Talk:2025 Australian federal election

Question

Shouldn't every party with seats be in the infobox (i.e Labor, the Coalition, the Greens, the KAP, the Centre Alliance and DLFCN, in that order)? I'm referring to here and here. Every other federal election article includes the parties that won seats, why shouldn't this and the 2022 one? Furthermore, state election articles include every party with seats (e.g the one with the most being the 2020 Queensland state election article which includes six parties in the infobox, all of which had at least one seat before the election, in this order: Labor, the LNP, the KAP, the Greens, One Nation and North Queensland First, note that the latter party's MP (Jason Costigan) defected from the LNP and created NQF but lost his seat of Whitsunday to the LNP). Furthermore, articles about upper house elections in Australia (i.e Senate elections and state upper house elections) include every party with seats. It really doesn't hurt to include more parties in the infobox. Any thoughts? Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

There was a discussion on the 2022 Australian federal election about this.

I would agree with you that for the purpose of the page being clear to the readers we ought to show every party elected.

The only argument I think are reasonable are "Too long of an infobox", which I don't think is emulated on other pages such as the 2020 Irish general election. Noting that it's not emulated on pages such as Next United Kingdom general election. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Upon more research I found this RfC here DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Change the Name?

As we get closer to the election might it be prudent to move it to '2025 Australian federal election' to make it more concise? DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

How close is close? It's only April 2024 now. An election could be called for any time between about June 2024 and September 2025. That's 8 months left of 2024 vs. 9 months of 2025. Fairly line-ball, really. But that's not even the point. Within certain legal/constitutional parameters, we simply do not know when the election will called, so to assume at this very early juncture that it will be in 2025 would be folly, imo. Also, how is changing "Next" to "2025" an exercise in concision? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Once it hits 26 November, then it would be fair to change it imo. Need 33 days for a campaign and it has to be on a Saturday, 33 days from the 26th is the last Sunday in 2024. Basetornado (talk) 06:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Not that it was ever going to occur between Christmas and New Years Day, but to have been held on the last Saturday of the year, 28 December, to allow for the minimum 33 day campaign, the election would have had to have been called on 24 November. As this window has now closed, the election will definitely be held in 2025. Iciebath (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Candidates of the next Australian federal election for deletion

A discussion is taking place to determine whether Candidates of the next Australian federal election should be an article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The candidates article has been deleted. Does anyone have an issue with listing candidates for election in this article? Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. The result of the AfD was that the content was not ready for the mainspace. Having it on the main election article would be even worse than having it in its own separate article. J2m5 (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, it's reliably sourced content and belongs on Wikipedia in some form. Let's see what anyone else thinks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree it should be own wikipedia in some form. I am in favour of having it on this article at the moment considering thst quite some more candidates have been anounced yet not enough to warrant its own article. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I am in favour of keeping that article. It is difficult to find reliable information about candidates that have been pre-selected by their respective parties without this page and the reliable sources that Wikipedians use.
Readers may live in a particular electorate and want to know who their candidate for the next election will be so this is good information to help average voters. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M: Looks like you are late to the discussion, which was 9 months ago. Though I expect a similar discussion to happen at the 2027/2028 election. Marcnut1996 (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Results map needs update

There has been some division changes since the last election yet the results map uses last elections divisions Mr20000 (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Dissolution of the House of Representatives

Now that the lower house is dissolved, all the people whose pages described them as incumbent members are no longer so. For the British general election last year I devised this template to put on their pages during the dissolution period as a disclaimer against any inaccuracies this caused, to save us the trouble of going through them all at the beginning (and again at the end) of the campaign. I have now created something similar for the election which is just beginning.

{{2025 Australia Representatives}}

The text can, of course, be centrally updated as necessary at different stages of the election timeline. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Very nice! Are you happy for this to be rolled out to MPs talk pages immediately? GraziePrego (talk) 10:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, please, but it's meant to go on the actual articles rather than the talk pages. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

"Online publications" in the Endorsements section

Are The Guardian Australia and The Spectator Australia online publications, or weekly newspapers? Yes, they both most regularly publish online, but they both have a weekly print run. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

My interpretation is as these two UK newspapers only have an online presence in Australia so they are really 'online publications' rather than 'newspapers' in the Australian context. (AFAIK the Guardian Weekly that is available in print outside of the UK is a digest for international readers, not original articles.) ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 06:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

The Spectator Australia "wraps" the Australian magazine around the UK magazine and Guardian Weekly comes as an Australian edition and is specially localised with extra Australian content. I'm open to putting them as magazines with The Monthly, but it does seem odd to have two publications which readers might pick up at the newsagent listed as online outlets. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

That being said, I'm not sure if The Guardian Weekly is considered the same publication as The Guardian Australia. If both publish endorsements perhaps they should be listed separately under magazines/weekly newspapers and online publications respectively? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh, fair, I haven't actually picked up a print copy of either of them in years, so I'm probably working off outdated assumptions. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 06:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Should tariffs be included?

I was editing the section for the Official campaign and I was wondering whether recent impacts on the financial market such as the ASX (Australian Securities Exchange) should be included? I know it is a significant event for the market, but I acknowledge that it is not purely related to politics, however these impacts were caused by tariffs imposed by the second Trump administration which could grow to be a major foreign policy issue.

References

Qwerty123M (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I think they're definitely notable enough to include in that section :) GraziePrego (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Should independents be added to election info box?

I mean they are one of the most important players in this election Mr20000 (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

They are mentioned in the lead, where else do you think they should go? GraziePrego (talk) 07:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I meant like the info box Mr20000 (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I thought the consensus from previous election articles was that only parties with at least one MP should be included there, but I acknowledge the significance of independent successes last election and that there has been sustained media attention so a new consensus may be required. Qwerty123M (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I think Independents should be added. there have been previous governments that depend on Independents to form government (The Three Amigos). And in this Era Independents have significant media attention and also seem to need to be included in my view to avoid giving other parties undue weight. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Tagging people who this post would be relevant to: Smashedbandit, Lord Beesus, Onetwothreeip, Marcnut1996, ITBF, Catiline52, Totallynotarandomalt69, AINH

Just some people that have commented or done edits for and against this. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Independents should definitely be in the infobox. Whether or not they're actually grouped together shouldn't actually matter for their inclusion in my opinion (it should be about how many seats are independent compared to other parties). They were a major force in the last election and will remain so for this one, it makes no sense to exclude them from the infobox (the main point of which is to summarise important information) because they're not a part of a formal party registered with the AEC.

Compared to Centre Alliance which for all intents and purposes it's just a way for the otherwise independent Sharkie to access campaign funding easier, it's honestly ridiculous to include CA and then have no mention of the other independents.

If for some reason we MUST consider them as a group to include them, Independents might not be officially grouped together but many of the Teals work together on lots of issues anyway and a lot of the discourse treats them as a group. Lord Beesus (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the main reason I wanted to add it, because it should be a summary of information, I shouldn't have to scroll all the way down to results for information that should already be there.

Even with the argument of them being "too different to group", they are clearly stated as independents, and anyone confused about that can click the link to learn what they are. It would also be more confusing without them, as people might think the seats don't exist. Mr20000 (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with DirectorDirectorDirector-AINH (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

We shouldn't add independents - they are too different among each other to be relevant as one electoral group. Parties should also have more than one MP, or at least 5% of the national vote, to be in the infobox. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't add independents, especially considering that no one candidate fights an election alongside another usually, usually independents have their own, vastly different policy platforms that are specific to the communities that they hope to support.

I'm not sure about the 5% primary vote share quota for including parties, because the 1 MP rule we have should probably be considered more important than that vote share idea. Qwerty123M (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

yeah it would be very confusing for people to see that one nation had 0 seats and won 0 seats at the election and is still somehow notable enough to be on the infobox Mr20000 (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

KAP and CA should be switched to PHON and ToP

Both are just regional parties and neither of them are running a mass campaign, even on just the state level. KAP is only running for 3 seats and CA only 1. PHON and ToP are nominating candidates in almost every seats and are included in the polls. AINH (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

If they do end up winning seats (which they probably won't), they should be added, but they currently have none, so I think it should remain the same. Mr20000 (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

CA and KAP are only regional parties. Hell CA only runs in a single seat. CA and KAP are not even included in the polls. Infobox should include political parties with broad support and influence. The polls include Labor, the Coalition, the Greens, One Nation and ToP, hence we should do the same. PHON at times are up to 10% and yet not included in the infobox AINH (talk) 05:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

KAP and CA are there because they meet the threshold of 1 mp.

PHON and ToP don't have any seats.

If they win anything they'll be added.

We could move to a system that included parties with senate seats too. And show senate numbers in the info box. But it'd be a big change. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

We shouldn't add Senate seat numbers because the House of Representatives is where the government is formed, which means it gets the most domestic and international attention, political parties almost never have a majority in recent elections for the Senate. To pass legislation and for effectiveness of parliament the government requires the confidence of the lower house. The most attention on election night through the results broadcasts and other media is on the House of Representatives results. Senate results should be easily accessible from this article in the text or via a link.
If consensus is reached that we should include Senate results in an infobox, then we should include it in a separate infobox, the lower house and the upper house are completely seperate. Qwerty123M (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually as a thought. We could have an info box lower in the senate section for this exact thing. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Would also oppose including Senate results on the infobox here, the relevant page does a good job, as does text in this page as @Qwerty123M noted Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

CA is lead by Rebecca Sharkie

The party literally only exists because Sharkie's decided to keep it around for funding reasons and legacy. She's described it as a party of one and is the only candidate contesting the election under it's name. Idk why it was decided to remove her from the infobox as de facto leader, but she should be returned. Lord Beesus (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I think "de facto" is a good compromise, she's leader in all but name is what it seems. GraziePrego (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Do any reliable sources describe her as leader of the party or de facto leader? I haven't found any: [1]. Her parliamentary profile does not describe her as leader, unlike e.g. Ralph Babet. The unsourced assertion that Sharkie was the leader was also in the 2019 and 2022 election articles, again with zero sourcing, at a time when the party did have multiple parliamentary members (and when Rex Patrick was arguably more of a figurehead). We should not be inventing titles for people. We don't describe Dai Le as leader of the Western Sydney Community party David Pocock as the leader of the David Pocock political party, even if they are the only parliamentary members, likewise when David Lleyonhjelm, David Spender or Sam McMahon were the LDP's only representatives. I T B F 📢 10:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I provided a source in both my edit and this section of the talk page. It is a direct quote from her so idk how it could be unreliable. The whole point of a de facto leader is that it isn't the official title, so typically you have to extrapolate from information such as being the only elected member and candidate, describing herself as "a party of one" and explicitly saying that the party exist in large part because its too legally messy to transfer its campaign funds to her own hypothetical independent campaign. I don't know what other conclusion you could possible come to other than she is the de facto leader. Here is the source: https://www.6newsau.com/post/rebekha-sharkie-open-to-talking-to-both-sides-in-hung-parliament Lord Beesus (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Your source - a children's news report - does not describe her as the leader, nor as the de facto leader. Extrapolating is WP:OR, not every political party has a leader and we do not invent titles for people. I T B F 📢 09:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Dismissing the source as "a children's news report" is incredibly bad faith. Lord Beesus (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

User:ITBF

I agree that 6 News seems quite reliable, age should not matter as to these journalists' credibility. If you want to discuss the usability of 6 News as a citation for substantial claims, go to WP:RSN. The source quite explicitly does state that she is the leader, it says that "Although often called an independent, Sharkie is still a member - and the leader - of Centre Alliance, the party formed in 2013 as the Nick Xenophon Team. She is the only candidate running with the party at this election."

Why are you even calling it a children's news report? This source is not written in a way that might appeal more to children. Qwerty123M (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

6 News is run by children and relies on Wikipedia as its primary reference, and frequently perpetuates errors from Wikipedia. It is not a reliable source for anything other than direct quotes. I T B F 📢 11:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

My source from 6 News is a direct quote from Sharkie anyway and yet you disregard it because it happens to be run by minors? Lord Beesus (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

There is no direct quote from Sharkie where she claims to be leader in that source. Again, 6 News relies on Wikipedia for its information. The author of that article actively boosts Sharkie on Twitter [2] and treats it as some sort of meme [3][4][5][6][7][8]. Not a reliable source, particularly when official sources actively contradict as I noted above. Why on earth would we defer to 6 News when the official parliamentary website does not list her as leader? I T B F 📢 12:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry but do you know what the term "de facto" means? Lord Beesus (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Which reliable sources are you talking about here? I don’t want to miss out on this valuable information. Isn’t the source saying something along the lines that she is leader of the party enough? The article for Centre Alliance doesn’t list Sharkie as leader. Qwerty123M (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

“There is no direct quote from Sharkie where she claims to be leader in that source” Hence why she was labeled as de facto leader and not just leader. Mr20000 (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Someone changed the images and party of Labour, Liberal/National and Greens

I just found that someone had changed the image and party of Labour, Liberal/National and Greens with Labour being replaced by Hitler and the NSDAP, Liberal/National Coaliton candidate and image with Pewdiepie and the greens image and candidate with XQc

!Please someone change this before more and more people view this! Country100% (talk) 05:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

You have come here a bit late to tell us that because the edit you are referring to has already been reverted. Qwerty123M (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protect request

Hopefully the reasons are obvious. Davejfudge (talk) 08:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Landslide?

Do we count the results of this election as a landslide? Labor winning 86 seats (at the time of writing) is a remarkable result and would've been considered a landslide traditionally. I'm just wondering whether do we / should we include the word "landslide" in the article, and if not by what metric do we consider it a landslide? Tofusaurus (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

It's a landside if reliable sources say it is. Dingers5Days (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)