Most prominent independent candidates say they would negotiate with either Labor or the Liberals in the event of a hung parliament, with many indicating they would support whichever party met their policy demands on climate and integrity.
Guardian Australia asked more than a dozen high-profile lower house independent candidates and sitting crossbench MPs how they would approach negotiations with major parties in the event of a hung parliament.
Almost all of them identified major commitments on climate change and a federal integrity commission as their key demands in any negotiations. The two issues were repeatedly cited as the most commonly raised in their respective electorates.
The majority said they would talk with either of the major parties. They include the Indi independent Helen Haines, Curtin candidate Kate Chaney, the Casey candidate Claire Ferres Miles, the Wentworth candidate Allegra Spender and Kylea Tink, Zoe Daniel and Monique Ryan, who are standing in North Sydney, Goldstein, and Kooyong respectively. In a policy-centric sentiment common among the independents, Daniel said:
“The major parties know exactly where I stand on climate, integrity and gender equality. If my community elects me based on those pillars, it would be for the leaders of the major parties to engage based on those priorities.”
Only Adam Bandt, the Greens leader and sitting MP for Melbourne, expressly ruled out support for the Liberal government in the event of a hung parliament, saying the party’s “key climate demand will be for the next Labor government to stop opening new coal and gas mines”.
Sitting independent Zali Steggall said she would negotiate with either side, but added: “At the end of the day Scott Morrison has had three years as prime minister, and he has failed to deliver action on climate change, he has failed to deliver the federal integrity commission he promised at the last election, and he has overseen way too many rorts when it comes to spending of public money.”
Fellow sitting independent Andrew Wilkie said he would not make any deals in the event of a hung parliament and would not guarantee supply, saying he would “decide every issue on its merits, including questions of confidence and supply to any particular party”.
“What constitutes merit is the sum of many considerations including the views of the community and my conscience,” Wilkie said.
Wilkie’s refusal to enter into an agreement with either of the major parties follows his experience with Julia Gillard’s minority government when the then Labor prime minister broke a deal with the Tasmanian MP on gambling reforms.
None of the candidates said they would be influenced by promises of money being pumped into their electorates. Ferres Miles and Chaney said such funding decisions needed to be made “transparently” and according to evidence-based needs.
Haines said: “I would never sell my ability to vote on every piece of legislation as it comes before the House in return for local spending promises.”
Three of the candidates – Haines, Chaney and Spender – indicated that their approach to the negotiations would be influenced by the composition of parliament after the election.
“Those negotiations will depend on a couple of things,” Spender said. “First, it will depend on the overall composition of parliament – that is, how many seats each party has won. Second, it will depend on what each party says about the issues my community cares the most about.”
Haines, Ferres Miles and Chaney each named a policy commitment that is non-negotiable for them in any negotiations. For Ferres Miles, that was the “need to increase their targets for 2030 to a minimum of 50% emissions reduction or higher, aligned with the Business Council of Australia”.
Haines and Chaney identified a federal corruption commission as a non-negotiable commitment.
“A commitment to legislate the Australian federal integrity commission as soon as possible would be a commitment I would require in return for my support, but it would not be my only consideration,” Haines said.
