Talk:Better Australia

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

NPOV issues

Better Australia had its members impersonate Australian Electoral Commission staffers by wearing similar yellow vests to deceive the public and push pro-Israel, anti-Teal propaganda in the 2025 federal elections. This article reads like an advertisement, and one of its few references cites Better Australia's website, a biased primary source, directly. TheNewMinistry (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC) TheNewMinistry (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

The website source is used to reference a claim from the organization themselves, so it's completely acceptable to use and in no way a 'biased primary source' when it is used to quote something they claimed themselves -- the page does not assert in any way that the claim is either true or false.

The Sydney Morning Herald link has a response from the AEC: "...because the vests have a “Better Australia” logo ... no rules are being broken."

I will still add it to the page though, I did not see this article before. The other article (MichaelWest Media) is already used as a reference when referencing the group's Liberal backers.

Could you point out where exactly it 'reads like an advertisement', so it can be amended? Aesurias (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph about it to the '2025 federal election' subsection. Let me know if you have any more questions.

@SunDawn, as you were the one who reviewed the page originally (and did not add an NPOV tag), what are your opinions? Should I clarify further or is the paragraph sufficient?

Thanks both. Aesurias (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

You left out the messaging/propaganda that the vested Better Australia workers were pushing. That's kind of important. Your wording phrases it like they were impersonating AEC workers as a style choice, and not for a specific purpose. TheNewMinistry (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

What would that messaging be? Neither of the articles you provided mention the vested volunteers saying anything.

Are you saying that it should explicitly say that they were campaigning in Kooyong? The group's policies are mentioned throughout the article. Aesurias (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I am unsure how "suggested that Better Australia's vest design was an attempt to confuse voters" indicates the vests were a 'style choice', there is clear reference to the fact that the vests were seen, and were likely intended to be, misleading.

If you believe there is a better way to phrase it, I would be very open to your advice. Aesurias (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

"Volunteers handing out anti-teal pamphlets were spotted at pre-polling in Malvern on Monday, wearing bright-yellow vests with “Community Advisor” printed on them." TheNewMinistry (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC) TheNewMinistry (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Upd: "In late April, 2025, The Sydney Morning Herald said that Better Australia were reported to the Australian Electoral Commission due to the resemblance between the yellow vests worn by the group's volunteers while campaigning against teal MP Monique Ryan in Kooyong, and the official yellow vests worn by election workers. The AEC told the newspaper that because the group's vests feature a Better Australia logo, no rules were broken. Rachel Dexter, a journalist writing for the Herald, suggested that Better Australia's vest design was an attempt to confuse voters."

I tried to use the exact phrase "handing out anti-teal pamphlets" but the sentence had 'teal' in it way too many times and sounded clunky. Aesurias (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes, language that makes the organization look bad is "clunky". Something tells me you're not interested in trying to remedy the POV issues. TheNewMinistry (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I've just altered the article multiple times, I am unable to see how you are still unsatisfied.

I originally wrote it as "due to the resemblance between the yellow vests worn by the group's volunteers while handing out anti-teal pamphlets in the teal-held set of Kooyong, and the official yellow vests worn by election workers"

However it sounds clunky as I've said, and removing 'teal-held' is confusing.

How is "volunteers...campaigning against teal MP Monique Ryan in Kooyong" not a sufficient replacement for "volunteers handing out anti-teal pamphlets"? Aesurias (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @TheNewMinistry. I'm sure you've seen the above message as you added a contentious topics template to the talk page. If you have any remaining concerns, I would be happy to hear them and will work with you to try rephrase things, otherwise feel free to remove the NPOV tag.

Also, if you ever notice something similar in any future article, I would suggest using the 'Unbalanced' template, rather than 'NPOV'. The issues you've noted are about a lack of balance (my omission, albeit unintentionally, of an incident where the group comes off in a negative light) rather than a bias toward an article's subject. Aesurias (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Also! I think I found a way to explicitly mention "anti-teal pamphlets". Let me know what you think:

"due to the resemblance between the yellow vests worn by the group's volunteers while handing out anti-teal pamphlets in the independent-held seat of Kooyong"

My issue with inserting the phrase into the sentence before was that it would read "anti-teal pamphlets against teal MP" which is redunant, but by replacing "teal MP" with "independent MP", I was able to adhere to your advice. Aesurias (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

After reviewing the Sydney Morning Herald reference I would be inclined to leave this out unless there's multiple sources or better coverage of the claim. The reference certainty doesn't back the claim that Better Australia had its members impersonate Australian Electoral Commission staffers by wearing similar yellow vests to deceive the public and push pro-Israel, anti-Teal propaganda in the 2025 federal elections. As far as the NPOV issues, I recommending leaving out "non-partisan" in the lead unless it's well sourced. This group is most definitely a political advocacy group, based on the rest of the article it doesn't seem non-partisan. Nemov (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

"Flyers distributed by Better Australia state: “Don’t trust the Teals this time!” They also criticise Daniel for signing a letter calling for Australia to reinstate funding for UNRWA in February 2024 and claim she has ignored warnings from Jewish and other communities about rising hate and antisemitism. UNRWA is the United Nations’ relief agency assisting Palestinians".

That's pretty damning, maybe you missed that passage (the formatting on the Sydney Morning Herald page is obnoxious). TheNewMinistry (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what this has to do with the vest story. Nemov (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

He wants to tie a bunch of random snippets from different stories together. The fact that this group 1) oppose teals and 2) oppose Palestine are already mentioned multiple times. Adding this would mean a criticism section that is significantly larger than the rest of the article. Aesurias (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

More evidence of the group's highly partisan political objectives:

"In the last week of the campaign, volunteers from the Better Australia (BA) advocacy group, which campaigned to steer voters against the Teals and Greens, allegedly intimidated volunteers for the Allegra Spender campaign at the voting area on Macleay Street in Potts Point. The Jewish Independent was told that one volunteer for Spender, who is Jewish, was targeted by a volunteer for Better Australia, who is also Jewish. The latter stood up close to the Spender volunteer and whispered to her: “Allegra is a Jew-killer”, and on another occasion, “you are a Jew-killer”. A second Spender volunteer also reported being subjected to the same treatment, among a series of other inappropriate behaviours."

"A number of other right-leaning groups joined the fray in recent months, including Better Australia and J-United, which both targeted Greens and teal independents. Ad tracking data showed Better Australia spent $373,209 on social media advertising during the campaign. Almost $33,000 was spent on geo-targeted ads focused on Goldstein, Bradfield, Curtin, Brisbane, Ryan and Wills." TheNewMinistry (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm unsure why you would ever feel this should be put in a Wikipedia article, it consists entirely off the spoken testimony of 2 random people.

@TheNewMinistry read up on Wikipedia:SYNTH honestly, because this is borderline.

Thank you @Nemov Aesurias (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)