The very notion of independents supporting one or other big party is fundamentally flawed. As soon as they do this, their independence and integrity is compromised, isn’t it?

Are they obligated to support one or other party in the current circumstances or can they insist on remaining neutral?

If two independents were to insist on remaining neutral, would the magic number of seats needed to form a government then become 75?

I don't see how the three independents could consciously side with Labor given the situations in their own electorates. 3 seats with very very low Labor support, so if they're interested in their own constituents wishes you would assume they have little choice on which way they'll go.. they'll just try to milk out the best deals they can get before they do it.

I do agree that both Windsor and Oakehott (particularly Windsor) come across as very open minded and honest blokes

Ludwig, the independents can remain as independent as they want. To avoid another election straight away, they would have to provide in principle support to one of the major parties to ensure there is enough confidence supply bills would get passed. The governor general would have a very tough time appointing a Government if there was no confidence supply would get through, in which case you would be forced back to the polls again anyway. If they all remained completely neutral in this situation then there would practically be no way there could be a Government appointed, so it's highly unlikely they would do this.

So basically, they aren't making promises to fully support either major party, and you would assume given what we've seen from each of them that they would remain very independent. They just have to support supply to one party or the other.

Them, 'remaining neutral' won't ever change the number needed to govern. As neutral as they are, they still have to give a yay or nay to bills put to the house, regardless of who introduces it. They still each hold a vote in the house, so they count towards the 150 tally regardless.

Wilson, thanks for your reply.

I’m sure the independents would remain essentially independent and treat each issue on its merits. But the very action of aligning themselves with a major party for the purposes of forming a government is not the act of a true independent.

Why can’t the independents and the Green MP just say that they won’t block any supply bills that are put forward by whichever party wins power, for as long as they are sensible and proper bills, without committing themselves to an alignment with either party?

Crikey, if I was an independent, that’s what I’d be wanting to do, very strongly!

The greens will be hoping like mad that labor get enough votes to get in with out the independents, but thank heaven, that's unlikely.

It will do my heart good seeing these bushies screwing the citified Greens, Labor & Libs into doing the right thing by the country, for a while.

It would be nice to see maternity wards in the bush again.

The same subsidised transport that is handed to the cities for country folk.

Some of the money earned in the bush spent there.

Best of all it will be great to see a stop to all the bull dust restrictions the greens have forced on the bush, wound back a bit.

I wonder how long any government can last with a few in the lower house demanding some sense & equity, while we have the greens in the upper house wanting the opposite.

Boy the next few months looks like fun.

Because the first thing whichever side is in opposition will do is put in a vote of no confidence against the minority government of the day, in which case the independents will still have to make a decision or you go back to square one again. Realistically, it just makes it a lot easier for everyone if these 4 or 5 non major party aligned members of the house can negotiate an outcome.

Also, if it did come down to a true deadlock of 73 seats to both the Coalition and Labor (which is quite likely at the moment), a supply bill would still not be able to be passed without someone from either party crossing the floor, which wouldn't happen. Again you would have the same outcome of a block of supply and the Governor General would eventually be forced to dissolve parliament.

At the end of the day, you wouldn't think the independents and greens would want to abstain from voting on such important bills, even if it does mean them temporarily 'picking a side'. They're elected reps and you'd think they've gone to the trouble of getting there so they can have their say. Would be a pretty dangerous political move on their behalf to simply stand back and let the rest fight it out when people are expecting them to make decisions.

Just my two bob. It's an awkward situation for them but it is one of the perks (or risks depending on how you look at it) of running as an independent or minor party member; that you may one day hold the balance of power.