Publishing since 1929
9, Semester 1, 2025
HONI SOIT
Preferential Voting
Mehnaaz H. and Victor Z. Explainer, page 12
A Booster Seat in Parliament
Ellie R., Imogen S., and Charlotte S. Analysis, page 19
A Cult of Neutrality
Audhora Khalid Analysis, page 23
Acknowledgement of Country
Honi Soit operates and publishes on Gadigal land of the Eora nation. We work and produce this publication on stolen land where sovereignty was never ceded. The University of Sydney is a colonial institution. Honi Soit is a publication that prioritises the voices of those who challenge colonial rhetorics. We strive to continue its legacy as a radical left-wing newspaper providing students with a unique opportunity to express their diverse voices and counter the biases of mainstream media.
Week Nine Editorial
News
Scissored
Pollies Report
Yip-Yapping
Preferencing
Mediscare
Booster Seat
Two Parties?
Libdependents
More For ME!
Hung Parliament
Build-A-Campaign
Comedy
With the 2025 federal election less than a week away, we hope this edition inspires a desire for change, action, and hope in you. What we wanted to let you go with, in this 40-page labour of love, is the understanding that you do not need to be lost, or without hope, or in the dark about the things which are important to you, about the things which may influence the course of your life. We’ve tried our best to pack up all our knowledge, and have now passed it onto you.
In the feature, Imogen Sabey investigates the pattern of course cuts across NSW and the ACT brought on by the international student caps. The editorial team has put together several spreads comparing the policies of Labor, the Coalition, and the Greens, including the perspective of young representatives from their respective parties. We have included a brief explainer on how preferential voting works and why your vote cannot be wasted. Audhora Khalid analyses the myth of ‘neutrality’ in Australian politics. Emilie Garcia-Dolnik has conducted an interview with APAN about why Palestine is an issue of key importance at the ballot box.
More than anything, what we would like you to take away is that electoralism is not the beginning nor the end. Real change is not won in parliament nor in boardrooms, real change is won by the people. The core of what we need is genuine grassroots and democratic organising, at university, in our workplaces, and in our communities.
Companion Piece, Ellie Robertson
This federal election is vital to what is to come in Australia. Once again, it is a race of rich, old, white men for the position of Prime Minister. With the rapid rise of far-right extremism, it is crucial to keep the Liberals out of office. This does not mean voting Labor first. You have the beauty of preferential voting: an option to preference minor parties and independents.
What we are seeing from both major parties is the funding of the genocide in Palestine, a lack of consideration for women’s safety, the constant targeting and scapegoating
Editors
Ahmed, Emilie Garcia-Dolnik, Mehnaaz Hossain, Annabel Li, Ellie Robertson, Imogen Sabey, Charlotte Saker, Lotte Weber, William Winter, Victor Zhang
One of our editors had the great privilege to speak to three of the 1965 Freedom Riders, where they reflected on their experiences in the Freedom Rides and the importance of truly grassroots organising principles in successful movements. We must participate in electoral processes to keep the Right out of government. A Coalition government would certainly mean that our lives will become far worse: it will herald a dramatic rise in far-right extremism and any modicum of progress in industrial relations, social services, and the cost of living crisis will be undone.
However, we cannot place all our hopes in Labor to do the right thing. They sure haven’t over the past three years. We can only hope that, if given the chance, they do better — be more militant, more staunch, more progressive — in the following years. That being said, we’re not holding our breath, because the ballot box is only one of the places we must hold them to account. We can vote to ensure left-wing policy cannot be ignored by the next Government, but for that to truly happen me must organsed beyond the ballot box. What those in power fear the most is militant organised labour. We must dare to struggle, and dare to win.
Love & solidarity,
Honi Soit
of racial minorities, and outward attacks on LGBTQIA+ communities.
This is my first front cover. As you’ll find, it links up with the piece on page 32. In this piece, we have our three party leaders: Peter Dutton (Liberal), Anthony Albanese (Labor), and Adam Bandt (Greens). They are intertwined in loving embrace in a ‘Challengers’ style setting. I hope it takes you to a borderline unimaginable setting of smooching and ungodly touching that makes you gag.
Purny Ahmed, Calista Burrowes, Khushi Chevli, Spencer Creighton, Avin Dabiri, Emilie GarciaDolnik, Victoria Gillespie, Mehnaaz Hossain, Audhora Khalid, Zeina Khochaiche, Sophie Kristensen, Annabel Li, Marc Paniza, Jenna Rees, Ellie Robertson, Imogen Sabey, Charlotte Saker, Elaquare Spencer, William Sprenger, David Thom, Lilah Thurbon, Sebastien Tuzilovic, Lotte Weber, Mannan Wilkins, William Winter, Victor Zhang, Shayla Zreika
Crossley, Celina Di Veroli, Hamish Evans, Leanne Rook, Daniel Yu, and Sunny Shen. All
Please direct all advertising inquiries to publications.manager@src.usyd.edu.au.
Letter to the Editor
When we talk about the irresponsible use of AI in the paper, is it possible to do so without perpetuating racist stereotypes about international students? Seriously, in an article about AI use, is there any reason to discuss the amount of international students in a class, (along with their English proficiency!) other than in order to racialise the use of AI by University students?
At a time where our government, our University, and often our society at large are trying to stoke racist narratives about international students, it is the place of left wing newspapers such as Honi Soit to reject these narratives and fight for solidarity among all students.
If you’re going to contribute to the already oversaturated discourse surrounding Artificial Intelligence, at least don’t make it a load of racist drivel. These students are real people, mates of mine, not fodder for your ‘enlightened debate’.
Cheers,
HB Dear HB,
We are in full agreement that the lines in the piece Artificial Academia demeaning international students utilising translation software should never have been published. Honi Soit apologises to all international students for the grave oversight on our part.
The discourse most certainly does not need to be contaminated with racist narratives. We will ensure that this does not happen in the future.
Honi Soit Editorial Team
Dear Honey
Dear Honi,
I have fallen in love with someone I knew for such a short time. It took me a week to know her. Then, it took me a day to like her. And finally, it took me an hour to love her.
First time I interacted with her, it was in a tutorial class. Our tutor wanted us to adjust the tables for the class and she asked me exactly how the tutor wanted it, and I answered. I didn’t think much of it until a week later. Just before a lecture, she greeted me, startling me in the process because she was so pretty and I didn’t expect it. She asked me to pair up for an upcoming presentation project and I agreed. The day after, it was another tutorial day with her. I bought her pineapple bread as a snack because she was my new project partner and I felt responsible for her. Immediately hooking my heart, she was overjoyed and was evidently happy. She thanked me a lot and within the hour, I fell for her.
We met up a couple of times during the mid-sem break to work on our project, but most of it we simply just chatted away, making me love her even more. She’s pretty, smart, and a genuinely kind and caring person. She bought me some stuff and I boughtsome stuff back. Every waking moment, these past few weeks, I can’t stop thinking of her. Attempting to finish essays, I imagine her. Washing the dishes, I imagine her. Volunteering at the elections, I imagine her. I can’t stop smiling each time. She is so perfect. I think I’m living in a fairytale right now.
With Apologies and Kind Regards, “A student who found love”
To the student who fell in love,
What more can I say except for ‘go get your soulmate‘? If you show her as much devotion as you did in this letter, then there is very little chance she won’t become swept up in the fairytale with you.
Except... maybe don’t say the ‘love‘ thing straight off the bat. Better to take it slow, grow into each other, and slowly fall together. Trust me.
Swooning,
Honey
Reclaim & Resist Week 5th to 9th May
The University of Sydney
On Water and Time by Ellen Dahl 10th April to 16th May
Verge Gallery
May Day March 11am, 1st May
Belmore Park
Vertigo Issue 2 Launch Party 7pm, 1st May
Abecrombie Hotel
Pulp Issue 20 Launch Party 3pm, 2nd May
Hermann’s Bar
Federal Election 3rd May
Check aec.gov.au
Omar Sakr & Safdar Ahmed book talk 6pm, 7th May Woolley Common Room
Art by Ellie Robertson
Find out where to vote both in pre-poll and on election day!
Special General Meeting: vote on USU governance change fails
Ellie Robertson and Imogen Sabey report.
The University of Sydney Union (USU) motion on changing the composition of the Board of Directors failed at a Special General Meeting (SGM) on 17th April. The motion failed 115 ‘for’ to 79 ‘against’ (59.3 per cent) — lacking the two thirds majority required for passing constitutional amendments.
The constitutional amendments would have seen the current Board composition be changed through the removal of two elected student directors, to be replaced by the Immediate Past President (IPP) and Immediate Past Vice President (IPVP) as voting members of the Board.
The USU Board, who proposed the motion, claim that this is a “necessary prerequisite” for the incorporation of the USU.
Prior to the SGM, the USU had ‘spent tens of thousands of dollars on consultancy fees’, as USU President Bryson Constable (Liberal) would remark in his opening address. As of writing, the membership of the USU has yet to see a draft constitution.
The meeting began at 4:30pm in the Holme Refectory. Constable, chairing the meeting, opened with an Acknowledgement of Country.
Constable moved the bloc of motions along with Vice President Ben Hines (Independent). Constable and Hines were joined by former USU President Naz Sharifi (Independent), and Michael Bromley, a current Senate Appointed Director of the USU and former interim CEO. The four delivered lengthy speeches extolling the virtues of the process, arguing that incorporation was “impossible” without the governance changes being discussed.
Following their speeches — which lasted nearly an hour — the floor was opened to 12 minutes of debate with rebuttals from SRC Global Solidarity Officer Jessica Heap (NSWLS), USyd Labor Club President William Yang (SLS), Jonathon Gilliland (NLS), and Jack Wicks (Unity). Despite having her hand up for the full twelve minutes, Constable refused to take questions from SRC General Secretary Grace Street (Grassroots).
The motion was put to a vote after the brief debate. USU members were told to use a “hands up” system, and zoom attendees were to directly message the moderator with their vote. After the count, Constable announced the motion passed. However, once the math was checked over by many sceptics in the room, he announced that it was, in fact, voted down. The motion failed to meet the two-thirds majority it required to pass.
Constable closed the meeting, promising that incorporation will continue to go ahead. This is a clear backtrack on the comments made about this change being “crucial and necessary” for the incorporation to be agreed upon by the University.
Honi asked for comment after the meeting on this specific narrative, where Constable said “I can think of a number of ways that we’ll still do this”.
Honi will continue monitoring the situation.
Editors’ Note: Current Honi Soit editor Victor Zhang is an employee of the USU. He is not involved in any USU coverage for Honi Soit
UNSW introduces “flexible semester”, scraps trimester system
Emilie Garcia-Dolnik reports.
On 16 April, UNSW officially announced the introduction of a new “flexible semester” system to be implemented in 2028, in place of their current trimester calendar.
The new system will include two standard 12-week teaching semesters, a midsemester break aligned with school holidays, optional summer and winter terms for intensive / catch-up courses and accelerated study, and alignment with UNSW’s current “hexamester” calendar.
According to an article posted to the UNSW website, the decision “reflects the preference of undergraduate students, who have told us they want to engage more deeply with course material, and academics, who advised us that students would benefit from more time to develop thinking and approaches to help them navigate a world where new and emerging technologies like AI are rapidly changing the landscape”.
It further aims to provide flexibility and choice around study load, as well as balancing paid work and extracurricular activities, and expand “flexible learning
opportunities” for postgraduate students.
The decision comes after a 2023 review of the trimester system found that 40 per cent of students had less time for paid work, 41 per cent had less time to participate in non-academic activities, and 63 per cent had difficulty socialising with friends at other universities.
Staff surveys conducted in the same period found dissatisfaction with the “relentlessness of assessment and special consideration” and the inability to complete set work within working hours. The trimester system was found to cause “significant workload and anxiety issues for both staff and students”, thereby requiring change.
The UNSW SRC officially voted in favour of abolishing the trimester system in April 2024.
The trimester system was introduced in 2019. In 2020, UNSW was found to have the lowest student satisfaction rate in the country due to the trimester system.
“We can’t sit back and wait for the market to fix this”: activists rally for Waterloo public housing
On Saturday 12th April, activists, community figures, and residents gathered to oppose the selling off of public housing in Waterloo and elsewhere. The event was chaired by Karyn Brown, a Waterloo public housing tenant and member of Action for Public Housing (A4PH), and included various speakers from political and community groups.
The protest took place after the first eviction notices were served to Waterloo public housing residents in late February. This is part of the Minns government’s plan to demolish the public housing estate. The plan is split into three sections: Waterloo South, North and Central. The Waterloo South section is underway, which will demolish 750 public housing properties and replace them with 3,000 homes, with only 30 per cent promised as public housing stock.
Residents have opposed the demolition of the housing estate for over ten years. Current plans face ongoing protest, from residents, as well as from architects and academics.
Held in the grassy area outside the Redfern Community Centre, the rally opened with Aunty Rhonda Dixon Grovenor, a Gadigal/ Bidjigal/Yuin Elder and Traditional Descendant from Sydney (Warrane), welcoming attendants to Country. Dixon emphasised vigilance: “If we think we are going to be taken care of because we exist… we are mistaken”. Governments will move residents around “like cattle” for their agendas, Dixon argued. Dixon went on to link current campaigns to Indigenous resistance since invasion, saying that Gadigal country was “the place of first resistance”.
Dixon was followed by Jenny Leong, Greens Member for Newtown in NSW Parliament, who opened with an expression of solidarity and support with the struggle for public housing. Leong focused on the profit-driven interests of housing development companies. She pointed behind the rally to the Scape development which looms over the Redfern community centre to illustrate “what fucks up” when housing is used towards profits instead of rights. Leong finished her address with a reinforcement of her message of solidarity,
and a furthering of her opposition to “greedy fucking landlords with their seventh home”.
Andrew Collis, former managing editor of South Sydney Herald and former Reverend for South Sydney Uniting Church, spoke next. Collis argued the NSW government’s decisions were fundamentally inhumane and disregarded human dignity. Like other speakers, Collis emphasised vigilance: he said that we need to “raise our voices and fight”; “We can’t sit back and wait for the market to fix this.” While he must have been more accustomed to the pulpit than the megaphone, Collis’ speech was rousing.
Rachel Evans, Socialist Alliance candidate for Heffron who aided in the Glebe property protests, spoke after Collis. Evans emphasised Dixon’s sentiment that there was “no homelessness in Indigenous communities before colonialism”. Evans further stated that a fight against the destruction of existing homes and continuing evictions is a form of Land Back. They also gave several examples of actions taken under both
Liberal and Labor governments, such as demolitions of properties in Lismore and the eviction of forty-five individuals in Mascot properties, which demonstrated that they are “waging a war against the impoverished”. She concluded that these actions targeted marginalised communities and underscored the need for further resistance.
Annabel Pettit (SAlt) stepped in at the last minute as representative from the USyd SRC. Pettit is the SRC Welfare Officer and a member of Students for Palestine. She started off with an anecdote, reassuring the audience that the Minister for Housing, Rose Jackson, is not well-liked as a USyd alum. Pettit’s speech highlighted the links between the fight for public housing in NSW and the Victorian government’s proposals to ‘refurbish’ 44 housing towers, with one activist suing for wrongful eviction, losing, and having to cover their own legal costs.
Chels Hood Withey, a housing advocate in the Northern Rivers and a member of the House You Grassroots campaign, related her personal experiences of the
NTEU slams “serious management failures” at UTS following severe costcutting measures
On 17th April, the NTEU released a statement addressing “serious management failures” at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS), leading to increased job cuts and workloads, as well as inflated expenditures.
The statement said that “unaccountable senior university leaders have bungled restructures and major projects, leading to budget blow-outs and soaring workloads” and that “despite a lack of evidence and logic, [VC Andrew Parfitt] insists the University must cut 400 UTS jobs.”
The NTEU reported that transparency requests made by staff were refused by the UTS executive “despite damaging job cuts being proposed.”
The NTEU UTS Branch President, Sarah Attfield, said that “Staff mental health and morale are at an all time low. Failures in consultation and transparency have hamstrung staff, leaving them increasingly unable to identify and challenge oversights made by leaders so far removed from the day-to-day functions of the university.”
Vince Caughley, NSW Division Secretary of the NTEU, further stated that “What our members are experiencing at UTS is yet another example of the governance failures and lack of accountability that have become entrenched in Australian universities. Senior executives and management appear more focused on shielding themselves from scrutiny than ensuring the effective operation of the institutions they are meant to lead.
“This pattern of decision-making — where executives sideline staff expertise, isolate decision-making, and ignore internal warnings — has led to serious consequences, not just for [the] NTEU and UTS but across the sector. It underscores the urgent need for the Senate inquiry into university governance and accountability.”
He contextualised the “crisis at UTS” as part of a broader trend of University cost-cutting measures and “executives prioritising their own interests over the public institutions they are supposed to serve.”
The statement responds to the announcement that UTS will slash 400 jobs, after claiming a $100 million budget deficit in 2024.
Emilie Garcia-Dolnik reports.
This also follows a broader trend of universities cutting staff hours and jobs for budgetary reasons, with little communication to staff. The Australian Financial Review reported that the “combined effect of restructuring efforts at nine universities will slice about $650 million from budgets and mean the loss of at least 2,200 jobs” across the country. The article cites declining student demand and anti-migration policy as reasons for severe cost-cutting measures adopted by a quarter of Australian universities.
Data breach at Western Sydney University hits 10,000 students
Lotte
Weber reports.
Western Sydney University (WSU) has alerted 10,000 students impacted by a mass data breach through the university’s single sign-on (SSO) system between 28th January and 25th February, 2025.
On Tuesday 15th April, the university sent individual notifications to both current and former students whose personal information was accessed by hackers in the cyber attack.
The breached data includes students’ personal demographic, enrolment, and progression information.
The NSW Police Force’s Cybercrime Squad is conducting an ongoing investigation into the extent of the damage.
WSU became aware of potential
unauthorised access on 8 February and implemented immediate protective measures with both internal and thirdparty teams. This includes password resets and additional monitoring and detection tools.
Over the past year, the university alluded to major investments to uplift their cyber capabilities.
The university has not announced plans to move away from their current SSO system.
The breach follows a separate incident on Monday 24th March when the university discovered a dark web post containing similar personal information during their routine cybersecurity monitoring. The post was created on 1st November 2024 and is also undergoing investigation.
Victoria Gillespie and Sebastien Tuzilovic report.
activities of the government in the wake of the recent Lismore floods, where they bought up 800 damaged properties and then left them damaged without repair renovations. Withey elaborated that there was simply no public housing in the Northern Rivers, and she added that the government sues squatters who attempt to use abandoned or structurally sound houses bought by the government in the post-2022 flood buyback program. Withey cited her experience being taken to the Supreme Court over such squatting.
Wes, another Northern Rivers activist, spoke next. Wes emphasised the misplaced government money,that squatting has been a “regeneration”, and much of the community is in support. They finished with a pithy chant: “no evictions, this is class war; Lismore, love more, squat more.”
Denis Doherty, former chair of the Glebe Youth Centre and a coordinator of Hands Off Glebe, was the final speaker. He spoke emotively and passionately, expressing that the state of social housing today is just as bad or worse as when he aided Mum
Shirl, a historic resident of areas targeted by property developments, by driving her to her well-known NSW prison visits. He stated that government members treat “social housing” as a dirty phrase, and that the government wraps up schemes which seek to destroy communities in “beautifulsounding names” that hinder aid or positive change. Doherty also threw light on the Prime Minister’s childhood within social housing, saying that he now calls for “houses on cliffs worth $45 million”. This was met with cries of “shame” from the audience. Doherty concluded by emphasising the brutality of evictions and demolition, accentuating the need for a system that “treats people as people”.
The protest proceeded along the streets to Waterloo, with protestors’ cries echoing throughout Redfern’s streets.
To learn more about the Action for Public Housing, and contribute to fundraising, head to their social media @action4publichousing.
NSW Supreme Court granted an interim injunction to prevent access, use, transmission, and publication of data associated with the post.
In a response to the community, ViceChancellor George Williams AO has referred to this pattern as a series of “persistent targeted attacks on our network”.
Professor Williams said, “The higher education sector is increasingly the target
of cyber attacks and Western Sydney University is not immune to this evolving threat landscape.” He added, “We ask our community to stay vigilant (and) remain alert.”
Due to ongoing investigations by NSW Police, WSU was unable to provide further comment.
NSW Minister for Health condemned for fabricating claims of ‘cancelled chemotherapy treatment’ during ASMOF industrial action
Purny Ahmed reports.
The Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation (ASMOF) — The Doctors Union has condemned the NSW Minister for Health after the deliberate fabrication of a story about doctors cancelling chemotherapy treatment during last week’s three-day doctors’ strike.
On 8th April, several news platforms received claims via text message from the Minister for Health’s advisors that 486 cancer patients had their chemotherapy treatments cancelled as a result of industrial action. Later, on the 11th of April, it was admitted by the office of Ryan Park, NSW Minister for Health, that these claims were entirely fabricated.
ASMOF has demanded a public apology to cancer patients and the doctors of NSW. This demand has not yet been met, with Park apologising to the media outlets by stating the claim was an error.
ASMOF Executive Director Andrew Holland stated that “These claims were a deliberate and malicious attack on doctors aimed at destroying their credibility and undermining the legitimacy of the doctors’
strike…. the false claims caused significant and ongoing distress to cancer patients who rely on this life-saving treatment, and to doctors, who dedicate their lives to protecting the health of their patients.”
This follows the mistreatment of union doctors at Westmead Hospital by Western Sydney Local Health District management. Doctors have allegedly been intimidated by hospital security for wearing campaign badges and displaying Union materials, with threats to remove material associated with ASMOF’s doctors’ strike campaign.
ASMOF president Dr Nicholas Spooner commented: “This is the same Government that claims to respect workers, yet it’s using security guards to silence frontline doctors who are simply telling the truth about what’s happening inside our hospitals.”
“Premier Chris Minns and Health Minister Ryan Park need to explain why their health service is actively targeting unionists, and what they’re doing to stop it,” Spooner said.
Universities across NSW and the ACT are declaring alarming deficits and revenue losses, as staff and students deal with sweeping cuts.
Many of these universities are affected by recent limitations placed on the number of international student enrolments. International student caps, proposed by the federal government in August 2024, were initially blocked by the Senate in December 2024.
The proposed Bill would have given the Minister for Education the power to set a cap on the number of international student enrolments, with Labor hoping to cap international student numbers at 270,000 nationwide, with individual limits set for each institution. In 2023, there were 323,000 commencing international student enrolments.
However, the government has since introduced a loophole via Ministerial Direction 111, enacting “slow-go” visa processing, whereby students are allocated to either a priority 1 tier (high) or a priority 2 tier (standard). Student applications are to be treated as high priority until tertiary institutions reach a prioritisation threshold, which amounts to 80 per cent of the caps that the government had sought to pass. When this threshold is met, all applications are downgraded to standard priority.
students, many Australian universities are paying the price.
One university to announce major cuts in the last few weeks was the University of Technology Sydney (UTS), which recently announced a $100 million cut from its budget, in addition to axing 400 staff positions. This includes 250 professional staff and 150 academic staff, which constitutes 9 per cent of the university’s workforce.
Following these announcements, Provost Vicki Chen resigned from her post.
The NTEU released a statement on 17th April condemning the cuts and “serious management failures.” The NTEU said that “unaccountable senior university leaders have bungled restructures and major projects, leading to budget blowouts and soaring workloads.”
The NTEU UTS Branch President Sarah Attfield said that “Staff mental health and morale are at an all time low. Failures in consultation and transparency have hamstrung staff, leaving them increasingly unable to identify and challenge oversights made by leaders so far removed from the day-to-day functions of the university.”
The Australian Financial Review reported that despite the huge cuts, UTS had a record enrolment intake of 3,257 international students for Semester 2 2025.
NSW universities in the red as plague of cuts hit students & staff
planned on enrolling into are going to be discontinued or merged together because of these budget cuts.”
MQ’s School of Natural Sciences (SoNS) has a fleet of 64 cars which are likely to be halved, according to students and staff. This would likely cause significant disruption: according to MQ vehicle use guidelines, the cars are primarily for “teaching and research purposes”. Given the hands-on nature of many disciplines in the SoNS which frequently require field trips, this would reduce the quality of students’ learning.
Imogen Sabey investigates.
Other concerns of MQ staff arise from a proposed ‘expression of interest’ (EOI) process for teaching, whereby staff annually ‘bid’ in an EOI system to determine their teaching workload. MQ management have also proposed annual curriculum reviews, as well as “research prioritisation”, vague enough to undermine the security of academics and researchers whose work might not align with management priorities.
The 2023-2024 financial year saw a reduction of 60,000 higher education visas granted. This has not come without backlash. The number of international students challenging visa decisions through the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) has soared to 25,854, with applications costing students $3,496 apiece.
Macquarie University (MQ), meanwhile, reported an $81 million deficit in the 20232024 financial year; the fourth consecutive year where it has reported a deficit. The university has been consistently enacting cuts that cripple the student and staff community, reducing the university to a skeletal structure.
In June 2023, international students constituted about 14.5 per cent of the backlog, which stood then at 2,100. In February 2025, they made up 61.7 per cent, with 25,854 cases. This means that while the ART is reviewing their cases, thousands more international students are remaining on Australian shores in a state of limbo: while both major parties are pushing for their elimination in order to free up housing space, they are paralysed by the tribunal system, which itself is bogged down with cases. And, as a result of the lost revenue from international
MQ has a staff ratio of 27:1, with 30,951 equivalent fulltime student loads (EFTSL) enrolled in 2023, alongside 1,133 academic staff. For comparison, USyd has a staff ratio of 22.6:1, with 58,087 EFTSL positions in 2023 and 2,563 academic staff. This has seen classes stripped down to below the bare minimum.
One student who preferred to remain anonymous told Honi, “One of the main reasons why I chose my current undergrad course (Bachelor of Environmental Science) was for all of the really interesting field trips included in most of the units. One of which in particular being ENVS3241 Active Environments, which was essentially a two week field trip held over the summer break that went to New Zealand. Unfortunately, this unit and likely some other ones that I have already
When contacted for comment, the university said that “no courses have been cut at this time.” They explained that some courses have been omitted from current Universities Admissions Centre listings.
A spokesperson said that “Macquarie University prides itself on being a distinctive and innovative institution that delivers world-class education, research and healthcare… Reviewing courses and offerings is part of this and is normal, annual business for any university.”
The NTEU has started a petition to stop cuts to arts courses at MQ. The Dean of the Faculty of Arts, Chris Dixon, has proposed cutting eight work units (departments and schools) to five.
The proposal follows a 2019 cut where 13 work units were reduced to eight.
Another petition has been started by the NTEU to protest against general course cuts at MQ. The petition says that thirteen of the 23 Arts majors at MQ are rumoured to be cut for 2026. In addition, all students studying a Bachelor of Arts or a Bachelor of Science will be compelled to do the same eight first-year units.
The NTEU says that “The University’s financial issues stem not from teaching or research, but from debts exceeding $800 million accrued through management decisions such as building projects and the university hospital.”
In a similar vein to MQ, the University of Wollongong (UOW) is attempting to cover their losses by cutting staff and reducing schools and faculties. The university is planning to cut up to 185 non-academic staff, which amounts to a tenth of its total non-academic workforce. UOW reported in January that they had lost $35 million in revenue.
The university intends to reduce its four faculties to three, reduce its schools from 18 to 11, and thereby save over $20 million.
UOW cited a significant reduction in international onshore student enrolments as a key cause for its 2024 deficit.
The Wollongong University Students Association President, Hanzel-Jude Pador (NSWLS), said to Honi that “The most immediate impacts of these cuts for staff are the loss of jobs; especially unionised jobs, whereas for students it is the loss of their courses, required parts of their degrees, and now with the most recent round, loss of essential aspects of their student services.
“In saying this, I think UOW shouldn’t be attempting to fix its poor financial mismanagement of a stated $35 million by gutting itself of the primary educational function and shifting the impact and cost on its students, teaching staff, and professional staff.”
Pador continued, “It’s important to note these most recent rounds of cuts come at the same time UOW announces that it will begin to establish a new Saudi Arabia campus in Riyadh, and the VC [is] making more than a million a year. How does
UOW find so much money and resources for this, but dozens of staff and hundreds of students are left stranded?”
UOW’s new campus in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, comes about due to a Saudi initiative called Vision 2030, whereby UOW is the first foreign university to receive a Saudi Investment License to set up a university in the country.
The administration has defended this decision as not only feasible, but beneficial for its domestic institution, saying that “The success of our offshore campuses contributes to UOW’s financial sustainability.” UOW also has a satellite campus in Dubai.
The Riyadh satellite campus will, according to the university, be funded by UOW Global Enterprises using cash reserves generated by global operations, without using funding from domestic operations.
Western Sydney University (WSU) is planning to cut between 300 to 400 jobs as it faces a $79 million deficit. The university had forecast a deficit of $6.5 million for the 2025-2026 financial year, but this is now expected to swell to $79 million.
WSU Vice-Chancellor George Williams attributed these deficits to international student caps and lighter course loads: “The
is they’re not able to both study and eat, and international students provide a key source of revenue to support domestic students, otherwise unable to study at University, but for the support we are able to provide.”
Williams stated that he had reduced his own senior executive leadership team by 25 per cent. Salaries for Williams and other senior leaders have been frozen, and strict limits have been placed on expenses such as hiring, catering and travel.
Over in Canberra, the Australian National University (ANU) has reported a whopping $400 million deficit. The deficit was initially misreported as $460 million.
campaign against the chancellor and vice-chancellor. That should tell you how they’re feeling. As for the students, they’re stressed — we’ve seen some students studying Design who don’t have enough class options to be able to graduate on time.”
In response to the deficit, ANU ViceChancellor Genevieve Bell has announced a restructuring scheme called ‘Renew ANU’. A key part of this is the ‘Voluntary Separation Scheme’, whereby staff are encouraged to leave of their own accord rather than be forced out of their jobs.
The administration plans to cut spending by $150 million and salaries by $100 million. Seven schools will be cut to six, and an estimated 650 jobs will be cut to bring about $100 million in savings.
At the end of March, ANU staff overwhelmingly supported a vote of no confidence in Vice-Chancellor Bell and Chancellor Julie Bishop. More than 800
international student caps are hitting our university hard as is increased competition for students in Western Sydney. Student behaviour is also changing, with many choosing to undertake fewer courses, no doubt due in many cases to cost-of-living pressures.”
He explained that the demographic of WSU meant that it was significantly more susceptible to pressure from international student caps than other universities.
“When it comes to our University, we have the largest number of low SES [socioeconomic status] students in the nation, two-thirds of our students, the first in family to ever go to university… What we’re hearing from those students
staff participated, and of these, over 95 per cent voted no to the question, “Do you have confidence in the leadership of the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor?”
NTEU ACT Division Secretary Dr. Lachlan Clohesy commented, “ANU leadership overestimated the size of the 2024 deficit by more than $60 million. They then disestablished the College of Health and Medicine, attempted to take away a staff pay increase, and cut jobs and courses based on their erroneous budgeting. ANU staff demand accountability.”
ANUSA Education Officer Rosie Patton told Honi, “We’ve seen the NTEU run a really successful vote of no confidence
She added, “There’s a really strong feeling that the university only cares about the bottom line and in the process has forgotten what’s most important, and that’s being a place for students to learn. We also know that sometime this quarter the full extent of Renew ANU comes out, which means they’re likely to be slashing most academic departments.”
NTEU National
shows no signs of repealing restrictions on international students, and tertiary institutions continue to cut staff and courses to tackle deficits.
But it can always get worse. The Coalition has threatened to place a flat 25 per cent cap on international students at all public universities, in an effort to cap numbers at 240,000 — 30,000 less than Labor’s attempt in 2024.
President Alison Barnes said that “This is emblematic of the deep governance crisis we are seeing right across the country. We need real reform to stop the conflicts of interest and cultural decay of our public universities.”
On 29th January 2025, the federal government announced a senate inquiry into university governance, chaired by Senator Tony Sheldon. The NTEU cited this as a huge campaign win. “For years, we have been relentless in our fight to fix the broken governance model that has allowed almost $265 million in wages to be stolen from 150,000 staff — while vicechancellors rake in more than $1 million each year on average.”
However, the inquiry is not all it’s cracked up to be. The government currently has over 60 senate inquiries that are overdue — now including this one. The inquiry submissions closed on 3rd March, with the committee report due on 4th April 2025. That deadline was recently extended to 1st August, and no updates have been provided since then.
The ABC has uncovered the severe consequences of late senate inquiries: namely, it allows the government to delay policy making and let important issues stagnate while lining the pockets of senators with at least $217,000 a year.
Stevie Howson, NTEU NSW Acting Secretary, said to Honi that “The onslaught of job cuts at universities like University of Wollongong, University of Technology Sydney, and Macquarie University is indicative of a larger crisis in our universities — this is a fundamental failure of governance.”
He continued, “What we’re seeing are failures of executives to listen to staff concerns and expertise, severe financial and structural mismanagement, and decision making which lacks transparency. This is ultimately damaging to the public institutions our university leaders should be serving.”
The future for state and federal universities looks bleak, as the federal government
Peter Dutton has tried to justify this by saying, “My absolute priority is to get this housing mess sorted out.” Despite this, the Coalition had sided with the Greens against Labor last year in opposing the ALP’s proposed 270,000 cap. However, research from the University of South Australia refutes the claim that international students are to blame for rising rents and housing prices. The study showed that after COVID-19 restrictions were lifted, an increase of 10,000 international students correlated with a $1 decrease in weekly rent prices when “rental inflation was controlled and rental vacancy rate was considered”. This included data from 2017-2024.
Michael Mu, a lead researcher who worked on the study, said that “[International students] are not the main competitors in the market… We found really no statistical relationship between international members and the housing crisis.” According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, international education was Australia’s fourth-largest export in the 2023-2024 financial year, after iron ore, coal and natural gas. The sector generated $50.5 billion, including course fees and revenue generated in the economy more broadly.
The Coalition’s policy aims to increase visa applications to $5000 for all institutions in the Group of 8 (Go8). The current fee is $1,600, which Labor had raised from $710 in July 2024. Other tertiary institutions would face a visa application fee of $2,500.
Universities Australia CEO Luke Sheehy said that the cuts would “take a sledgehammer to one of the nation’s biggest income generators.” He argued that they would not solve the housing crisis, but would add more financial pressure across universities, especially those in regional and outer metropolitan areas.
He added, “International education delivered more than half of Australia’s GDP growth in 2023 and almost singlehandedly kept us out of recession… Students make up less than six per cent of the national rental market. The real solution is more homes, not fewer students.”
Hardly any universities will emerge from 2025 unscathed by draconian federal policy and financial blowouts.
Sheehy commented, “Australia’s worldclass education system has taken decades to build and only moments to unravel. Once students go elsewhere, it’s incredibly hard to bring them back.”
Where does each party stand on major political issues?
Australian Greens Policy Area
Housing
Home Buyer Support
Supply & Infrastructure
Renters
Social and Affordable Housing
Education
Tertiary Vocational (TAFE)
Student HECS-HELP Debt Relief
Higher Ed Infrastructure
International Students
Healthcare
Medicare & Bulk Billing
Mental Health
Pharmaceuticals (PBS)
Women’s Health
Drug Policy
Social Services and Social Issues
Youth Allowance & Austudy
Commonwealth Rent Assistance
Domestic and Sexual Violence
- HomeKeeper: discount mortgage set at a regulated ceiling at a maximum of 1% above the cash rate. All of the big 5 banks would be required by regulations to offer HomeKeeper
- Give the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) the authority to block banks from imposing unnecessary mortgage price increases
- Public developers to build 360,000 homes over 5 years, sold/rented below market rates; saving average renter $5,200 per year and homeowners $260,000 total
- Tax the thousands of vacant properties across Australia to increase rental stock
- Rent freeze and rent caps: two-year national freeze; cap at 2% every two years onwards
- End No-Grounds Evictions
- Establish National Renters Protection Authority to advocate for tenants and investigate rental issues
- Introduce guaranteed lease renewals
- One third of new stock to be public housing by 2030
- Invest $1b to deliver at least 2,500 public and social homes in regional NSW each year for the next 10 years
- Free Uni & TAFE: abolish all fees; wipe existing HELP, SFSS, VET debt from 1 July 2025; funded by higher taxes on billionaires and corporations
- Expand Prac Payment to students from all degrees with mandated placements such as medicine and dentistry; paid at minimum wage per hour of work
- Wipe all HELP Debt, abolition of existing debt
- No interest on new HELP
- Tertiary Education Commission: needs-based funding body; invest in research infrastructure
- Invest $250m annually for travel, health concessions, and affordable accommodation
- Expand access to concession fares on public transport to international students
- Medicare expansion: $195b investment
- Free GP Visits: all Medicare-subsidised services free, funded by higher taxes on billionaires and corporations
- 1,000 free clinics: nationwide access to GP, nurse, allied health
- Double Medicare-subsidised mental health sessions from 10 to 20
- $400m grants for community mental health organisations
- Unlimited counselling: remove current session caps
- Integrate psychologists into Medicare; focus on early intervention
- Free ADHD and autism assessments
- Cap PBS co-payment at concessional rate of $7.70 for all individuals
- Expanded PBS: add dental, allied mental health, allied health consumables
- $100m to public hospitals to increase access to abortion services
- Legalise recreational marijuana
- Increase access to medicinal cannabis; allocating $10m over 2 years
- Expand access and funding for pill testing across Australia
- Lower age threshold for ‘independent’ to 18 from 22
- Expand to all 18+ students; remove parental income test for those living away from home
- $75/fortnight increase to Youth Allowance, Austudy, Abstudy, etc
- Raise income support payments above the poverty line
- Automatically index rents: linking to 30th percentile of local market rents to ensure rent assistance scales proportionate to your actual rent
- Invest $12b into a 12-year plan to fully fund the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children
- Raise the Escaping Violence Payment, expanding recovery and healing services
- Making dating apps safer with a mandatory code of conduct
- National consent education, student safety surveys, and stronger tertiary campus oversight
- Help to Buy Scheme: shared equity scheme so First Home buyers need a smaller deposit; scaling up to 40% equity contribution on new homes and 30% on existing homes
- Invest $10b for 100,000 homes reserves for first home buyers
- Expand access to 5% deposit for all homeowners
- Housing Australia Future Fund: $10b to build 30,000 social & affordable homes in first 5 years
- National Housing Accord: build 1m homes over 5 years
- National Rental Affordability Scheme: incentives for states/territories to deliver affordable rentals
- Rent Assistance increased by 45% over Labor’s term; largest boost in 30 years
- Build to Rent will deliver 80,000 new rentals across the country; all rentals must offer 5-year leases
- Invest $5b for social & affordable housing target of 30,000 homes in NSW
- Housing Australia Future Fund: $10b to build 30,000 social & affordable homes in first 5 years; 20,000 for vulnerable women
- 100,000 Fee-Free TAFE Places per year from 2027, extra $870m per year
- Commonwealth Prac Payment at $319.50 per week for ~68,000 students specifically in nursing, teaching, and social work
- 20% off HECS-HELP debt
- Raise repayment threshold to $67k
- Modernisation program: upgrade labs and digital tech in universities & schools
- Cap new international student enrolments at 270,000 annually
- Set enrolment thresholds for universities
- Visa processing change; include fee increase and increased English language proficiency requirements
- Invest $8b to Bulk Billing; 18m extra bulk-billed GP visits per year
- 12.5% bonus for 100% bulk-billing clinics
- 87 Urgent Care Clinics opened & 50 more to open
- Aim for 90% of GP visits bulk billed by 2030
- $225m for 31 new and upgraded Medicare mental health clinics
- Six extra psychologists per clinic
- Over $200m for 58 new, upgraded or expanded Headspace services
- Keep PBS co-payment scripts at $7.70 for concessional until 2030
- Negotiate lower prices on new medicines
- No change to abortion
- Investing $573.3m into women’s health
- More bulk billing for IUDs and birth control
- Opening 11 new endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics
- New oral contraceptives and Hormone Replacement Therapy on the PBS
- Held Drug Summit in 2024, considering implementation of 56 policies, including increasing funding for drug and alcohol abuse
- $40/fortnight increase to Youth Allowance, Austudy, Abstudy, JobSeeker, and Parenting Payment for ~318,000 young people
- Raise parental means test threshold by 150%
- Most recently invested in a 15% increase; largest boost since CRA inception
- Invest $100m in crisis and transitional housing for women and children fleeing domestic and family violence, with older women at risk of homelessness
- Prevent perpetrators from using tax and corporate systems to create coercive debts
- Make perpetrators liable for social security debts incurred by victim-survivors through coercion or financial abuse
Australian Labor Party Liberal Party of Australia
- Super Home Buyer Scheme: unprecedented policy to access up to $50k early from superannuation retirement scheme for a house deposit
- First Home Buyer Mortgage Deductibility Scheme: tax deductions on interest payments for the first 5 years and $650,000 of a mortgage
- Invest $5b for water, power, and sewerage to unlock 500,000 homes
- Freeze changes to National Construction Code; fast-track approvals: halve approval times for major projects
- Supply prioritised over reform. No targeted rental reforms; policy lever is more homes to ease rents
- No specific social housing policy
- $260m for 12 technical colleges, aligning courses to local industry needs
- Maintain current indexation & thresholds
- Build purpose-built specialist facilities at technical colleges
- Cap total international student commencements at 240,000
- Limit international students to 25% of public university enrolments
- Triple visa application fees to make it cost $5,000 for Group of Eight universities
- Match Labor’s investment with $9b bulk-billed GP visits per year
- Restore GP bulk-billing rates
- Double Medicare-subsidised mental health sessions from 10 to 20
- $400m for youth mental health; boost Headspace services
- Reduce PBS co-payment to $25, down from current general $31.60
- No change to abortion
- Invest in specialist cancer nurses for women with ovarian cancer
- Increase funding for training to support women facing endometriosis and (peri) menopause
- $355m in extra funding to crack down on illegal drugs, including upgrades screening and detection capabilities
- No rate changes; maintain existing payment levels & indexation
- No change announced; rely on housing supply measures to lower rent
- Invest $90m into domestic violence strategy
- Create national database of domestic violence offenders for law enforcement use
- Introduce new offences targeting the use of mobile phones and spyware for coercive control
- National child sex offender disclosure scheme Mehnaaz Hossain researches.
DEBATE EXPLAINER
It is Federal Election week, and these students are super excited to share what their party stands for — so much so, that they agreed to put it out into the student world through your favourite form of student media (Honi Soit).
Here are the rules:
Each candidate was sent the questions with specific word counts attached. All candidates received the same information and deadline. The candidates were given two weeks to send us their well thought out answers.
Honi asked them to answer the questions based on their party’s political views, with the option to compare these with other parties.
Angus Fisher Labor Party
Angus Fisher is the current Student Representative Council (SRC) President , and a dedicated unionist.
Angus is a member of NSW Labor Students and Young Labor Left. He is studying a Bachelor of Economics (Honours) majoring in Economics, Industrial Relations, and Human Resource Management. During his time at university, he has organised and taken part in many successful campaigns. He was an organiser of Students for Drug Reform. Through this, he attended the NSW Drug Summit, which resulted in a NSW trial for pill-testing. Angus was a major contributor to the Students for Yes campaign, which is the reason he got further involved in politics. Currently, he advocates for free speech on campus, particularly surrounding Palestine, fighting against the Campus Access Policy and university repression. You will see him at his fortnightly SRC stalls and BBQs, where he’s always happy to talk.
What policies do your party support that will directly benefit university students, both domestic and international?
Labor is committed to rebuilding a fairer, more inclusive university system. From the Universities Accord, they have already wiped out over $3 billion in student debt through indexation reform, implemented the National Student Ombudsman to address student grievances such as student safety and welfare, partially paid placements, and a minimum SSAF allocation of 40% to student-led organisations.
Labor has reintroduced post-study work rights for international graduates and improved visa processing to ensure Australia remains a welcoming study destination. They are also cracking down on exploitative university workloads and casualisation through the Closing Loopholes No. 2 Act 2024 to ensure students and staff are treated fairly. The rates of Youth Allowance and the Parental Income Threshold increased under this Labor government.
What has your party done to address the rising epidemic of femicide over the past two years?
Labor is committed to ending gender-based violence. The government has committed $2.3 billion to its National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children. They legislated 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave, expanded the single parenting payment, and established the Leaving Violence Program, assisting women to leave violent relationships.
Honi has not editorialised the given answers. They have been published exactly how they were sent to us. Down to the full stop!
What is your party’s stance on the genocide in Palestine? What is your party’s stance on an arms embargo on Israel?
The Greens stand with Amnesty International, the United Nations, and Human Rights Watch in their determination that the State of Israel’s war crimes in Gaza amount to genocide. The genocide has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians and displaced millions more. The Greens also recognise that the State of Israel continues to deny the right of self-determination to Palestinians and continues to dispossess them of their land and rights. For there to be peace there must be an end to the State of Israel’s illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories and its ongoing genocide in Gaza.
We also continue to call on the Australian government to do its part in upholding international law by calling for a permanent and unconditional ceasefire and an end to the genocide, apartheid, and occupation. Furthermore the Greens support ending the two ways arms trade between Australia and the State of Israel, sanctioning members of the Israeli government directly involved in war crimes, and Australia formally intervening on behalf of South Africa at the International Court of Justice and the commitment to uphold International Criminal Court warrants, as crucial and necessary steps in the path to justice for Palestinians.
How will your party aid students with the increasing burden of HECS-HELP debt?
The Greens plan to wipe all HECS-HELP debt and re-establish free tertiary education just like the Prime Minister benefited from when he was a student here. The Greens have been relentlessly campaigning for free education, and that pressure has worked, with Labor announcing a 20% cut to student debt.
However, when we made offers to Labor to pass it immediately and speed it through the Senate, they chose to block it and make it a condition of their re-election. While we are deeply disappointed in Labor, I think what we have seen is that with the Greens in the balance of power under a minority government, we can keep fighting to finish the job and wipe it all.
Additionally, Labor is investing in housing by building 4,000 social and affordable homes for women and children escaping violence and delivering 720 Safe Places of emergency accommodation nationwide. They have also strengthened the justice system’s response by making the family law system safer. Implementing all recommendations of the Respect@Work report further demonstrates Labor’s commitment to creating a safer environment for women and children.
Does your party support the Doctor’s Union strikes? What are your party’s plans to implement policies and funding to improve the access to physical and mental healthcare?
The Greens stand in solidarity with all workers fighting for better pay and conditions, especially in a cost of living crisis, and especially when our government could easily fix these systemic issues. The Greens are working to expand medicare to include access to dental and mental health services, ensure there are no out-of-pocket costs for GP visits by increasing bulk-billing incentives and rebates, reduce the cost of PBS medicines, and invest an additional $30.6 billion in local public hospitals nationwide.
If there is money for submarines, room for handouts for coal & gas companies, and we can afford to let 1 in 3 big corporations pay no tax we can certainly find the money to fund our public health services.
What plans does your party have to address the housing crisis and to combat the idea that housing is an investment rather than a right? How does this benefit young people and renters?
Housing is a human right, not a commodity. The Greens have a plan that will actually tackle the housing crisis, not just tinker around the edges. We will give renters and first home buyers a real chance by capping rent increases and phasing out negative gearing for investors with two or more properties. We will also regulate the banks to deliver lower mortgages, and invest in a government owned developer, building quality homes that renters and first home buyers can actually afford.
The Greens will also end homelessness by offering a permanent home and support services to those experiencing chronic homelessness, double homelessness and public housing funding, and build 610,000 affordable homes over the coming decade. Instead of requiring people to jump through hurdles to prove they are worthy of a home, the Greens plan to end homelessness says that everyone deserves a place to call a home. And we’ll fund this plan by taxing the 1 in 3 big corporations that currently pay no tax, and making big banks finally pay their fair share. This plan will put more of the weekly paycheck back in the pockets of people who desperately need it to make ends meet.
What is your party’s stance on the genocide in Palestine? What is your party’s stance on an arms embargo on Israel?
Labor unequivocally condemns the mass killing of civilians in Gaza. Since 2021, the federal ALP platform has supported the recognition of a Palestinian state. They support an immediate and permanent ceasefire, the urgent delivery of humanitarian aid, and the release of all hostages.
Labor has called for Israel to comply with international law and cease its devastating military campaign against the people of Gaza. Under Labor, Australia has voted at the UN for resolutions calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza, recognising Palestine as qualified for full UN membership, and calling to end Israeli occupation in the occupied Palestinian territories. They believe in a just and enduring two-state solution with a permanent end to hostilities. Labor supports investigations into war crimes by all parties, and backs Australia referring the situation in Gaza to the International Criminal Court.
Under this government, Australia does not currently export weapons to Israel, has no direct military sales to Israel, and supports rigorous arms export controls. The government is actively reviewing export permits and support measures consistent with an arms embargo on any country violating international humanitarian law. A re-elected Labor government will hopefully follow Spain and Ireland in recognising Palestine in law.
How will your party aid students with the increasing burden of HECS-HELP debt?
A re-elected Labor government will wipe 20% off every HECS bill. For someone like me with a bill of $60,000, that is $12,000 off. Getting loans in the future, e.g a home loan, becomes a lot more achievable.
Labor will make TAFE free. That means students learning a trade will pay nothing and accrue no HECS-HELP debt, saving generations of vocational students for years to come.
Already, Labor has delivered real relief to students. In 2024, the government wiped more than $3 billion in student debt by scrapping the unfair indexation applied to loans in 2023, and committed to tying future indexation to the lower of CPI or wage growth. Debts will no longer outpace students’ earnings.
What policies do your party support that will directly benefit university students, both domestic and international?
The Greens want to improve access to higher education by wiping all student debt and making TAFE and University free. Additionally, we will ensure students undertaking placements are paid a liveable wage, and drastically increase Youth Allowance and PhD stipend payments. We will also ensure that all public universities are fully funded by the government, end casualisation in the tertiary sector, ensuring secure jobs for staff.
This will mean better outcomes for students, who will be able to prioritise their study free from financial worry, and an end to the profit driven-model that pervades modern universities. We also oppose the racist, dog-whistling caps on international students that have been proposed by other parties, which will only hurt the education sector.
What has your party done to address the rising epidemic of femicide over the past two years?
We know shelters are full, we know legal services are turning away calls because they can’t answer them all, and we know there’s not enough domestic violence services across the country, and yet the government fails to act. One woman is killed in Australia every four days. Honestly, how many women have to die before the major parties take this issue seriously?
The Greens are calling for $15 billion over the next 12 years to ensure the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children (20222023) is fully funded, to help those who are forced to choose between homelessness and further violence. We will also invest in prevention and behaviour change programs to change the attitudes that underpin violence.
Does your party support the Doctor’s Union strikes? What are your party’s plans to implement policies and funding to improve the access to physical and mental healthcare?
Federal Labor supports fair pay, safe working conditions, and the right of junior doctors to strike. The government’s 2022 IR reforms made it easier to initiate industrial action. They understand that burnout and under-resourcing endanger both workers and patients. That’s why Labor has made the biggest investment in Medicare’s history, tripling the bulk billing incentive, opening 87 Urgent Care Clinics, and funding 61 Medicare Mental Health Centres.
Labor is expanding this further: 50 new Urgent Care Clinics, 18 million extra bulk-billed GP visits annually, and the largest-ever GP training program. They’re also investing over $1 billion in free mental health services, $790 million in women’s health, and $1.7 billion to boost public hospitals. Labor believes healthcare must be universal.
What plans does your party have to address the housing crisis and to combat the idea that housing is an investment rather than a right? How does this benefit young people and renters?
Labor believes housing is a human right, not just a commodity for investors. The key goal is boosting supply. The Albanese Government has committed over $32 billion to tackle the housing crisis through the National Housing Accord. They are delivering 1.2 million new homes, including 40,000 social and affordable dwellings, and creating incentives for build-to-rent developments to ease rental pressure. First home buyers are better off under Labor, they have announced they will spend $10 billion to build 100,000 new homes across the country, reserved for first home buyers and be able to buy homes with a 5% deposit. More help is available through shared equity schemes and increasing investment in crisis accommodation.
Labor has expanded Commonwealth Rent Assistance, established the HAFF, and is supporting state governments to implement rent increase limits, ban rent bidding, and strengthen tenancy rights. These measures directly benefit young people, students, and renters by boosting supply and making renting fairer.While the Coalition treated housing as a wealth-building tool for the few, Labor is treating it as essential infrastructure, like education and Medicare. Labor is encouraging rezoning and planning reforms to fasttrack developments near public transport and university precincts.
Maddy Barry Greens Party
Maddy Barry is the current President of the Sydney University Greens Club, and has experience working as an campaign organiser for the NSW Greens Party.
Maddy is a passionate, decolonial feminist and socialist, striving for a better, more equitable world for all. After completing a Bachelors in Law and Justice at Queensland University of Technology in 2022, Maddy moved to Sydney to undertake a Masters in Cultural Studies at Sydney University, and is set to graduate at the end of this semester. While here, she has helped restart the Sydney University Greens Club after years of inactivity, and was elected President at their Inaugural General Meeting in 2024. She is also working as a campaign organiser for the NSW Greens Party and is responsible for 11 campaigns around the state, including Sydney and Grayndler. Her main interest lies in the convergence of culture and politics, and how each informs the other, and she hopes to make a real difference through ongoing research, activism, and work with The Greens.
Ellie Robertson organises.
Honi reached out to a particularly prominent Liberal figure on campus.
Whilst they agreed to join in the debate in haste, after multiple extended deadlines, they failed to provide us with their arguments.
It could be said that, perhaps, they were concerned about the implications of not being pro-Palestine, pro-worker, or outing their party’s borderline fascist views.
Perhaps this kind of foresight and competence is what we have to look forward to with a Liberal governance.
How Does Preferential Voting Work?
House of Representatives
Ballot Paper
Sector 001
Electoral Division of Enterprise
Number the boxes from 1 to 5 in the order of your choice.
PICARD, Jean-Luc THE BRIDGE PARTY
CRUSHER, BEVERLY MEDICAL UNION
DATA
DAYSTROM INSTITUTE
RIKER, William HOLODECK PARTY
TROI, Deanna BETAZOID PARTY
Mehnaaz Hossain and Victor Zhang explain.
In the House of Representatives, a candidate cannot be elected without holding more than an ‘absolute majority’ — 50 per cent of the vote. This is not the ‘first past the post’ system used in other countries, which is where the candidate with the most votes, even if it’s less than 50 per cent, is the winner.
In Australian elections, you must order the candidates from 1 onwards, in order
of your highest to lowest preference. Often, candidates will distribute How To Vote (HTV) cards, which show their ideal preference numbering. This is so that parties can suggest their optimal preference flow based on their strategic electoral interests. Parties with similar policies or ideologies will often enter ‘preference deals’ to list each other on their HTVs. For example, the Greens will often put another left-leaning candidate
Using this fun example of the Enterprise, let’s see how preferential voting would play out if 100 valid ballots were cast.
At the first count, no candidate has over 50 per cent of the vote, so the candidate with the lowest count is eliminated. Sorry, Data. Of the six that voted for Data, their
Dispelling
Preferential Voting Myths
“You have to vote following the How To Vote cards”
You do not have to listen to how parties tell you to vote!
You, and only you, are the sole arbiter of exactly how your preferences are numbered.
It is still possible to vote for your ideal first preference candidate without following their HTV. You can simply write 1 next to
Senate Ballot Paper
their name and then number the rest of the list as you wish.
“It wastes your vote to first preference a non-major party as Preference 1 because they won’t get in”
A vote still counts in its entirety, even if your first choice is eliminated. Your second choice and onwards are still counted. Let’s say you vote Greens first and Labor second; if the Labor candidate
Sector 001 — Election of 6 Senators
is elected then your second preference and thus your vote does count.
Even if your first preference does not win, preferencing them can send a signal to the other parties on your ballot. Parties receive information on how many first and second preference votes they had. If Labor wins on second or third preference, that indicates that voters are too dissatisfied to place them as first preference.
(Animal Justice, certain independents, Labor, etc. depending on the electorate) as an ideal second preference on their HTV.
If a candidate receives more than 50 per cent of first preference votes, then they are elected to parliament. If no candidate receives an absolute majority during that first count, then the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated entirely in order to begin a second round of counting. Then, in the second round of counting, the eliminated candidate’s votes are transferred to whoever they have selected as their second preference. Again, if no candidate receives an absolute majority this process is then repeated, with the least-supported candidates being eliminated after each round and votes being transferred until one candidate earns more than 50 per cent of the vote.
second preferences are two to Picard, one to Riker, one to Crusher, and none to Troi. We distribute Data’s preferences as directed.
The next count, Troi is eliminated and we repeat the process of distributing preferences. This process is repeated until a candidate has over 50 per cent of the vote, which at the end in our example is Picard. Engage!
How do I make sure my vote is valid?
Election officials — clad in their purple vests — will give you instruction on what counts as a valid vote, with the instruction appearing on each ballot as well.
Explainer
The Senate is a different beast. Each state elects 12 senators who serve staggered three-year terms, with six senate seats up for grabs each federal election. To win a seat, a senate candidate has to fill a quota which is 14.3 per cent of the total formal ballots cast.
The actual formula provided by the AEC is (Number of formal ballot papers / (Number of vacancies + 1)) + 1
At each count candidates will either reach quota or not reach quota. Candidates that reach the quota will have their surplus votes transferred to their second preferences as indicated by the voters. If during a count there is no candidate above quota and there still remain vacancies, the candidate with the lowest vote share will be eliminated and their votes distributed according to the preferences indicated by the voter. This process repeats until the vacancies have been filled.
The nature of this system means that within each state, Labor is likely to pick up two senators, the Coalition is likely to pick up two senators, with the remaining two going to a left-leaning candidate (usually the Greens) and a right-leaning candidate usually (sometimes the Coalition, but often a minor party like One Nation). The sixth senate seat often goes to a candidate with a vote share well below the quota. Your preferences matter.
“If Palestine isn’t free, you’ll never be free”:
Solidarity with Palestine on and beyond
After over 18 months of genocide and close to 80 years of dispossession, voting in solidarity with Palestine is a necessary and urgent election issue. Long before October 2023, we have witnessed the failure of Australian governments to advocate for a free Palestine, instead choosing to regurgitate ‘neutral’ middle-ground stances at best, or espouse complete lies that both excuse genocide, and disproportionately harm and legitimise violence towards Arab-Australian communities, at worst. Holistically, Palestine has been relegated to a minor issue this election by major parties, despite the uprising of Greens-affiliated and independent candidates who have been loud and vocal about Palestine. Candidates like Mehreen Faruqi, David Shoebridge, and Ziad Basyouny have spoken out in direct response to the insufficient and cruel policies of both the Labor and Liberal parties. There is no excuse for politicians to remain silent on Palestine.
While the Labor Party under Albanese has called for an immediate and permanent ceasefire, unhindered aid access to Gaza, and an end to illegal Israeli settlements, it has failed to call for a two-way arms embargo on Israel or support self-determination in Palestine. Labor has also refused to use the word genocide to describe over 18 months of continued massacre, froze UNRWA funding, failed to oppose anti-Palestinian racism or support ICC warrants for Israeli political leaders. In March 2024, Prime Minister Albanese and Foreign Minister Wong were also referred to the ICC for investigation into their support of Israel’s actions in Gaza. Albanese has also consistently lied about Australian-Israeli defence, military sales, and cooperation partnerships. The Liberal Party has holistically failed on every point alongside the ALP. Similarly, they also failed to call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire, aid for Gaza, or a ban on illegal Israeli settlements.
However, there is no shortage of Palestinian voices and human rights organisations that continue to bear witness to Australian political complicity and aid to Israel in the face of violent genocide. These organisations and networks work tirelessly to advocate for a Free Palestine, and make clear diverging Australian political stances on Palestine. Hiba Farra is an executive member of the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN). On 18th February, I had the opportunity to discuss the importance of voting in solidarity with Palestine with Hiba, and here’s what she had to say:
Why is it important for voters to consider Palestine first when casting their vote in this election?
H: Placing Palestine at the forefront isn’t just a political choice. It’s a moral one. Voters who value justice, anti-colonialism and international law support the Palestinian cause and Palestinian rights. To them, this is not optional — it’s essential. It’s not just foreign policy they are interested in. [APAN] looks at it as defining and testing the nation’s commitment to human rights and global justice.
Look at your values and political priorities, and know that Palestine is a human rights and justice issue. A country’s stance on Palestine is reflected in its broader approach to justice at home. If it’s being supported, it says a lot about what is happening at home.
We understand that Australia is a middle power. Its responsibility is to lead with principle. Through its diplomatic weight, Australia can demand accountability. When you’re going to cast your vote, your government will represent you and that will be envisaged in policy ahead.
What impact can a pro-Palestinian Australian government have on the ongoing genocide and struggle for Palestinian rights?
H: It’s more of a pro-justice government, a pro-international law government. It can influence in meaningful ways, even if Australia is not a major global power. It still can have an impact: symbolic, political, and potential for a ripple effect. Australia could use its position in international forums: the UN, the ICC, and the ICJ. It can advocate for an investigation into war crimes, and demand a permanent ceasefire. It could end military cooperation and implement a red-line package of legislation which would hold arms and stop links to war crimes. All these things can send a strong message as part of the broader international movement that all middle powers should do the same.
the ballot
and its people. They say they would end military cooperation, sanction Israel if they were in power. To put it in short: a genocide in place was enough to show everyone’s true colours. It was a test for humanity and morals. Very few did not fail people in that domain.
What are some key policies that voters should look for to ensure they vote in solidarity with Palestine?
H: The things we need to be looking at are:
1. What is their stance on ending military and intelligence ties to Israel, sanctioning Israeli leaders and having war criminals come to Australia?
2. Do they support the ICC, ICJ, and UN inquiries into Genocide?
3. Do they back the BDS movement?
4. Language: Do they recognise Israel as an occupier? Do they see the apartheid system and speak about it? Do they point out human rights abuses?
When there is a genocide taking place and they use terms like “conflict”, that says a lot.
Emilie Garcia-Dolnik
demand representation that reflects communities. It’s valid. There should be someone there to express their worries, hear their despair, and who will not choose to ignore them. It’s a clear message that they reflect their community.
How can voters hold MPs accountable and work towards justice in Palestine beyond the ballot?
This year, Palestine is on the ballot. The genocide has allowed us to see all the masks fall off. If a genocide has not allowed you to speak up. Nothing will. Politicians who refuse to speak out have failed. But then you see politicians who have spoken up and elected the human inside them.
We ask communities to stay connected, stay loud. Keep the pressure by calling, emailing MPs. Attend town halls, forums where you know the MP will be speaking and ask direct questions. Get involved in different groups, whether they’re interstate or grassroots movements. Students can find their groups that they can join within university, they can join APAN to learn and to help mobilise and educate and share information with people. Continue exposing hypocrisy and double standards. Continue demanding action from the government. Continue mobilising for Palestinians.
Palestinians are showing us what is happening on the ground in Gaza. Our role is to amplify their voices. We need to amplify the voices that Israel is trying so hard to silence. Cooperate with other movements. Build alliances with First Nations and antiracist groups. All these things together help here and abroad as well.
It could also influence media narrative and public discourse. The media has been awful at reporting on Palestine and Gaza. It can align with other countries in the Global South to form a stronger bloc advocating for Palestinian rights. Australia alone can’t stop a genocide or decades of occupation, but a principled foreign policy shift can contribute to the momentum needed to stop. It can have a huge influence on countries in the region.
How do different parties currently stand on the issue of Palestine?
H: Although [the ALP] has long supported a two-state solution and at its 2023 national conference worked towards the recognition of Palestine, in reality, the Albanese government has not taken significant action beyond symbolism. Ties with Israel remain; it has abstained from many UN resolutions critical of Israel. The supporters of justice with Palestine keep feeling the government hasn’t handled its stance on genocide well.
On the other hand, you have the Liberal party, which is strongly pro-Israel. The Coalition recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital under Morrison. It often takes hardline stances in support of Israel’s policies, [such as] the recent statement by Michaelia Cash that they would invite Netanyahu to Australia despite knowing there is an arrest warrant against him.
Then the Greens party, which is unapologetically supportive of Palestine
How can voting with Palestine in mind also serve to protect and empower the Arab and Muslim communities here in Australia, especially in the face of rising Islamophobia and Anti-Arab hate speech?
Voting with Palestine plays a powerful role in protecting and empowering Arab and Muslim communities here. It helps stand against Islamophobia here. Politicians who stand against Palestine often [stoke] anti-Arab hate domestically. Voting for candidates who speak up for Palestine sends a message that Anti-Muslim racism won’t be tolerated. It also pushes against the idea that Arab and Muslim suffering is less worthy of compassion.
For a long time, we’ve seen the Arab community and Muslim community, [as well as] all the like-minded people that are pro-justice, take to the streets. They feel not heard. They feel not seen. Everything they’ve done to make politicians see them… [Politicians] are not doing what is expected of them. They’re not being truthful to their community. It’s a [big] disappointment. How can you still not see us? How can you still not hear our cry for justice?
Public support for Palestine affirms the identity and experiences of Arab communities in Australia who feel erased or silenced. Their pain matters, and their stories are valid. They’re important for Australian society to hear. When they
What message do you want to send to students and young voters who feel disempowered by the current Labor Government’s stance on Palestine?
H: [Your] frustration is valid, but [your] power is enormous. It is real. It is needed. It is important to remember that every movement for justice has faced betrayal and pressure from governments. It did stop them from rising, disrupting, refusing to normalise what is happening, refusing to get used to what is happening or becoming desensitised. They must know they are not powerless. They are the real power that will change the status quo.
History has taught us, in America, in the Vietnam War, from apartheid South Africa to Palestine, that the student movement was the real power behind change. It’s important to remember that. Change starts from them. [Students] should not be disempowered. They are fighting for a cause that is just. They need to see Palestinians as well, under these terrible circumstances, who still haven’t lost hope. Everything in their way is telling them to lose hope, but they are refusing to do so. If they still have hope, we definitely should. We should be the reason for the people in Palestine to be hopeful. We’re not leaving them alone. We’re never going to ignore what’s happening or think that it’s normal. We will not become desensitised to seeing so much injustice. In the classroom, at rallies, online and very importantly at the ballot box itself: refuse to normalise oppression.
Read full article online.
Several thousand humans remain living in limbo after the failed Fast Track immigration system continues to operate over generations of governments. For asylum seekers, the country roars in motion of revolutionary federal policies that dictate their future, their status, and their humanity. For citizen and noncitizen migrants alike, these policies are a cautionary whisper in the wind, a symptom of an impending storm on the shores of the diaspora.
Australia prides itself on being a multicultural nation: a welcoming haven of opportunity, security, and harmony. For centuries, the migrant community has played a major role in the economic prosperity and infrastructure that have built the longstanding foundations of our country. Yet, current federal election campaigns suggest otherwise.
Last month’s federal budget failed to improve funding for the immigration sector, further exacerbating our country’s ongoing visa crisis. On the other hand, Dutton’s campaign for the Coalition threatens to tighten our country’s already impermeable borders by promising to re-introduce one of our country’s most demonising policies: the ‘Stop the Boats’ campaign. This is inaccurate, backed by claims that immigrants are worsening the housing crisis for what Dutton deemed
the “Western Anglo-centric world” of middle-class and young Australians in his Sydney pitch; however, national and global immigration statistics prove otherwise.
Research conducted by the ABS suggests Australia’s net migration influx is actually decreasing to prepandemic levels. This means the number of migrants coming in and out of Australia is falling without government intervention. Hence, proposals to further slash migrant intake this election will only exacerbate the blockades of international students and skilled migrant workers crucial to some of our country’s largest assets: education, construction, and tourism sectors. Enforcing permanent migration cuts disrupts the social unity that the government prides itself in sustaining, rather than directly targeting the central culprit of economic struggles, such as the housing crisis, astronomical taxes, and disproportionate budgeting. There is no research to prove any correlation between our current migration influx and the cost of living crisis, yet the Coalition continues to claim migrants are causing the displacement of Australians.
Amplifying the Muted: Debunking Immigration Policies
Shayla
While Labor has yet to officially propose their migration policies, their latest federal budget gives us a preview of what to expect — and they
propose not so differently from the Opposition. Over a billion dollars were allocated to continue the operation of offshore detention centres for deported refugees and asylum seekers, and onshore detention centres for migrants awaiting visa approvals. However, the budget failed to provide any transparency on how these funds were used in the immigration sector. Instead, our debilitating Fast Track visa system was unaddressed, and promises to increase funding to support urgent humanitarian crises, including in Gaza, were left unfulfilled.
The migrant experience is repeatedly overlooked by politicians caught up in the buzz of campaigning and debating. In the tension of elections and the hopes of swaying voters, moral panics are used to generate disparity amongst the population and urge us to act in fear. However, this normalises the scope of discrimination and disunity, and paves the way for a significant injustice to the past, present, and future contributions of Australians of migrant backgrounds. The proposed policies to slash migration dehumanise the very subjects they propose to govern justly.
Migrants are demonised for treading the land which once welcomed them, asylum seekers are left eagerly anticipating their freedoms under a staggering visa system, yet our major
Understanding the ‘Mediscare’
Zeina Khochaiche taps her Medicare card.
3rd May signifies a lot of things for Australia. It confronts the durability of the current Labor government and it tests the incessant digitisation of election campaigning. Importantly, it challenges the newest generation of voters to understand how the election of a new government could impact their life. In this case, let us draw our attention to our health care — specifically, Medicare.
Lots of confusing Medicare rhetoric has orbited this year’s election coverage. The Labor government, pushing a strong appeal to the safety of Medicare in their campaign, are vying to convince people that they’ve done enough to, not only sustain Medicare, but improve accessibility whilst the Coalition are attempting to ride their coattails.
The Coalition’s stance on Medicare is an evasive rhetoric to pin down. In and amongst the distracting TikTok edits and strange thirst traps, determining the safety of Medicare is left in the balance. Whilst the Coalition is frequently associated with the infamous Medicare freeze of 2013-2016, it was the Labor government who initially introduced the freeze as a ‘temporary’ measure in 2013.
Both parties are pledging billions to appeal to healthcare sympathies in this year’s election. Since 2023, the Labor government has boasted the opening of 87 Medicare urgent care clinics: completely bulk billed practices for families and individuals seeking urgent care. The closest Medicare Urgent Care Clinic to the University of Sydney’s campus is located in Maroubra followed by a location in Carlton.
With the caveat being that they get elected, the Labor government is pledging to open another 50 clinics by June 2026, and a further $12 billion into supporting the bulk billing system and incentivising practices to support the system.
The significance of bulk-billed and subsidised health care can not be overstated; especially for young people, complex health care, people with a low socioeconomic background and disadvantaged community groups.
These urgent care clinics are essential and should be included when assessing the priorities of election promises.
Alongside this pledge, proposed improvements to practice consult fees have recently been announced. The proposition increases the subsidy for shorter consults ($95 for up to 15 minutes with a current rebate of $42.85) but does not improve the subsidy for longer consults ($155 for up to 40 minutes with a current rebate of $82.90). The proposed increase to standard consult rebates will go up by approximately 20 per cent to $63.50.
Whilst this is a considerable amount of support and money being put back into Australian pockets, the improvements neglect the significance of longer consults. According to the Royal Australian College of General practitioners, there has been a long-standing demand for
Zreika speaks out.
parties frame these struggles as liabilities rather than what they truly are: systematic failures.
The effect of these proposed strategies is immensely debilitating to the critical roles migrants play in the Australian economy and society. Life in limbo and the diaspora are tribulations many Australians continue to face today, and require their government’s support and recognition. It seems our leaders are eager to revive the myth of the ‘true blue’ Aussie at the cost of migrant experiences — not to mention the First Nations peoples.
Rather than demonising immigration, our policies must shift to support fundamental migrant-led industries, promoting the prosperity of our various industries including the economic, healthcare, construction, and education sectors.
Australia’s diverse range of cultures, skills, and ideas is our greatest asset towards promoting social cohesion and unity on a national and even international level. In the upcoming election, our vote is the amplification of the mut ed voices stangant in the limbo and navigating the diaspora.
“increased bulk-billing incentives and patient rebates for longer consultation”, especially in the 2023-2024 budget announcement. This call for funding demands more “support enhanced primary care services for vulnerable patients and more investment in rural health”, such as prioritising women’s health and complex care and management.
Included in complex and general practice care, the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme (PBS) is another unsung champion of healthcare. PBS is a program that subsidises and limits the cost of essential medication on the PBS listing determined by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). The scheme also has a concession system for those on Health Care Cards (like students living out of home) and pensioners.
The maximum co-payment for PBS medicines is currently $31.60, but if the Labor government is elected, they are promising to drop that maximum to $25 — an intriguing and relieving incentive. However, whilst valuable, the PBS scheme does not apply to all medications and is still lacking on essential medications like Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) medication.
It is crucial that students are aware how their vote on 3rd May impacts their healthcare. Especially now when essential medications like ADHD and diabetes medications and complex care cases are experiencing unprecedented curtailment.
Avin Dabiri is oh-so emotional.
Content Warning: femicide and gendered violence.
Dramatic. Emotional. Hysterical.
All words that have become all too familiar in my years as a young woman — and I know I’m not alone. But they shouldn’t mean much, right? What is it they say? Sticks and stones might break my bones, but words will never hurt me. After all, they’re only silly sounds woven together, what power do they wield?
Consequently, so many never speak out. And those who do? They have the burden of proving their pain. They have to relive their trauma and provide evidence that can rarely be quantified. And in most cases they are questioned with suspicion, rather than support. “Were you drinking at the time?”
“Have you ever made accusations like this before?” “Why didn’t you leave sooner?”
Slut.
Quiet, Beautiful, and Buried
enforces action. Our government must increase funding to family violence services, expand access to public housing for women who are escaping danger, and reform the criminal justice system to focus on survivor support, rather than skepticism. We need well-rounded strategies in schools to identify and stop violence, accountability mechanisms in workplaces.
But that’s just it. They are not simply descriptors — they’re weapons. Tools, sharpened over time, designed to frame women’s concerns as overreactions and their pain as performance. These harsh words speak to a much more insidious language, designed to shame, silence, and dismiss women.
From classrooms to workplaces, police stations to courtrooms, these words are repeated. The women of Australia are being ignored, and as a result, they are being killed. This ignorance is not an occasional oversight, but a systematic inaction that follows women from their youth.
“He was joking, you’re being dramatic!”
“Why are you crying, he barely even touched you?”
“Just ignore it — boys will be boys.”
Offhanded comments like these have turned into the bedrock of a culture that refuses to take women seriously until it’s too late. A culture that indoctrinates girls to believe from a young age that they should second-guess their instincts, swallow their discomfort, and dismiss their own harm — harm that so often escalates. And the blood that is shed is not just on the hands of the perpetrators; it stains every leader, every institution, every system that chooses to enforce dismissal over action.
This is not a coincidence, or an anomaly, or a rare misfortune. Australian women are victims of a national emergency. Every single one of us. And if this silence continues, more women will die. Not metaphorically. Not symbolically. But brutally, and in plain sight.
This violence that I’m referring to doesn’t begin with bruises or broken bones. It begins with a young girl who speaks up in a classroom, only to be ignored. Stupid. Or maybe with women who report discomfort in workplaces only to be brushed off. Bitch. More likely, it starts with victims who describe their abuse in police reports that sit unopened. Irrational. Across Australia, women are taught from their youth — in ways both quiet and loud — that their safety is negotiable. It is embedded within their souls that their discomfort is simply an inconvenience, and their fear is an overreaction.
Hormonal.
Crazy.
In the workplace, women who report harassment are met with HR departments that prioritise company image over accountability. In schools, young girls are asked to adapt their behaviour instead of addressing the concerning behaviour in their male counterparts.
Those in positions of authority, the people we are told to trust — whether they are teachers, managers, police officers — not only fail to prevent violence; they create the conditions for it to grow.
These conditions ultimately perpetuate the violence of men. Because when women are labelled and mocked instead of listened to, a clear message is extended to those who do harm: You will not be held accountable. What are our systems, our protectors, our leaders doing? They are allowing their dismissal to become permission. And slowly, violence grows from whispered threats to slammed doors, to fists, to funerals. What becomes of Australia’s women then?
Quiet.
Beautiful.
Buried.
In 2024, over 70 women were allegedly murdered at the hands of a man. 23 of them were stabbed to death, seven of them were shot, two were killed by a car. Bludgeoned. Bashed. Suffocated. Strangled. Burnt to death. Suffered severe head injuries. These aren’t isolated tragedies: they are the consequence of a system that shames women, perpetuating male violence. A system that uses their words as weapons against women until their battered bodies become evidence.
In 2022, the Australian government released The National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children, a national policy aiming to end violence against women and children within one generation. However the attempts of our leaders to prevent femicide have been anything but successful. Since 2022, Australia has seen a steady increase of the number of women killed in gender-based violence. We are not doing enough.
When our leaders only speak after the funerals commence, when police act only after a body is discovered, it is not an act of justice and it is not progressive. It is damage control, and it is shameful.
We are in a crisis, and it will not be solved with reactive policies. We need a radical shift that
And as well as policy, this change starts with us.
We need to believe women the first time they speak out. Interrupt misogynistic jokes, question casual sexism and stop brushing off discomfort as harmless. We must teach that violence, in all its forms, is never okay. Our women must be empowered; to know that their fear is not an overreaction, their voice is not too loud, that their pain is not too much.
If we want to save women, we must listen to them while they still have a voice to speak with.
This is not a women’s issue, or a feminist issue, or a debate — it is a national emergency. If we are truly serious about stopping violence against women, we must stop managing the aftermath and start dismantling the conditions that allow it to thrive. We must tear down the systems that excuse and enable perpetrators — and build new ones that centre women’s safety and the sanctity of their lives.
Australia loves its daughters quiet and buried; given attention to only once they’ve become gravesites. But no more. The time for silence has passed, and the time for reckoning is not coming. It’s already here.
If you or any of your loved ones have been affected by the issues mentioned in this article, please consider contacting the resources below:
NSW Sexual Violence Helpline: Provides 24/7 telephone and online crisis counselling for anyone in Australia who has experienced or is at risk of sexual assault, family or domestic violence and their nonoffending supporters. The service also has a free telephone interpreting service available upon request.
Safer Communities Office: Specialist staff experienced in providing an immediate response to people that have experienced sexual misconduct, domestic/family violence, bullying/harassment and issues relating to modern slavery.
Wirringa Baiya Aboriginal Women’s Service: Provides legal advice and sort for a range of issues, including domestic, sexual, and family violence, to Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander women, children and youth.
1800RESPECT: A service available 24/7 with counsellors that supports everyone impacted by domestic, family and sexual violence.
Lifeline: 24/7 suicide prevention crisis support hotline for anyone experiencing a personal or mental health crisis.
Ambition Alone: An Economic Analysis of the Women’s Budget
The Women’s Budget Statement is a slim, 87-page booklet carrying far more weight than its size suggests. First introduced by the Hawke Government in 1984, it’s a reminder that gender inequality still pervades Australian society to the extent that women require a separate budget. It’s a strange kind of acknowledgment, one that reinforces our place as the “other” who still needs extra attention just to level the field. When the classic navy budget books thudded onto my desk at Parliament House during Budget Lockup, the Women’s Budget was perched right on top, almost too perfectly placed. A gesture visible enough to say: ‘See? We didn’t forget you.’
This year’s Women’s Budget makes its pitch with hard numbers. Finance Minister Katy Gallagher made clear that women’s economic equality is a core political strategy. On the surface, the case is compelling. Since Labor took office in 2022, women have been earning an average of $217 more per week. Treasury modelling predicts an extra 900,000 hours of work each week from women, driven by reforms like cheaper childcare and expanded parental leave.
underneath the headlines: can these measures survive the grind of implementation? Will they genuinely reach the women who need them most?
The broader framing of this year’s Budget was dominated by one word: resilience. Treasurer Jim Chalmers warned of “substantial global uncertainty,” from China’s slowdown, to trade tensions, to surging gold prices, as a barometer of global nerves. Against this backdrop, the Women’s Budget isn’t just framed as social policy, it’s pitched as smart economics.
More women working boosts the labour supply. Better healthcare and safer workplaces raise productivity. Fixing longignored market failures, like the economic cost of gender-based violence, frees up growth that’s been stifled for decades.
In cities like Sydney, where a rental bond alone can swallow the full $5,000, the payment barely makes a dent.
Gallagher was keen to highlight this progress, even suggesting the gender pay gap had “closed.” But the reality is less triumphant: the gap stands at 11.9 per cent, its lowest point on record, yet women still earn, on average, $246 less per week than
But when it comes to violence, supposedly a cornerstone of this Women’s Budget, the government has fallen short. Despite the rhetoric about making Australia safer, no major new core funding was announced for longterm prevention. Advocacy groups like Full Stop Australia warn that without serious, sustained investment, the cycle of violence will continue unchecked. Oneoff payments like the Leaving Violence Payment matter, but they’re no substitute for properly resourced services, systemic education, and real cultural change. It’s another case of recognising a market failure but failing to fund the solution.
Full-time average weekly earnings for select cohorts, by gender
men. It’s a reminder that while progress is real, it’s slow, and polished talking points do little to fix the stubborn inequalities beneath them.
Nevertheless, the broader policy design rests on solid textbook economic logic. Reforms like subsidised childcare, expanded paid parental leave, and investments in women’s health aim to boost workforce participation and productivity. The government is investing $134.3 million to expand access to longacting reversible contraceptives, expected to save around 300,000 women up to $400 annually. Another $26.3 million will fund new Medicare rebates for menopause assessments, projected to benefit about 150,000 women. Together, these measures bolster human capital and lift national productivity.
Yet there’s always a harder question
women’s workforce participation. The new 3-Day Guarantee will provide families with at least 72 hours of subsidised early childhood education and care per fortnight, regardless of their work or study commitments, effectively scrapping the old activity test, which tied parents’ access to subsidised care to their work or study hours. Dr Anne Aly, Minister for Early Childhood Education, called the old test out directly: “The activity test locks out the children who can most benefit from access and has not increased workforce participation from parents.” The reforms are backed by a $5 billion investment,
for women, First Nations students, and first-in-family graduates. But they also flagged a major flaw: students enrolling from Semester 2, 2025 onwards (a sizable cohort) will miss out on the 20 per cent debt cut. As a USyd spokesperson put it, while the Budget made important moves on student debt and cost-of-living pressures, “there is more work to do in addressing the inequities highlighted by the Accord, particularly for women, First Nations, and first-in-family students affected by the former Government’s Jobready Graduates Package.”
Average employer gender pay gap and proportion of female employees, by industry
The Leaving Violence Payment itself offers up to $5,000 to help victim-survivors establish safety and independence: $1,500 in cash and $3,500 for goods and services. It also offers safety planning, risk assessments, and service referrals for up to 12 weeks. It’s a serious acknowledgment that money (or lack thereof) is one of the biggest barriers to leaving abuse. But, like much of the Women’s Budget, ambition meets reality fast. In cities like Sydney, where a rental bond alone can swallow the full $5,000, the payment barely makes a dent. Strict eligibility criteria have also meant that fewer than half of the applicants successfully receive it. Without deeper investment in affordable housing and frontline services, payments like this risk becoming little more than band-aid solutions.
Childcare reforms are another critical part of the government’s pitch to boost
including plans to build and expand 160 centres and deliver a 15 per cent wage rise for early childhood educators.
In theory, subsidising childcare lowers the cost of working and brings more women back into the labour market. But these reforms will only shift participation if there are enough centres and trained workers to meet demand. These are not quick fixes: they are multi-year structural reforms that will take time to implement.
Meanwhile, student debt relief emerged as one of the Budget’s smarter and more quietly gendered economic plays. If re-elected, Labor plans to slash existing HECSHELP debts by 20 per cent, raise the minimum repayment threshold, and shift to a marginal rate system. It wasn’t pitched as a women’s policy, but the gendered impact is obvious. Women are more likely to carry student debt longer, thanks to lower early-career earnings and the stop-start nature of working life when caregiving responsibilities fall on their shoulders.
Still, the Women’s Budget fits neatly into the Treasurer’s broader story: using targeted investment to build a more productive, inflation-resilient economy. Spending on early education, aged care, healthcare, and safer workplaces isn’t just moral; it’s economic, designed to lift Australia’s labour supply.
Private sector momentum is already picking up. Business investment is strengthening, domestic demand is rebounding, and real GDP forecasts are being revised upward. If women’s labour force participation continues to rise, productivity gains materialise, and inflation stays under control, Australia could engineer the rare “soft landing” that has eluded other economies.
“There is more work to do in addressing the inequities highlighted by the Accord, particularly for women, First Nations, and first-in-family students affected by the former Government’s Job-ready Graduates Package.”
But those are a lot of ‘ifs.’
Execution risk looms over every line of this Budget. If the childcare sector can’t expand fast enough, if gender pay gaps creep back after subsidies end, or if healthcare bottlenecks aren’t cleared, the promised gains could quietly slip away. Many of the benefits highlighted in this Budget won’t be fully felt until years down the track.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 44 per cent of women who were unavailable for work in 2023–24 cited caring for children as the main reason, compared to just 4 per cent of men. Hence, reducing student debt means more disposable income and stronger workforce attachment for women juggling work, study, and care.
The University of Sydney welcomed these reforms, noting the likely benefits
Thus, the 2025–26 Women’s Budget isn’t a finished product. It’s a foundation. The economic logic is sound. The ambition is clear. But the hard part is the slow, grinding work of turning ambition into lived reality.
As any economist (or any woman in Australia) could tell you, ambition alone doesn’t keep women safe and secure.
Industrial Relations Paralysis: A Brief History
I can scarcely remember a time over the last few years where ‘essential workers’ haven’t been in an industrial dispute or on strike. Most recently the NSW doctor’s strikes, the nurse’s strike, the rail worker dispute, and teacher’s strikes. One would be forgiven for not realising that NSW, in fact, has a Labor government.
A persistent argument is that a crosssector increase in wages will cause runaway inflation. Yet real data shows that the fall in real wages due to the COVID pandemic has caused a 14-year setback in wage growth. This is on top of a trend since the ‘70s of the declining labour share of income. In other words, a wage rise won’t cause runaway inflation and is not the current driver of inflation.
This phenomenon is not new. At the risk of sounding obvious, this is intrinsic to the neoliberal order that seeks to divide workers for the benefit of the elites.
We cannot start without mentioning the Prices & Incomes Accords. They were a series of agreements between the Australian Labor Party (ALP) — who held power in the Hawke-Keating era — and the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), where the unions agreed to restrain their wage demands for the purposes of curtailing inflation. In return, all workers would be afforded a ‘social wage’, in the form of Medicare, mandatory superannuation, and ending the wage freezes of the Fraser era.
There are differing views on whether or not the Accords were the heralds of neoliberalism in Australia or a temporary bulwark against the proliferation of neoliberal policies worldwide.
The Accords were initially supported enthusiastically by most of the trade union movement as it catapulted them to the centre of economic decision making.
Historian Frank Stillwell points out that the Accords were meant to be more than an incomes policy. They were meant to be a broad program of social and economic reforms that would platform trade unions at the centre of decision making, but were subsequently ignored.
Additionally, there exists an inherent contradiction where the Accords attempted to balance the power of an organised labour movement with the capitalist interest of government and business. Where overwhelmingly, the government will capitulate to business interests, is it any surprise that the power of labour is reduced in tripartite processes?
Prior to the Accords, Australia’s industrial relations system was characterised by militant sections of industries negotiating strong increases in wages and conditions that would be generalised by industrial tribunals in award rate increases. A system where the wage gains of the militant would flow to all workers.
Compared to the present day, the Award system simply provides a ‘back stop’ to prevent enterprise agreements from undermining labour standards.
The era that brought about the most damage was the Howard Liberal Government (1996-2007) legislating WorkChoices in 2005, which significantly curtailed unfair dismissal protections, imposed greater restrictions on industrial action, and promoted individual contracts — Australian workplace agreements (AWA) — over collective bargaining.
By the time the Rudd Labor government was elected in 2007 the blade of neoliberalism had already sunk too deep into the fabric of industrial relations. Despite the introduction of the National Employment Standards and the banning of AWAs, the effects of this new industrial regime festered like a wound. Notably, the Fair Work Act 2009 continued to legitimise ‘agreements’ with unrepresented workers.
To this day, Australia retains restrictions on the right to strike labelled by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) as excessive and “in breach of international labour standards.” For a strike to be ‘legal’ — otherwise referred to as protected industrial action — unions must be in a bargaining period, apply and hold a ballot to hold a strike, then provide their employer notice.
Everything can be bought and sold. Every aspect of our world has been commodified. Life has become an economic exchange — from our land, to our thoughts, to our sicknesses, our education, and our physical bodies, all the way to our fundamental human experiences such as death, birth, and love. We are not just living in a market; we are the market. And it is only getting worse. The reality is, everything has a price. If you cannot cough up the money, you don’t only get left behind, you get punished. You are left fending for yourself.
We have all entered into this arrangement: you pay, or you die. So, we are left trying to navigate a world where billionaires can indulge in lavish lifestyles. At the bottom of their business buildings, people are sleeping rough, hoping each day that their situation will change. In 2017, where roughly 60 people experiencing homelessness in were forcibly removed from Martin Place, their encampment dismantled by “[d]ump trucks, police and council workers” under the shadow of two of Australia’s most powerful financial institutions, the former Westpac headquarters and the Reserve Bank of Australia.
It has become clear to me that the system is not broken — rather, it is working exactly as it is intended to work.
What makes it worse is that we know. We witness the inequality and exploitation every day. We provide our labour, we receive “compensation”, and then we fall
The Industrial Relations Reform Act 1993 introduced the concept of protected industrial action, formalised by the Fair Work Act 2009. The irony of introducing the concept of ‘legal’ strike action was that employers became much more likely to sanction workers when their industrial action was illegal, suppressing the ‘right’ to strike overall.
There is far more to the story of industrial relations than we are able to cover here. Since 2022, the Albanese Labor government has introduced several industrial relations reforms such as the criminalisation of wage theft, clarifying the definition of an employee versus a contractor, and ensuring equal pay for labour hire. Much work remains to be done, and workers do not yet have an adequate right to strike.
The reforms that have been passed so far are long overdue, but we should not settle. Electoralism is neither the beginning nor the end. Only organised labour will save us. Militant unions like the Builders Labourers’ Federation (BLF) led the Green Bans and Pink Bans, and they emphasise the integral role of organised labour in standing in solidarity with the environmental and queer movement respectively. They are a reminder of what the labour movement could look like. They are a reminder of why we must fight.
Read full article online.
Pay or Die: Unions vs. the Elite
into debt again. We fall into this cycle to afford the basics of survival: housing, food, education. Yet, instead of resisting, many have come to believe that this system isn’t just inevitable, but beneficial. We haven’t only been oppressed, our consent has been manufactured.
But this raises a critical question: who exactly is doing the manufacturing?
Enter Sheldon Wolin, a prominent contemporary political philosopher. In Democracy Incorporated (2008), he describes a system he calls ‘inverted totalitarianism’ — a new kind of rule that doesn’t rely on visible oppression, but rather on quiet control. Traditional totalitarianism demands obedience at gunpoint. Inverted totalitarianism just needs you to keep shopping, keep scrolling, and keep accepting.
Democracy remains in appearance. You still get to technically choose, but only between what’s already been preapproved. Elections happen, but power isn’t in the hands of the public; it’s in corporate boardrooms, lobbying groups, and unelected agencies.
We are always told that if we work hard, are creative enough, entrepreneurial enough, anyone can create a ‘successful’ life like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. This promise is a mirage. For every one person who makes it, there are millions whose labour made their climb possible — yet they remain invisible, left with treacherous working conditions, underpayment, and exhaustion. This
brutal reality can be clearly seen in the cobalt mines of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where Congo workers describe their relationship at work to be “like slave and a master” — where the basic wage for a large day of work The Guardian reports to be “equivalent of £2.60 ($3.50) a day”. Workers face deadly risks everyday, with tunnels collapsing, workers being buried alive and staggering amounts of fatalities, all while companies like Apple, Google and Tesla, exploit child and cheap labour to fuel their vast profits, turning a blind eye to the human cost of their mineral supply chains.
This myth of meritocracy is dangerous, as it shifts the burden of systemic failure onto individuals. It is weaponised to justify inequality, to convince us that the rich are rich because they are smarter or more talented, or have worked harder. If we are to truly challenge this narrative, we must understand the power of collective resistance. This is where unionism — and the broader idea of collective organisation — plays a pivotal role in standing up and fighting back.
Unions represent one of the last truly powerful mechanisms to push against unchecked corporate power. They challenge the fundamental logic of ‘pay or die’. In a world that demands competition, productivity, and individual success, unions stand for solidarity, collective power, and mutual aid. They remind us that we are not isolated units of labour to be bought and sold, but rather a collective force that can demand more than just
mere survival; a force that can demand dignity, justice, and equity.
In the face of inverted totalitarianism — where the lines between government and corporate interests blur — unions offer a way to reassert popular control. They are a reminder that power does not come from the top down, but instead it comes from the bottom up. When workers unite, they force those in power to listen. They demand that corporations prioritise the well-being of workers, the environment, and society over profit.
The road to meaningful change is not easy. Corporations and governments work relentlessly to suppress union power, to divide the working class, and to convince us that we’re all just one big free market away from success. They use fear, misinformation, and legislation to weaken unions and reduce their influence.
If we want to confront the ‘pay or die’ mentality that is ingrained in the fabric of our society, we must organise — in our workplaces, in our communities, and in our political movements. We must resist the false narrative that we’re powerless. We must reject the idea that survival is a luxury reserved for the rich, and instead fight for a world where no one is left behind — where human dignity is more important than profit, and where solidarity becomes the foundation of our society.
Find your union and join it today.
HACK1001: How To Become a Parliamentarian
Mehnaaz Hossain, Imogen Sabey, and Victor Zhang are tired of hacks.
Victor vividly remembers a Young Labor event where the Deputy Premier remarked that the young people in the room would one day become “MPs, Ministers, and even Prime Ministers”, to which his comrade turned and remarked, rather loudly, “that’s scary” — the silence to this remark was palpable.
The story of politicians cutting their teeth in student politics is not new, but it should make us reflect on the student politicians around us and the ones that have become parliamentarians.
Where better to start than at the very top?
Anthony Albanese began his political career early, joining the Australian Labor Party at 15. Before he began studying at USyd, he worked for the Commonwealth Bank for two years, and then enrolled in an economics degree.
Albanese had hardly set foot onto campus before he started getting involved in student politics. According to the 1984 Honi election edition, he had been elected as the Ethnic Affairs Officer from 1982-1984, and had been involved as an Education Collective Member from 1981-1984. His policy statement read, “As an ALP Club candidate, I consider that representing student interests and democratic socialism are synonymous… The inequalities in society are currently perpetuated and legitimised by an undemocratic education system.”
In 1984, Albanese involved himself in a campus conflict two decades in the brewing, labelled by academics Evan Jones and Frank Stilwell as “one of the most substantial and enduring academic conflicts within Australia”. The conflict had begun in the early ‘60s, when two new economics professors set about restructuring their course, leading to widespread dissatisfaction among students, who staged a “day of protest” in 1973 and a “day of outrage” in 1974. Dissent simmered for years, and came to a head in ‘84 when Albanese, alongside several other student politicians, scaled the Quadrangle Clock Tower in a dramatic act of protest. He and other students stayed put for three weeks until police moved in to forcefully evict them, as well as fine them $100 each.
After Albanese
rise in the ALP ranks; he’d been a member of the party since 1979. He became a research officer for Tom Uren, who was the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, before gaining the coveted position of Assistant General Secretary for the ALP NSW branch in 1989. Not only is this a salaried office in the Party’s machine, but after their term in this office, Assistant General Secretaries can soon expect a spot for them in parliament — which eventuated in him winning the seat of Grayndler in 1996, one year after he retired from his position in the machinery. It was a slow and steady ascent to the top office, but photos of Albanese climbing the Clock Tower continue to remind us of the storied past of the Prime Minister. The rest is history — his abysmal record on Palestine, climate action, women’s safety, and First Nations justice is there for all to see.
Moving a few decades along, Jo Haylen became the USyd SRC President in 2003, during a time when the Liberal Government aimed to legislate voluntary student unionism (VSU) — a policy that would cut student union numbers down by approximately 95 per cent and weaken funding for student services and amenities. She organised protests against the sweeping changes to tertiary education, clashing with police in the process.
Haylen then worked as a staffer for Julia Gillard and Anthony Albanese before becoming the Mayor of Marrickville in 2013. In the 2015 NSW State election, she contested the seat of Summer Hill, which she won and has held to the present day.
While in opposition, Haylen made statements in solidarity with the Rail, Train, and Bus Union (RTBU) during their strikes when they were stonewalled by the Liberal Government. Closer to the university, she called for the provision of transport concession fares for international and part-time students.
In 2023, following Labor’s victory at the state election, Haylen was made Minister for Transport. Many had hoped that this change in government would herald progressive change in transport policy, given her statements in opposition.
After a NSW parliament petition reached 20,000 signatures calling for the provision of transport concessions to international
this policy.
During the Combined Rail Unions (CRU) dispute with the NSW Government, the government failed to negotiate in good faith with the CRU, instead resorting to barring industrial action and lockouts of go-slow actions.
Beyond the disappointments stated above, Haylen’s time as Transport Minister was also marred by controversial staffing arrangements. It ended in February 2025 with her resignation over the use of a taxpayer-funded ministerial car for a private trip.
Two years after Haylen’s stint in the SRC, Rose Jackson would pick up the mantle of SRC Presidency in 2005. By then, the Liberal Government had introduced a bill to enact VSU. Jackson, as an activist, orchestrated the student campaign against VSU, gaining mainstream media attention and establishing herself as an up-andcoming young voice in the Labor Party. In 2006, Jackson became President of the NUS before working as a Labor staffer the following year.
During her staffer days, as campaign manager for George Newhouse who was the candidate for Wentworth in the 2007 federal election, The Australian’s front page displayed a leaked email sent from Jackson as NUS President in 2006 — during the Lebanon War — in which she had written “I oppose Zionism because it calls for the creation of a Jewish state, and I think all governments should be secular”. Jackson backtracked immediately, declaring “I support Israel”, and claimed she had not understood the definition of Zionism previously.
Jackson became an MLC in NSW Parliament in 2019 after her stint as Assistant General Secretary of NSW Labor. In parliament, Jackson supported the Coalition’s Roads and Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2022, which criminalises protests on “major roads or major public facilities” with fines of up to $22,000, imprisonment for two years, or both. She cited the disruptive climate protests that sparked the introduction of this Bill as “why the left can’t have nice things”. In the parliamentary debate, she claims that climate protestors are “not helping” and that they should instead convince others of the virtues of electoralism. She also claimed that she did not think the Bill would in fact criminalise protest and that if the Bill was used to target non-violent
protestors, “it is utterly unacceptable and these laws should be trashed.”
Within the same year of the Bill being passed, climate activist Violet Coco was arrested and charged under these laws. Despite the NSW Supreme Court finding parts of the Bill to be unconstitutional, the NSW government, now held by Labor, had only sought to expand it.
During a 2024 interview with the Daily Telegraph — a puff piece to rehabilitate her image after a radio disaster where she claimed rent in Sydney could be only “a few hundred dollars” — Jackson patronisingly denounced her young leftist days: “The Gaza stuff is really hot on campus and part of me is understanding… But part of me is like, the world in which you live is not the world… I hope they have a chance to get a bit of perspective.” She whitewashed the ongoing genocide in Gaza, one which she presumably would have protested against as a student activist.
Towards the end of the piece, the Telegraph wrote that “The activist and feisty feminist is not entirely gone”, given Jackson’s decision to bow rather than curtsy to King Charles. It’s unclear how this functions as either activism or feisty feminism. Jackson herself stated, “I’ve made peace with bowing to authority.” In turn, she has made peace with being spineless.
The aforementioned three Labor politicians, hailing from the ‘Hard Left’ faction, began their political journeys with student activism — where protest forms the core of said activism. Yet, quickly after graduating, they shed their leftleaning beliefs and, in the case of the NSW parliamentarians, ushered in legislation that criminalises protest.
It then begets the question, did the party machine rip out any progressive politics from these storied figures, or were they always this way? To only play the part of activists when it suited them.
We can only caution the eager student politician that might be reading this masthead: that a seat in parliament is not the end goal; that true power comes from down below, from the grassroots; and betrayal is not forgotten.
Editor’s note: Mehnaaz Hossain is a member of the Australian Greens, Victor Zhang is a member of the ALP, NSW Branch
A Booster Seat In Parliament
Ellie Robertson, Imogen Sabey, and Charlotte Saker are young people in politics.
Imagine this: you’re on a date. You’re discussing the rental market, how your uni fees have increased, and you’re bonding over your favourite punk band! It’s going well, until “I’m not really into politics” slips from their mouth. You are horrified.
This idea that someone can be “not into politics” is inherently impossible. Everything around us has politics weaved into it. It could be something as little as your coffee price increasing by 50 cents, to the way you’re treated in the workplace as a marginalised person. Though it may seem it, due to the oversaturated governance of old white men talking about human rights and toxic nationalism, the world of politics is not as far away from your 20-something year old self as you may think. Not only does the political system affect your current daily life, it affects your future, and your representation matters just as much as those with ‘more life experience’.
Young voters between 18-24 years old make up approximately 10 per cent of the national electorate in Australia. Although this statistic doesn’t seem like much, it can make a major difference in the outcome of a close-knit election result. As of March 2025, the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) reported that the enrolment rates of 18-24 year olds surpassed the target of 87 per cent with a large 90.4 per cent enrolled to vote in the Federal Election 2025. This has been a large increase in young voters since the last Federal Election in March 2022 when the youth enrolment rate was as low as 85.4 per cent. Some will put this down to the compulsory nature of the Australian voting system, however young people are becoming more involved in political actions in general.
This includes the political activity at our very own university. In the 2024 Student Representative Council (SRC) Elections, the student voting turnout increased by 29.95 per cent — from 2,132 voters in 2023 to 2,776 in 2024. Though there has been a decline since before the COVID-19 pandemic, it is slowly on the rise again. With the recent implementations of the Campus Access Policy, attempts to reduce time frames for simple extensions, and the university investing money in weapons manufacturing rather than student amenities, students are beginning to realise that the issues that affect their daily student life are embedded within student politics and how the student unions — both the SRC and University of Sydney Union (USU) — are run. Governance of the SRC and USU are dependent on the student body, and determines what our Student Services and Amenities Fees (SSAF) is spent on. The governance of the SRC and USU are very similar to the likes of the ‘real’ political world, with many of the candidates running under party-affiliated tickets. This means that your vote counts towards the real direction of how your own fees are spent. Take the recent USU Special General Meeting (SGM) as an example: the plan put forth in the motion was to change the governance structure of the USU Board — there were 194 voters. This change in governance would have changed the dynamic of the USU Board, and in turn
would affect future decisions made about our student life. Hence, we need to remain aware of the politics around us — however small — and its impact on our daily lives.
Sitting on the edge of ignorance can cost you a lot, including the overwhelmingly expensive pizzas on campus. On a broader scale, it can cost you higher weekly rent, higher medical bills, and an egg shortage. Of course, these aren’t the only things that you are sacrificing having control over when not being aware of the happenings in the political world. This is where Federal politics comes into play.
The federal parliament represents the people of Australia in lawmaking, providing a place for government, and conducting checks and balances on governmental work. Out of the 151 members elected to the House of Representatives and the 76 elected to the Senate, all but one representative are over the age of 30. A common narrative used by older generations is that young people ‘don’t have enough life experience’ to become a respected politician; this is a transferable narrative used against young people in workplaces and general society. It is a difficult saying to crack considering many older MPs have been deemed as ‘arrogant’ and ‘incompetent’ — see public polling regarding Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton.
The truth is, it’s difficult, but not impossible, for young people to be involved in federal politics. To be a senator or member of the House of Representatives, you simply need to be 18 years old — otherwise known as ‘legal’ — as well as have an Australian citizenship, a job outside of the Australian Government or Defence Force, no criminal record, and are eligible to vote in elections. While anyone of age can reach Parliament, the average age for members and senators is 52, creating a major generational gap. Every once in a blue moon though, a lucky politician in their twenties snags their very own booster seat in Parliament.
Former Prime Ministers Malcolm Fraser and Paul Keating were both 25 when they were first elected. Wyatt Roy was the youngest ever member to be elected into the House of Representatives, elected at only 20 years old and endorsed by Tony Abbott for the Liberal Party. Meanwhile, Jordan Steele-John was 23 when he became the youngest elected senator for the Greens. Nevertheless, it’s important to remember that many younger members who reach Parliament often come from privileged backgrounds: Fraser was the son of wealthy graziers and grew up on a sheep station in NSW, while Roy was raised on a strawberry farm in Brisbane. Access to networks, resources, and early political opportunities often sets these young candidates apart from the average young Australian.
While younger politicians’ place in the federal parliament remains scarce, they are thriving in local councils. You don’t need to be part of a major political party — local campaigns are smaller-scale and lower-
cost, and offer a valuable launchpad for a future political career, potentially allowing you to reach Parliament by the time you’re 52! Right now, candidates as young as 19 are being elected. In 2024, Liberal Party candidate Cameron Last became the youngest councillor for Ryde City Council at 20 years old. His campaign emphasised accessible community services, including a proposal to keep Ryde’s library open 24 hours a day.
Meanwhile, Libby Austin found herself unexpectedly elected to Penrith City Council’s East Ward at 19 years old. Initially volunteering as a ‘ballot warmer’ in what was considered an unwinnable fifth spot on Labor’s ticket, Austin’s election was secured when the Liberal Party failed to nominate any candidates, leading to an uncontested win. Austin aims to establish a youth committee within the council to amplify young voices in local governance.
While the rise of Gen Z representation has allowed for small changes at the local level, it doesn’t give young leaders direct power over systemic economic issues like the cost of living crisis: the very crisis that has, ironically, discouraged many from running. Faced with rising rents, insecure work, and the high cost of campaigning, many young people cannot afford the time or money it takes to launch a political career, even at the council level.
Beyond financial barriers, young candidates often lack the political networks that older politicians rely on, face age-based discrimination, and risk online harassment. In recent years, young politicians like Greens Senator Jordon Steele-John have faced ableist abuse, with Steele-John calling for an end to “segregation and ableism in government policy.” The 2020 Victorian local council elections also saw a spike in online threats targeting young and female councillors. A 2023 study from Monash University found that women, LGBTQ+ candidates, and candidates of colour experience disproportionate harassment during election campaigns, adding yet another hurdle for the next generation of leaders.
Thus, to encourage more youth participation, the Office for Youth set up a strategy called ‘Engage!’ in March 2024. The initiative aims to empower young people of all backgrounds to have a say on issues that impact them. The strategy is straightforward: they “will recognise and listen to young people,” “empower young people to advocate and engage with the government,” and “will support the government to work with young people.”
The Australian Government consulted over 4,600 young people across Australia to inform them of the ‘Engage!’ strategy. Young people voiced clear priorities: greater inclusion in decision-making, easier access to government information, genuine respect for their views, and a range of ways to engage in government. In response, ‘Engage!’ converted those ideas to six action points and committed to publishing an annual progress report, which we are waiting for.
While the strategy includes annual youth forums for in-person discussion, youth advisory groups that work with departments, and a future digital youth hub, much of the engagement so far has been limited to surveys. It’s striking that such a framework only launched in 2024, building youth voices into government should have been a priority long ago. Moreso, a lot of the ways they plan to ‘engage’ still relies heavily on governmentled consultation rather than young people having shared authority and decisionmaking power.
In August 2021, the University of Canberra (UOC) facilitated an initiative to better represent young people in Australian politics, through two town hall events led by federal member for Canberra, Alicia Payne MP. Project lead and Associate Professor from the UOC, Selen Ercan, said the events would ‘create the perfect environment for young people to connect with parliamentary representatives’, and provide a space for young people to air their frustrations, hopes, and creative solutions for Australian democracy.
Fellow project lead Dr Nick Vlahos highlighted that while lowering the voting age is one potential solution, broader discussions about formal politics and youth representation are crucial for addressing intergenerational challenges. Alicia Payne MP echoed the importance of including young voices, noting that young Australians will bear the consequences of current political decisions for years to come, yet often have no formal say in them.
Building upon this foundation, Alicia Payne launched The Canberra Forum in 2022, an ongoing panel designed to foster deeper engagement between constituents and their elected representatives, with a particular focus on including younger voices in decision-making. The forum convened a diverse group of Australians to deliberate on pressing issues, culminating in a 2023 report offering recommendations to improve access to affordable housing, an issue disproportionately affecting young Australians. This report was presented to parliament, as an act of integrating youth input into the policymaking process.
Ultimately, though it may seem as though young people have as much power as a backseat driver in an old man’s SUV, it is not nearly as impossible as the media allude to. There are many ways to be involved from a young age, both inside and outside the world of ‘real’ politics. The first step is to recognise the political issues that surround you. Don’t be ignorant to how these issues affect you in almost every aspect of your existence. Secondly, get involved in activism! Join the campaigns in your communities, on your university campus, and join radical actions and movements that relate to your beliefs. And lastly, if you are so inclined, run as a political candidate. They may be able to fearmonger the youth, but this is only the beginning for our generation. Soon enough, we’ll be taking the wheel in federal politics.
Fast Trains, Climate Change and Populism: Trumpet of Patriots and You
Calista Burrowes dissects advertising.
Disclaimer: The following campaign ads are what has been published to the Trumpet of Patriots website as of 11th April 2025. Consider this a general rundown.
Every election cycle, Clive Palmer and his latest political venture become inescapable. From billboards to morning talk shows, he is everywhere and his new political party — Trumpet of Patriots — is no exception. I have watched every campaign advertisement I could get my hands on and the claim of “commonsense policies”, as I expected, truly isn’t “commonsense” at all. But more than, what I did not expect, is that this project would illuminate some serious issues within every aspect of our political landscape, not just a single party or politician.
Tucker Carlson endorses Clive Palmer
Tucker Carlson and Clive Palmer are individuals who think of themselves as anti-establishment. Carlson ‘calls out’ billionaires. Palmer ‘exposes’ the government for working against the people. In reality, they are cloutchasers. They are the system. Carlson was one of Fox News’ most popular personalities and continues to be an extremely popular podcaster. He is the system. Palmer, whilst not currently an elected official, is not truly against the system, rather he is against this current iteration of it, which has not worked in his favour. He is an opportunist who is vapidly anti-establishment, only when it suits his attempted political gains.
Cost of living — 3 Million Households Can’t Afford Meals
The issue of food insecurity being raised is not objectionable, it is a real problem in Australia and is symptomatic of wider economic concerns. We should be placing pressure on our leaders to act, as well as helping out our communities and neighbours who are struggling. However, this ad positions the issue as something that is on regular people. Palmer consistently points out these issues and says that the “government is
not doing anything about it”. But this is never followed by a plan or actions he would take as a leader. Instead, Palmer tells us to “say a prayer for our fellow Australians” with no course of action in sight. This theme of all talk and no action will, frustratingly, come up again and again.
Affordable Homes — Fast Trains to CBD
Look, I don’t know how so-called “fast trains” and affordable housing are related. I don’t think Palmer knows either. This ad is incoherent, at one point becoming a dot-point list of words like “cheap and abundant land” with no meaning attached. But this, in my perspective, is not the point of the ad. The point of the ad is an attempt for Palmer to position himself as having solutions, telling the viewer that the government doesn’t care enough to make affordable housing. It doesn’t matter that he has no plans, all that matters is that he is able to seem slightly more people-minded than the major parties (even if that is not the case).
Cost of Renewables — Energy Prices Have Exploded
In this ad, Palmer makes the claim that the increase in use of renewable energies are correlated to rising energy bills and the cost of living. This claim is absolutely misleading and, frankly, dangerous. Renewable energy is actually the most inexpensive energy option and is becoming increasingly accessible. What is instead causing a rise in energy prices is Australia’s dependence on gas and coal, which are unreliable and costly resources. Concerningly, Palmer also presented a debunked 2004 documentary claiming the difficulty in determining if human activity has increased the earth’s temperature as “exposing the truth.” This is a lie and a misleading representation of anthropogenic climate that will, undoubtedly, embolden climate denialists.
All Australians Are Equal Under the Southern Cross — Suellen
We finally get to the first ad featuring
the Party’s leader, Suellen Wrightson. This ad is just as, if not moreso, confusing as every other ad before it. The ad’s main premise is that all Australians are equal and we shouldn’t praise people “[we’ve] never heard of.” There is little explanation of what this means or any examples at all of who this could be referring to. There is no point in even investigating what this could possibly mean, as we are simply dealing with nonsense. It is barely worth discussing, it is just another attempt at vapid and meaningless populism.
Too Much Immigration Overwhelms Infrastructure
What do you get when you add a lack of a plan and clout-chasing politicians together? Culture wars! This ad is, to put it simply, a way to stay relevant. From Peter Dutton’s proposed referendum on dual citizens to Labor’s failed international student caps, migrants have been used as a scapegoat over the election cycle as a way to explain the housing and costof-living crises we are facing. Does the Party offer any actual analysis of this situation? Of course not. This ad is simply a way to enrage and engage voters, expanding both their voting base and the relevancy of their name. Just as Palmer’s 2022 election ‘policies’ were heavily anti-vaccine, his 2025 ‘policies’ are just another reiteration of that.
So why bother speaking about Palmer? It is fair to say that speaking about him, even critically, is platforming him. However, I think this is bigger than Palmer and the Party. This campaign simply brings pressing issues to light. First, and most obviously, is the rise of right-wing populism.
We are seeing a rise in “us and them” speak in all institutions across the globe, as well as increasingly conservative economic and social policies. It is not just Palmer touting this rhetoric in this election cycle, it seems as though it is everywhere. Rather than real solutions, there is blame and that blame usually lands on those who are already underrepresented or powerless,
seen recently in the incorrect claim from the NSW Government that 486 chemotherapy appointments were cancelled during the doctors’ strike, when in reality this was not the case at all. This goes hand-in-hand with the second issue, that being disillusionment.
Labor and Liberal have lost the trust of the public for very fair reasons, and as the average Australian is not very loyal to these parties anyway, people are looking for others who can represent them. This is not a bad thing in and of itself as parties and politicians should work harder to regain trust. However, what is negative is parties like Palmer’s who capitalise on this distrust through their populist language — essentially misleading voters into loyalty to a party that has not done much to earn their trust — and rather affirms their fears and biases.
The third issue is that of political illiteracy. We are seeing record low civic knowledge scores in schools and a recent study by Griffith University revealed that 47 per cent of Gen Z are voting simply to avoid being fined. It is unnecessary to be a political expert or to even care intensely about politics. However, it is imperative that we all have some basic understanding and thoughtfulness towards voting. It could be your donkey vote or ignoring of the election altogether that changes everything from HECS debt to climate policy.
Check your facts and biases this election. Question what campaigns are advertising. Red flags are everywhere and it’s important to recognise them, not just for yourself but for others. Plan your vote and use it wisely. A single seat could determine this election, so who do you really want to be the decider?
The Boy Who Cried Woke: Peter Dutton’s Weaponisation of Culture Wars Backfires
A true woke leftie must be proud of their agenda and painfully aware of their unpalatability. Politics is not a game of checkers, but rather chess: every move is calculated. Let’s be clear: the so-called ‘woke agenda’ is no grand progressive project — it’s a political cudgel, used by both sides to provoke, distract, and define the other.
This is not a symptom of Peter Dutton’s politics, rather this is his politics.
Dutton has tried to brand Labor-loyal Aussies as a pack of woke warriors who think that rising rent matters less than gender-neutral pronouns. He has made a direct attempt at characterising Labor — from director Albo to your proudly prounion barista — as woke lefties who believe that the cost-of-living crisis is irrelevant in the face of woke, cultural issues.
Watch his press conferences and you’ll notice his eyes flicker toward the teleprompter, reciting lines from Trump’s political manifesto. Trump’s 2024 victory largely had to do with his ability to dupe
the American working and middle-class voters into believing that he would offer considerably better economic outcomes than the Biden administration and, ultimately, his opponent Kamala Harris.
Here lies the critical difference: Dutton isn’t playing to a Trumpian base. Australian voters, by and large, aren’t buying it.
The cost-of-living crisis has shaped the world we currently live in. Times have been so dire that almost three-quarters of the Australian public cannot name a single thing that the Labor government has done to grant financial alleviation.
This was political gold for the Liberals’ campaign: “Three years of Labor and people are still copping a financial beating” was the perfect one-liner to paint them as economically clueless. Forget culture wars, feel your wallet. Yet the Liberals tried to spring the ‘too woke’ trap, and were ultimately unsuccessful.
Paradoxically, Peter Dutton has shown that the ‘woke agenda’ is a relatively unpopular focus for Australian politics — not by luring Labor into the trap like he planned, but by focusing on it too much
Understanding Trump
Three months after Trump’s reinauguration, and popular interpretations of his political strategy are still woeful.
Most centre his personal irrationality, suggesting Trump’s ego and psychological imbalance are now driving American politics. Others emphasise the administration’s ideology, for instance believing a conservative nostalgia for the mid-century aesthetic of ‘manly’ manufacturing is shaping trade policy. Rather than understanding Trump’s reelection as an expression of the fierce contradictions of American capitalism, liberal explanations view him as an individual aberration of American politics.
Instead, Trump’s second presidency should be centrally understood as an accelerated restructuring of American capitalism for intensifying imperialist confrontation with China. For Trump, considerations such as liberal values, international reputation, and political legitimacy are subordinate to this aim. Trump is the ideal avatar for personifying this reassertion of American hard power. His transactional attitude, ruthlessness, and arrogance serve American imperialism in marshalling its strength at this juncture to defend its
himself. His recent pledge to make efforts to stop children from being indoctrinated into the ‘woke’ agenda pushed by school curriculum, arguing that students should be “able to think freely, being able to assess what’s before them and not being told and indoctrinated with something that is the agenda of others,” has painted him as a circus clown.
Like an Aussie MAGA magic eight ball, one day Dutton is calling for everyone to return to a full week back in the office, the next he’s de-wokifying schools; not to forget boasting about his refusal to stand in front of the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander flags. But as the circus rolled through towns, Policeman Pete’s Parlour Game tent drew fewer and fewer crowds. They steadily drifted to Albo’s Trapeze of Tedium.
According to YouGov, Albo’s ratings for a two-party preferred vote have risen to 52.5 percent now, its first lead in this term. It is only fitting that we say he now ‘trumps’ his conservative opponent.
This was never about just luring the Labor party into this cudgel. It was also a strategy to make us — proud woke progressives —
dominant position in world history.
Imperialism is fundamentally economic competition elevated to the level of nationstates. Trump’s strategy is therefore to limit Chinese economic expansion, especially advanced technological development. The clearest example has been the attempt to deny China access to advanced semiconductors, a continuous project since the Biden administration now escalated under Trump.
Trump has also sought to impair the Chinese economy through its record 145 per cent tariff, hoping to curtail its exportoriented development. These tariffs are also an attempt to realise Trump’s goal of reshoring American manufacturing to ensure industrial capacity for military production, necessary for an eventual direct conflict. It is unlikely the private sector can deliver this objective. The rate of profit is presently too low to incentivise investment, and countries including China are imposing their own tariffs on the US, thus increasing manufacturing costs. To compensate for this, Trump is championing corporate tax cuts while attacking the organised working class, reshaping the share of income between capital and labour in favour of the former. Should this prove insufficient, the American state may be compelled to adopt some economic features of Chinese state
capitalism, such as taking a larger role in directing and forming capital directly.
Another barrier to making American exports compete with their Chinese counterparts is the American dollar itself.
While the USD’s position as the de-facto global reserve currency provides the US near-unlimited borrowing power, this strength of the dollar makes exports relatively expensive. It is therefore likely that the Trump administration will attempt to oversee a controlled devaluation of the dollar while retaining the exorbitant privilege of being the reserve currency at the centre of international finance.
Trump’s attacks on liberal society and state institutions are in part an aspect of this militarisation of America in order to reverse its relative imperialist decline.
The disciplining and purging of even minor liberal opposition from the judiciary, civil service, and college administrations is attempting to enforce the state-wide coordination necessary for the task of maintaining global hegemony. By inflaming American nationalism, scapegoating immigrants and LGBTQIA+
look aloof, even smug, about economic pain.
Dutton has proved how unpalatable a staunch focus on the ‘woke agenda’ is, not by successfully baiting Labor into focusing their election pitches on cultural issues, but by shooting himself in the foot by showing his own obsession with tackling the ‘woke agenda’. This sends a stark message to all fellow lefties; if you are looking to persuade Uncle Jim or conquer a finance bro, culture wars are not the answer.
If people believe the government is more concerned with what they consider mere woke propaganda than the price of their groceries, they will believe our words are hollow. As you express your outrage at Peter Dutton’s denigration of Indigenous Australians and immigrants, or his proposal to change school curriculums to ensure students aren’t being ‘indoctrinated’, remember your reaction is exactly what he hoped for.
Don’t feed the troll — especially when he’s on a diet of culture wars and canned applause.
Americans, Trump is cohering a societal uniformity and constructing the ideological preparedness for a period of hardship and international conflict.
Where does this leave Australia?
The political consensus across the Australian political class has been to deepen its geostrategic alliance with the US. Whether the upgrades to Tindal, one of Australia’s most important military airbases to host advanced nuclearcapable American bombers, or the AUKUS alliance, Australia and the US are profoundly interdependent militarily. While Australia regards the US as a military guarantor of its local sphere of influence, the US considers Australia as a continental aircraft carrier to contain China’s regional expansion.
This imperial competition will be the defining feature of international politics for at least the next decade. Understanding is the first step to defeating it.
Elaquare Spencer is woke but pragmatic.
The two-party system in Australia: Is the party finally over?
Mannan Wilkins turns the lights on.
With the federal election looming, more voters than ever are questioning the legitimacy and usefulness of the two-party system. Labor and Liberal have dominated Australian politics for over a century, but in recent years, it’s becoming increasingly clear: the system isn’t working for the people. It’s working for corporations, lobbyists, and party donors. An exponentially growing number of voters, particularly in inner-city, regional, and climate-conscious electorates, are leaving major parties behind entirely.
In 2022, a record 10 independents were elected to the House of Representatives. According to projections from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) and media polling, this number is expected to grow in the next election, with polls showing less than 30 per cent of primary votes going to major parties. This a trend that has been building over the last 40 years in all elections — both state and federal. This shift isn’t just symbolic, it has real impact. While independents have traditionally had more sway in the upper house, their presence in the House of Representatives has forced minority governments to share power and honestly negotiate. It means legislation can’t just be rushed through to serve party interests or corporate backers and instead must reflect what the community actually wants. And that’s a game-changer.
Increasingly, the major parties are being exposed for putting profits ahead of people. The three major political focus points over the last few years — climate action and energy transition, the housing crisis, and healthcare — have not been adequately addressed by either major party’s policies due to corporate interests taking a front seat. Take the Labor government’s record on fossil fuels as an example. Despite promising climate leadership, they’ve approved over 30 new coal and gas projects since 2022. Meanwhile, Peter Dutton’s ambiguous main ticket for a nuclear power future appears to be a symbolic front for the Liberal party’s not-so ‘sustainable’ onshore gas led economy. This is especially cynical considering 82 per cent of Australians support phasing out coal and gas and rejecting the development of onshore invasive gas mining.
Additionally, both major parties have stalled on real reform on housing while big developers and landlords have been reaping the benefits. This culture of continued selfinterested policy formulation has taken its toll on the Australian people, driving this seismic shift. Even minor parties, like the Greens, aren’t completely immune from criticism. While they position themselves as progressive, internal party dynamics and top-down control have at times silenced grassroots voices. Senator Lidia Thorpe departed from the Greens in 2023, citing her inability to fully represent the
Blak Sovereign Movement from within the party. This is indicative of how even supposedly more progressive parties still require members to toe the party line. This can result in restrictions upon accurate representation of their constituents’ interests, that may fall outside of agreed upon party positions.
MPs are expected to follow the party line and advocate for corporate interests, even when it contradicts their electorate’s needs or their own principles. Straying from that line can mean losing preselection, funding, or future career prospects within the party. Russell Broadbent — a long-time Liberal backbencher who left the party in 2023 — claims his departure and lack of progression in the party was resultant of “not toeing the party line” and “a tendency to challenge party policies” that he did not align with, such as offshore processing of asylum seekers. It seems that standing with notions of justice and fairness worked against him in the party system.
This makes genuine representation incredibly difficult, and in a current crisisladen era, people are noticing that their voices are not being heard and votes for major parties are ‘at an all time low’ according to Sarah Cameron, a senior lecturer at Griffith Business School. This unwillingness to compromise on moral principle and true representation has been the major reason for multiple MPs
leaving their respective parties to join the crossbench, including previous Fatima Payman, Jacqui Lambie, Andrew Gee, and Bob Katter. Independent MPs and minor parties offer a more ethical alternative that is often community-backed and funded. The success of the Teal independents in 2022, and other grassroots campaigning independents, such as Dai Le and David Pocock, in both Liberal and Labor stronghold seats, proves that voters from all ends of the political spectrum are fed up with being ignored.
Unlike the US, Australia has a preferential voting system, where voters aren’t locked into binary choices. You can vote for who your values align with knowing your preferences will still count. This is especially important for young and firsttime voters to know as they are often told ‘to vote strategically’ for one of the major parties. But the truth is, when more people vote for what they truly support it creates tangible change.
So, is the party over?
Not quite, but now that independents are gaining traction in the lower house perhaps we are at the stage where it’s finally clear to see the mess that’s been made. If young voters keep showing up, questioning power, and voting for real representation we’re the ones who’ll decide what comes next.
I’m a Minority and I like to Party! Unique mini parties you should know about.
Annabel Li, Lotte Weber, and Will Winter like to party.
With 16 independents and minor parties elected to the crossbench, we take a look at significant minority parties in the upcoming election:
Legalise Cannabis
Is Snoop Dogg’s discography playing through your head as you step into the voting booth on election day? We all have our vices, and weed might just be yours. Originally founded in 1993 under the candidate name Nigel Freemarijuana, the Legalise Cannabis Party has its roots in hippie-central Nimbin, NSW. Now, they’re running in every state and territory, and have even snagged a seat in the NSW Upper House. If you’d like to unleash your free spirit this party may be just for you. Sometimes, a bevvy and durry just isn’t enough on a night out.
Shooters, Fishers, and Farmers Party
If the new fisherman aesthetic is taking over your social media, it might be time to take it one step further: through the Shooters, Fishers, and Farmers Party. Founded in 1992 by Sydney native John Tingle, the party formed after the NSW government proposed to tighten gun control laws after a string of mass
shootings and attacks. For Tingle, owning firearms was vital to self-defence… wait, this is starting to all sound quite familiar?! While they’ve expanded to now represent recreational fishers and rural farmers, the opportunity for Australia to dick-ride the United States doesn’t stop here.
Animal Justice Party
On the other end of the spectrum, the Animal Justice Party (AJP) defends all our furry friends — no, not those furry friends! — campaigning for a federal animal protection body to defend critters, large and small. They focus on preserving native species, ending live animal exportation, banning duck shooting, and phasing out animal experimentation and entertainment. Cementing itself in the minds’ of Australian voters as “the one with the ex-stripper”, the party’s Victorian MP, Georgie Purcell, is well-known for her unconventional, tattoos and all approach to government. AJP also supports climate action, asylum seekers, abortion, decriminalised cannabis, and raising the age of criminal responsibility. These guys are the Greens’ cooler, younger sister.
Jacqui Lambie Party
Platformed as “not your average
politician”, Jacqui Lambie and her flagship party have taken root in Australia as one of the political sects with the most integrity. Love her or hate her, Lambi is willing to plant both her feet in policies and stand firmly, especially now that she’s broken off from Clive Palmer and his Big Bird brain. Grounded in the ‘everyday Australian’, the Jacqui Lambie party primarily invests their time in veterans affairs and services, Government transparency, and reducing foreign investments in housing and politicians. Sure, these policies can sound ocker and slightly racist at times, but you know it’s true to the heart of Lambie and her party. Running two Senate candidates each in NSW, SA, QLD, and the party’s homeland of Tassie, if you can guarantee anything from the Jacqui Lambie Party, it’s that they’ll put up a bloody good fight for what they believe in.
Family First
What is more bizarre, dysfunctional, and problematic than family? This conservative party champions “family” values such as banning gender-affirming surgery, “protecting” children from LGBTQ+ ideology, abolishing “coercive” diversity training, eliminating critical race theory in schools, and incentivising monogamous, heterosexual marriage.
They are staunchly anti-abortion, because of course, they are willing to welcome all children into their big, happy family — just as long as they aren’t ‘diverse’.
FUSION
Formed after an increase in the quota for minimum party membership to run in a federal election, the Fusion Party fuses the Pirate Party, Secular Party, Science Party, Vote Planet, and Climate Change Justice Party in an attempt to hold my small word count for this paragraph hostage. The building blocks of this conglomerate are “ecological harmony”, “liberty” and “self-actualisation”, “ethical conduct”, and a baseline of “equity” in all policy decisions. Purportedly grassroots, the Fusion party seeks to consult volunteers and communities to discover pragmatic and vital solutions to reversing the climate crisis, as well as through investments in public education and science. Notably, they support ending the nuclear power ban, but for the purpose of developing nuclear fusion — living up to their name! Their foreign policy seems to follow their vague ethos of fusing diplomatic relations internationally. However, their lack of specificity here leaves us wondering what sort of cuisines they’d truly be harmonising if they were a metaphorical restaurant.
Australia’s Democracy: A Cult of Neutrality
Australia — the land of dreamy beaches, incredible fauna and flora, the stargazers destination, and endless bureaucracy. Indeed, the country is deeply entrenched in fairness and balance (note sarcasm) — but is it fair? Australia’s neutral underbelly is not a democratic virtue. Australia’s two major parties project adversarial theater, but converge on several fundamental issues — deeply enmeshed with mining and energy giants, to banks and developers. This bipartisan consensus is a form of neutrality: an agreed set of economic and policy settings that remain largely unchallenged no matter who wins office.
Few areas show elite consensus better than Australia’s approach to fossil fuels. Successive governments may differ in climate rhetoric, but both Labor and Coalition governments have supported expanding coal and gas. Political donation data reveals the extent of this bipartisan wooing. In just one year (2021–22), the Labor, Liberal, and National parties combined received $241 million in donations from coal and gas corporations and their lobby groups. In 2023-24, 85 per cent of a total $166 million in donations went to the two major parties, with Anthony Pratt and Gina Rinehart leading the helm for Labor and Liberal respectively.
Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd recounted how three global mining giants ran an all-out campaign to kill his 2010 mining super-profits tax, pouring $22 million into lobbying and advertising that ultimately helped topple Rudd from power. By 2017, mining companies spent over $540 million through peak lobby groups to influence Australian governments, an investment that paid off in weakened regulations and tax breaks. The “resource curse” in Australia is less about geology than politics: voters may demand climate action or tax justice, but a well-funded mineral lobby can ensure those mandates are quietly shelved.
It is routine for big resource companies to hedge their bets with donations to each major party, ensuring access and influence regardless of who is in power. The return on investment is obvious: both major parties have blessed projects like Woodside’s Scarborough gas field (dubbed a ‘carbon bomb’ by activists) and the opening of new coal basins. Labor’s recent ‘gas strategy’, for instance, doubles down on gas as a longterm pillar of Australia’s energy — a plan climate groups condemned as a betrayal of Australia’s climate commitments. While Labor couches it in transitional language, the Liberals openly push for more fossil fuel use. The end result is the same: Australia remains one of the world’s largest fossil fuel exporters, with policies friendly to industry. Neutralising dissent on this — whether by sidelining climate protesters or by co-opting the debate with technocratic talk of “balance” in emissions policy — has been critical to preserving that arrangement.
Big money leads to no real change, from maintaining regressive tax cuts for the rich to approving new fossil fuel projects, policies that benefit donors sail through with bipartisan ease. For instance, both parties remain committed to Stage 3
Audhora Khalid analyses democratic fallibility.
income tax cuts, a $254 billion package that “overwhelmingly benefits highincome earners”. Despite public outcry, both Labor and Coalition governments have been loath to seriously regulate political donations or introduce real-time transparency — tellingly, their recent “reform” deal still allows individual donations up to $50,000 and delays spending caps until 2028. The charade of campaign finance reform shows how the fox and henhouse have merged: those in power craft rules to preserve their financial advantages, all while trumpeting the integrity of Australian democracy.
The system is so opaque that up to 85 per cent of political donations can be hidden. That means the public often doesn’t even know which companies or tycoons are bankrolling the major parties, nor how deeply those funders shape policy. What we do know is telling: mining magnate Gina Rinehart, for example, has been the Coalition’s second-largest disclosed donor, funneling $500,000 via her company in one year. Rinehart’s influence was evident when the Coalition vehemently opposed Labor’s modest industrial relations reforms in 2023 — reforms she personally lobbied against, and which would have curbed practices that allow mining companies to underpay workers.
Corporate donors give money to both major parties. This isn’t about ideological alignment — it’s about ensuring access and influence no matter who is in power. By supporting both sides, corporations encourage a kind of neutrality in policymaking: a refusal to challenge the status quo too deeply. Radical reform — whether it’s on taxation, labour rights, or environmental regulation — threatens profit margins i.e. encouraging bipartisan consensus helps maintain regulatory inertia, where nothing major changes.
Even on Indigenous issues, ostensibly about rights and recognition, corporate interests loom.
Many big resource companies publicly supported the Voice (seeing constitutional stability as good for business), but behind the scenes, none were probably too upset by a return to “business as usual” after its defeat. Resource development on Indigenous land — from mining in the Pilbara to fracking in the NT’s Beetaloo Basin — enjoys bipartisan political backing, often over Indigenous objections.
The ongoing housing policy fiasco (which brings to question the standard of economics degrees) is another example of maintaining ‘neutral’ reform. During his time as Prime Minister from 1996 to
2007, John Howard introduced a series of tax reforms that quietly reshaped the Australian housing market. Most notably, in 1999, his government brought in a 50 per cent discount on capital gains tax (CGT) for individuals. This meant that if you sold an asset like property after holding it for at least 12 months, only half the profit would be taxed. In simple terms, the longer you sit on a property, the more you stand to gain — and pay less tax doing so.
At the same time, Howard reinforced negative gearing, a policy that lets property investors deduct rental losses from their taxable income. So even if your rental income didn’t cover your mortgage, you could claim that shortfall as a tax break. Together, these policies transformed housing into a powerful wealth-generating asset — especially for higher-income earners. While not an official policy, they created the perfect conditions for what’s now referred to as land banking, where developers or investors hold onto land or homes, wait for prices to peak, and then sell or rent them out.
Despite widespread criticism, neither major party has repealed these core policies. Labor floated plans to limit negative gearing and reduce the CGT discount in the 2016 and 2019 elections but dropped them after losing both contests. The Albanese government, elected in 2022, has kept these tax structures in place. Similarly, Howard-era rules that allow self-managed super funds (SMSFs) to borrow for property investment remain unchanged; as of 2024, SMSFs hold over $135 billion in real estate.
In short, the tax rules that helped turn property into an investment class rather than a social good have not only endured across governments — they’ve been structurally reinforced. What began as investment incentives under Howard have helped fuel speculative behaviour and worsening inequality in the housing market, with neither party willing to dismantle the system.
Democratic rituals like Parliamentary Question Time, committee hearings, and press conferences are theatrics of accountability. In reality, governments with a majority often ram through decisions without consensus, and election promises are routinely broken or watered down (with minimal consequences beyond some media scolding). Scandals erupt — for instance over misuse of public funds, conflicts of interest — but usually fade with a resignation or two. Very rarely are politicians individually held to account in a legal sense. The “sports rorts” affair, the Robodebt scheme, and other episodes showed a pattern: months of revelations, a flurry of outrage, then a return to business. Voters might punish a government at the next poll, yet the incoming leaders tend to be from the same establishment class, often reversing a few of their predecessors’ policies. This cycle can feel like a ritual cleansing without systemic change. Even the Voice referendum itself can be seen as a kind of symbolic exercise: a grand democratic event (the first referendum in decades) that in the end changed nothing material for Indigenous people — but
affirmed the power of majority sentiment over minority rights.
Some commentators argued the referendum served to legitimize the status quo, because once the people said “No”, the implication was that justice had been served procedurally, regardless of the substantive issue of Indigenous disadvantage. In short, the motions of democracy are carried out diligently, but the substance of democracy — meaningful choices, responsiveness to citizen demands, equitable representation — is lacking.
In Australian politics, the neutral middle ground is heavily policed — and it happens to align with corporate and elite interests. Major party consensus on key economic settings (low corporate tax, high resource extraction, limited redistribution) is rarely broken. Those who challenge it — whether Green MPs calling out coal and gas, or independents pushing for gambling reform — are painted as fringe or irresponsible. Meanwhile, voters are assured that the system is balanced and moderate, producing sensible centrist policies.
The truth is that on issues like climate action, wealth inequality, or First Nations justice, the center in parliament is well to the right of public opinion. Neutrality in the form of bipartisan agreement has meant slow progress and watered-down reforms. It’s telling that when the Labor government did establish a National Anti-Corruption Commission in 2023, it implicated dozens of former officials — a sign of how unaccountable and opaque the “business-as-usual” consensus had become. Corporate capture thrives in an environment where dissent is muted and both sides appear to the public as simply two variations of one ideology.
This is where the myth of neutrality collapses.
Far from a moral high ground, neutrality often preserves an elite consensus. It creates false equivalence between reform and regression, real change and cosmetic tweaks. It ensures the political center remains well to the right of public opinion — on climate, inequality, Indigenous justice.
When neutrality is wielded as balance, it becomes the shield for authority. It tells voters that moderation is stability, even when the system is unjust. Democracy becomes a performance — a stagemanaged ritual rather than a responsive institution.
But no, Australia’s democratic institutions are not collapsing. Elections will continue. Debates will happen. But they will occur within carefully policed boundaries — where power remains undisturbed and neutrality is weaponised to delegitimize challenge. Neutrality, when absolutized, becomes the side of inertia.
Read full article online.
“It’s an
open prison”: 24-hour protests for visa equality expose failures of major party refugee policies
Last year, protestors in Punchbowl held one of the longest continuous protests in Australian history. Stationed outside the office of Tony Burke, the Minister for Home Affairs, Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the 24hour continuous protest lasted for over 120 days, calling for visa equality and an end to decades-long draconian immigration policies. Related action was present in cities across Australia; from Sydney to Melbourne, Perth to Adelaide. Refugee Women Action for Visa Equality (Refugee WAVE) led a continuous protest in Melbourne, ardently campaigning for permanent visas. In a statement of solidarity, the Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC) described the protests as representing “thousands of people who have been failed by the former coalition Government’s ‘fast track’ refugee assessment process — who have lived in Australia for over a decade but have never had a fair chance at a future.”
Refugee WAVE is an award-winning organisation selfdescribed as a “coalition of [22] courageous Iranian and Sri Lankan women fighting for [their] futures.” The
Rathy, many of these people are still trapped in limbo.
“We suffered for more than 10 years. It’s not a fast or fair process,” Rathy said of the fast-track process. “They pick numbers and give visas. The fast track process was created to make people live the refugee life: we can’t work, there’s no Medicare, kids can’t get into university because we have to pay international student fees. Even if the child has been here from kindergarten to high school, they’re still denied. It’s terrible — mentally and physically. We lost so many of our loved ones here, and for more than a decade, we’ve been waiting to reunite our families.” Without a permanent visa, travel is not an option.
“During our encampment, we heard from about 25 MPs. They wrote a letter to the minister to provide a solution for those affected by the fast-track system. There were more than 75 refugee support organisations that wrote a letter to the minister. The Greens Senators supported us during the encampment; they came. Adam Bandt came to the encampment to support us,” Rathy references a letter signed by 25 MPs following the death of Mano Yogalingam, urging the Prime Minister to provide a clear and timely alternate pathway to permanent residency for all failed by the fast-track system. Of the signees, 9 were Independents and 16 were of the Greens.
Melbourne Encampment was stationed outside the Office of Home Affairs and lasted over 100 days. Rathy Barlote is one of the co-founders of Refugee WAVE. In 2023, the organisation walked 640 km from Melbourne to Canberra, calling for visa equality. “The walk took 27 days, we met Labor, and [other] senators, and they said: there will be change. But we haven’t gotten results from the government, and that’s when we started the encampment again,” Rathy said. Rathy is one of thousands living in Australia on a short-term visa: effectively trapped in a precarious 6-month cycle of visa renewal with no permanent settlement solution.
“We had solidarity from Palestinians and other refugees. Everyone gave 100 per cent support for those 100 days.” Rathy said that the encampment was “for those who were affected by the fast-track process, for those needing visas,” and was mostly refugees from Iran, Tamil Eelam, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. In 2014, the Coalition introduced the ‘Fast Track’ system, which was effectively “designed to make it difficult to access protection and deter people seeking asylum”, according to Amnesty International Australia. Over 7,000 people were affected by the system, which denied legal assistance and interpreters to refugees seeking asylum, while also changing the criteria for protection in Australia, failing to provide procedural fairness in evaluating claims and silencing refugee voices.
When Labor won the last election, they abolished the fasttrack system by establishing a new tribunal commencing in October 2024. However, it still excludes thousands of people previously failed by the fast-track system who cannot apply for review at the new tribunal system. Like
Yet, immigration policy continues to decline in a cruel race to the bottom. Rathy spoke to the three Migration Amendment Bills introduced in Parliament last year. The bills proposed would allow an expansion to the offshore detention and deportation regime while enabling the separation of families, the banning of entire communities from entering Australia, authorising strip searches, and imprisoning those non-compliant with deportation requests. In April 2024, Refugee WAVE penned a letter to parliament urging the abandonment of the bill, calling it a choice “between persecution and prison”.
When asked what students can do to stand in solidarity with refugees, Rathy said: “There are 10,000 refugees still suffering. Ask [representatives] — what are they going to do for those living in limbo, without answers? We [have been] here for more than a decade. It’s an open prison. Ask them: Why are we living this life? It’s basic rights we’re asking for: not money [or] benefits. We’re working hard, but they’re blaming us. There are lots of crises: homelessness, cost of living. [They’re] not connected to refugees. We are not getting any benefits from the government… If the Liberals win the election, it will be a death sentence for the refugees impacted by the fast-track system.”
The race to the bottom: human rights neglect in major party refugee policy.
Despite decades of activism against these punitive and draconian policies, Refugee and Asylum Seeker policy is effectively non-existent in media coverage and major party agendas this election. This is a testament to the normalised state of human rights abuse, enhanced state violence, and punitive carceralism constructed by both Labor and Liberal governments since the 1990s. Dr. Niro Kandasamy, specialist in refugee history and transnational activism at USyd, said that “This has been the case each election. Refugees have been used as a political football for [fearmongering] and getting votes. The carceral border
has long been a formative part of Australian politics.” Kandasamy also urges students to draw linkages between Australian foreign relations and discourses surrounding particular migrant communities: “There is a tendency to view refugees as a homogenous group: they’re not.” The Australian State has a decades-long standing partnership with Sri Lanka, despite its genocide against Tamils. In 2021, the two countries renewed a defence agreement which focuses on border management and directly targets “illegal migrants”. Human rights groups, such as the HRLC, have expressed concern over the partnership for over a decade.
Although refugees are notably absent from this year’s election rhetoric, both parties display inhumane and violent immigration policies beneath the surface. The past three years under Albanese reflect the drastic disregard for human rights. Beyond the Migration Amendment Bills, Albanese has also renewed and expanded a partnership with Nauru to resettle refugees, after the High Court found the existing policy to be unconstitutional. While the most recent budget provides $3.5 million to the Community Refugee Integration and Settlement program and $7.7 million to extend the Economic Pathways to Refugee Integration program, it also allocates $1.3 billion to onshore detention, over a $100 million increase from last year. In addition to this, Labor is spending half a billion dollars on offshore detention. Every sign points towards a continued flagrancy of migrant and refugee rights under the ALP.
The history of Dutton’s political career is rife with blatant racism and racial fear-mongering which have most recently landed him a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission over “false claims and propaganda, encouraging violence and deportation, atrocity denial, disparaging muslim candidates, advocacy against protection from international crimes and misleading claims about Nakba survivors seeking refuge in Australia”. In March, Dutton proposed changing the Australian constitution to enable the deportation of migrants convicted of crimes by unrestricted ministerial discretion, a policy touted as relegating some Australians to “secondclass citizens with fewer rights” by Amnesty Australia. Dutton has also notably promised to cut permanent migration by 25 per cent, and in 2024 announced that a Coalition government would reduce the already limited humanitarian intake.
There is no shortage of humane suggestions for refugee policy reform, there is only a lack of political will. Refugee Advice and Casework Service (RACS) suggests:
1. Creating permanent pathways for all.
2. Abolish cruel detention and removal policies.
3. Ensure procedural safeguards throughout the asylum process.
4. Provide access to a safety net for people seeking asylum.
5. Recognise family unity as an essential part of refugee settlement.
6. Improve Australia’s response to humanitarian crises.
Vote in this election with refugees and asylum seekers in mind. Many of those denied permanent visas will be unable to represent themselves in this election. It is imperative that we listen to their voices.
Emilie Garcia-Dolnik analyses.
Credit:
Emilie Garcia-Dolnik
Liberal Strongholds Now Teal Havens?
In the 2019 federal election, the federal seat of Warringah was fiercely contested between a long-term Liberal favourite and a rising independent. In 2025, history is repeating itself, except this time, it’s in Bradfield. I have had the unexpected opportunity to live in both electorates during these two elections, and experience first hand the unexpected swing from Liberal to independent. What has become evident is that the Liberal strongholds of Sydney’s conservative North are turning ‘Teal’ — and it is exciting.
The 2019 election saw former Prime Minister Tony Abbott lose his seat of Warringah after representing the electorate for 25 years. Even prior to Abbott, Liberals had been dominating Bradfield, Warringah, and nowabolished North Sydney electorates. Since World War II, Warringah had only been represented by Liberals; in every election since, there was never any real doubt that a Liberal would lose the seat, until 2019.
Overnight, Mosman’s Military Road and Manly’s Pittwater Road were overrun with signs urging residents of the electorate to vote for ex-Olympian Zali Steggall. Steggall, whose signs were unmissable, represented herself as an independent — the teal colour on her posters unmistakably associating
her with the ‘Teal’ campaign. Despite multiple smear campaigns from her conservative opponent, Steggall’s campaign survived until election night, where she won convincingly against Abbott.
Many found this win from Steggall to be surprising. However, living in Mosman at the time, I would thoroughly disagree. Steggall’s victory was not a surprise, nor was it unexpected. Warringah needed a change, and Steggall, with her climate focused and gender diverse mindset, was exactly what the Northern Sydney electorate needed. They needed a candidate that would dually represent the economic conservatism of the Baby Boomers, and the climate change progressivism of the millennials and Generation X. It is these characteristics that shape the teal movement, and that was how Steggall attracted the people and won the seat.
Now, six years on from the 2019 election, we’re once again facing a fierce contest between a Liberal and an independent on Sydney’s north side — but this time, in Bradfield.
Following the dissolution of the North Sydney electorate, many of the Lower North Shore suburbs, including Northbridge, Artarmon, and St Leonard’s, have been drawn into Bradfield’s borders. As such, with the addition of these new suburbs, and the unexpected retirement of former Liberal MP Paul Fletcher, Bradfield is changing.
Nicolette Boele, a North Shore local, is running for the seat of Bradfield, and she’s convincing. Although with hiccups, her popularity is high. Driving down the Pacific Highway, the ‘silk road’ of the North Shore, there is no doubt a teal sign of Nicolette Boele will be plastered on shop fronts or buoyed by supporters. The conservative electorate of Bradfield is being won over by an independent who favours financial and economic security and yet is able to appeal to the Generation Z and Millennial voters by simply not being a Liberal. Her association with the ‘Teal’ campaign is half her job already done.
Boele’s main opponent is Gisele Kapterian, the new Liberal candidate, replacing and endorsed by Paul Fletcher. Kapterian’s selection is nothing less than ironic: she is the daughter of migrant parents and a woman of colour — everything that the
Liberal party does not stand for. Yet, that is exactly why she was chosen.
There are two folds to this point. Firstly, there is the theory of the glass cliff. Arguably, Kapterian has been chosen as the Liberal candidate as this is a time of crisis, since their Bradfield stronghold is in danger. If they lose this seat, the Liberal party can blame it on a woman, despite her gender having nothing to do with the loss. The second part is that they chose a woman to compete against Boele. The Liberals think that their chance of retaining the seat is higher if they can play the gender card. The Liberal party is renowned for being male dominated. Allowing one woman to run in one conservative seat is not going to change this mindset despite all their efforts.
However, the race between the two candidates is tight. The polls are changing daily and the percentages are staggeringly close. It will be a surprise whoever wins Bradfield. If Kapterian wins, it won’t only be unexpected to the residents, but also the Liberals. If Boele wins, there is one more socially progressive woman representing a changing electorate.
Independents Day: How the Teals Could Win Big at the Next Election
In 2022, the ‘Teal’ independents created a roadmap for how to challenge the major parties where they are most vulnerable, their safest seats. The 2025 election is upon us and this roadmap has provided communities across Australia with the opportunity to seriously disturb both of the major parties’ prospects.
It’s now widely agreed amongst most of the election experts that the next parliament will be a minority government, with neither party winning enough seats to govern on their own. They will then have to rely on independents in order to actually form government.
On the floor of the Kylea Tink election party, it seemed like politics had changed forever. Tink, along with five other ‘Teal’ independents, snatched federal seats from the Liberal Party across the country. The six of them made up a group of community independents that almost tripled the size of the cross bench.
The community independents movement grew from individuals and grassroots organisations forming to create an agenda from their communities, and then putting forward an independent candidate.
The 2022 candidates were bolstered by Simon Holmes á Court’s Climate200, a not-for-profit that financed independents who were supportive of action on climate change. The financing boosted the candidates to major party status allowing them to sweep safe Liberal seats across the country from Wentworth and Mackellar in Sydney to Kooyong and Goldstein in Melbourne.
The independents primarily targeted university-educated voters who were moderately conservative but disillusioned with the Liberal Party’s stance on climate change and rightwards shift. These voters, while frustrated with the Liberal Party, were the kind that would never switch sides to the Labor Party.
Beyond financing, each independent was able to build an infrastructure of volunteers and employees that allowed them to use their finances effectively. I worked as a campaign officer for the Kylea Tink campaign in North Sydney. In the months leading up to the election, the campaign had around 1,000 volunteers, a number that was replicated in most of the successful ‘Teal’ campaigns.
Working on Kylea Tink’s campaign
showed me just how many people are pissed off with the major parties. People are begging for anyone else to come in with a fresh approach. This is what the community independents give them. Someone that is accessible to them and not tied down to any party loyalty.
Tink’s approach of going personal and talking freely on issues they care about is the perfect political antidote. Match this with the funding and infrastructure of the major parties and suddenly you have a winning formula.
The major parties are worried. Both parties come into this election deeply unpopular. The Labor government’s sluggish progress on climate action and the cost-of-living crisis hasn’t bought them many favours, while the Liberal Party’s shift further to the right will alienate those same inner city voters they lost to the independents in the last election. There is data to back this up. The support for independents has risen almost four per cent since the last election.
The stage is set for communities to use the roadmap created in the last election to seriously disturb both major parties’ hopes for success. To the extent communities have organised
into grassroots groups, found a candidate, mobilised supporters behind them, and generated finances from supporters and special interest groups, they will make the major parties very vulnerable.
The ripples of this change have already started forming. Climate200 has identified nine Coalition seats that they will target at this election. These include: McPherson, Moncrief, Cowper, Bradfield, Casey, Monash, Fisher, Fairfax, and Wannon, with Bradfield in Sydney’s north considered the most winnable.
However, the independents have the opportunity to be much more damaging than that. There’s an opportunity in every seat in which voters are frustrated with their party but still so ‘rusted on’ that they won’t switch to the other party.
The circumstances are perfect for an ‘Independent’s Day’: widespread disillusionment with the major parties, inaction on issues that matter to voters, and a roadmap ready to be used. The only question remains is whether there are people with the will to put it all into place.
David Thom opines.
Jenna Rees writes.
Queenslander? I hardly know her!
Queensland. A politically confused, wannabe bellwether, recovering banana republic.
My home state has long seemed an unpredictable force in federal politics, at least to the outside observer. Its voting patterns are discussed with mysticism uncharacteristic of otherwise precise electoral analysis. Coupled with a reputation for producing independents equal parts wacky and racist — Pauline Hanson, Bob Katter, Clive Palmer — Queenslanders are often dismissed as backwards rednecks who vote barefoot and without reason.
It’s undeniable that Queensland is socially conservative, with a majority of its voters frequently persuaded by racist policies like removing youth likely to commit crimes from their families, or scrapping the Truth-telling and Healing Inquiry that would have led to a treaty with First Nations people.
However, some electorates are represented by comparatively left-wing MPs. Brisbane electorates were pivotal in the ‘greenslide’ of the 2022 federal election, and Queensland remains the only state to have ever elected a member of the Communist Party of Australia (CPA) to any parliament. The cane fields north of Townsville were once a hotbed for union activism, Australia’s very own ‘Red North’.
This radical history feels at tension with the conservatism that permeates the state’s political identity. But, if you consider the 20-year authoritarian premiership of Joh Bjelke-Petersen, with a prolonged state of emergency, rampant police corruption, gerrymandering and violent crackdowns on protest, things begin to make sense.
Regional Queensland, former CPA heartland, loved comrade Joh. He led Australia’s only ever police state and was unabashedly bigoted. As Premier, Bjelke-Petersen directed his ministers to leave infectious diseases like HIV intentionally untreated in remote Indigenous communities, refused to partake in the Royal Commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody and spent over $400,000 on legal fees trying to defeat Eddie Mabo’s claim of native title over the island of Mer in the Torres Strait.
This history reveals a predisposition for the extremes, largely untethered to ideology beyond what best serves the ‘battler’ that anchors the collective consciousness of the state.
No figure represents this better than Bob Katter, whose social conservatism, agrarian socialist economics, and outback insanity make him a remarkable aggregation of otherwise totally incomprehensible political preferences. Let a thousand blossoms bloom, nationalise the grid, give farmers back their guns, and for the love of God,
Lilah Thurbon can’t read because she was educated in Queensland.
Art by Imogen Sabey
give that woke nonsense a rest and help us work out what to do with these bloody crocodiles.
This brings me to the leader of the Opposition, our native son, Peter Dutton. A Queensland cop who worked alongside the Pinkeba Six, who kidnapped Indigenous children in Fortitude Valley in 1994, in a period of significant, widespread police corruption, turned property magnate and childcare centre millionaire. He was once thought to be wholly unelectable for his sociopathic disdain for the poor and deeply off-putting public persona. While some Queensland electors might tolerate corrupt cops, there seems to be less sympathy for corporate sellouts whose success goes beyond that expected of the mythologised battler.
I’m unsure how much of an impact his home state will have on tipping the election in his favour. Only one of the key marginal seats being targeted by the coalition is in Queensland: the electorate of Blair, centred on the regional centre of Ipswich and stretching from Brisbane’s exurban west out to the Lockyer Valley in the state’s south east. Dutton is also vulnerable in his own seat of Dickson, the most marginal seat in Queensland.
And despite electing David Crisafulli’s Liberal National Party to government in October 2024, it’s unclear whether this success will translate to gains in Queensland on the national stage. This is the same state that returned a Palaszczuk Labor government to state office in 2020 with a record majority a short 17 months after flipping blue to keep Bill Shorten out of Kirribilli house.
It feels like a poor strategy, then, for the Coalition to design their election campaign around policies and rhetoric that in years prior would have only played well in the Queensland’s backwaters, still sour about the findings handed down in the Fitzgerald Inquiry. To win the 19 additional seats required to form government, and to retain the marginal ones they already hold, surely the Coalition needs to moderate to appeal to the metropolitan electorates they ceded to the Teals in 2022?
Cross-tramp-stamped bogans was ahead of the curve. The national electorate has been dishearteningly tolerant of Dutton’s Trumpian politics, evidenced by his acceptance into the political mainstream. It’s truly bizarre that Dutton has been able to position himself as a serious candidate for Prime Minister instead of the quack from Brisbane’s head office no one wanted near a microphone only a few short years ago. There might be a little more Queensland in all of us than we’re ready to admit.
Maybe it’s time to look north not just for problems, but also solutions.
If we’re voting like Queenslanders in the 2025 federal election, hopefully we can buck the global trend of right-populist dominance and veer left, despite what polling numbers and conventional wisdom might say.
In the context of a global backslide into right-wing authoritarianism, the state so frequently laughed at as a cultural backwater run by corrupt, Southern-
Australia’s Pokie Pookies
Marc Paniza calls your bluff.
The betting odds for Australia’s upcoming federal election tell a story far beyond mere predictions. Labor sits at a consistent $1.20 across all major platforms, while the Coalition trails at around $4.50. These numbers reveal something more profound than electoral forecasts: they disclose an industry that has mastered the art of political influence while evading meaningful regulation. The remarkably uniform odds across different bookmakers also highlight how sophisticated and interconnected Australia’s betting ecosystem has become.
I’m somewhat of a betting man myself. Last year, I put money on Kamala Harris in the United States election despite my political science training telling me Trump would likely win. As I watched my cash disappear, I experienced firsthand how emotion can override judgment in gambling. The cognitive dissonance was particularly striking given my understanding of political trends. But my personal loss pales compared to Australia’s collective gambling addiction, a $25 billion annual loss that our political system seems unwilling to address despite mounting evidence of widespread social harm.
The reluctance of both major parties to implement serious gambling reform is no accident. According to The Grattan Institute’s recent report, the gambling industry has positioned itself as one of
Australia’s most powerful sectors. Political donations from gambling interests spike dramatically whenever reforms are proposed, a clear signal of how the industry protects its profits. The industry’s strategic timing of these donations reveals a sophisticated understanding of our political system’s pressure points.
With 8 per cent of state and territory tax revenue derived from gambling, governments themselves have become dependent on the very activity they should be regulating. This creates a perverse incentive structure where meaningful reform becomes politically risky. The relationship between gambling operators and political parties has evolved into a symbiotic arrangement that comes at the expense of public health. This dependency is particularly pronounced in states like NSW, where gambling tax revenues have become essential to budget calculations, creating a structural resistance to reform that transcends partisan politics.
The industry’s influence extends beyond mere donations. Gambling companies have developed sophisticated lobbying operations, strategic alliances with sports organisations, and media relationships that make them formidable opponents of reform. Their ability to mobilise quickly against regulatory threats, as demonstrated during the Gillard government’s failed attempt at pokies reform, has created a chilling effect on
political will.
This political paralysis persists even as major industry players face collapse. Star Entertainment Group now teeters on the brink of financial oblivion, running out of cash and facing potential administration with 8,000 jobs at stake. This crisis follows years of regulatory failures and unchecked gambling harm, yet even this dramatic downfall hasn’t triggered substantive political action. The potential collapse of such a major operator paradoxically strengthens the industry’s political leverage, as governments now face the spectre of job losses and economic disruption if they pursue aggressive regulation.
The Australian Institute of Family Studies found that 64 per cent of Australians believe governments should play the biggest role in deciding how wagering is advertised, and 53 per cent support banning wagering advertising before 10:30 pm. Yet meaningful reform remains elusive as political donations flow and regulatory capture continues. This disconnect between public opinion and policy outcomes demonstrates how effectively the gambling industry has insulated itself from democratic pressures, creating an environment where even popular reforms struggle to gain political traction against industry resistance.
The human cost of this regulatory failure
is staggering. A remarkable 73 per cent of Australian adults gambled at least once in the past year, with nearly half classified as being at risk of harm. Our nation holds the dubious honour of the highest gambling losses per capita globally. The Grattan Institute notes that exposure to wagering advertising prompted 21 per cent of people to start betting for the first time, 28 per cent to change what they bet on, and 34 per cent to increase their betting overall, which shows how the industry’s marketing machinery works to maximize losses.
As election day approaches, those consistent odds across betting platforms suggest Labor is strongly favoured. But, regardless of whether Labor or the Coalition wins the election, the odds of meaningful gambling reform remain frustratingly low. The real question isn’t which party will win the election, but whether either will finally stand up to an industry that has mastered the art of political influence while causing widespread harm. Until our political system values public health over gambling revenue and political donations, the house will continue to win, both at the betting table and in the halls of parliament.
And that’s a wager none of us should be willing to take.
Desertion of Major Parties
other worries are peppered throughout responses, including the environment, HECS-HELP debt, mental health, and the job market.
The issues on their minds, many young voters state, are overlooked by the major parties. When asked if they believed politicians understood or cared about their concerns, over half (17) of respondents answered ‘no’. To them, politicians are driven by self-interest; one beholden to big donors, lobbyists, and corporate influence.
“There are a number of politicians who absolutely lose touch with their electorate and understand the issue as something on paper rather than on a human level.”
Some young voters also stated that many politicians lacked the courage to address their concerns or failed to grasp the consequence of their impact: “I know that the cost of living is impacting most voters, and that is a huge focus of campaigning at the moment, but it doesn’t feel that they are really aware of the severity of the problem.” Another respondent likened
these issues to mere political “buzzwords.”
This sense of political detachment was often adjoined by a growing worry for future generations. Several respondents spoke about the fear of escalating housing costs, climate change, and systemic inequality. A prevailing sentiment was that politicians were “out of touch” with young people, preoccupied by short-term concerns at the expense of the long-term challenges that lie ahead.
With dissatisfaction toward the two-party structure at the forefront, respondents were asked whether they had considered voting for a minor party or an independent candidate. Many expressed hope that a third-party vote would cast a message: one of disillusionment and a longing for real change. One voter said that they hoped that their vote would send a “clear signal” that they want more progressive action from Labor.
Another respondent stated, “It comes to a point in my life, like many others, where we’ve realised that the major parties are
not listening to the needs of the general public and politicians in those parties are more concerned about sticking to party policies.”
Other respondents emphasized impracticality and stated that real change is only attainable through major parties. “While I agree with a few teal or green policies, they will never realistically form government,” one respondent stated.
When asked what single issue would decide their vote on election day, most respondents struggled to name just one. Many returned to the cost of living, yet they also listed education, climate change, and Australia’s foreign policy, particularly AUKUS and support for Palestine. Others wished for a leader that would “follow through on promises,” that would lead with honesty and competence. Their answers mirror a feeling shared by young voters around the nation: that politics should meet the moment, but right now, it’s falling short.
Spencer Creighton shifts towards minor parties.
In defence of the donkey
Will Winter thinks it should be called a coward’s vote.
I was in primary school when I first learned about preferential voting. On a school field trip to Canberra, amidst the chaotic scientific highs of Questacon and the freezing cold air at the top of the Telstra Tower, we visited Australian Parliament House. There, tucked away in one of the small education rooms, a kind woman walked us through how preferential voting worked.
She had these stacks of fake ballots, and she laid out eight baskets in front of us. In small groups, we’d rotate between counting the ballots and being scrutineers. We spread out all of the ballots in their allocated first preferences, counted the preferences, and discovered that no one had passed the 50 per cent minimum for election. We recounted the ballots with the smallest total votes, and eventually, after several rounds of redistribution, we had a winner.
The system sounded so complex, but was incredibly simple in execution.
My mum has been a political staffer for most of her working life, so I’ve witnessed many elections from the sidelines. Days covered in sunscreen, handing out how-to-votes. Hours spent listening to gossip trickle down from her colleagues, as she scrutineered in a secluded room. Minutes cheering alongside her when the elections were hard-earned and won.
I’ve always been surrounded by politics at home. Turning 18 was exhilarating for me, not just because I could drink legally, but because I could become an organ donor and also register to vote.
It has always been drilled into me that voting is not only a right, but a privilege.
So it always comes as a surprise when I hear, from either side of the political aisle, that an individual would willingly choose to donkey or informally vote in an election.
How does one donkey vote? It’s simple. A donkey vote is a vote in which someone just numbers the ballots 1-10 (or however many choices there are) from the top down. Donkey votes were propagated by the era of the preference deal. Before the 2016 Senate voting amendments, individuals would only need to preference a single party, and that party would create internal agreements with other parties as to where that vote would land. By chronologically numbering the ballot, it was believed that this would either be an obviously invalid vote, or at a minimum, mess with these so-called ‘group voting tickets’.
The first sentiment is false: a donkey vote is technically a real vote, which means any donkey votes count towards the final election. Also, as an act of political protest, it doesn’t hold the same power it used to. Currently, above-the-line votes in the Senate require a minimum of six preferences, and preference ‘deals’ don’t affect ballots beyond a party’s ‘How To Vote’ handout. Even if a donkey vote did have substantial political power at that time, it certainly doesn’t hold the same power now. Your vote, as it stands, is the most powerful tool you have to nominate your political preferences.
A purposefully informal vote (any ballot which is intentionally not valid) is not quite a donkey vote. Yet, I leave it in this umbrella. Leaving a form blank, putting indeterminate scribbles on the ballot, drawing a massive penis or vagina over the names of the candidates: all of these are forms of individual
‘resistance’ to the electoral system, one might say. Perhaps you believe yourself to be a conscientious objector to the federal political machine. Perhaps you feel no one party truly represents you and your values. Perhaps, somewhere deep down, you earnestly believe that the giant phallus you scribble on your vote is going to be seen by some scrutineer in your local primary school’s hall, and that person will pause and think “wow, maybe politics really is just a giant penis”, and suddenly everything will be right with the world.
That’s not how this actually works, though. It is not only a privileged statement to say that not every country in the world gives their people the right to vote, let alone mandates truer democratic representation through compulsory voting, but it is also true statement. It is spitting in the face of decades of suffrage movements to discard your chance to elect the people who will represent your electorate, and your country.
Let’s not call it a donkey vote anymore. Donkeys are fun animals and they don’t deserve the disrespect of the title of donkey vote. I love donkeys. A ‘donkey’ vote is a term that is filled with unearned whimsy. At best, it is a misinformed political action which shits on our freedom of democracy. At worst, it is ignorance.
Let’s
call it what it is: a coward’s
vote.
Perhaps in a voting system like the United States, where you can only vote for a single candidate for President in a first-past-the-post style, it could be more justifiable to abstain from voting. Any vote for a third party is considered ‘wasted’, and there is an almost fatalistic truth control cannot meaningfully be removed from the two major parties.
In our current system, compulsory preferential voting means that you can support smaller parties or independents, you can force us into diverse minority governments, and you can provide essential data to both that party and to the wider community about the kinds of policies and personalities the Australian person desires to vote for. That vote will still be real and valid when it finally trickles down to the who is elected.
Most egregious of all, beyond the individual who believes that their donkey vote is a march against the ‘facade’ of democracy, is the kind of voter who will wilfully abstain from voting, then believe that they have a say in the actions of our Parliament. Brandishing their Facebook posts and loud opinions like medieval peasants shooing a wild boar, it is the individuals who actively choose to pay a fine over voting that and cowardice.
Let’s move beyond the conversation that everyone should vote because they get a fun democracy sausage. Everyone should vote because it is a
civic duty. Everyone should vote because it is our federal politicians and parties who represent us domestically and internationally.
Everyone should vote because it is your rights, livelihoods, and family on the line.
There is no way to be truly apolitical or exempt from the political system if you live in so-called Australia. It is imperfect, and it is understandable to believe that this institution of government, which fails to truly recognise something as simple as the sovereignty of its Aboriginal people, cannot be a truly representative institution. However, whilst it is an imperfect system, it is still ours, and ours alone to change.
Here’s a fun fact: you can draw a penis on your ballot, and as long as it’s not in any of the boxes, and the numbers are filled in correctly, that is still a real vote. If you choose not to vote because you’re not politically engaged, you can take a few moments to use the dozens of tools available to you to find a vote that truly represents you, and also still draw that tiny penis which brings you such childhood whimsy.
Enacting and incentivising change outside of the Government system is vital, but once every three or four years, casting a vote within the system is actually quite important. Don’t let the assumption that other people will ‘do the right thing’ while you abstain be the reason you don’t vote. Whether you investigate the potentially hundreds of below-theline Senate candidates to determine your true order of political preference, or you adhere to the guided
Art by Will Winter
Breaking Bread (But not the Bank)
Khushi Chevli eats on a budget.
The cost of living is up, and my will to live is down. For students, chances are that food insecurity in particular is hitting you hard. 53 per cent of students faced food insecurity in 2024, rising from 42 per cent in 2022. Limited finances and time increase food insecurity, but other factors are at play: younger, on-campus, and international students are more likely to face food insecurity than the average student, whilst non-binary students are almost four times more likely to deal with food insecurity. Impacts on dietary quality persist even for students at catered colleges!
Since starting an intensive degree while living alone, I’ve had to realise firsthand the importance of eating healthy, fast, and cheap — particularly for your mental and academic wellbeing. Here’s my personal guide to beating food stress.
Grocery Hacks
I’ve kept my grocery bill under $25 a week this year, and no, I’m not living on air. The secret is in prioritising vegetables, which are generally cheaper, and meal prepping, which saves your time and mental health. I pick two to three meals I’ll eat on repeat for the week, and shop for those ingredients only.
Try to prioritise Aldi for cheap goods, but remember Coles and Woolworths have more options for groceries. Avoid Woolies Metro — they inflate prices! Asian markets
off KitKats and Red Bulls – but please don’t do that. Your academics will suffer along with your mental health if you don’t regularly eat healthy carbs and fresh produce. There are ways to get around a busy schedule! Prioritise meals that don’t require cooking time, like salads, vegetable wraps, and sandwiches, and get yummy sauces so you actually feel like eating them. Ready-to-go veggies from Aldi can help you throw these together, but I mostly use some cheap combination of tomato, capsicum, spinach, and chicken.
If you don’t know what to cook
Food literacy can help you when you’re too tired to think. Here are my go-to recipes that are fast and healthy:
• Pesto chicken brown rice salad – so wholesome.
• Spiced chicken veggie wraps – fast lunches for busy mornings.
• Rice noodle stir fry – easy, yummy, and filling.
• Homemade pizza – use your leftover vegetables!
• Rice bowls – dump it in one plate and call it a meal.
It’s worth creating a recipe bank, particularly if you’re busy. Websites like NoMoneyNoTime and RecipeTinEats can help you create a rotation of recipes.
Hit Broadway or a USU outlet for some fruit.
If you’re lucky enough to have a locker, stash some longlife snacks for an emergency.
Cheap Eats
For something light, just walk to Broadway and find something cheap. Breadtop, GYG, any sushi place, and even Coles for a microwave meal can be an acceptable lunch.
If you want an actual sit-down meal, but still want to keep it cheap, there are a few gems around campus. Ozturk on Abercrombie Street gives you two big pizza slices for five dollars. And they’ll let you split it with a friend! Otogo in Ultimo sells a ten-dollar onigiri and karaage chicken combo meal with a drink — but go early, it sells out fast!
On Eating Well
With the limited time and finances of student life, it’s easy to believe that eating well is a luxury only the rich can afford. Particularly for students who live alone, it’s difficult to maintain a routine and manage the mental load of finances, cooking, and cleaning. But with a few tricks, surviving in the cost-of-living crisis can become more achievable.
are better-priced for greens. I go for cheap superfoods like tomatoes, mushrooms, spinach, and capsicum. Try to avoid pre-packaged vegetables — they’re more expensive. Seasonal fruit and vegetables are cheaper for their abundance, and fresher, too. Right now, spinach, capsicum, citrus fruits, and pumpkins are in season.
I also shop for grains in bulk (brown rice, quinoa, rice noodles) and cheap lean proteins like chicken and fish. Shopping for meat from the deli instead of Coles can save a couple bucks and is generally better quality. Longlife milk is more cost-effective ($1.5 a litre) and buying tubs of yogurt instead of small serving sizes is easier on the pocket. Skipping overpriced packaged snacks and replacing them with portable fruits like bananas, apples, and mandarins can save a lot, too – that’s only 80 cents
If you don’t have time to
University Initiatives
If you haven’t yet used FoodHub: go. It’s the university’s food security initiative located in the Wentworth Building on Level Four, open five days a week. You get a ticket online, and you can grab up to five free items a day. They’ve got a lot of good long-life items: bread, cereal, pasta, sauces, and frozen foods.
The university also offers free breakfasts, dinners, and lunches on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, respectively. Check out the USU website to learn more.
When you forget your lunch (Again)
We all have those days. You rush out of the door, totally forget your food, and suddenly you’re ready to drop $12 on a sad sandwich. But you can try this instead:
Check if FoodHub tickets are still open — grab a free snack, like granola bars or cookies.
Art by Khushi Chevli
AN INTERVIEW WITH LIBERAL INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE
BELINDA GREAD
Few independent candidates in the upcoming federal election have taken hold of public discourse like Belinda Gread. A strong, blonde, bold voice hailing from Melbourne, Gread has been making waves in the political world through her decisive support of nuclear energy, brazen social media campaign videos, and fierce campaign song More for Me. Below, Belinda joins Will Winter to run us through some of her key policies in the election, her incredible personal journey towards running for the Australian Senate, and to tell us why she is the only cure for the woke mind virus.
Will Winter: Hi Belinda! Thank you so much for making time in your busy schedule to join us today. I’ll jump right into questions. Why do you think 2025 is the year for Belinda Gread to represent our country?
Belinda Gread: I feel like our Parliament is filled with spineless women, and I am the only woman who is brave enough to stand up for myself and really say what our country needs. Everyone has gone a bit soft on these issues, but not me. I will get in there, and I will get the job done.
WW: What is your political and career background?
BG: This is the first time I’m involved in politics, but I do feel like my life has had many twists and turns which have led me to this point. I was quite involved in student life, just like yourself, when I was at the University of Melbourne. I was very involved in the anti-globalisation movement at university, and I actually studied law and journalism. I am a double degree kind of gal.
After university, I worked as a cadet journalist for the Herald Sun for five years, and in that time, I learned a lot about world politics and world issues. That’s where I grew as a person and decided what type of politics I would like to be involved in. After that, I became the host of the now-defunct travel and lifestyle show Our Beaten Track. You’re probably too young to remember that, darling. You’ve got some light entertainment ahead of you, Our Beaten Track, check it out.
That was when I began to have my time in the spotlight as a lifestyle and travel journalist, and that was a beautiful time. I have so many fond memories [of] beating around on the beaten track. Sadly that show was taken off the air, which is when I moved on to the TV Shopping Network.
When I was doing TVSN, I realised there was a niche in the market for a special type of suitcase for busy business women, so I created my own line of suitcases, and now I have a very successful, world-renowned business with my own suitcases.
That’s been up and running for several years, and I feel like I’ve done everything. I feel like I need a new challenge now. I saw what was going on in Australian politics, and I thought, “You know what? This might be my next big challenge. Canberra!” And that’s how we ended up here.
WW: I need to invest in a Belinda Gread suitcase, is what I’m hearing. For your campaign, you’ve been focusing on non-traditional forms of campaigning like social media and the release of your hit song More for Me. Why?
BG: The area that I live in is quite overrun with left-wing, young, alphabet soup-type people. I live in the inner north of Melbourne, which is like that greenwashed inner west area in Sydney. I have lived here for most of my adult life, and over time, unfortunately, I’ve seen the woke mind virus take hold of the young people in this area.
My campaign team told me that these people won’t like the views I have when they start listening to me. What we decided to do was go really in on their type of media. These left-wing people will believe anything with a good marketing campaign, so I’ve just played their game, and it’s worked. I’m probably the most popular politician on social media for the whole campaign. If that’s not winning, you tell me what is.
WW: What are some unique struggles you face as a strong woman in politics?
BG: I think you might know that I had to leave my former party, the Liberal Party, and I put it down to them being intimidated by a fiercely strong, independent woman. They’ve released some stupid rap song, and it had a
Will Winter interviews a fiercely independent woman.
male voice behind it. Oh, so that’s okay, is it? To have a male voice behind a campaign song? But when I repeat all of our policies in a catchy song, it’s not. You know what that screams of? Misogyny. That’s what I want to know. What’s really wrong with the song? Peter?
WW: Speaking of, what was your relationship like with Liberal Party leader Peter Dutton, and what does it look like now?
BG: Peter and I only met a couple of times, but when we did, we had a very nice time together. He’s quite a handsome and strong man, and I do agree with a lot of the policies he’s putting forward. When the schism happened in the party, I don’t think he had my back like I had his back. I don’t know if I trust him anymore, to be honest.
I’m doing my own thing now, I’m out on my independent campaign. I don’t think it’s worth getting involved in infighting party politics.
That’s what’s wrong with your parliament at the moment. If I got in there, they wouldn’t yell at me; I’d yell at all of them. That’s what we need, someone to shut them down.
WW: I completely agree. While we’re talking about personal relations, you mention in your song that you wish for the Australian people to stop critiquing Gina Rinehart. Do you have a relationship with her?
BG: I have been to a few of Gina’s luncheons before. I’m quite a charitable woman, and I like to network with the movers and shakers of Australia since I am one myself. She’s a lovely woman. Yes, she might have inherited a bit of money, but look what she’s done with it! That’s the true Australian spirit. Building on wealth and getting more wealth.
If people want to complain that she’s hoarding the money, why don’t you go out and hoard the money if you want it so much? There’s nothing stopping you from doing it. Anyone can go out and get the money. All people want to do is whinge. “I want some of Gina’s money.” No, leave Gina alone. She got that money fair and square. I’ve had enough of that actually.
WW: More generally, who would you say is your political inspiration?
BG: I have a great fondness for the legend herself, Bronwyn Bishop. She was one of the women who inspired me to get into politics in the first place. I just think it is so disgusting what happened to her at the end of her time in parliament. People seem to have a problem with her taking helicopter rides. I don’t see a problem with that. She spent her whole life dedicating her time to our country, and what, we want to have a go at her? She deserved those helicopter rides; she earned them. So she should go in the helicopters. I don’t want to talk about this anymore, this is really winding me up.
WW: I’m so sorry, we can pivot now to some policy questions. Where do you stand on subsidised and/or free tertiary education?
BG: No. If you want an education, you can’t expect a handout. If you can’t afford it, maybe it isn’t for you. These young people, they expect everything for free these days. “I want to go to the doctor for free, I want to go to university for free.” How about hard work? How about that, youngsters? Nothing is free in this life.
WW: Do you support the current HECS system?
BG: Just between us, no.
If I had it my way, I would like people to be paying for university themselves. Everyone has parents. If your parents can’t afford it, bad luck, darling. Maybe you should’ve picked your parents better.
WW: How do you feel about work-from-home policies in the public sector?
BG: It never should’ve happened in the first place. We never should’ve had lockdown, COVID was a scam, and everyone should’ve been in the office. What did we think was going
to happen? No one’s working from home! This needs to stop. I have never supported work from home, and I never will. I think it is just ridiculous.
WW: How do you feel the infiltration of the gay agenda in our education system is affecting our youth?
BG: This is a hard one, because I do love gay people. I think they are fabulous, y’know, my hair doesn’t do itself. I think we should be a bit more open and willing to understand people’s differences, but maybe we don’t need to be telling children “your daddy does this to your daddy” or “your mummy does this to your mummy”.
WW: What about events like drag queen story time?
BG: Hmmm, no thank you. We don’t need this silliness. Bring the fairies and the pirates back. Why do we have to have crossdressers? Bring back beautiful fairies with wings and sparkles on their faces, with beautiful dresses and wands.
WW: What is the most important issue in this election for you?
BG: As you know, the most important thing we need to get a handle on is the energy crisis. We’ve used all of the coal, it’s gone. Let’s stop pretending there’s more. We’ve used it all, and there’s nothing wrong with that; it was there to be dug up and used. All good things come to an end, and now it’s time to pivot onto the next.
Who are we going to listen to about this, the Greens? Can you imagine what would happen to our country if the Greens tried to run it? There’d be a mess all in our streets, in our classrooms, and this country would go to the dogs. We need to listen to people who know how to handle the economy. As much as I don’t agree with Peter on some things, he does know how to handle the economy, and if we’re going to fix the energy crisis, we need to go full blast on nuclear.
Electing me. Someone who is strong-minded and unafraid to tell it like it is.
I can get in there and really cut off all of these disgusting programs introduced by the left-wing Government. I’ll get in there and make cuts, and go back to the nice and normal way things were before. Things need to trickle down from the top, and that’s what I’m planning to do.
WW: Beautiful. What do you think is the best way to “get Australia going again?”
BG: From my perspective, to get Australia going again, we need to go full blast on nuclear. I’m not just talking about nuclear energy, I’m talking about nuclear families. The only way we’re going to have enough children to support our ageing population is to go nuclear. Mother and father need to be there. Nuclear power, nuclear families, and we need to have close relationships with our close allies.
The AUKUS deal has been happening, but I don’t think it goes far enough. We need at least ten times as many nuclear submarines in our country, and we need to show the United States that we mean business. It doesn’t matter if they’re just floating in the water, not doing anything, we’ve at least shown that we care. Maybe, if we actually did build more submarines, we wouldn’t have been hit with tariffs! Trump is not an idiot; he’s sending a clear message to the world, and I understand. We’ve gone too weak.
WW: What would be your final message to impart on undecided voters?
BG: My final message is that the two-party system is officially broken. We can’t keep doing the same thing we have; look where it’s landed us. Y’know, none of you can afford a home. What are we gonna do about this energy crisis? And why have we swung so far to the left? You can’t say anything anymore without someone getting offended. This two-party back-and-forth fighting needs to stop. We need strong, independent people in parliament to stand up, say “shut up!” and have everyone else truly listen to them. That’s what we
If you really want things to get done in the next parliament, vote for a fiercely independent woman like myself.
WW: This is my last question, and it’s a fun one. Kiss, marry, kill: Albo, Dutton, Bandt.
Oh, you don’t make this easy! I would obviously marry Peter, cause he’s the only one who could support me when I retire. I would… this is hard. I would love to kill both of the others, the world would be a better place without those idiots hanging around. Out of the two, I would say that Adam is a bit more spunky, so I’d kiss Adam, and let’s kill Albanese. That would really solve what we’ve got going on here at the moment.
Rating: Mature
Category: M/M
Fandom: AusPol
Fandoms Parties Candidates Kinks
Relationships: Anthony Albanese/Peter Dutton, Anthony Albanese/Adam Bandt
Tags: unrequited romance, oneshot, second chance romance, love triangle, australian politics AU, angst, smut, everything happens behind closed doors, lovers to enemies, boys in love, parliament sex, semi public sex, touch starved Dutton, pining, im bad at tagging, sorry, Plot What Plot, parliamentary porn, liberal x labor
hung parliament (we never asked to be so star-crossed)
horny_soit1929 authorised
With only a few more weeks left in what might be the end of his term as Prime Minister, Anthony should have been thinking about anything other than the Opposition Leader, staring back at him from the other end of the chamber. Well, maybe that wasn’t entirely true… thinking about the opposition seems to be in the job description, but these thoughts? No one would authorise such tender feelings of yearning for someone so forbidden. Peter glanced back and met Anthony’s eyes, and as if they were the only two people in this crowded room, Anthony felt the last shred of his dignity cave under his want.
He tried to shake off the feeling curdling in his chest — he really did — and focus on the literal life-changing matters being discussed. Matters that were still his responsibility to fix, matters that his once-lover insisted on making worse. It was a good reminder why they would never work (in every unprofessional sense of the word) — they were simply too star-crossed. Adam Bandt, the perfecton-paper boyfriend, was making his speech. Something important probably, undermining one of the major parties. Which one, exactly, did not matter, even Anthony could recognise that they were one and the same. With so much tangled history, so much lust shared and love lost, how could Liberal and Labor not find their politics intertwining?
Peter wasn’t wrong to say that Anthony would jump in bed with the Greens if it meant staying in parliament. With his brilliant smile and left-leaning politics, Adam should have been the obvious choice for Anthony. But behind the closed chamber doors, it was a Liberal man he longed for.
The meeting adjourned with Anthony not registering a word. How was a Prime Minister supposed to get anything done when his love life was so complicated? When the man of his dreams was sitting across from him, miles away and out of reach, while his (current) lover had no idea that he longed for another man.
MPs filed out of the room, laughing as though they hadn’t just ruined the lives of millions of Australians, as if they hadn’t just yelled and fought over their different values. Adam walked to Anthony, greeting him with a smile and a kiss.
Anthony leaned into Adam’s soft kiss, which was just so… nice. He told himself that this was what love was meant to feel like, until he almost believed it. But he couldn’t help but open his eyes, and notice that Peter hadn’t left the room. He stood at his desk, packing his files away; unmoving, unwavering, as he glared at Anthony and Adam with simultaneous desire and resentment. Anthony felt himself deepening the kiss, pushing his tongue into Adam’s open mouth, never once taking his eyes away from Peters’. That was the love Anthony remembered and craved so deeply — passionate, fiery, burning up like the Australian economic landscape.
Adam broke the kiss abruptly, lips chapped and parted. He gave a shy smile, wiping his thumb across the remaining wetness at the corner of his mouth, before righting himself. He left the room, allowing Anthony and Peter to be alone together, once again.
Anthony grabbed the back of Peter’s bald, shiny head. The slightly scratchy stubble-like hairs, rather than Adam’s luscious locks, made his fingers feel like they were on fire. They stood for a moment, Anthony leaning slightly on the centre table in the House of Representatives, his eyes throwing daggers from how much he wanted to resist this kiss. Eventually, he can’t anymore. Peter leaned in, his toad-like tongue darting between the slight gap of Anthony’s mouth. Anthony sucked on Peter’s tongue like spaghetti, the Italian pouncing at the chance to relinquish himself to this choice.
It was a bad choice, ‘the wrong choice’, he thought to himself. Anthony closed his eyes and tried to picture Adam’s face, but his brain had gone fuzzy. All he was aware of was the hot hunk of masculinity pressing into him. Peter, his forbidden fruit, whose knee rubbed against Anthony’s ever-enlarging bulge as if alerting a parliamentary member to an upcoming vote. Except this time, it was Anthony’s own member springing to action.
Peter pulled away suddenly, his overly wet lips schmacking loudly as he panted. “Anthony, we can’t do this here. What if someone walks in? What if Adam walks in?”
this content.
Anthony paused, then pulled his phone out of his pocket. He calls someone. “This is the Italian Stallion. Lock down all entrances to the House of Representatives. Don’t let anyone in, or out, until I say so.” He turns his phone down on the table, then hoisted himself onto it, slowly undoing his tie.
“Stallion, eh? Is he willing to take me for a ride?” Peter winked deliciously at Anthony, a challenge burning in his eyes. Then, with one hand, he pulled Anthony in by the tie, bringing him into a kiss. With the other hand, Peter roughly palmed Anthony’s crotch. He felt the outline of Anthony’s appendage throb between his thumb and pointer finger, and he pinched it slightly. “This certainly feels like a hung parliament.”
Peter leaned into Anthony’s neck, licked a line up his neck, then whispered, “When was the last time Adam had you as rock-hard as a coal mine?” Anthony growls, knowing it’s been too long. Longer than the time it took the Labor party to backtrack on the Carbon Tax reforms of the 2010s.
But that was no excuse. “Please don’t say his name. Please just be here, now. I can’t think about…” Anthony’s face dropped slightly.
Peter pulled back, then grabbed Anthony’s chins between his fingers. “If you don’t want to do this, we don’t have to. I need you to say yes to whatever we do. Anthony, do you want this?”
Anthony looked into the distance. He saw the bench in the middle row where Adam sat, saw his timid, eager outline, and the dull sadness that crawls onto the image he has of Adam. Perfect, perfect Adam. Perfect, boring Adam. He looked back to Peter, and as their eyes met, a shiver went down his spine. It wasn’t just osteoporosis. He thought this might truly be love.
“Yes. I want you to take me. Here, now, I want you to—”
Peter pounced on Anthony, their mouths engulfed like the Gulf of Mexico, and they leaned back on the table. Peter’s heavy limbs weighed upon Anthony, a heft that dissipated all of the stress and guilt held in his Prime Ministerial body. Their tongues waged war with each other, before Anthony flipped Peter over, their hands almost knocking over the Parliamentary Mace.
Anthony pinned Peter’s wrists on the table above his head. He didn’t know, truly, who was going to take the next election. What he knew, right there, right then, was that he was in control, and he would be taking Peter right there, right then. He leaned in to kiss Peter, but when Peter pulled his neck upwards. Anthony pulled away, swiping his tongue at Peter’s nose.
Peter glared at Anthony. “Oh, you’re such a tease. You’re as bad as when we tell first home buyers we might give them financial subsidies.”
Anthony flinched, remembering the person beneath him. Despite their political oppositions, they were still pulled together like magnets. Dirty, shameful, lustful magnets.
In this moment of weakness, Peter flipped Anthony again, placing himself on top of the Prime Minister. Peter ground his bony butt down on Anthony’s mound, constrained under his tailored suit pants. “The only flag I raise, apart from the true Australian flag, is yours Anthony.”
Yes, Anthony thought, yes you do. Peter slipped off the edge of the table onto his knees. Anthony sat up and cradled Peter’s face.
Peter started unzipping Anthony’s fly, beaming at the man above him, before gripping Anthony’s unleashed member like he was preparing to make a mildly racist comment at the lectern.
Anthony gazed at the mint walls surrounding them, taking in the last four years. Everything he had achieved. He recalled the memory of when he was sworn in, of when he walked down the aisle of the House of Representatives hand in hand with his partner, Adam Bandt. The first queer power couple in Parliament, but not the only queer lovers in these walls. Anthony looked down at Peter’s shiny forehead, and he knew he was a goner. ‘He may be a potato, but he’s my potato’, he thinks, as Peter finally took Anthony into his mouth. Finally, after months of campaigning and years of longing glances, he discovered bliss.
Get paid when you do your mandatory practical placement
Ask Abe
SRC
Caseworker Help Q&A Inclusion & Disability Services
Dear Abe,
I have difficulty in reading some words and numbers – they kind of jump around the page a bit. My friend thinks I am dyslexic, and I was wanting to know if there is anything I can do about it.
Thanks Alphabet
Dear Alphabet, The first thing to do is to speak to your GP about your options for getting a diagnosis. This will enable you to then investigate what accommodations you might need from the University. This might include a coloured lens to place over
your written word, access to assistive technology, or just some extra time to do assessments. You can also explain your situation to your lecturers and ask them what they are able to do to help you. Most of them will only do what they are instructed to do by Sydney Uni’s Inclusion and Disability Services, but there is no harm in trying. Finally, be aware of your study load and deadlines. Often doing fewer subjects will help to spend less time on those tasks, and knowing when you need to withdraw from a subject you are struggling with, will stop you from getting a fail. Please note there is a four week deadline for exam adjustments, so register as soon as you can.
Thanks Abe
If you need help from an SRC Caseworker start an enquiry on our Caseworker Contact Form: bit.ly/3YxvDUf
If you have a clash or if you need a special arrangement (e.g. a different time zone), contact the exams office as soon as possible.
For more information on exams see: sydney.edu.au/students/exams
In this week’s edition of Honi Soit, we have asked paid office bearers of the SRC to submit their reports explaining how the upcoming federal election will affect their collective or department.
President
Angus Fisher
If there is one message you should take away from this entire edition of Honi, it should be: Don’t Risk Dutton. Put the Liberals Last.
The strategy of the Liberals is to cut. If they have their way they will cut Medicare and health funding, government service departments that help the most vulnerable in society, university and research funding, and funding towards renewable energy. Nothing will be spared in the pursuit of “government efficiency”.
You don’t even need to look at the Liberals’ past behaviour of lining the pockets of their mates to know a Liberal government is awful, just look at their promises. $600 billion to nuclear energy. 41,000 public sector jobs cut and the immediate recall to office. A housing policy letting people dip into superannuation that will cripple young people’s future retirement and increase house prices. There is nothing
The views expressed by these office bearers do not represent the official views of the SRC or Honi Soit.
good to highlight.
When a Liberal government isn’t in power, we get better results. When they were in government inflation, unemployment, and interest rates were up, while economic growth and wages were stagnant. Left-ofcentre parties have supported the biggest investment into Medicare ever and a slashing of HECS bills. They have also supported the best industrial relations reforms in years.
Everyone, and particularly every student, must Put the Liberals Last. Let’s allow the next government to do more than just right the wrongs of preceding Liberal governments. A Liberal doesn’t deserve to be Prime Minister. Don’t Risk Dutton.
In solidarity,
Angus Fisher
Vice Presidents
Shovan
Bhattarai,
Bohao Zhang
The Vice-Presidents did not submit a report this week.
Education Officers
Don’t listen to the people who tell you that the major parties have the interests of students in mind. They do not.
They are engaged in a race to the bottom, vilifying international students and aiming to push through racist student caps that would decimate our universities. If they go through, we are likely to see cuts to courses, staff wages and student services. These caps are based in part on the racist theory that foreign students are somehow to blame for the housing crisis.
They are not. International students did not cause the housing crisis — a combination of tax breaks, loopholes and lack of government courage to stand up to the owner class has led us to the situation that we are in. We are seeing both of the
major parties put forward policies that will drive house prices up, making it even harder for students to be able to live near uni. Students should have access to free education and public housing near campus so they can focus on being students, rather than on whether they’re going to have to drop a unit and pick up more shifts to get by.
Relying on electoral politics will not save us. The fight for free education will not be won in the halls of parliament by smug politicians — it will be won on the streets, in our classrooms and on our campuses by regular students like you.
Join the fight by following our Instagram at usyd.education.action.
The first thing to be said is that this election in so-called “Australia” is occurring on stolen land where consecutive governments have done so little for First Nations peoples, including largely ignoring the 332 recommendations from the Royal Commission Into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. 555 First Nations people have died in custody since the 1991 report was handed down.
While I believe that the best outcome of this election would be a progressive minority government where left-wing groups and independents can try to force more change from the Labor party, this will by no means fix most of the major issues we currently face: a lack of First Nations rights and justice, a housing crisis blamed on international students and immigrants instead of landlords and privatising public housing, government support for genocide and apartheid in
Grace Street, Anu Khulan
Palestine, the climate crisis, shocking rates of femicide, crippling HECs debt and medical bills, attacks on trans and queer rights, and so much more. As one of the General Secretaries and being on the SRC executive, all of this is relevant to the students we represent and to our community.
Our politics and our work in the SRC neither begins nor ends at the ballot box, and we need to dream bigger than electoralism. However, there is a lot at stake in this election. Seeing how the victory of Trump and the Republican party has further emboldened right-wing, conservative and fascist movements, we know that we cannot repeat this phenomenon in Australia with a Duttonled government.
– Grace Street
Women’s Officers
It’s going to be tough putting our thoughts on this election into 250 words, so we’ll just focus on a couple of salient points.
Coming into this election, Labor has announced a measly $8.6 million to commit to domestic violence, as well as a new slate of policies aimed at preventing financial abuse and control. The Liberals seem to have forgotten that women can actually vote. After announcing their plan to force public servants to return to the office, Dutton’s suggestion for women and parents benefitting from flexible working arrangements was to simply drop back to part time work (in this economy???). Their scant policy on the domestic violence epidemic is tied up with their broader ‘tough on crime’ policy approach, which serves only to increase racist policing and over incarceration instead of actually addressing the root causes of violence.
Martha Barlow, Ellie Robertson
It is notable that the vast majority of the parties running have no specific policy sections for women’s issues. If you look closely, you’ll find a party or two with great policies that include better funding for domestic violence services, protection of and increased accessibility to reproductive healthcare, and closing the gender pay gap — hint: it is NOT the major parties.
Remember - we have preferential voting, so don’t let anyone tell you that voting for a minor party or independent is a waste of a vote! Just remember to preference the Liberals, Nationals and all the other right wing parties dead last.
In solidarity,
Martha and Ellie
Disabilities Officers
Remy Lebreton, Vince Tafea
Remy Lebreton and Vince Tafea are not and never have been members of any political party.
Dutton is a non-starter. The only thing Liberals are interested in is increasing their investment property portfolios. Nevertheless, this election is a moment to reflect on the failures of Labor in addressing the needs of people with disabilities. This includes but is not limited to the inadequate response to the Disability Royal Commission with only 13 of 172 recommendations adopted and the housing crisis in which disabled people are disproportionately impacted, with no robust standard for accessibility in housing federally mandated. We need public housing, and we need it accessible. Neither Albanese nor Dutton have mentioned disability once in their debates. – Vince Tafea
The liberals are terrible, but labor won’t save us. They are deeply complicit in the
genocide in Palestine whilst thousands die, have perpetuated the climate crisis they ran on tackling, and many of us can barely afford rent (if we have a home at all). They are too busy being the party of arms dealing, strike breaking, coal digging and landlord rent seeking.
It is disgraceful that subminimum wages of $3 an hour are still legal under our current government. Doctors and psychiatrists vital to the care of our community have been on strike, fighting for safe working conditions, whilst the state labor government says it will make an example of them. Neither of these issues have been discussed at length, if at all in electoral debate. If the major parties really care about the disabled community, it must be more than ID pol rhetoric, or “acceptance in principle”, it must be material.
– Remy Lebreton
Jasmine Al Rawi, Luke Mešterović
Ethno-Cultural Officers
Dana Kafina, Kayla Hill
ACAR would like to note that the ‘australian’ electoral party system operates exactly as it is meant to. The system is not broken. It is designed in a way that mandates the continuous oppression and subjugation of anyone ‘other’, including First Nations, disabled, working class people, and people of colour.
We urge you to strongly vote in accordance with antiracist issues, considering First Nations, Palestine, and intersectional liberation struggles. We also urge you to hold your candidates accountable: make good trouble and demand answers about antiracist issues via email, call, or candidate visit — ask them about First Nations concerns, ask them about
Queer Officers
Both major parties are setting back queer rights. The Labor Party continues to throw trans people under the bus, consistent with their record on LGBTQIA+ rights, recently declaring a national review into trans healthcare. Labor’s timing, after the LNP banned puberty blockers for trans teens in Queensland, is no coincidence - these were both calculated political decisions made to appease the right, at the expense of trans lives.
Both Labor and the Liberals have abysmal records on occupied Palestine. Labor has supplied weapons parts and diplomatic support for so-called ‘Israel’ at every step of their genocide. Peter Dutton supports Trump’s plan to forcibly displace Gaza’s population to build colonial suburban developments for Israelis. Both major parties have denied Palestinian statehood and, in the wake of large protests across the country calling for the government
Palestine, ask them about Islamophobia and racism in this colony.
Fascism is on the rise, with increased suppression of antiracist activism and protest; increased police violence and police powers; and racist, violent rhetoric spouting out of our Parliament. Regardless of the outcome of the election, solidarity is our strength. We must stay principled in a system of division. ACAR will maintain our activism and politics in the lead-up to and after the election, because only the power of the people can achieve true, real liberation.
First Nations Officer
The failure of the Voice to Parliament referendum has made one thing clear: this government does not care about justice for First Nations people. Labor refused to take a stand against the racist dogwhistling of the No campaign, and they’ve continued that silence in the aftermath. Their cowardice has emboldened the farright, and First Nations communities are bearing the brunt of it.
At the University of Sydney, the picture isn’t much better. Management loves to venerate the 1965 Freedom Riders, but when students protest racism and injustice today – whether it’s in support of Gaza, or calling for a fair deal for staff and casuals – we’re met with repression, surveillance, and disciplinary proceedings. The University continues to fail First Nations students on retention, academic
to cut ties with ‘Israel,’ have encouraged draconian anti-protest laws instituted by their state and territory counterparts.
Labor’s support for First Nations people has remained symbolic. After Labor’s inherently divisive Voice referendum, both parties took the outpouring of racism as a sign they should further neglect Indigenous rights. Peter Dutton has promised to gut funding for Closing the Gap initiatives and stoked culture wars at the expense of Indigenous lives.
It’s clear the ballot box will not meaningfully advance queer rights in the long-term. Nevertheless, QuAC encourages voters to research and vote for independent and minor party candidates in their electorate and senate who support queer rights and an end to genocide at home and abroad.
Environment Officers
1.4 million young Australians will cast their votes for the first time in the 2025 federal election and they rank climate change as one of the top issues, alongside cost of living.
Since May 2022, the Albanese government has approved 10 new coal mines or expansions. These projects have contributed to the approximately 2,449 million tonnes of emissions produced under a purportedly pro-climate Labor party. Albanese also supported the enactment of draconian anti-protest laws by NSW Labor premier Chris Minns, partly in
response to climate activism by direct action groups like Rising Tide or Blockade Australia.
The federal government has also been complicit in ecocide in Palestine, giving “unequivocal political support” to Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Somehow, a Liberal government would be far worse. Dutton has promised to relax the “safeguard mechanism” used to limit greenhouse gas
Ethan Floyd
support, housing and cultural safety. And it still proudly maintains the Wentworth Building, named after a genocidal coloniser and white supremacist. That building should have been renamed years ago. The campaign to dismantle Wentworth’s legacy must be revived.
But amidst the violence and silence, there is strength. First Nations and Palestinian communities have shown what true solidarity looks like – grounded in shared struggle, and a deep understanding of what colonial violence means.
In this federal election, we must reject the two-party status quo. Labor and the Liberals alike have failed us. Fight for a future beyond colonialism, capitalism and electoralism.
Welfare Officers
Annabel Petit, Mia Williams, Dan O’Shea
Recently we’ve been getting ready for a series of important events next month, with the Students for Palestine National Day of Action on the 24th of May now live - promotion for this will be a major focus, like at the upcoming Palestine action group rally this Sunday and on campus over the coming weeks. This will be a mobilisation of students across the country to call for an end to the Australian government’s alliance with Trump’s America, and broadly condemn all the attacks on human rights and civil liberties that his administration has overseen. The NDA is also an extension of solidarity with everyone over in the US resisting the Trump administration, and our answer to the inspiring wave of anti-Trump protests which have erupted in recent weeks.
The other upcoming event which we have been preparing for and will continue to build alongside the Tamil Refugee Council is the Tamil Genocide Day rally, which will be held on Sunday the 18th of May at Town Hall to commemorate the 16th anniversary of Sri Lanka’s Mullivaikal beach massacre during the 2009 Tamil genocide. This was an extreme escalation of the ongoing project of ethnic cleansing by the ethno-chauvinist Sinhalese state, and was wholly ignored by the Australian government which continues its alliance with Sri Lanka today.
emissions on large industrial polluters.
He refused to recognise that climate change affecting Australia in the Leader’s Debate, is similarly repugnant on Palestine and has an illegal and dangerous nuclear plan. Dutton is also prone to Morrisonesque gaffes, ditching his flood stricken electorate during Cyclone Alfred to attend a Merivale fundraiser.
The minor parties and some independents offer a more hopeful policy platform when it comes to climate. The Greens plan to reach 100% renewable energy by 2030, guarantee a renters’ right to solar, make coal and gas companies pay for the climate change induced damage they’ve caused to communities and phase out coal and gas while protecting workers in those industries. This is not an endorsement of the Australian Greens, so don’t worry about your SSAF. These policies are listed value-judgement free so the intelligent, capable readers of Honi Soit can make up their own minds.
Jamie Bridge, Wendy Thompson
Deaglan Godwin, Lilah Thurbon
Whiskey Art by Ellie Robertson
1. Design a scratchy t-shirt for your volunteers to wear
3. Pick a sauce for your performative democracy sausage
5. Declare your private investments
2. Design a campaign poster for your opponents to graffiti over
4. Pick a location for your first photo op
WAIT! Before creating your wonderful campaign announcement speech, fill in each of the prompts Mad Libs style. Then, feel free to stand in the middle of your local shopping centre or Botanical Gardens and announce your candidacy! 1.
8. Noun
9. Verb ending in -ing
10. Animal
11. Double-digit number
12. Sensitive political issue
13. Vulnerable minority group
14. TV network
15. Job title
16. Past-tense verb
17. Kitchen utensil
18. Important job
19. Pet name for a partner
20. Body part
21. Your name
My fellow _____________, I stand before you today hopeful and ________ to nominate myself as a candidate in the election for the Federal Member of _____________. Whilst I may not live in this electorate, I was born and raised in _____________________. My only child plays for the local __________ team, I care deeply about issues such as the price of __________, and I have always loved Jimmy’s _____________ as much as any of us locals.
I’ll outline a few of my key concerns for this election. I believe marriage should be between a man and a ________. I believe your taxes should only be used to pay for _______________. I believe climate change is a hoax, and that the world would be a better place if every ________ went extinct. I believe it is my right to own ________________ properties if I pay for them with my hard-earned money.
I also believe that the problem of _________________ is the fault of ____________________, and I will do everything in my power to stop the major parties from turning away from the everyday Australian.
You may ask about the allegations brought against me by _________ regarding my allegedly inappropriate relationship to my former ________. I can assure you that these allegations are false. I have never _____________ anyone apart from my beautiful wife. Joanne, I do all of this for you and our wonderful child, _____________. If you didn’t sacrifice your thriving career as the most respected ____________ in NSW, I would not be able to run my campaign. Thank you __________.
So I ask you, my fellow Australians, when you go to the ballots, you vote with your heart, your head, and your _________, and vote one _________________.
Puzzles
Quick Crossword
Across
2 Party that formerly had strong control over unions (3)
4 Renaissance painter Veronese (5)
6 Censure (7)
8 Recently criminalised in IR reform (4,5)
Down
1 Wear proudly (5)
2 Not all heroes wear them (5)
3 Hawaiian greeting (5)
4 Like Captain Ahab (9)
5 Complete renovations (9)
6 Washington mountain (7)
Week 8 Quick Crossword Answers
10 Singers Collins and Ochs (5)
11 Yapped like a dog (5)
13 Author of Common Sense (5)
14 Plot problems (5)
15 Self-righteous types (5)
17 They outrank viscounts (5)
7 Struggles (7)
8 ”Give it a ___” (5)
9 The Beeb is seen on it (5)
10 Ruling party of Singapore (3)
12 École ___ Beaux-Arts (3)
16 Fills (5)
18 Obligation written in legislation? (5,4)
20 Sells to public (7)
21 They’re outstanding (5)
22 “Mayday!” (3)
17 Prepares for print (5)
19 Party whose name some consider ironic (5)
Across (by individual row): Nat, Doses, Let Know, Eero, Toes, Bet, Nap, Ere, Crosschecking, Cee, Smeagol, Cod, Can’t See, My Gears, Art, Get, PPE, Fis, Nerissa, Electee, Tin, One Iota, Her, Command Centre, née, DST, Non, Sing, Ores, Drawbar, AMIEU, EZR
Down (by individual column): Not Once, Ask, Tent Peg, Der, Soo, Let’s See Some ID, Weekly Planner, EEO, Sri, Bret, A-Ha, ence, centric, Smetana, Compete, Go After, Caret, Drier, Can, SGs, Gee, SSE, In On, Chen, Endgame, IDs, October, Mes, TOS, NRA, Rau, Wiz
Week 8 Cryptic Crossword Answers
Across (by individual row): Rabbit, Acid Rain, Cold War, Cushion, ABCD, Go Straight, Darwin, Minions, Jerk Off, Tai Chi, Jollof Rice, Knit, Ramekin, Footman, Scottish, Let’s Go Down (by individual column): Richard, Bell Curve, Iowa, Cocktail, Das Kapital, Aging, Ninety, Proof, Pickpocket, Nicknames, Affronts, Nintendo, Fjords, Sci-fi, Limbo, Note
Honi in the ‘90s: DIY Newspaper Victor Zhang delves into the archives.
The swan song edition of the 1997 Honi team contained a charming spread that had the baby photos of all the editors, a ‘Fanx’ list, a ‘No Fanx’ list, and a handy guide for how to run your very own Honi Soit! So much of this is still so true. Reading the “Last minute disasters” while writing this column just gave me a flashback of the last 48 hours. I think the
only thing that didn’t happen from that disaster list is the collapsing bookshelves and the lazy editors because Spill is amazing.
Also I most certainly didn’t write this well after midnight.
I love the complaints we get though.
Look, at a certain point it’s just easier for me to fill the whitespace with Whiskey. I love Whiskey. Art by Ellie Robertson!!
Credit: Some Hack
Special Buys Bad. Same.
A-frames and corflutes in marginal seats
Bulk deal available!!
Before Head Office DOGE’s us, stretch your $/vote KPI!!
An SGM Motion that’ll actually pass
Still with zero speaking time for your valued constituents.
Your own child
The perfect prop for your political photo ops. Smile!
THERE ARE ONLY FOUR GENDERS - MALE, HOTTIE, SPOON, AND DIVA
This ad space paid for by Pumpets of Tratriots
New videos of the Senate Twink Sparkly jumpsuits
For the ambiguously heterosexual male popstars looking to be an icon but not in a gay way.
He’s ours now, and we also have a federal senate for him to defile.
