Talk:Candidates of the 2025 Australian federal election

Teal or No Teal, and other questions re. independents

Three questions about categorising independents:

1. We already distinguish between teal and non-teal independents in their "party" label by the linked article (i.e. [[Teal independent|Ind]] vs. [[Independent politician|Ind]]), would it be a good idea to also differ the text of the link (e.g. [[Teal independent|TI]] or [[Teal independent|Teal]])?
2. On that note, is there an established threshold for being called a "teal"? A certain amount of Climate200 funding? Endorsement by a Voices organisation? Labelling themself a "community independent"? As an example of a case that I consider to be a bit on the edge, the Voices of the Top End (for the Division of Solomon) hasn't endorsed anyone yet (14/3/25) as far as I can see, but it seems that one of their team members, Phil Scott, is running as an independent. He has taken light blue (arguably not teal) as his campaign colour, and is calling himself a "community independent", but his FAQ page implies he is not taking Climate200 funding. Are we saying he's Teal or No Teal?
3. Would it be a good idea to distinguish "sore loser" independents from independents who were always planning on running as an independent? As examples of the former group, both Ian Goodenough (Division of Moore) and Andy Yin (Division of Bradfield) ran for Liberal preselection, lost, and are now running as independents.

None of these are super pressing, but I figure it's better to have the discussion than not. YouWouldntStealAJoke (talk) 05:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

1 & 2. Fundamentally even if they have similarities they are still independents. Expanded detail on the teal independents page would be good, but I think Climate200 funding is probably a minimum threshold to use the label (although AFAIK that hasn't been established as a consensus, just my view)

3. I don't think it works in a candidate column - if we had full sections for each seat like in United States House elections etc it'd be easier to include, but that's a whole different conversation Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Given that there is now (maybe) a designated column for independents, would a grouping of "(Teal)" or "(Ind Teal)" work given that they are already in that independent column, and thus clearly not a member of an actual party?

And I thought maybe "(Ind Lib)" could work for Q3, given the established precedent of designating candidates who are affiliated with a party/movement, but not formally endorsed by said party/movement as "Independent [party]"—although I'll admit that the precedent is more commonly seen in local government elections as opposed to federal-level, and I'm not sure it's used in the case of losing preselection. Alternatively, we could say something like "(fmr. Lib)".

And as for the teal threshold, I don't really have an opinion either way, but I do think we (all of us) should be having a broader conversation to establish a standardised, consensus-based metric, as opposed to each individual editor making an ad hoc decision whenever they add a candidate. YouWouldntStealAJoke (talk) 09:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to "Ind Teal", partly because a label after "Independent" implies either party membership or ideology (neither applies really to "Teal") plus the term is obviously the other way around "Teal Ind"

Would also oppose using Ind Lib for sore-losers, I've not really seen it used in that context before and when these are people who have also left the party their affiliation is probably closer to just "Ind" (which is why "fmr. Lib" would make more sense)

Overall though I think there's only so much that can be added for candidates in what's largely a list article, maybe there's more room for it on the main page in a new section?

Also - totally agree a proper convo about a "teal" classification threshold would be needed before any major changes are put into place Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

My view for this is the same that I had with the 'Family First' candidates in the QLD section, they should remain in the 'other' column, as I believe that only significant parties (i.e. parties contesting a majority, if not all, seats) should have their own coloun. The 'teals' are not a party, and should be represented as independent in an apolitical way (just signifying that they are independent candidates). CaptainKola (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree that independents should be moved back into the other category.

You could link independents as "(Teal)", or even "(Ind)" hyperlinked to the teal wiki page, based on this candidate list. https://www.climate200.com.au/candidates BNE editor (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Chris Simpson, QLD Senate

It seems that a Chris Simpson is running under two groups (FUSION & Australian Democrats) for the QLD Senate. Or at least, two Chris Simpsons with very similar pictures and descriptions are running for the same position. On the FUSION website, it describes him/one of them as "your Democracy First / Fusion Queensland candidate", but then also a bit further down on the page "Chris Simpson – Independent Senate Candidate for Queensland". There is also a work-in-progress personal website, which has a Democracy First logo and a FUSION logo in the header. This suggests to me that he is probably running for the FUSION party/coalition, from the Democracy First faction/member-party. However, the Democrats also have a Chris Simpson running as their lead candidate. Unlike the Australia First Alliance in the NSW Senate, I cannot find any information about a joint FUSION-Democrat ticket online, and furthermore, the second Democrats candidate, Tom Tapping, is only (at least as far as I can find) running for the Democrats. Am I going crazy? My understanding is that each candidate can only appear in one grouping, and although more than one party can run in a joint grouping, I can find no evidence that this is the case here. He/they is/are currently (30/3/2025) displayed on both lists in this article. Do we want to keep it that way, at least for now? Or should we change it, and if so, to what? Thank you, and sorry for the long paragraph. YouWouldntStealAJoke (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm inclined to remove Chris, if not both, for the time being given they are absent from the AD candidates lists.

There have also been some links no longer working and socials changes that indicate a shift away from them for both, until something is confirmed. BNE editor (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

The source I used for the Democrats column is from their own website, and was only posted last month. To further add confusion to the matter, Democracy First Australia made a post on their Instagram account 19 hours ago (at the time of writing) where they had him seemingly running for the Division of Lilley, QLD. Personally, I would argue that we shouldn't outright delete him from the page, but rather add a note of {{disputed inline}} to both instances of his name until we can get better information. That said, I'm not super fussed either way. YouWouldntStealAJoke (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Members changing Division Section?

Some members are retiring from their electorates or resigning from their senate positions to run in other divisions.

Labor

• Michelle Ananda-Rajah MP (Higgins, VIC (abolished)) – Standing for Victorian Senator
• Senator Anne Urquhart (Tasmanian Senator) – Standing for Braddon, TAS

The UK candidates 2024 election page has similar members changes section information as above, should we add one here? (It also has members who are standing under a different political affiliation than last time eg Andrew Gee, Ian Goodenough, Russell Broadbent, Gerard Rennick). What are peoples thoughts? MyacEight (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I would not be opposed to either addition, but I would obviously be interested to hear the opinions of more experienced editors than myself. YouWouldntStealAJoke (talk) 07:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Belinda Gread

Let's not have an edit war here folks. It is my understanding that Belinda Gread is not a real candidate, but rather a satire account on Instagram making fun of the Liberals.

Exhibit A: A job ad for backup dancers

The project description states the following:

• "Belinda Gread is a 50 something year old faux liberal candidate in the upcoming election. It has been years since someone attempted to create the next Pauline Pantsdown, and now is the time."
• "Side note, this is a piss take of the liberal parties policies, not endorsing them."
• "This is going to be a really silly and fun project and hopefully become part of the Australian zeitgeist."

Exhibit B: Mandy Nolan (Green for Richmond) Facebook post with "Belinda Gread"

The text describes her as "a Satirical Liberal Candidate for the Senate (don’t tell her I said that)"

Exhibit C: Her own Instagram page

The content seems to be much more humorous than genuine, and all of the commenters seem to be in on the joke.

If either anonymous IP address would like to present their own evidence, I am all ears. Until then, I am reverting your reversion.

@2a00:23c7:9384:c01:4563:49b5:65eb:e0c6

@2a00:23c7:9384:c01:a06b:49ee:aac6:53c9 YouWouldntStealAJoke (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Removal of Andrew Baker as a candidate

Today I was at the Declaration of Nominations held by the Australian Electoral Commission for the Berowra Electorate. Andrew Baker’s name was not mentioned, nor was his name on the screen as a candidate.

I have decided not to remove him from this particular page until someone can get a further confirmation as to whether he is still running or not in the Berowra Electorate.

If anybody needs a further explanation, feel free to ask me here. AheadMatthewawsome (talk) 05:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

if the candidate does not appear on the official AEC declaration of nominations, their name should not appear on this page. CaptainKola (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Not all of tas candidates listed

Shooters fishers farmers not listed? 2405:6E00:2240:9F1E:CCCD:2F6E:524E:37A5 (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Citation tag

Hi all, does this article really need the tag "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."? I'm not really seeing anything that needs such citations. Wanting to get some input rather than just deleting it on my own. GraziePrego (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree with removal - presumably now that nominations have closed and all candidates are official, a single AEC source covers off all of the candidate tables, if that's what the original issue was. I T B F 📢 08:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)