By Sue Barrett
The two-party system has failed us. It’s time for people-powered politics to deliver a fairer, more inclusive, and sustainable future for everyone.
I don’t know where you are right now and how you are feeling over the 2024-2025 Christmas New Year break, but I know where I am and what I am feeling – watching, once again, as the forces of authoritarianism, climate denial, and corporate greed tighten their grip on our democracy. Feeling the weight of yet another existential crisis, I find myself asking: How did we get here? And what can we do now?
The truth is, we got here because the two major parties – the Liberals and Labor – have failed us. Both have shown themselves to be beholden to vested interests and incapable of addressing the urgent issues of our time. Peter Dutton and the Liberal-National Coalition would have you believe they offer a “better path,” but their track record tells a different story. Labor, too, has squibbed its chance to lead on climate, kowtowing to the same interests that have held us back for decades.
If we want real change – if we want a future that works for all of us, not just the powerful few – we need to break free from the stranglehold of the two-party system.
False Promises and a Record of Failure
Peter Dutton’s platitudes, like “choosing a better path” or “getting back on track,” are nothing more than empty words designed to lull Australians into a false sense of security. Let’s be clear: the Liberal-National Coalition cannot be trusted.
With the release of the 2004 cabinet papers, John Howard’s government, often romanticised by the Coalition and mainstream media as ‘the better economic managers’, sowed the seeds of many of the crises we face today. Take housing, for example. Howard’s policies in the early 2000s – like generous tax breaks for property investors – ignited the housing affordability crisis that has locked generations out of the Australian dream of homeownership. His industrial relations reforms, like WorkChoices, stripped workers of rights and protections, undermining wages and job security.
And let’s not forget their environmental record. The Howard government’s resistance to meaningful climate action set us back decades, and the Liberals have continued this legacy under leaders like Morrison and Dutton. Their inaction during the 2019-2020 bushfires, when Australia literally burned while Scott Morrison vacationed in Hawaii, is a chilling reminder of their priorities.
And isn’t it ironic that John Howard, often seen as a staunch conservative, refused to approve nuclear energy during his tenure, yet Peter Dutton is now dragging this outdated and divisive policy back into the spotlight, clinging to a relic of the past while ignoring viable renewable solutions for Australia’s energy future?
Labor, while better on some fronts, has also faltered. Their climate policies, though a step up from the Coalition’s inaction, remain insufficient to meet the scale of the crisis. For instance, their support for the continued expansion of fossil fuel projects, like the Beetaloo Basin gas development, undermines their commitments to net-zero emissions.
On housing, Labor’s Housing Australia Future Fund was a promising initiative, but its modest scope – targeting just 30,000 new social and affordable homes over five years – barely scratches the surface of the housing crisis. Meanwhile, skyrocketing rents and property prices continue to push Australians into housing stress.
These examples highlight that while Labor may offer incremental improvements, they remain constrained by their ties to vested interests and a reluctance to deliver the bold, systemic reforms we desperately need.
The Two-Party System Is Broken
For decades, Australians have been told that the only viable choices are the Liberals or Labor. But this system no longer works. It’s outdated, out of touch, and incapable of addressing the complex challenges of the 21st century.
We see the consequences of this failure everywhere: the housing crisis, stagnant wages, a worsening climate emergency, and growing inequality. Both major parties are more interested in maintaining power than in serving the people.
Community Independents: A Clear Alternative
The antidote to this broken system is people-powered politics. Community-backed independent MPs like Zoe Daniel (Goldstein), Helen Haines (Indi), Monique Ryan (Kooyong), Sophie Scamps (Mackeller), Allegra Spender (Wentworth), Kylea Tink (North Syndey), Kate Chaney (Curtin) and senator David Pocock (ACT) have already shown what’s possible when representatives put their communities first. These independents are not beholden to party machines or corporate donors. They are accountable to the people who elect them, and they deliver real results.
In May 2022, Australians made history by electing a wave of community independents. These leaders have proven that politics can be done differently – honestly, transparently, and with integrity.
Imagine what we could achieve as this movement expands in 2025 with nearly 30 community independent candidates running at 2025 federal election. Imagine a parliament filled with representatives who truly reflect the values, hopes, and aspirations of their communities. Here’s the latest count:
Taking Action Together
This isn’t just a fight for young people or older generations – it’s a fight for all of us. We must stand together, across generations, to demand better from our leaders and take back control of our democracy.
Here’s what we can do:
- Break the False Narratives: Challenge the lies and spin from major parties. Share the truth about their track records and call out their failures.
- Support Community Independents: Visit Not Shit Candidates to find and support independents who are committed to serving their communities.
- Mobilise Across Generations: Work together – young people bringing energy and innovation, older generations sharing wisdom and experience. Together, we are stronger.
- Stay Focused: Don’t let those in power distract us with fear or apathy. They want us divided and disempowered. Let’s prove them wrong.
This Is Our Watch
Those in power want us to believe that we’re helpless – that the system can’t change and that our voices don’t matter. But we’ve already shown that isn’t true.
In 2022, we stood up and made history.
In 2025, we have the chance to do it again – but bigger, bolder, and better.
This is our moment, Australia. Let’s not waste it. Let’s fight for a democracy that works for all of us, for a system that prioritis es people over profit, and for a future that is fair, inclusive, and sustainable.
Because when we stand together – young and old, city and country, experienced and fresh – we are unstoppable.
The future is ours to shape.
Let’s make it one we can all be proud of.
Onward we press
Some resources:
Community Independents Project
This article was originally published on Sue Barrett.
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites like The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
I totally agree with everything this writer says. It is time to end the power of our broken two-party system. It has not been working for the benefit of most Australian citizens.
Why ignore the Greens though? I would have shared this article but for this ridiculous omission.
Parties pose as representing people, but really never did, for power, prestige, pose, pride, posturing and pissupery seem to dominate and engulf. What is good is that the independent reps mentioned herein are not stained and evil. But, the world is dominated more than ever by those I call “executive murderers”, for in corporations, government, military, they give orders, establish policy, make fixed positions, oppress, distort and deprave, so that many live and die in agony, unfair victims.
All very true. “Let’s be clear: the Liberal-National Coalition cannot be trusted.” This is the nub of it all; the LNP have replaced policies by soundbites and, as you say, empty platitudes. What’s bizarre is the continuing trumpeting of them being the better economic managers, when by almost every conceivable metric, Australia has been worse off under the LNP than Labor.
The only reason for the party system is to be able to push bills through parliament. If there were no parties, then there would have to be genuine debate and discussion. Probably a lot of time would be wasted, but we could be sure that every bill had been fully analysed.
(As a matter of interest, did you know that the Australian Constitution is based in a large part of that of the USA? We can thank King O’Malley for that. Michael Kirby write a fascinating essay about this some years ago.)
In response to Jill Lyall, the “Not Shit Candidates” includes the Greens, but under the Greens banner; all others are independent.
Turning your back on the two party system, to give your mind over to an Independent for about 3 years only helps the LNP.
With the major parties, at least you know what way they vote on most issues and can choose the Party that sits with your basic beliefs and principles.
Wealthy Independents are as one with the LNP when it comes to tax changes etc, that affect their own bank accounts.
Every voter has a free choice to direct their vote towards anyone on the ballot paper. The majority do not choose independents or minor parties. At least our preferential system in the House of REPS helps to achieve the election of a majority party that can form government.
If we had many Independents, it would not be long before they started to coalesce around people who could form larger group (party). Maybe such groups would be more fluid and would not be held together by any particular ideals or ethos, but many, I believe, would be happy to go with a majority, and simply trade their vote for their particular interest occasionally.
We see this happening in many other countries where loose coalitions rule for a period and then collapse when a few of their members decide to withdraw support
I prefer to be able to choose people with a declared allegiance to a recognisable set of beliefs.
Lyndal – yes. What we need is for those voted in as Independent to choose which side they mostly align with, and then to work at having THEIR issues and ideas progressed. The problem with the major parties is that they don’t bother to listen to the Independents – if they did we would have a better parliament. What we have had for decades isone or other, left or right and nobody else counts. THAT has to stop. It would be a shambles if the house was made up of all Independents – NOTHING would ever happen while every issue was discussed back and forth. But the majors need to know we are NOT happy.
Yes, I agree, BUT!
And it is a big but.
The two party system is failing because of the need to support the party is enshrined in it. The parties are formed to protect vested interests, whether they be farmers, workers, business etc, And there in lied much of the problem.
The solution is not just voting for independent candidates, we need also to consider that an important part of forming government is the establishment of a ministry, which under our constitution comes from parliamentary members, both House of reps and the senate. With an all independents parliament that may be difficult.
The party system, if worked for democracy would seek candidates who are strong, community focussed people, but when they are elected into parliament are hamstrung by party rules. But included in that pool of candidates are people with some rare skill sets, useful in heading up departments, being treasurer, having the philosophic strength to look beyond the vested interests that the party system has become dependent on.
Having representation of all independents would make it very difficult to select a Prime Minister, a Leader of the Senate and the various ministerial posts required for responsible governance.
A problem with the party system and its call for unity is exemplified well with senator Fatima Payman. The party she belonged to supports Israel in the Israeli/Palestinian struggle, being Muslim created a difficult situation for her when a muslim majority in Gaza and the West Bank are being ignored in favour of the Israeli, Zionist people. I believe that we should not be taking sides as such but seeking a humanitarian solution to what is an increasingly intractable situation. But that war is not being fought here…. we cannot resolve that, and yet, Senator Payman had to resign from the party because she could not support the Israeli side of that battle.
In supporting one side or the other in such a conflict, and that one predates the 1948 handing of Palestine to the Israelis, not just the October 7 attack which set this one off. Resistance to a two state solution is the issue, and has been since 1948.
Time and again we see those conflicts within the party system, and so the party system needs to be more open to difference of opinion, especially in an ethnically diverse electorate.
And yes, I would love to see more independents, but when we look at the teals. they too have been supported and funded by a wealthy benefactor, who may or may not pull strings when it is in their interests to do so.
Thanks for this great piece to stimulate further discussion Sue.
I usually agree substantially with Bert Hetebry but not on this issue. Calling Independents ‘teals’, the derogatory term invented by Murdoch and eagerly adopted by those threatened by this phenomenon, attempting to pretend they are a ‘party’, indicates that Bert doesn’t really understand the Community Independent phenomenon. The community Independents are funded mostly by their communities, not by a ‘wealthy benefactor’. Simon Holmes a Court set up Climate 200 to enable people from around the country to support this hopeful phenomenon, as they were desperately eager to do, even where they didn’t have an Independent in their own electorate. They recognised the need and benefit of evicting incumbents from Parliament merely propping up a corrupted system.
Similarly Fatima Payman represents many Australians, not only Muslims, horrified by the bigotry supporting the continuing genocide.
The Greens have played an important role in Australian politics since they arrived on the scene. But they are also a party and are constrained by some of the same limitations as the majors. Independents arise from the grassroots organisation within communities and are free from these constraints and limitations. The energy, organisation and money for an Independent comes from their electorate. And their success is testament to their keeping in touch and more realistically representing their electorate and their community.
Kate Chaney, Independent for Curtin in WA, impressed when, following her election in a safe Liberal seat, said how her challenge now was how to represent her entire electorate. Not only those who voted for her, but also those who didn’t vote for her. How refreshing is that!
Why should a parliament containing more Independents be more difficult to manage? Rather than wasting time on irrelevant schoolyard games, they would bring back focus to the real issues we need to deal with; political integrity, the climate emergency, rorts like AUKUS and Robodebt which the duopoly is happy to pursue or sweep under the carpet. As the Independents have amply demonstrated in recent years.
I have far more trust in Independents making better government ministers, and prime ministers, than much of what we’ve seen in recent times. Like homeowners have been demonstrating their trust in renewable energy with putting their hands in their pockets and installing rooftop solar and batteries supporting an ever increasing percentage of our energy requirements, they are beginning to take back their voice through supporting Independents who respect them and are willing to pursue the policies we need to for a better future for all. It’s a process of empowering voters more widely again and, through such community engagement, building better government.
I believe we’re going to see far more activity supporting community independents around the country at both state and federal level in forthcoming elections. I am involved with Voices for Fremantle challenging our sitting state Labor incumbent and am excited about the eagerness with which the community is embracing the opportunity. We see the same happening in other state electorates.
Louis, thank you for your critique.
Independent members are important in our parliaments, both at a federal and at state levels. They add to the level of debate but the problem I see with a parliament of independents is in forming a cabinet, forming a ministry.
In the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd years, we had a hung parliament and more legislation, good legislation was enacted (and reversed when the Libs got back in power) through skilful negotiation between the independents, the minor parties and the government. The Leader of house business was our current Prime Minister, who despite the criticisms levelled at him is a listener, and works within the system to get good legislation through.
I have said before and will repeat, good government needs good, constructive opposition, and independents tend to provide that.
Issues we face include uninformed, or worse misinformed, voters via a Murdoch led RW MSM and social media influencer cartel, and US fossil fueled think tanks Atlas-Koch and Tanton Networks; all endeavouring to have ageing voters to vote against the future.
The latter is achieved by PR framing on now, constant narrow issues polling and attacking or blaming everything on the centre,elites etc. especially ALP government and nobbling any policy initiatives; includes ALP being responsible for RWNJ Netanyahu and being anti-semitic, really?
On ‘sustainability’ it’s another example of a glib fossil fuel PR greenwash of Tanton Network’s faux environmentalism that can be applied to anything, including population of ‘the other’; two birds with one stone deflecting from fossil fuels and blaming immigrants…..using dodgy data and ‘jazzed up stats’.
Don’t get me wrong, I respect the need for independents..
I just think that there will be many challenges to be faced when forming a government of independents.
But all the issues raised in the article, to think that having independents fix those problems is a bit of wishful thinking.
I wish there were easy answers.
“If we want real change – if we want a future that works for all of us, not just the powerful few – we need to break free from the stranglehold of the two-party system.”
That requires what I call Á leap of faith’, and for far too many people that’s an alien concept thanks to the deliberate lies of John Howard and neoliberal platitudes.
Yes, Cabinet papers of 2004 have shown how deliberate John Howard was in his manipulative, secretive ways and still is, however what many need to understand is how he went about that and that is evident in the years preceding that 2002 – 2004 as well as the Machiavellian mind of Howard as far back as 1996.
If anyone had doubts as to how Machiavellian Howard is, obtain a copy of Margo Kingston’s book ‘Not Happy John’, it lays out exactly how Howard sold this country and its democracy down the drain for personal gain.
The old caution, be careful what you wish for is front and centre, and many don’t like where we are right now, and that’s the after effects of bad medicine that we are all experiencing and yes there is an antidote!
The way forward is clear with examples of Cathy McGowan, Helen Haines who is a well-rounded individual with life experiences, and the subsequent successful election of the teals who are facing their own ethical and policy challenges.
Yes, it’s risky, however that’s what’s so exciting about it and yes, we need more matriarchy to step up here and do what they think they are unable to do, irrespective of age, race, colour, religion or creed and that option is funded by none other than Simon Holmes A Court.
You don’t need money to have an impact, just an awareness of where you can help move the needle forward.
Time to move the needle forward in 2025.
For me i dont see any changes on the horizon,the system is so well entrenched that it would take a ton of dynamite to loosen it,the vast majority of politicians are only in it for the money,not while they are a politician the the chance to have a million dollar job when the either lose a election,or decide to leave,because of they have to constantly lie,we only have to look at where most of these prominent politicians end up,usually on the board of directors of energy or arms manufactures,it a big scam and totally corrupt,but the people that are in power are not about to introduce laws to stop this,so the gravy train will continue while we all become poorer,the tax in this country is becoming un a trainable,we have to be close to one of the highest taxed countries in the worlds,and we only have 25 million people with probably a workforce of 12 to 13 million,nothing is going to change until we start to take back our sovereignty and stop selling all our infrastructure to foreign companies,and supporting wars outside of our country,we as citizens of this country are the last thing theses greedy F ers think about
Louis, this link, https://grattan.edu.au/news/heres-who-funded-the-2022-election/ shows that Homes a Court spent a total of $6million over 19 candidate. Like the majors, the majority of money came from wealthy benefactors, so there’s not a lot of difference, though Homes a Court came in for a lot of criticism for doing what many other wealthy benefactors have done for the other parties/independents, for decades.
There’s a couple of terms bandied about in the dialogue for the sake of comparison – ‘community interest’ and ‘vested interest’. I don’t see ‘foreign interest’ or global interest’.
The article lead-in says “The two-party system has failed us. It’s time for people-powered politics to deliver a fairer, more inclusive, and sustainable future for everyone.”. I’m not so sure that the fundamentals behind that ‘binary’ statement have been adequately explored in the article or comments.
Politics is essentially about competition of ideas with the aim of gaining sufficient support to obtain a ‘right’ to make rules as law. We pride ourselves as having moved on from barbarism and theocratic monarchy and the like, yet ironically politics remains significantly influenced by religion, commerce and arms. Politics gains its ‘power’ from those bases and then abstracts a rhetoric around them (and their various contained minutia) to suit the locale.
Despite this, civilizations have mostly failed due to matters environmental, often attributed to religion – ‘the wrath of God’, as opposed to research and understanding of the matters of nature and the cost of exploitation. Such ignorance prevails to today, diverted from science and truth by the devices of political rhetoric, particularly in our world of blinkered, extractive and dependent mega-cities – places of ‘hope and glory’.
Despite the widely followed greats not ascribed to organized religion, the thinkers of the 5th century BCE, Socrates, Buddha and Confucius, they lost out to the prevalence of religion, commerce and arms. For two+ millennia, the bloodbath and environmental wreckage continued. Despite the ‘enlightenment’ then the resurgence of usual hostilities, religion forced science out of questions of existence, to be only used by commerce and for armaments, so came liberalism. And then the industrial revolution and years of global bloodletting and environmental wreckage – religion was hushed. Then came the predominance of corporatization, and neo-liberalism / neo-conservatism – a plot to devolve all political power to commerce – a privatization where they do it better than government, but they don’t – by choice, opting for profit. They lure people as aspirants and consumers of bling with an underlying foundation of religion, commerce and arms so that people can continue to abdicate to moral conformity their responsibilities. To set aside the advance of science and ethics, where people don’t have to consider values – what’s right or what’s wrong.
With most of the world’s power now abdicated by politics into commerce, and commerce in itself concentrated to the very few, in the face of commerce backed by arms, matters of environment, science and fairness arise. And this has recently increased to an alarming extent by the urgency of climate change abatement, energy distribution, the pandemic and recent ‘out-of-control’ wars. It may be that previous ‘faith’ in the system of democracy has not ebbed of its own curable deficiencies, but because the communal psyche has been tampered with by the culture wars of desperate opportunists from within olde worlde commerce and armaments – those seeding instability and a quest for profit via divide and conquer. And to do this, they denounce democratic government and political systems so as to implant the oligarchs into a plutocratic autocracy. The last thing they want is a robust political environment to keep them in check.
Religion and politics are not bound to go away any time soon. But commerce and arms wain and flux depending upon the health and wealth of the people and the environment. Given the pace of necessary change to protect global sustainability, is it time to fall prey to the divisive wiles of the opportunists? Is it correct to say that the two-party system has failed us? Is it not our own tendency for moral conformity, the febrility of faith and abdication of responsibility that has come into question?
Given the most pressing issues upon us are inextricably global and not local, a vast web of mind-blowingly complex matters and interactions, is it best to maintain as much as possible a critical mass of political memory and experience upon which to bring about change, or is it best to have a defrayed political mechanism brought about by the introduction of a predominance of home town independents?
The ‘fourth estate’ does not appear to be doing its job. So by whom and how do we hold each other to account? Perhaps it is by a ‘hung’ parliament with a smattering of independents – a slowed and risky business. Then again, benevolent dictators are hard to come by, and often even harder to remove when they stuff up.