And that is where we are going to leave you, because we all have better things to do than watch the final gasps of one of the most uninspiring election campaigns in modern history match up against one of the worst election campaigns in modern history.

Now we just wait and see how the numbers fall, who will take over the Liberal and National parties and what sort of negotiation pathway Labor has in the senate.

It will also be fun to see the finger pointing (which has already begun)

Prediction; Peta Credlin and co start arguing that the loss was because Peter Dutton didn’t go hard enough, that he wasn’t allowed to be himself etc (they always say it’s because the Coalition just didn’t shift far enough to the right – but a reminder Dutton picked up questions from literal neo-Nazis and tried to make a culture war out of it)

Also keep in mind that Peta Credlin, Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison advised on this campaign. So take all they have to say with a grain of salt.

Peter Dutton is in WA for *reasons* which seems like a cruel and unnecessary punishment at this stage of things for people on his bus. But whatevs!

We will be back tomorrow, live on the Australia Institute’s Facebook and YouTube channels from 5.30pm with election analysis, fact checks on issues and policies and a some drinks – so come pre-game with us before turning over for Antony Green’s swan song (we are not going all night because we know where your heart lies)

And of course, we will also be liveblogging. So hopefully we will see you tomorrow?

Until then, take care of you. Fingers crossed we can start making Australia brave again.

Most Independent / Other voters support crossbench to negotiate for best outcomes for nation and electorate

New Australia Institute polling shows that more than twice as many Australians support a power-sharing arrangement in the next term of parliament as oppose one (41.7% vs 19.7%).

And, among Independent and Other voters, more say that independent and minor party MPs holding the balance of power should support the party they believe can negotiate the best policy outcomes for Australia (47.8% and 49.8% respectively) than any other option.

An overwhelming majority (70%) of Australians think that the Senate should review and scrutinise every government policy on its merits, while just 12.2% think that the Senate should support every policy the government took to the election.

• Twice as many Australians support an arrangement in the new parliament where the major party shares power and responsibility with crossbench parliamentarians as oppose it (41.7% vs 19.7%). 38.6% don’t know/not sure.
  • ALP voters (47.5% support, 11.8% oppose), Greens voters (62.2% support, 5.0% oppose), Independent voters (47.9% support, 10.4% oppose), and Other voters (48.2% support, 14.0% oppose) all strongly support a powersharing Parliament
  • Conversely, Coalition (29.6% support, 34.7% oppose) and One Nation voters (28.4% support, 31.4% oppose) oppose power-sharing arrangements more often than they support them
• If independent and minor party MPs hold the balance of power after the federal election:
• Most Independent voters and Other voters think they should support the party they believe can negotiate the best policy outcomes, either for Australia or for the MP’s local electorate (total 58.9% and 67.9% respectively).
  • 17.9% of Independent voters and 14.4% of Other voters think crossbench MPs should support ALP to form government; 4.0% Independent voters and 6.7% Other voters think they should support LNP to form government
  • Unsurprisingly, 60.6% of ALP voters believe they should support the Labor Party to form government, while 65.4% of Coalition voters believe they should support the Coalition to form government.
    • As a whole, 28.6% of Australians think they should support the Labor Party to form government with Anthony Albanese as Prime Minister, while 25.5% of Australians think they should support the Liberal / National Coalition to form government with Peter Dutton as Prime Minister
    • 27.0% of Australians think they should support whichever party the MP believes they can negotiate the best policy outcomes for Australia, and a further 7.2% think they should support the party negotiating the best policy outcomes for their electorate
• Seven in 10 Australians (70%) think that the Senate should review and scrutinise every government policy on its merits, just 12.2% think the Senate should support every policy that the government took to the election.
• The vast majority of Australians (72.0%) did not think talk of a possible ‘hung parliament’ or ‘minority government’ influenced they way they voted, or intended to vote. 13.7% said it did influence the way they voted.

“The Australia Institute’s polling research shows that voters aren’t buying dark talk of ‘coalitions of chaos’ or ‘hung parliaments’. Most states and territories have experienced power-sharing parliaments in the last 20 years, so Australians have real-world experience that these parliaments can be popular and effective,” said Bill Browne, Democracy & Accountability Program Director at The Australia Institute.

“Over the past four decades, Australians have voted for minor parties and independents in greater numbers. No major party or coalition has won a majority of the popular vote since the 1970s. A parliament where no one party has a majority of seats is a natural consequence of the declining major party vote.

“Power-sharing has been a feature of parliaments for as long as they have existed. Power-sharing parliaments are common in Australia, particularly at the state and territory level, and they can be very successful.

“Political commentators and strategists who focus on the two-party ‘horse race’, neglecting the growing minor party and independent vote, will increasingly be caught out by seat upsets.

“It is under power-sharing parliaments that the ACT adopted truth in political advertising laws, whistleblower protections were achieved in NSW, the Royalties for Regions package distributed mining and petroleum royalties to WA regional communities, the ACT achieved 100% renewable energy and Tasmania passed one of the most progressive freedom of information acts in the country.

“At the federal level, the 2010–2013 power-sharing parliament and Gillard Labor government passed legislation at a higher rate than any other, including ambitious legislation like the NDIS, Clean Energy Future Package, cigarette plain packaging and expanding Medicare to dental for children.”

YouGov was commissioned to conduct a national survey of 1,500 voters on behalf of The Australia Institute between 24 and 29 April 2025, using an online survey polling methodology. Full details are provided in the methodology statement attached to this media release. The poll is compliant with the Australian Polling Council’s requirements. The margin of error on the effective sample size is 3.27%.

Keep an eye on this one tomorrow.

I forgot this, because – tired, but the retail trade figures came out and showed a slight growth of 0.3% (just under the economist prediction of 0.4%) for an annual growth figure of 4.3%

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg and Elinor discuss bracket creep, tariffs and the Aussie dollar, and the great silence about revenue in the federal election campaign.

If no one party wins a majority in the House of Representatives, the next government will share power with minor parties and independents.

New research from the Australia Institute asks what power sharing negotiations might look like, based on 25 power sharing parliaments elected by Australians since 1989.

Read the full report on our website: https://australiainstitute.org.au/report/forming-power-sharing-government/

Firstly, negotiations take time – usually two weeks or more.

Crossbenchers often have decades of parliamentary experience between them.

Agreements take many forms – some are formal, some are not – and they can be with both major parties, not just the one that forms government. And to be clear, crossbenchers can support either major party, regardless of which won more seats or more votes.

Many agreements reform parliamentary process, like allowing dedicated time for private members’ bills to be debated and voted upon; more productive Question Times; greater committee scrutiny of the government and fixed parliamentary terms.

In a power sharing parliament, crossbenchers can be the deciding vote on any law so they often negotiate more staff and fairer rules for how staff are distributed.

Policy commitments are common too. Power sharing parliaments have adopted truth in political advertising laws, whistleblower protections, Royalties for Regions, 100% renewable energy and new freedom of information laws.

Finally, crossbenchers are often appointed to the speakership or take ministries in the government.

There’s one power sharing agreement we don’t hear much about: the Coalition Agreement between the Liberals and the Nationals. We know less about how the Liberal and National parties share power than we do about how crossbenchers share power with minority and coalition governments.

Parliaments were designed to share power, but when no one party or coalition wins a majority of the seats, it shines a light on how power is shared.

Crikey has done a deep dive into the ‘independent’ modelling the Coalition has been touting for its nuclear plan, and well, shockingly (you know how this ends)

Also in question – when and if the Coalition will declare this ‘gift’ as a donation-in-kind with the AEC. (I have asked around and modelling isn’t cheap)

Here is part of Daanyal Saeed‘s reporting:

The Coalition’s much-vaunted nuclear modelling was — despite Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s insistence it was “independent” analysis — created by a… think tank that has a cosy relationship with Nuclear for Australia, a lobby group with its own links to the Liberal Party. 

Frontier Economics was the economic advisory firm responsible for the Coalition’s nuclear modelling and projected that the policy would cost an estimated $331 billion and involve the commissioning of seven nuclear reactors. 

While Dutton said that Frontier “refused to take any money” when asked to model the plan by the Coalition, and Frontier in the report states that it was funded and directed solely by Frontier Economics, the issue of whether the work constitutes a “gift”, and the actual independence of the work, is still live. 

In January this year, Frontier managing director Danny Price gave an extended interview to pro-nuclear lobby group Nuclear for Australia, where Frontier is described as a “non-partisan” and “pro-nuclear” organisation. 

Nuclear for Australia has recently been reminded by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) of its legal obligations to authorise its electoral material after running thousands of dollars worth of online advertising in support of policies promoted by the Coalition. Teenage founder Will Shackel has previously denied that the Liberal Party is backing the group, despite a number of reported links to the organisation. 

Crikey contacted the Coalition, Frontier Economics and the AEC about the status of the work as a gift and whether the work had been disclosed. 

Really good to see journalists take a look behind some of these claims. While it is not necessarily Watergate, this sort of thing SHOULD be on the public record.

Matt Grudnoff and Greg Jericho

The election campaign mostly stays away from rural areas – there aren’t many votes there and fewer seats that the major parties believe are in play. About the best you can hope for is a cross to David Littleproud talking about how he really is in charge of things and that’s why he is in Alice Springs and not Peter Dutton.

It’s a sad state of affairs because it often leaves voters with little choice except the National Party unless a good, local independent crops up. And there should be much more pressure put on all parties to talk about how badly those in the regions are treated relative to the big focus on even specific areas of capital cities (hello western Sydney!)

Because the problem is the further you are from a capital city the lower your life expectancy. That’s a pretty damming situation.  

Even within our capital cities there are differences. People living in the inner parts of our capital cities live almost a year longer (0.8) than those living in outer metropolitan areas.

But life expectancy falls even more for people who live in areas outside the capital cities. In areas where the majority of people live in major regional cities life expectancy falls by more than a year (-1.1) compared with outer metro areas. In rural areas the results are even worse. Almost half a year (0.4) lower than provincial areas.

That means that people in rural areas die almost two and half years sooner (-2.3) than Australians living in inner cities.

The lack of services, and worse healthcare are things given briefest of mentions during election campaign – mostly we might get the occasional pork barrelling talk of a GP clinic for one area.

But this is an issue that is not just isolated to specific areas or electorates. It is (dare I say it) at national problem…

Jodie Haydon (along with Kirilly Dutton) have both written op-ed’s on why they believe their partners should be PM.

Albanese did Melbourne radio Nova FM this morning where he was asked about Jodie’s letter (spoiler, she is voting Labor)

Look, she’s just fantastic. And this morning, she’s still in the hotel room, I’ve got to say, at the moment, rather than going to the early events this morning. But she’s fantastic I mean, just great when you go through really long days, having someone to talk to at the end of the day and just to be there and be supportive. She’s also really smart and does particularly well. Make sure as well she has a different perspective.

As a woman, she’s very clear about issues like working from home. Like when that came up, she was just on to us every day saying, “this is a big issue, these people don’t understand what modern situations are like and what impact this will have on women in particular,” and I said to her every day, “yep, I know, we’re campaigning against it.” She was like, “go harder,” basically, she was very passionate –
 
PHILLIPS: Oh, good. I’m glad that she lays the law down for you.
 
PRIME MINISTER: Oh, yeah. She’s a tough Central Coastie from New South Wales –
 
PHILLIPS: Who’s the boss in your house? –
 
PRIME MINISTER: They make them tough. I think the truth is that there’s a little fluffy four pawed –
 
PHILLIPS: Oh, yeah.
 
HAWKINS: Oh, the dog.
 
PHILLIPS: Yeah, the dog runs my house, too.
 
PRIME MINISTER: She gets whatever she wants, Toto.
 
HAWKINS: In a way, we are voting in the couple. You know what I mean? Yeah, You go home, you talk to your partner. So, I think that’s great that she putting her input in. I remember when the Obamas were running for their spot in the Oval. They promised the kids a dog at the end of the campaign just because it’s so much work. Have you promised Jodie a cheeky little holiday, a bit of jewellery?
 
STANAWAY: Doesn’t she get a wedding?
 
PRIME MINISTER: Oh look, well, she gets a wedding regardless. And it might be a little bit more private if we have a bad outcome tomorrow. So, we did have to delay it, effectively, because of just concentrating on the job.
 
PHILLIPS: Running the country.
 
PRIME MINISTER: Yeah, all of that. She certainly understood that. We did have a cheeky idea of, because we got engaged on Valentine’s Day last year, of just doing it, just a really quiet official thing in Valentine’s Day this year and seeing how long it would take before people get asked, “is that a wedding ring on your finger?”
 
PHILLIPS: Oh, I love that.
 
HAWKINS: Oh, that’s cool.
 
PRIME MINISTER: Yeah, we didn’t, but we just thought, “no, her parents wouldn’t be happy with that.”
 
PHILLIPS: No, we want a big wedding. We want the big wedding, Cinderella wedding.
 
PRIME MINISTER: No, we will have a small wedding, but it will be really nice.

This is a good point – schools and local organisations rely on the democracy day fundraisers, and the early voting would be having an impact on bottom lines. (Public schools wouldn’t need to fundraise if they were funded properly, but hey – those private school castles aren’t going to pay for themselves.