party lines, pushing for policies that benefit the community rather than getting caught up in party politics. This leads to more practical and effective solutions for pressing issues.

Freedom to Speak Up on Important Issues
Without the constraints of party policies or backroom deals, Independent MPs can speak freely on important matters, advocating for change and challenging both sides of the political spectrum when necessary to improve local and national outcomes.

Focus on Practical Solutions
Independents often bring a more pragmatic approach to governance, focusing on tangible solutions to local problems. This means they are more likely to push for policies that address real issues such as housing, healthcare, and cost of living without getting bogged down by political agendas.

Empowering the Voter
Voting for an Independent candidate allows voters to have more control over their representation. It encourages a shift away from the traditional two-party system, giving individuals the power to choose someone who best reflects their values and concerns, not just a party platform.

Authorised by Jeremy Miller, Independent for Lyne 224 Dowling St Dungog NSW 2420