Early voting is now in full swing for the coming Farrer election on May 9. The by-election is being framed as a temperature check of the right in federal politics, given the rise of One Nation and the collapse of the Liberal and National parties.

The competition in the southwestern New South Wales seat is mainly between a high-profile independent, Michelle Milthorpe, and One Nation’s David Farley. Key campaign issues include health, water management, climate projects, and the current oil shock and ongoing cost-of-living crisis.

In this podcast, we spoke to veteran election analyst Antony Green about why this by-election is so nationally significant, including ahead of Victoria’s coming state election.

We also spoke to Milthorpe and, for One Nation’s perspective, Barnaby Joyce. (Farley, who spoke about being One Nation’s local candidate when we visited Farrer last month, declined an interview.)

‘A complete diversion’ from history: Green

Antony Green has covered more than 90 Australian elections over nearly four decades. He highlighted how unusual this Farrer by-election is, contrasting it with generations of elections before it.

Historically, it’s significant. We’ve had a party system now for eight decades – a Labor Party, a Liberal Party, a National Party – they’re the ones that nearly always have competed to form government to win almost all seats.

But this by-election, it looks like a breakout: a contest between an independent and One Nation. That’s a complete diversion from the tradition of Australian political history.

It’s also significant for what’s going to happen at the next election, because Farrer is a very rural seat. It’s the sort of seat Labor rarely polls well in, and they’re not even contesting the by-election. If the Coalition parties can’t win a seat like Farrer […] what are their hopes of winning government at the next election?

Green said if One Nation wins this by-election, it would be their first victory in a federal lower house seat – and give them significant momentum nationally, especially leading up to November’s state election in Victoria.

I think winning Farrer would be a huge boost to One Nation. It would put every member for a rural or regional seat, give them a warning that One Nation is coming for them.

[…] It also portends what we might see at the Victorian election […] Perhaps One Nation will be the party that breaks Labor’s grip on northern and western Melbourne.

Support ‘from around the country’: Milthorpe

Independent Michelle Milthorpe, who’s running for Farrer for the second time, was not willing to be drawn on how much money her campaign had spent far, but said she’s been “overwhelmed” by individual donations.

There’s probably 98% of my donations have come from individual donors from Farrer and around the country […] I’ve got significantly more money than I did last time. So look, that’ll all be disclosed in the only way, that’s actually open and transparent, because I am independent.

[…] We wanted to put our best foot forward in this campaign and to compete equitably with other parties. Like, the [political] parties have had people from all over Australia here, and their staff, MPs from all around Australia here. I’m pretty confident they’re not doing it for free.

So these are other costs that aren’t being considered when people are asking me these questions […] We’ve got volunteers doing the work that other parties have staff doing.

Pressed on how much political crowdfunding group Climate 200 had donated, Milthorpe replied “$20,000” – and contrasted that with the high-profile support given to her opponents, such as billionaire Gina Rinehart’s support for One Nation.

I haven’t had Gina donate any money to my campaign. I haven’t had any gambling companies. I haven’t had any banks, or insurance, or anything like that. So yeah, I’m just really grateful to the ordinary Australians, who’ve gone out and put money in behind my campaign.

Read more: View from The Hill: Taylor defends putting One Nation ahead of Farrer independent as ‘least worst option’

‘Australians are changing their votes’: Joyce

Asked about One Nation’s rising popularity and controversies it’s faced during this campaign – notably the revelation that its Farrer candidate had flirted with Labor in the past – former Nationals leader turned One Nation MP Barnaby Joyce said there’s nothing new about people trying to bring One Nation down.

It’s just a litany of people who are trying to bring us down, and that’s not unusual. That has happened throughout the history of One Nation. And they grasp anything like, ‘oh, we’ll bring them down with this, we’ll bring them down with that’.

[…] We are under attack from every side because they are terrified of the fact that the Australian people have made a decision to change their vote. They don’t want that. It means things move out of their control. Even the bureaucrats, it means things are moving out of control. And they want to have control. They want two reins and one rein is the Labor Party and the other reins the Coalition. And if they don’t have those two reins, they’re unhappy with their horse.

Asked if Gina Rinehart had given any support to One Nation’s Farrer campaign, Joyce said he didn’t know.

I don’t know whether she is. I mean, I’ll absolutely welcome it if she is, absolutely. Because this is another thing. So we have travel companies [with] multiple, multiple hundred millionaires [that] fund the Greens. And that’s not a problem.

We’ve got Andrew Forrest, who supports with [Anthony] Pratt, the Labor Party, and that’s not a problem. We’ve got Pratt again, and other […] multiple millionaires who support the Liberal Party, but that’s not a problem.

But if someone supports the One Nation party, that’s somehow maligned and suspicious and all has to be brought up. I mean, people have a philosophical view and they back it in. I’d be more upset if no one believed in One Nation to the extent that they’d ever want to support us.

Read more: Politics with Michelle Grattan: why Farrer is a key test for One Nation vs the Coalition

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

If you suffer from information overload, or are unsure what to trust online, you’re not alone. Australians are increasingly disengaging from traditional news, turning instead to social media, influencers and – more recently – generative artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots and summaries.

It’s a murky, polluted world where opaque algorithms decide what you see. They’re known to have little regard for accuracy, quality or the evidence-based reporting we need for a safe and thriving community.

At the same time, local journalism is disappearing. Distrust in mainstream news is growing. This issue has escalated rapidly with “zero-click” AI search results. Instead of serving links, they show the information upfront. This decreases traffic to news websites, further reducing audience, subscription opportunities and revenue. The rapid spread of AI has pushed an already fragile news ecosystem closer to breaking point.

Earlier this year, a News Futures: Media Policy Roundtable brought together 45 leaders from industry, government, not-for-profit organisations, digital platforms and academia.

The attendees agreed that the opacity of algorithms on social media, search and AI platforms – which decide what is shown, ranked or omitted with little accountability – has become a core threat to journalism and audience trust. Published today, the resulting report proposes a paradigm shift in how we support and define journalism in Australia.

Misinformation is flourishing

Misinformation flourishes when there is high demand for information but insufficient verified evidence. A healthy (and prominent) supply of quality news and information can counterbalance misinformation. Our research shows a strong link between news consumption and people’s ability to verify misinformation.

For consumers, laws and civic education have not kept pace with AI content, such as deepfakes. There are no clear standards for showing where online content comes from or standard guidelines for checking if it’s real. Because many AI systems work like black boxes, it’s also hard to know who is responsible when they make mistakes or show bias.

Australians already have very low confidence in their ability to verify misinformation. Only about 40% are confident they can check if a website or social media post can be trusted, and only 43% are confident they can check if information they find online is true.

This problem is being compounded by the growing prevalence of AI slop and hallucinations (low-quality and erroneous content). In fact, Australians are among the most concerned about online misinformation globally.

Read more: Slopaganda wars: how (and why) the US and Iran are flooding the zone with viral AI-generated noise

People don’t know whom to trust

Experts at the roundtable were worried about low media and AI literacy among citizens. Many Australians struggle to verify information online, and are unsure where to turn for trusted sources.

When everything starts to look unreliable, switching off can feel like the safest option, which many Australians choose to do – 69% avoid news often, sometimes or occasionally.

The problem is digital platforms are an unreliable interface for news. Through algorithms, they make invisible and unaccountable choices that reshape the public’s access to information. In selecting where information is drawn from, these digital intermediaries can create new “winners” and “losers”, elevating some content above others with little regard for quality or accuracy.

But there is no impetus for platforms to explain how their algorithms work or when they change, how news is prioritised (or de-prioritised), or how AI-generated information is produced.

There is an urgent need for transparency in algorithmic curation and mandatory labelling of AI-generated content.

Where to from here?

The roundtable participants identified five priorities that, together, could drastically improve our information ecosystem. Three of those specifically target AI.

1. Greater transparency from big tech platforms. Australians deserve to know how algorithms curate news on search engines, social media, and AI chatbots. They also need to know when AI is involved in producing content. Clear labelling and disclosure rules would help rebuild trust and give users more control.

2. Fair rules for AI use of news. AI companies should not be able to take journalism for free. Industry-wide licensing agreements, copyright reform and stronger competition law could ensure news organisations are compensated when their work is used to train generative AI tools.

3. Prioritising media and AI literacy education across the nation. Educating people on how algorithms work, and how to spot bias and misinformation is one of the fastest and most cost-effective interventions available. And it’s not just for schools – adults need ongoing opportunities to upskill too.

4. Journalism funding should reflect its role as a public good. One-off grants are not enough. Proposals such as a tax offset for journalists’ salaries is a sustainable alternative that could support newsrooms directly, especially small and regional outlets, while remaining accountable.

5. Journalism training for news influencers, content creators and digital-first outlets. A common industry code is required to ensure the quality of the whole news ecosystem, and the industry needs to work on this together.

Society can’t afford an information environment in which invisible AI dictates what we see. Without action, the public interest journalism that underpins democracy and social cohesion will continue to crumble.

Sora Park receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Creative Australia and the Department of Infrastructure, Transportation, Regional Development, Communications, Sport & the Arts.

Janet Fulton receives funding from the Department of Infrastructure, Transportation, Regional Development, Communications, Sport & the Arts.

Saffron Howden receives funding from the Commonwealth through an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.

Momoko Fujita does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.