These numbers mean support for progressive climate and energy policy in Australia’s 48th parliament is shaping as stronger than the last. So what does this mean as Australia seeks to position itself as a leader in the global net zero economy?
In its first term in government, Labor laid the groundwork for stronger climate action, including legislating an emissions-reduction target and putting crucial policies and organisations in place. The next parliament will be well-placed to build on these foundations. Here, we explain where key opportunities lie.
1. National emissions target for 2035
By September this year, all signatories to the global Paris Agreement must set emissions reduction targets out to 2035.
Labor is waiting on advice from the Climate Change Authority before setting its target. The authority’s initial advice last year suggested a target between 65% and 75%, based on 2005 levels.
Australia has committed to reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. Getting there will require innovation and investment across the economy. In the last term of government, Labor began developing net-zero plans for each economic sector. They comprise energy, transport, industry, resources, the built environment, and agriculture and land.
The plans are due to be finalised this year. They will act as a tangible map for Australia to meet both net zero and the 2035 emissions-reduction target, and are keenly awaited by state governments, industry and investors.
This policy area presents the broadest opportunity for the crossbench to exert influence for greater ambition, scale and pace. Neither the 2035 target nor the sector plans need to go through parliament – however they could feature in broader parliamentary negotiations.
Separately, the Safeguard Mechanism will be reviewed in 2027, during this parliament. The policy aims to reduce emissions reductions from Australia’s biggest greenhouse-gas polluters. It is key to reaching net zero in Australia’s industrial sector, and an important moment to ensure the policy reduces emissions at the rate needed.
3. Bidding to host COP31
Australia is bidding to host next year’s United Nations global climate talks, or COP, in partnership with Pacific Island nations. The bid was opposed by the Coalition.
A decision on the COP host is expected in June. If Australia succeeds, the federal government will seek to use the high-profile global gathering to showcase its climate credentials – and there will be high expectations from Pacific co-hosts. So all policy between now and then really matters.
4. An energy system to make Australia thrive
Energy produces about 70% of Australia’s emissions. Tackling this means reducing emissions from electricity through renewable generation. Elsewhere in the economy, it means switching from gas, petrol and diesel to clean electricity.
The government’s plan to reach 82% renewable energy by 2030 remains crucial. Australia’s electricity system is expected to reach around 50% renewable energy this year. But there is more work to do.
A review of the National Electricity Market is due this year. It is expected to recommend ways to promote greater investment in renewable generation and storage. This includes what policy might follow the Capacity Investment Scheme, a measure to boost renewables investment which will be rolled out by 2027.
Faster action on the renewable shift can also be achieved through the Australian Energy Market Operator’s next Integrated System Plan – the nation’s roadmap for guiding energy infrastructure and investment.
Labor also has scope to improve energy efficiency, and better match energy demand and supply – especially at times of peak energy use. The government’s commitments to subsidise home batteries, and expand the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, will help achieve this. The crossbench, including the Greens, is likely to seek greater investments to reduce household energy use and costs.
Beyond this, Australia’s electricity grid needs to be double the size of what’s currently planned, to power the entire economy with clean energy.
5. Leverage clean energy export advantages
Australia generates about a quarter of its GDP from exports – many of them emissions-intensive such as fossil fuels, minerals and agricultural products.
In his election victory speech, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese urged Australia to seize the moment at a time of global economic disruption. Key to this will be building on the Future Made in Australia agenda and ensuring Australia makes the most of its competitive advantages as the world transitions to net-zero.
This will include:
leveraging a strong reputation as a reliable trade partner
capitalising on our world-leading solar and wind energy resources to produce low-emissions goods for export
developing the industry around critical minerals and rare earths needed in low-emissions technologies
This will be central to trade negotiations in the years to come. Realising Australia’s green exports aspiration requires action abroad as well as at home.
A game-changing decade
This decade is crucial to Australia’s future economy, and to the success of Australia’s long-term transition to net zero emissions. Our work has shown Australia can slash emissions while the economy grows.
The question now is how quickly the re-elected government – indeed, the next parliament – can realise Australia’s ambition as a renewable energy superpower.
The next three years will provide vital opportunities and they must be seized – for the sake of our energy bills, our economic prosperity and Australia’s reputation on the world stage.
Anna Skarbek is on the board of the Net Zero Economy Authority, SEC Victoria, the Centre for New Energy Technologies, the Green Building Council of Australia, and the Asia-Pacific Advisory Board of the Glasgow Financial Alliance on Net Zero. She is CEO of Climateworks Centre which receives funding from philanthropy and project-specific financial support from a range of private and public entities including federal, state and local government and private sector organisations and international and local non-profit organisations. Climateworks Centre works within Monash University’s Sustainable Development Institute.
Climateworks Centre is a part of Monash University. It receives funding from a range of external sources including philanthropy, governments and businesses. Businesses such as mining companies and industry associations have previously co-funded Climateworks’ research on industrial decarbonisation, and may benefit from policies mentioned in this article.
The re-election of the Albanese Labor government by such a wide margin should not mean “business as usual” for Australia’s security policy.
The global uncertainty instigated by US President Donald Trump means Australia’s security landscape is very different today from when Labor was first elected in 2022, or even when its Defence Strategic Review was released in 2023.
As we argue in our recent book, the Albanese government faces increasingly difficult questions.
How can we maintain our crucial security alliance with the US while deepening partnerships with other countries that have reservations about US policy?
And, given Trump’s recent actions, how much can we continue to rely on the United States and what are the potential costs of the alliance?
With a massive parliamentary majority, the new government has an opportunity for bold thinking on national security. This is not the time for Australia to keep its head down – we need to face the rapidly changing world with our heads held high.
We do not advocate Australia step away from the US alliance. We are also realistic that decades of defence procurement mean Australia is heavily reliant on US defence materiel (and its subsequent sustainment) for our security.
The deep interoperability between the Australian Defence Force and the US military is something alliance sceptics too readily gloss over: much Australian military capability cannot function without ongoing American support.
At the same time, many alliance advocates underestimate the impact of the new challenges we face. Some assumed a continuity between the first and second Trump administrations. However, we are not convinced the lessons learned from Trump 1.0 are still valid.
A key difference between Trump 1.0 and 2.0 is the effect of his move away from respecting international law.
As a middle power, Australia has long relied on the “rules-based order” to advance its foreign and strategic policy interests.
Even if “normal transmission” resumes under a new US president in 2029, we are concerned the Trump administration’s structural changes to the international order will not easily be wound back. American soft power has been decimated by cuts to the US State Department, USAID and international broadcasting services. This will also not be rebuilt quickly.
The advisers who kept Trump in check during his first administration have been replaced by loyalists less likely to push back against his ideas and impulses. This includes his long-held grievance that allies have been exploiting the US.
The Albanese government needs to think more deeply about how to hedge against dependence on the US. This means investing in relations with other partners, especially in Asia and the Pacific, and working with them to promote the laws, rules and norms that maintain stability and predictability in global affairs.
An idealistic vision for the future
We are also concerned that many in the national security community base their policy recommendations on the assumption that war between the US and China is inevitable, and such a conflict could draw in Australia as America’s ally.
Rather, the Trump administration’s preference for “deals” opens the possibility the US and China might come to an arrangement that will affect US presence and leadership in our region.
Australia may not be prepared for this. The new government must engage in more open discussion about how we would maintain our security if the US does pull back from the region or makes decisions Australians don’t support.
As a start, we need to consider how Australia can better pursue self-reliance within the alliance structure. We need a range of strategic options in the future that don’t rely on an outdated image of the US as a reliable partner.
Rather than accepting the way things are, the government and members of the national security community need to re-imagine how things can be.
We argue the Albanese government should draw confidence from its thumping electoral win to articulate a politics of hope, opportunity and possibility for our future security. This needs to drown out the cynicism, passive acceptance and learned helplessness that often characterises Australian national security debates.
We are conscious that being “idealistic” is often dismissed as impractical, naïve “wishful thinking”. But the new government needs to demonstrate to Australians it has the courage to face the diverse, interlinked and complex security challenges we face – potentially on our own. These extend to issues such as cyber attacks, transnational crime and climate change.
This means engaging more with partners in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. In particular, Australia should consider investing more heavily in information programs and public diplomacy as the US withdraws from this arena.
The government must also engage better with the public and be more transparent about its security options and decisions.
On AUKUS, for instance, the government must build its “social licence” from the public to sustain such a massive deal across generations. Australians need to be better informed about – and consulted on – the decisions they will ultimately pay for.
This also includes being upfront with Australians about the need for greater defence spending in a tumultuous world.
It is understandably tempting for the new Albanese government to continue a “small target” approach when it comes to the US. This has meant minimising domestic debate about the alliance that could undermine support for AUKUS and avoid risking the ire of a thin-skinned Trump.
But the government needs the courage to ask difficult questions and imagine different futures.
Joanne Wallis receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Department of Defence, and the government of South Australia. She is a Senior Nonresident Fellow of the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.
Rebecca Strating receives funding from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa M. Given, Professor of Information Sciences & Director, Social Change Enabling Impact Platform, RMIT University
More than 18 million Australians voted on Saturday, after walking past countless corflutes, reading campaign flyers and reviewing how-to-vote cards.
The 2025 federal election was Australia’s biggest yet, with 710,000 more people on the electoral roll than in 2022. The Australian Election Commission amassed 250,000 pencils, 240,000 vests, 80,000 ballot boxes and 5,000 rolls of tamper-proof tape to stock some 7,000 polling places.
So, what happens to these materials after polling day? Some are warehoused, ready for reuse next time around. Others are repurposed. But every election also generates a mountain of waste for landfill.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Australia needs to mandate a cradle-to-grave approach to creating, using, recycling and disposing of election materials. Meanwhile, electronic machines and online voting can reduce the need for paper ballots, just as social media campaigns can reduce paper mail drops.
Magill School in the Sturt electorate, like most polling centres, was wrapped in lightweight plastic posters. Clare Peddie
Where do election materials go after the polls close?
In response to inquiries from The Conversation, the Australian Election Commission said most AEC materials, such as tamper-proof tape, vests and pencils, are stored between elections at counting centres. Other materials, such as cardboard voting booths, are recycled or donated to schools or charities.
Most councils require corflutes to be collected within seven days of an election. But no rules govern reuse or disposal. Corflutes are made from polypropylene, a lightweight plastic that is technically recyclable. But it’s not a straightforward process, so most recycling facilities reportedly cannot accept this waste.
Some candidates donate corflutes to schools, childcare centres and charities, because the white reverse side can be used to mount artworks.
Many countries are “greening” their elections. In 2019, India’s election commission directed parties to eliminate single-use plastic including corflutes. In 2024, the United Kingdom’s Westminster Foundation for Democracy outlined strategies for reducing election “pollution”, addressing supply chains and packaging.
Australia relies heavily on disposable election materials. While many of these can be recycled, it’s better to avoid single-use materials.
Parties could also display how-to-vote instructions on posters at election sites, rather than handing out individual flyers that are recycled or thrown away.
In 2022, the AEC introduced plain brown cardboard screens and ballot boxes, saying they are easier to recycle and reuse than previous versions “wrapped” in purple-and-white branded paper. However, Australian Electoral Commissioner Tom Rogers says elections will probably always be “highly manual and resource-intensive exercises”. We disagree.
Could Australia use electronic or online voting to reduce waste?
Other countries are introducing online voting to reduce waste. One study in Estonia found the carbon footprint of paper-based voting was 180 times greater than internet-based voting. More than 50% of the population voted online in 2023.
The United States introduced mechanical voting machines in the 1890s, punch cards and scanned ballots in the 1960s, and “direct-recording” electronic voting machines in the 1970s. Today, touch screens are used in many voting booths, with paper records for auditing. Now just 7% of districts rely on paper ballots and hand-counted ballots are rarely used.
Yet electronic voting machines are not without controversy. Security concerns after the 2016 US election resulted in 94% of districts shifting to optical scanning, and use of “direct-recording” electronic voting machines almost halved.
Ireland invested €50 million (A$88 million) into electronic voting machines in 2002, but they were never used due to concerns about potential tampering.
Australia should explore secure options for electronic voting machines and online voting. In its response to The Conversation, the AEC said this would be a matter for parliament to consider, because the law currently demands that elections are in-person events.
Can social media campaigning help?
Social media enables candidates and voters to engage in new ways. For instance, Labor senators Katy Gallagher and Penny Wong took part in a Facebook “pop quiz” on April 29, which had 55,000 views. But social media can amplify misinformation, so consumers need to fact-check what they see and hear online.
Combined, the parties and affiliated groups spent more than A$39 million on advertisements on YouTube, Facebook and Google during the 2025 campaign. The AEC had to update its authorisation guidelines to cover podcasters and other content creators.
This mirrors global shifts towards social media campaigning. During Canada’s 2025 campaign, Liberal leader Mark Carney (who went on to be elected prime minister) created a video with celebrity Mike Myers, reaching 10 million views.
While such creative approaches may engage voters, they still carry a carbon footprint. Carney and Myers’ video likely produced about six tonnes of CO₂ emissions due to the energy and electricity used in production, streaming and viewing.
Mike Myers and Mark Carney used social media creatively in Canada’s 2025 election campaign.
Text messages also connect candidates with voters. Clive Palmer’s Trumpet of Patriots party sent 17 million texts the election campaign. This equates to 240kg of CO₂ emissions from energy-hungry data centres and personal devices.
Australia should mandate a reduction in the disposal of election materials.
Some print materials may always be needed, because not all voters can access digital content or vote online. But the current situation is unsustainable.
Global experiences show innovation is possible. Australia can reduce its reliance on new, physical materials, while maintaining public trust.
Australia’s newly elected officials have an opportunity to green future elections, adopting a more sophisticated approach to voting in a digital age. There’s no excuse for producing mountains of plastic and paper waste every three or four years. Our nation deserves better.
Lisa M. Given receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia and the Association for Information Science and Technology.
Gary Rosengarten receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Renewable Affordable Clean Energy for 2030 CRC, and is a non-executive board member of the Australian Alliance for Energy Productivity.
Matt Duckham 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.
Fashion is one of the most powerful tools we have for understanding ourselves and the world around us. Nowhere is this clearer than in the story of Black American tailoring and the legacy of the Black dandy.
Inspired by scholar Monica L. Miller’s groundbreaking book Slaves to Fashion: Black Dandyism and the Styling of Black Diasporic Identity, the theme of The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Costume Institute spring 2025 show is Superfine: Tailoring Black Style.
The exhibition charts the evolution of the Black dandy from the 18th century to today. The story it tells is about more than suits. It’s about power, pride, resistance and joy.
Each year, the Met Gala takes its dress code from the institue’s spring exhibition. This year’s is “Tailored for You”. So who is the Black dandy, why are they so important to fashion today, and what can we expect to see on the red carpet?
The birth of the Black Dandy
“Black dandy” is a modern term. Figures like American abolitionist Frederick Douglass (1818–95) or Haitian revolutionary leader Toussaint Louverture (1743–1803) would not have called themselves dandies, but they used style with similar effect: as a tool of resistance, self-fashioning and cultural pride.
Toussaint Louverture was a leader during the widespread uprisings of enslaved people in Saint-Domingue (now Haiti) in 1791. This image was drawn in 1802. The Metropolitan Museum of Art
French poet Charles Baudelaire (1821–67) first wrote about dandies in 1863, describing them as individuals who elevate style to a form of personal and aesthetic resistance.
Baudelaire’s dandy was not just stylish but symbolic. He was an emblem of modernity itself: a time marked by fluid identities, liminal spaces and the collapse of clear boundaries between gender, authenticity and social order.
Dandyism among Black men took root in the 18th and 19th centuries in both the United States and the Caribbean. Tailoring became a way to reclaim dignity under enslavement and colonialism.
Dandies take the clothing of an oppressor – aristocratic, colonial, segregationist or otherwise – and turn it into a weapon of elegance. Through meticulous style and refinement, dandies make a silent yet striking claim to moral superiority.
Frederick Douglass was born into slavery, and freed in 1838. This photograph shows him in 1855. The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Douglass famously appeared in immaculate Victorian suits when campaigning for abolition, consciously dressing in the same style as those who denied his freedom.
Louverture used perfectly tailored French military uniforms during the Haitian Revolution against French colonial rule.
In the 1920s, Harlem dandies wore fine tailoring and flamboyant colours, rejecting the idea that poverty or discrimination should dictate presentation.
In perfectly tied cravats, polished shoes and sharply tailored coats, Black dandies refashion power on their own terms.
Presence through style
Dandies also challenge the narrow rules of masculinity.
Conventional menswear often demands restraint, toughness and invisibility. Dandies dare to embrace beauty, self-adornment and performance. This masculinity can be expressive, creative and even flamboyant.
The luxurious silk suits and carefully groomed appearance of American Jazz pioneer Duke Ellington (1899–1974) projected glamour rather than austerity.
The elegantly tailored overcoats and scarves of American poet Langston Hughes (1901–67) suggested a masculinity deeply entwined with creativity and softness.
Figures in Harlem’s ballrooms and jazz clubs blurred gender boundaries decades before mainstream conversations about gender fluidity emerged.
A street scene in Harlem, New York City, photographed in 1943. Library of Congress
A tradition of Black tailoring
In a world where Black self-presentation has long been scrutinised and politicised, tailored clothing asserted visibility, authority and artistry. Dandies transformed fashion into a political declaration of dignity, resistance and creative power.
Black American tailoring practices blossomed most visibly in the zoot suits of the Harlem Renaissance, though they also had strong roots in New Orleans, Chicago and the Caribbean.
As seen in the Sunday Best of the Civil Rights era, Black tailoring walked the line between resistance and celebration: beautiful but with clear political intent.
In the 1970s, the Black dandy became more flamboyant, wearing tight, colourful clothes with bold accessories. He transformed traditional suits with exaggerated shapes, bright patterns and plaids inspired by African heritage.
Artists popular with a white audience like Sammy Davis Jr (1925–90), Miles Davis (1926–91) and James Brown (1933–2006) embraced the aesthetic, contributing to its widespread acceptance.
Meanwhile, a super stylish contingent of Black men in the Congo, La Sapeur, refined their look so spectacularly they would become the benchmark of the Black dandy for generations to come.
The 1990s saw a new era of Black dandyism emerge through luxury sportswear and hip-hop aesthetics.
Designer Dapper Dan (1944–) revolutionised fashion by remixing luxury logos into bold, custom streetwear, creating a distinctive Black aesthetic that bridged hip-hop culture and high fashion.
Musician Andre 3000 (1975–) redefined menswear by blending Southern Black style with bold colour, vintage tailoring and theatrical flair.
Today, the tradition thrives in the style of influencer Wisdom Kaye, the elegance of LeBron James, and the risk-taking of Lewis Hamilton.
Dressing for the red carpet
Tailored for You invites guests to interpret the dandy’s legacy in personal, bold and boundary-pushing ways.
Whether conforming to tradition, subverting expectations or creating something entirely new, this theme is a celebration of the freedom to dress – and be – on your own terms.
The Black dandy is a figure of defiance and desire, of ambiguity and brilliance, of resistance and beauty. Dandyism blurs boundaries between masculinity and femininity, artifice and authenticity, conformity and rebellion. It unsettles fixed identities and reflects broader tensions within modern life.
The poet and activist Countee Cullen, as depicted by Winold Reiss around 1925. National Portrait Gallery
Black dandies have shocked, amused, offended, delighted and inspired society since their inception. In the sharp defiance of Douglass’ Victorian suits, the flamboyant spectacle of Harlem ballrooms, and the logo-laced rebellion of Dapper Dan’s streetwear, the Black dandy has continually forced the world to reckon with the politics of presence, pride and performance.
Despite being overlooked by mainstream fashion history, they’ve shaped the way we see elegance, masculinity and self-expression. This Met Gala and the accompanying exhibition are not just a celebration – they are a long-overdue recognition.
Dijanna Mulhearn receives funding from Australian Government Research Training Stipend.
Toby Slade 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.
The re-election of the Albanese Labor government by such a wide margin should not mean “business as usual” for Australia’s security policy.
The global uncertainty instigated by US President Donald Trump means Australia’s security landscape is very different today from when Labor was first elected in 2022, or even when its Defence Strategic Review was released in 2023.
As we argue in our recent book, the Albanese government faces increasingly difficult questions.
How can we maintain our critical security alliance with the US while deepening partnerships with other countries that have reservations about US policy?
And, given Trump’s recent actions, how much can we continue to rely on the United States and what are the potential costs of the alliance?
With a massive parliamentary majority, the new government has an opportunity for bold thinking on national security. This is not the time for Australia to keep its head down – we need to face the rapidly changing world with our heads held high.
We do not advocate Australia step away from the US alliance. We are also realistic that decades of defence procurement mean Australia is heavily reliant on US defence materiel (and its subsequent sustainment) for our security.
The deep interoperability between the Australian Defence Force and the US military is something alliance sceptics too readily gloss over: much Australian military capability cannot function without ongoing American support.
At the same time, many alliance advocates underestimate the impact of the new challenges we face. Some assumed a continuity between the first and second Trump administrations. However, we are not convinced the lessons learned from Trump 1.0 are still valid.
A key difference between Trump 1.0 and 2.0 is the effect of his move away from respecting international law.
As a middle power, Australia has long relied on the “rules-based order” to advance its foreign and strategic policy interests.
Even if “normal transmission” resumes under a new US president in 2029, we are concerned the Trump administration’s structural changes to the international order will not easily be wound back. American soft power has been decimated by cuts to the US State Department, USAID and international broadcasting services. This will also not be rebuilt quickly.
The advisers who kept Trump in check during his first administration have been replaced by loyalists less likely to push back against his ideas and impulses. This includes his long-held grievance that allies have been exploiting the US.
The Albanese government needs to think more deeply about how to hedge against dependence on the US. This means investing in relations with other partners, especially in Asia and the Pacific, and working with them to promote the laws, rules and norms that maintain stability and predictability in global affairs.
An idealistic vision for the future
We are also concerned that many in the national security community base their policy recommendations on the assumption that war between the US and China is inevitable, and such a conflict could draw in Australia as America’s ally.
Rather, the Trump administration’s preference for “deals” opens the possibility the US and China might come to an arrangement that will affect US presence and leadership in our region.
Australia may not be prepared for this. The new government must engage in more open discussion about how we would maintain our security if the US does pull back from the region or makes decisions Australians don’t support.
As a start, we need to consider how Australia can better pursue self-reliance within the alliance structure. We need a range of strategic options in the future that don’t rely on an outdated image of the US as a reliable partner.
Rather than accepting the way things are, the government and members of the national security community need to re-imagine how things can be.
We argue the Albanese government should draw confidence from its thumping electoral win to articulate a politics of hope, opportunity and possibility for our future security. This needs to drown out the cynicism, passive acceptance and learned helplessness that often characterises Australian national security debates.
We are conscious that being “idealistic” is often dismissed as impractical, naïve “wishful thinking”. But the new government needs to demonstrate to Australians it has the courage to face the diverse, interlinked and complex security challenges we face – potentially on our own. These extend to issues such as cyber attacks, transnational crime and climate change.
This means engaging more with partners in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. In particular, Australia should consider investing more heavily in information programs and public diplomacy as the US withdraws from this arena.
The government must also engage better with the public and be more transparent about its security options and decisions.
On AUKUS, for instance, the government must build its “social licence” from the public to sustain such a massive deal across generations. Australians need to be better informed about – and consulted on – the decisions they will ultimately pay for.
This also includes being upfront with Australians about the need for greater defence spending in a tumultuous world.
It is understandably tempting for the new Albanese government to continue a “small target” when it comes to the US. This has meant minimising domestic debate about the alliance that could undermine support for AUKUS and avoid risking the ire of a thin-skinned Trump.
But the government needs the courage to ask difficult questions and imagine different futures.
Joanne Wallis receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Department of Defence, and the government of South Australia. She is a Senior Nonresident Fellow of the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.
Rebecca Strating receives funding from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
This year’s election campaign marked a turning point in Australian politics. TikTok has emerged not just as another tool, but as a main battleground.
Although it played a part in the 2022 election, this was the first time the two major parties and the Greens embraced short-form video as a serious campaign strategy.
These videos may seem silly or nonsensical, but for many Gen Z voters, they may have been the only political messages they encountered in the entire five-week campaign. Given the dominance of Gen Z and Millennial voters, social media videos are increasingly important.
A blend of trends, podcasts and thirst traps
The Australian Labor Party’s campaign leaned heavily into TikTok culture, crafting a multi-pronged strategy to reach younger voters where they scroll. This included meme engagement like this absurdist #italianbrainrot trend.
#brainrot refers to deliberately absurd, low-effort videos that thrive on chaos and nonsensical repetition.
It’s an existing TikTok trend that started in early 2025 and is designed to capture attention in an oversaturated feed. In other words, don’t try to understand, just watch and enjoy.
Another standout is a now-viral video of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese edited with the stylistic flair typical of TikTok “thirst trap” content. The editing style and music choice are both characteristic of this sub-genre of video designed to make the subject appear attractive.
It walked a fine line between irony and sincerity: an intentional nod to the platform’s unique language and humour. While some lapped it up as clever, others question whether such tactics undermine the seriousness of politics.
Labor also heavily invested in podcasting, with Albanese appearing on youth-oriented shows with the likes of Abbie Chatfield and Ozzy Man. These long-form interviews were mostly promoted by the podcasters themselves, which was a clever use of their existing audiences. It contributed to a strategy that prioritised personality as much as policy.
Combined with a coordinated influencer outreach, including briefings with popular creators, Labor’s campaign showed a keen understanding of the algorithmic economy. Whether it was cringey or clever, it was undeniably calculated.
Trendsetters with turbulence
The Liberal Party started its TikTok campaigning back in December 2024. These early videos, many AI-generated, saw remarkable traction. The highest-viewed video, an AI voice-change take on a scene from “The Grinch”, has been viewed 2.8 million times.
Then came “Tim Cheese”, a trending fictional character they used to blur the lines in political storytelling. A “bad guy”, Tim Cheese was used by the Liberals to highlight that the known bad guys aren’t always bad.
One standout video was the introduction of “Cheesy Albanese”, which merged political satire with platform-native humour that resonated with the audience.
The Liberals also tapped into trending sounds and aesthetics such as #brainrot and #italianbrainrot. In fairness, they were the first to use it before the official campaign started.
Topham Guerin, the strategy company behind the campaign, has a reputation for provocative approaches that can come close to, but don’t actually break, the law. However, this use of content did wear thin for some followers, sparking early signs of disengagement.
The campaign’s second major stumble came on election day.
US-based TikTok creator Ray William Johnson, who has more than 18.5 million followers, called out the Liberals for blocking his account when they clearly used his video and animation style.
Johnson said he had no issue with the mimicry, but the party’s pre-emptive blocking of him fuelled backlash. His response video, now seen more than 12 million times, ends with a blunt directive: “I hope everyone goes out and votes for the other guy.”
It was a viral moment that undid much of the earlier momentum, and demonstrates the high stakes of campaigning in the age of creator culture.
Despite a clever response video from the Liberals, it was overshadowed by the sheer scale of the backlash.
With these lows there was still highs, including a highly effective and trending video game that saw players “Escape Albo”.
The Liberals were early trendsetters, creating boundary-pushing content for all users, even those without strong political views. They experimented with styles that went on to be mimicked, particularly with Labor’s #brainrot-inspired content.
Greens go from giant toothbrushes to DJ sets
In a bid to connect with the gaming community, Tasmanian Senator Nick McKim took to livestreaming sessions of the popular game Fortnite. Donning comfortable clothes and a headset, McKim engaged viewers with gaming lingo and humour, aiming to make politics more relatable to younger audiences.
These videos were a huge success, with this one being viewed 1.4 million times.
A central feature of the Greens social media campaign was the deployment of a giant toothbrush prop, symbolising the party’s commitment to integrating dental care into Medicare. It featured across various platforms and was a nice link to events in Brisbane and Melbourne.
These events featured the support of big-name influencers and prompted spinoff videos launching Greens Leader Adam Bandt’s DJ career.
But despite the flashy props, influencer cameos and party vibes, the Greens’ campaign often felt more like a collection of stunts than a cohesive digital strategy: memorable in moments, but ultimately lacking impact.
Did it make any difference?
While many labelled the 2025 election dull, the TikTok campaign told a different story. It was unpredictable, occasionally “cringe”, but deeply entertaining.
It’s too soon to know if any of this shifted votes or even opinions. Party officials, campaign strategists and academics will all be watching closely to find out.
While social media is ubiquitous in our lives, using it to campaign is still relatively new in our political history. There are no best-practice guidelines or proven approaches. Of all this content thrown at the wall, it will be fascinating to see what sticks.
But to the millions of Australians on TikTok, politics has never looked or sounded quite like it did in 2025.
Susan Grantham 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.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on May 5, 2025.
Trump’s push on deep sea mining leaves Nauru’s commercial ambitions ‘out in cold’ By Teuila Fuatai, RNZ Pacific senior journalist Nauru’s ambition to commercially mine the seabed is likely at risk following President Donald Trump’s executive order last month aimed at fast-tracking ocean mining, anti-deep sea mining advocates warn. The order also increases instability in the Pacific region because it effectively circumvents long-standing international sea laws and processes
A ‘Trump slump’ has lifted the left in Canada and now Australia – what are the lessons for NZ? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Grant Duncan, Teaching Fellow in Politics and International Relations, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau Trying to capitalise on the electoral success of US President Donald Trump, now that his policies are having real-world effects, is proving to be a big mistake for conservative leaders. Australian voters
What is a ‘smart city’ and why should we care? It’s not just a buzzword Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milad Haghani, Associate Professor & Principal Fellow in Urban Risk & Resilience, The University of Melbourne guitar photographer/Shutterstock More than half of the world’s population currently lives in cities and this share is expected to rise to nearly 70% by 2050. It’s no wonder “smart cities” have
We talk a lot about being ‘resilient’. But what does it actually mean? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter McEvoy, Professor of Clinical Psychology, Curtin University Kinga Howard/Unsplash In a world with political polarisation, war, extreme weather events and increasing costs of living, we need to be able to cope as individuals and communities. Our capacity to cope with very real stressors in our lives
Newly discovered tropical oyster reefs are thriving across northern Australia – they deserve protection Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marina Richardson, Research Fellow in Marine Science, Griffith University Marina Richardson Oysters are so much more than a seafood delicacy. They’re ecosystem engineers, capable of building remarkably complex reefs. These structures act as the kidneys of the sea, cleaning the water and keeping the coast healthy, while
New deal for journalism – RSF’s 11 steps to ‘reconstruct’ global media Australia (ranked 29th) and New Zealand (ranked 16th) are cited as positive examples by Reporters Without Borders in the 2025 World Press Freedom Index of commitment to public media development aid, showing support through regional media development such as in the Pacific Islands. Reporters Without Borders The 2025 World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without
Blaming Donald Trump for conservative losses in both Canada and Australia is being too kind to Peter Dutton Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Smith, Associate Professor in American Politics and Foreign Policy, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney Australia’s federal election, held less than a week after Canada’s, has produced a shockingly similar outcome. Commentators all over the world have pointed out the parallels. In both countries, centre-left governments
In its soul-searching, the Coalition should examine its relationship with the media Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Ricketson, Professor of Communication, Deakin University Among the many lessons to be learnt by the Liberal-National Coalition parties from the election is that they should stop getting into bed with News Corporation Australia. Why would a political party outsource its policy platform and strategy to people
Second-term Albanese will face policy pressure, devastated Liberals have only bad options Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra On February 1, on The Conversation’s podcast, Anthony Albanese not only declared that Labor would retain majority government, but held out the prospect it could win the Victorian Liberal seats of Menzies and Deakin. This was when the polls were
Election flops – a night to forget for minor parties on the left and the right Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maxine Newlands, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Policy Futures, University of Queensland, Adjunct Principal Research Fellow, Cairns Institute, James Cook University Minor parties were all the rage at the last election when, along with independent candidates, they secured almost a third of votes. But they have
‘Dead weight comes to mind’ when thinking about Gazan parents and genocide World Media Freedom Day reflections of a protester Yesterday, World Media Freedom Day, we marched to Television New Zealand in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland to deliver a letter asking them to do better. Their coverage [of Palestine] has been biased at its best, silent at its worst. I truly believe that if our media outlets reported
Independents will not help form government – but they will be vital in holding it to account Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joshua Black, Visitor, School of History, Australian National University When the newspapers delivered their standard election-eve editorials, there were few surprises. Former Fairfax papers and smaller outlets offered qualified support for Labor, while the News Corp papers unashamedly championed the Coalition. In Adelaide, The Advertiser ran a
State of the states: 6 experts on how the election unfolded across the country Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Clune, Honorary Associate, Government and International Relations, University of Sydney While counting continues nationally, the federal election result is definitive: a pro-Labor landslide and an opposition leader voted out. But beyond the headline results, how did Australians in the key seats in each state vote, and
Nauru’s ambition to commercially mine the seabed is likely at risk following President Donald Trump’s executive order last month aimed at fast-tracking ocean mining, anti-deep sea mining advocates warn.
The order also increases instability in the Pacific region because it effectively circumvents long-standing international sea laws and processes by providing an alternative path to mine the seabed, advocates say.
Titled Unleashing America’s Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources, the order was signed by Trump on April 25. It directs the US science and environmental agency to expedite permits for companies to mine the ocean floor in US and international waters.
It has been condemned by legal and environmental experts around the world, particularly after Canadian mining group The Metals Company announced last Tuesday it had applied to commercially mine in international waters through the US process.
The Metals Company has so far been unsuccessful in gaining a commercial mining licence through the International Seabed Authority (ISA).
Currently, the largest area in international waters being explored for commercial deep sea mining is the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, located in the central Pacific Ocean. The vast area sits between Hawai’i, Kiribati and Mexico, and spans 4.5 million sq km.
The area is of high commercial interest because it has an abundance of polymetallic nodules that contain valuable metals like cobalt, nickel, manganese and copper, which are used to make products such as smartphones and electric batteries. The minerals are also used in weapons manufacturing.
Benefits ‘for humankind as a whole’ Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Clarion-Clipperton Zone falls under the jurisdiction of the ISA, which was established in 1994. That legislation states that any benefits from minerals extracted in its jurisdiction must be for “humankind as a whole”.
Nauru — alongside Tonga, Kiribati and the Cook Islands — has interests in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone after being allocated blocks of the area through UNCLOS. They are known as sponsor states.
In total, there are 19 sponsor states in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone.
Nauru is leading the charge for deep sea mining in international waters. Image: RNZ Pacific/Caleb Fotheringham
Nauru and The Metals Company Since 2011, Nauru has partnered with The Metals Company to explore and assess its block in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone for commercial mining activity.
It has done this through an ISA exploration licence.
At the same time, the ISA, which counts all Pacific nations among its 169-strong membership, has also been developing a commercial mining code. That process began in 2014 and is ongoing.
The process has been criticised by The Metals Company as effectively blocking it and Nauru’s commercial mining interests.
Both have sought to advance their respective interests in different ways.
In 2021, Nauru took the unprecedented step of utilising a “two-year” notification period to initiate an exploitation licencing process under the ISA, even though a commercial seabed mining code was still being developed.
An ISA commercial mining code, once finalised, is expected to provide the legal and technical regulations for exploitation of the seabed.
In the absence of a code However, according to international law, in the absence of a code, should a plan for exploitation be submitted to the ISA, the body is required to provisionally accept it within two years of its submission.
While Nauru ultimately delayed enforcing the two-year rule, it remains the only state to ever invoke it under the ISA. It has also stated that it is “comfortable with being a leader on these issues”.
To date, the ISA has not issued a licence for exploitation of the seabed.
Meanwhile, The Metals Company has emphasised the economic potential of deep sea mining and its readiness to begin commercial activities. It has also highlighted the potential value of minerals sitting on the seabed in Nauru’s block in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone.
“[The block represents] 22 percent of The Metals Company’s estimated resource in the [Clarion-Clipperton Zone and] . . . is ranked as having the largest underdeveloped nickel deposit in the world,” the company states on its website.
Its announcement on Tuesday revealed it had filed three applications for mining activity in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone under the US pathway. One application is for a commercial mining permit. Two are for exploration permits.
The announcement added further fuel to warnings from anti-deep sea mining advocates that The Metals Company is pivoting away from Nauru and arrangements under the ISA.
Last year, the company stated it intended to submit a plan for commercial mining to the ISA on June 27 so it could begin exploitation operations by 2026.
This date appears to have been usurped by developments under Trump, with the company saying on Tuesday that its US permit application “advances [the company’s] timeline ahead” of that date.
The Trump factor Trump’s recent executive order is critical to this because it specifically directs relevant US government agencies to reactivate the country’s own deep sea mining licence process that had largely been unused over the past 40 years.
President Donald Trump signs a proclamation in the Oval Office at the White House last month expanding fishing rights in the Pacific Islands to an area he described as three times the size of California. Image: RNZ screenshot APR
That legislation, the Deep Sea Hard Mineral Resources Act, states the US can grant mining permits in international waters. It was implemented in 1980 as a temporary framework while the US worked towards ratifying the UNCLOS Treaty. Since then, only four exploration licences have been issued under the legislation.
To date, the US is yet to ratify UNCLOS.
At face value, the Deep Sea Hard Mineral Resources Act offers an alternative licensing route to commercial seabed activity in the high seas to the ISA. However, any cross-over between jurisdictions and authorities remains untested.
Now, The Metals Company appears to be operating under both in the same area of international waters — the Clarion-Clipperton Zone.
Deep Sea Conservation Coalition’s Pacific regional coordinator Phil McCabe said it was unclear what would happen to Nauru.
“This announcement really appears to put Nauru as a partner of the company out in the cold,” McCabe said.
No Pacific benefit mechanism “If The Metals Company moves through the US process, it appears that there is no mechanism or no need for any benefit to go to the Pacific Island sponsoring states because they sponsor through the ISA, not the US,” he said.
McCabe, who is based in Aotearoa New Zealand, highlighted extensive investment The Metals Company had poured into the Nauru block over more than 10 years.
He said it was in the company’s financial interests to begin commercial mining as soon as possible.
“If The Metals Company was going to submit an application through the US law, it would have to have a good measure of environmental data on the area that it wants to mine, and the only area that it has that data [for] is the Nauru block,” McCabe said.
He also pointed out that the size of the Nauru block The Metals Company had worked on in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone was the same as a block it wanted to commercially mine through US legislation.
Both are exactly 25,160 sq km, McCabe said.
RNZ Pacific asked The Metals Company to clarify whether its US application applied to Nauru and Tonga’s blocks. The company said it would “be able to confirm details of the blocks in the coming weeks”.
It also said it intended to retain its exploration contracts through the ISA that were sponsored by Nauru and Tonga, respectively.
Cook Islands nodule field – photo taken within Cook Islands EEZ. Image: Cook Islands Seabed Minerals Authority
Pacific Ocean a ‘new frontier’ Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) associate Maureen Penjueli had similar observations to McCabe regarding the potential impacts of Trump’s executive order.
Trump’s order, and The Metals Company ongoing insistence to commercially mine the ocean, was directly related to escalating geopolitical competition, she told RNZ Pacific.
“There are a handful of minerals that are quite critical for all kinds of weapons development, from tankers to armour like nuclear weapons, submarines, aircraft,” she said.
Currently, the supply and processing of minerals in that market, which includes iron, lithium, copper, cobalt and graphite, is dominated by China.
Between 40 and 90 percent of the world’s rare earth minerals are processed by China, Penjueli said. The variation is due to differences between individual minerals.
As a result, both Europe and the US are heavily dependent on China for these minerals, which according to Penjueli, has massive implications.
“On land, you will see the US Department of Defense really trying to seek alternative [mineral] sources,” Penjueli said.
“Now, it’s extended to minerals in the seabed, both within [a country’s exclusive economic zone], but also in areas beyond national jurisdictions, such as the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, which is here in the Pacific. That is around the geopolitical [competition] . . . and the US versus China positioning.”
Notably, Trump’s executive order on the US seabed mining licence process highlights the country’s reliance on overseas mineral supply, particularly regarding security and defence implications.
He said the US wanted to advance its leadership in seabed mineral development by “strengthening partnerships with allies and industry to counter China’s growing influence over seabed mineral resources”.
The Metals Company and the US She believed The Metals Company had become increasingly focused on security and defence needs.
Initially, the company had framed commercial deep sea mining as essential for the world’s transition to green energies, she said. It had used that language when referring to its relationships with Pacific states like Nauru, Penjueli said.
However, the company had also begun pitching US policy makers under the Biden administration over the need to acquire critical minerals from the seabed to meet US security and defence needs, she said.
Since Trump’s re-election, it had also made a series of public announcements praising US government decisions that prioritised deep sea mining development for defence and security purposes.
In a press release on Trump’s executive order, The Metals Company chief executive Gerard Barron said the company had enough knowledge to manage the environmental risks of deep sea mining.
“Over the last decade, we’ve invested over half a billion dollars to understand and responsibly develop the nodule resource in our contract areas,” Barron said.
“We built the world’s largest environmental dataset on the [Clarion-Clipperton Zone], carefully designed and tested an off-shore collection system that minimises the environmental impacts and followed every step required by the International Seabed Authority.
“What we need is a regulator with a robust regulatory regime, and who is willing to give our application a fair hearing. That’s why we’ve formally initiated the process of applying for licenses and permits under the existing US seabed mining code,” Barron said.
ISA influenced by opposition faction The Metals Company directed RNZ Pacific to a statement on its website in response to an interview request.
The statement, signed by Barron, said the ISA was being influenced by a faction of states aligned with environmental NGOs that opposed the deep sea mining industry.
Barron also disputed any contraventions of international law under the US regime, and said the country has had “a fully developed regulatory regime” for commercial seabed mining since 1989.
“The ISA has neither the mining code nor the willingness to engage with their commercial contractors,” Barron said. “In full compliance with international law, we are committed to delivering benefits to our developing state partners.”
President Trump’s executive order marks America’s return to “leadership in this exciting industry”, claims The Metals Company. Note the name “Gulf of America” on this map was introduced by President Trump in a controversial move, but the rest of the world regards it as the Gulf of Mexico, as recognised by officially recognised by the International Hydrographic Organisation. Image: Facebook/The Metals Company
‘It’s an America-first move’ Despite Barron’s observations, Penjueli and McCabe believed The Metals Company and the US were side-stepping international law, placing Pacific nations at risk.
McCabe said Pacific nations benefitted from UNCLOS, which gives rights over vast oceanic territories.
“It’s an America-first move,” said McCabe who believes the actions of The Minerals Company and the US are also a contravention of international law.
There are also significant concerns that Trump’s executive order has effectively triggered a race to mine the Pacific seabed for minerals that will be destined for military purposes like weapons systems manufacturing, Penjueli said.
Unlike UNCLOS, the US deep sea mining legislation does not stipulate that minerals from international waters must be used for peaceful purposes.
Deep Sea Conservation Coalition’s Duncan Currie believes this is another tricky legal point for Nauru and other sponsor states in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone.
Potentially contravene international law For example, should Nauru enter a commercial mining arrangement with The Metals Company and the US under US mining legislation, any royalties that may eventuate could potentially contravene international law, Currie said.
First, the process would be outside the ISA framework, he said.
Second, UNCLOS states that any benefits from seabed mining in international waters must benefit all of “humankind”.
Therefore, Currie said, royalties earned in a process that cannot be scrutinised by the ISA likely did not meet that stipulation.
Third, he said, if the extracted minerals were used for military purposes — which was a focus of Trump’s executive order — then it likely violates the principle that the seabed should only be exploited for peaceful purposes.
“There really are a host of very difficult legal issues that arise,” he added.
The Metals Company says ISA is being influenced by a faction of states aligned with environmental NGOs that oppose the deep sea mining industry. Image: Facebook/The Metals Company/RNZ
The road ahead Now more than ever, anti-deep sea mining advocates believe a moratorium on the practice is necessary.
Penjueli, echoing Currie’s concerns, said there was too much uncertainty with two potential avenues to commercial mining.
“The moratorium call is quite urgent at this point,” she said.
“We simply don’t know what [these developments] mean right now. What are the implications if The Metals Company decides to dump its Pacific state sponsored partners? What does it mean for the legal tenements that they hold in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone?”
In that instance, Nauru, which has spearheaded the push for commercial seabed mining alongside The Metals Company, may be particularly exposed.
Currently, more than 30 countries have declared support for a moratorium on deep sea mining. Among them are Fiji, Federated States of Micronesia, New Caledonia, Palau, Samoa, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, and Tuvalu.
On the other hand, Nauru, Kiribati, Tonga, and the Cook Islands all support deep sea mining.
Australia has not explicitly called for a moratorium on the practice, but it has also refrained from supporting it.
New Zealand supported a moratorium on deep sea mining under the previous Labour government. The current government is reportedly reconsidering this stance.
RNZ Pacific contacted the Nauru government for comment but did not receive a response.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Grant Duncan, Teaching Fellow in Politics and International Relations, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau
Trying to capitalise on the electoral success of US President Donald Trump, now that his policies are having real-world effects, is proving to be a big mistake for conservative leaders.
Australian voters have delivered a landslide win for the incumbent Labor Party, returning Prime Minister Anthony Albanese for a second term with a clear majority of seats.
When he said in his victory speech that Australians had “voted for Australian values”, an unspoken message was that they’d firmly rejected Trumpian values.
Meanwhile, opposition and Liberal Party leader Peter Dutton had such a bad election he lost his own seat. While not the only reason for his electoral demise, Dutton’s adoption of themes associated with Trump backfired.
As recently as mid-February, however, it was a completely different story. Opinion polls were projecting Dutton’s Coalition to win. Betting markets followed suit, pricing in a change of government.
But by March, Labor had pulled ahead in the polls, and exceeded expectations in the election itself. As one commentator put it, the Liberals were “reduced to a right-wing populist party that is all but exiled from the biggest cities”.
Following a Trumpian pathway turned out to be a strategic blunder. And Dutton’s downfall mirrors Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s defeat in Canada’s election on April 28.
In January, Canada’s incumbent centre-left Liberals were heading for defeat to the Conservatives. But there were two gamechangers: the Liberals switched leaders from Justin Trudeau to Mark Carney, and Trump caused a national uproar with his aggressive tariffs and his call for Canada to become the 51st US state.
Pre-election opinion polls then did a dramatic flip in favour of the Liberals, who went on to win their fourth election in a row.
His strategy failed as soon as Trump rolled out “America First” policies contrary to Canadians’ economic interests and national pride. The takeaway for serious right-wing leaders in liberal democracies is clear: let Trump do Trump; his brand is toxic.
Not a universal trend
Trump’s actions are harming America’s allies. His tariffs, disregard for the rule of law, and tough policies on migrants, affirmative action and climate change have seen voters outside the US react with self-protective patriotism.
A perceived association with Trump’s brand has now upended the electoral fortunes of (so far) two centre-right parties that had been in line to win, and had been banking on the 2024 MAGA success somehow rubbing off on them.
Admittedly, what has been dubbed the “Trump slump” isn’t a universal trend.
In Germany, the centre-left Social Democratic-led government was ousted in February, in spite of Trump ally Elon Musk’s unhelpful support for the far-right, anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.
And in the United Kingdom, the populist Reform UK party has risen above 25%, while Labour has fallen from 34% in last year’s election to the low 20s in recent polls.
But other governing centre-left parties are seeing an upside of the Trump effect.
Norway’s next election is on September 8. In early January it looked like the incumbent Labour Party would be trounced by the Conservatives and the right-wing Progress Party.
Opinion polls dramatically flipped in early February, however, boosting Labour from below 20% back into the lead, hitting 30%. If that trend is sustained, Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre will get another term in office.
Denmark’s governing Social Democrats have enjoyed a small polling boost, too, since Trump declared he’d like to take Greenland off their hands.
Lessons for NZ’s left and right
The common denominator underlying these shifts to the left seems to be the Trump effect. Voters in countries normally closely allied with the US are turning away from Trump-adjacent politicians.
In 2024, elections tended to go against incumbents. But, for now at least, people are rallying patriotically around centre-left, sitting governments.
Ironically, Trump is harming leaders who could have been his allies. Unrepentant as always, the man himself seemed proud of the impact he had in Canada.
Winston Peters: culture war rhetoric. Getty Images
In Australia and New Zealand, polls in mid-2024 showed support for Trump was growing – heading well above 20%. Australia’s election suggests that trend may now be past its peak.
In New Zealand, with debate over ACT’s contentious Treaty Principles Bill behind it, and despite NZ First leader Winston Peters’ overt culture-war rhetoric (which may appeal to his 6% support base), the right-wing coalition government’s polling shows it could be on track for a second term – for the time being.
While the Trump effect may have benefited centre-left parties in Australia and Canada, polling for New Zealand’s Labour opposition is softer than at the start of the year.
While “America First” policies continue to damage the global economy, centre-right leaders who learn the lesson will quietly distance themselves from the Trump brand, while maintaining cordial relations with the White House.
Centre-left leaders, however, could do worse than follow Anthony Albanese’s example of not getting distracted by “Trump-lite” and instead promoting his own country’s values of fairness and mutual respect.
Grant Duncan 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milad Haghani, Associate Professor & Principal Fellow in Urban Risk & Resilience, The University of Melbourne
More than half of the world’s population currently lives in cities and this share is expected to rise to nearly 70% by 2050.
It’s no wonder “smart cities” have become a buzzword in urban planning, politics and tech circles, and even media.
The phrase conjures images of self-driving buses, traffic lights controlled by artificial intelligence (AI) and buildings that manage their own energy use.
But for all the attention the term receives, it’s not clear what actually makes a city smart. Is it about the number of sensors installed? The speed of the internet? The presence of a digital dashboard at the town hall?
Over the past two decades, governments around the world have poured billions into smart city initiatives, often with more ambition than clarity. The result has been a patchwork of projects: some genuinely transformative, others flashy but shallow.
So, what does it really mean for a city to be smart? And how can technology solve real urban problems, not just create new ones?
What is a smart city, then?
The term “smart city” has been applied to a wide range of urban technologies and initiatives – from traffic sensors and smart meters to autonomous vehicles and energy-efficient building systems.
In academic and policy circles, one widely accepted view is that a smart city is one where technology is used to enhance key urban outcomes: liveability, sustainability, social equity and, ultimately, people’s quality of life.
What matters here is whether the application of technology leads to measurable improvements in the way people live, move and interact with the city around them.
This could be features like high-tech digital kiosks in public spaces that are visibly modern and offer some use and value, but do little to address core urban challenges.
The reality of urban governance – messy, decentralised, often constrained – is a long way from the seamless dashboards and simulations often promised in promotional material.
But there is a way to help join together the various aspects of city living, with the help of “digital twins”.
Slick digital dashboards that show the stats of a city at a glance are a far cry from the messy reality of city governance. thinkhubstudio/Shutterstock
Digital twin (of?) cities
Much of the early focus on smart cities revolved around individual technologies: installing sensors, launching apps or creating control centres. But these tools often worked in isolation and offered limited insight into how the city functioned as a whole.
Instead of layering technology onto existing systems, a city digital twin creates a virtual replica of those systems. It links real-time data across transport, energy, infrastructure and the environment. It’s a kind of living, evolving model of the city that changes as the real city changes.
Used in this way, digital twins support decisions that are better informed, more responsive, and more in tune with how cities actually work.
Not all digital twins operate at the same level. Some offer little more than 3D visualisations, while others bring in real-time data and support complex scenario testing.
The most advanced ones don’t just simulate the city, but interact with it.
Where it’s working
To manage urban change, some cities are already using digital twins to support long-term planning and day-to-day decision-making – and not just as add-ons.
It integrates high-resolution 3D models of Singapore with real-time and historical data from across the city. The platform has been used by government agencies to model energy consumption, assess climate and air flow impacts of new buildings, manage underground infrastructure, and explore zoning options based on risks like flooding in a highly constrained urban environment.
In Helsinki, the Kalasatama digital twin has been used to evaluate solar energy potential, conduct wind simulations and plan building orientations. It has also been integrated into public engagement processes: the OpenCities Planner platform lets residents explore proposed developments and offer feedback before construction begins.
Urban planners in Helsinki have been using a digital twin to help plan building orientations. Mistervlad/Shutterstock
We need a smarter conversation about smart cities
If smart cities are going to matter, they must do more than sound and look good. They need to solve real problems, improve people’s lives and protect the privacy and integrity of the data they collect.
That includes being built with strong safeguards against cyber threats. A connected city should not be a more vulnerable city.
The term smart city has always been slippery – more aspiration than definition. That ambiguity makes it hard to measure whether, or how, a city becomes smart. But one thing is clear: being smart doesn’t mean flooding citizens with apps and screens, or wrapping public life in flashy tech.
The smartest cities might not even feel digital on the surface. They would work quietly in the background, gather only the data they need, coordinate it well and use it to make citizens’ life safer, fairer and more efficient.
Milad Haghani receives funding from The Australian Research Council & The Australian Government.
Abbas Rajabifard receives funding from Victorian Government via Land Use Department.
Benny Chen 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.
Oysters are so much more than a seafood delicacy. They’re ecosystem engineers, capable of building remarkably complex reefs. These structures act as the kidneys of the sea, cleaning the water and keeping the coast healthy, while providing homes for millions of other animals.
Oyster reefs were once thought to be restricted to southern, cooler coastal waters where they’re the temperate equivalent of tropical coral reefs. But now, oyster reefs are being found right across Australia’s tropical north as well.
These tropical oyster reefs are bigger and more widespread than anyone expected. In fact, they are some of the largest known intertidal oyster reefs (exposed at low tide) left in Australia. And they’re everywhere – from the southern limit of the Queensland tropics across to the northern coast of Western Australia – yet we know almost nothing about them.
In our recent research, my colleagues and I completed the first detailed study of Australian tropical oyster reefs. These reefs are so new to science that until now, the species responsible for building them remained a mystery.
Using DNA, we identified the main reef-building oyster species in tropical Australia as “Saccostrea Lineage B”, making it a new addition to our national list of known reef-builders.
Lineage B is a close relative of the commercially important Sydney rock oyster (Saccostrea glomerata), but so little is known about this tropical reef-building species that it is yet to be assigned a scientific name.
The Saccostrea Lineage B oysters we found in Australia’s tropical north are related to Sydney rock oysters. Marina Richardson
Hiding in plain sight
So why are we only learning about tropical oyster reefs now?
Across the globe, oyster reefs have been decimated by human activity. These reefs declined in most tropical regions long ago, even as far back as 1,000 years ago. Most oyster reefs disappeared without a trace before scientists even knew they were there.
However, Australia’s tropical oyster reefs haven’t just survived, in some cases they have thrived.
Despite being delicious to many, the species we now know as Lineage B was not very attractive to the aquaculture industry, due to its small size. And while oyster reefs near Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne were dredged and burned to produce lime for mortar, used in the early construction of roads and buildings, this practice was not widespread in tropical regions. This lack of commercial interest is probably the reason why tropical oyster reefs have persisted unnoticed for so long in northern Australia.
Here the tropical oyster reefs were found growing on a combination of both rock and muddy sediment. Marina Richardson
What we did and what we found
We assessed three tropical oyster reefs in Queensland, Australia. At Wilson Beach, near Proserpine and Turkey Beach, near Gladstone, reefs were surveyed in late winter 2022. The reef at Mapoon in the Gulf of Carpentaria was surveyed in early spring 2023.
Using drone footage, we measured reef area and structure. We then collected oysters for genetic analysis.
Oysters are notoriously difficult to identify, because their shape, size and colour varies so much. Oysters from the same species can look completely different, while oysters from different species can look identical. That’s why it’s necessary to extract DNA.
We found almost all reef-building oysters across the three locations were Saccostrea Lineage B.
At Gladstone reefs, several other reef-building species were also present, including leaf oysters, pearl oysters and hairy mussels.
In southern Australia, oyster reefs are critically endangered. But we don’t really know how threatened their tropical counterparts are, although there is some evidence of decline. Further research is underway.
A new project has begun to map oyster reefs across tropical Australia. Since the project launched in June 2024, more than 60 new reefs have been found across Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia – including some as large as 5 hectares.
These unexpected discoveries provide a beacon of hope in a world currently overwhelmed by habitat decline and ecological collapse. But tropical oyster reefs are not yet protected. It’s crucial we include them in assessments of threatened ecosystems, to understand how much trouble they’re in and what we can do to protect them into the future.
By locating and understanding these overlooked ecosystems, we can ensure they’re not left behind in the global oyster reef restoration movement.
Scientists and others involved in reef restoration are now inviting everyday people across Australia to get involved as citizen scientists in The Great Shellfish Hunt. Anyone can upload tropical oyster reef sightings to this mapping project. It’s more important than ever to work together and ensure tropical oyster reefs receive the protection they deserve, so they continue to thrive for generations to come.
Marina Richardson currently receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program (NESP) and the Queensland Government Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation.
In a world with political polarisation, war, extreme weather events and increasing costs of living, we need to be able to cope as individuals and communities.
Our capacity to cope with very real stressors in our lives – our resilience – can determine whether we thrive, just survive, or are deprived of a reasonable quality of life.
Stress vs resilience
Resilience means having the ability to cope with, and rebound from, life’s challenges and still achieve our goals.
Stress isn’s something to be avoided. We need to feel some stress to achieve our best. Exposure to manageable levels of stress and adversity develops our coping skills and resilience.
But if we feel too much stress, we can flounder or become overwhelmed.
The ability to re-activate ourselves when we feel down, fatigued or disengaged helps to optimise our focus and motivation. Sportspeople, for example, might listen to high intensity music just before a competition to increase their energy levels.
Conversely, the ability to dampen down emotional intensity can make use feel less stressed or anxious. Exercising, listening to relaxing music, or patting a much-loved pet can prevent high arousal from interfering with completing a task.
Effective emotion regulation is crucial for adapting to life’s ups and downs, and keeping us on a relatively even keel.
How does resilience develop?
Resilience emerges from interactions between personal and environmental factors.
In addition to emotion regulation skills, personal factors that can bolster resilience include academic achievement, developing a range of skills and abilities (such as sport and music) and problem-solving skills. Many of these skills can be fostered in childhood. And if one area of life isn’t going well, we can still experience confidence, joy and meaning in others.
Sometimes we need to increase our energy levels, other times we need to lower anxiety. Ilias Chebbi/Unsplash
People who reflect on traumatic experience and develop new positive meanings about themselves (getting through it means I’m strong!) and life (a greater appreciation) can also have higher levels of resilience.
Genetic factors and temperament also play an important role. Some of us are born with nervous systems that respond with more anxiety than others in novel, uncertain, or potentially threatening situations. And some of us are more likely to avoid rather than approach these situations. These traits tend to be associated with lower levels of resilience. But we can all learn skills to build our resilience.
Environmental factors that promote resilience include:
a nurturing home environment
supportive family and peer relationships
cultural identity, belonging and rituals
modelling from others overcoming hardship
community cohesion
government policies that provide social safety nets, strong education, anti-discrimination and inclusion
investment in facilities, spaces, services and networks that support the quality of life and wellbeing of communities.
Can resilience be taught?
Many factors associated with resilience are modifiable, so it stands to reason that interventions that aim to bolster them should be helpful.
There is evidence that interventions that promote optimism, flexibility, active coping and social support-seeking can have small yet meaningful positive effects on resilience and emotional wellbeing in children and adults.
However, school-based programs give us reason to be cautious.
A trial across 84 schools in the United Kingdom evaluated the effectiveness of school-based mindfulness programs. More than 3,500 students aged between 11 and 13 years received ten lessons of mindfulness and a similar number did not.
There was no evidence that mindfulness had any benefit on risk for depression, social, emotional and behavioural functioning, or wellbeing after one year. Teaching school children mindfulness at scale did not appear to bolster resilience.
In fact, there was some evidence it did harm – and it was most harmful for students at the highest risk of depression. The intervention was not deemed to be effective or cost-effective and was not recommended by the authors.
In another recent trial, researchers found an emotion regulation intervention with Year 8 and 9 school children was unhelpful and even harmful, although children who engaged in more home practice tended to do better.
The evidence doesn’t support school-based resilience programs. Mitchell Luo/Unsplash
These interventions may have failed for a number of reasons. The content may not have been delivered in a way that was sufficiently engaging, comprehensive, age-appropriate, frequent, individually tailored, or relevant to the school context. Teachers may also not be sufficiently trained in delivering these interventions for them to be effective. And students didn’t co-design the interventions.
Regardless of the reasons, these findings suggest we need to be cautious when delivering universal interventions to all children. It may be more helpful to wait until there are early signs of excessive stress and intervening in an individualised way.
What does this mean for resilience-building?
Parents and schools have a role in providing children with the sense of security that gives them confidence to explore their environments and make mistakes in age-appropriate ways, and providing support when needed.
Parents and teachers can encourage children to try to solve problems themselves before getting involved. Problem-solving attempts should be celebrated even more than success.
Schools need to allocate their scarce resources to children most in need of practical and emotional support in non-stigmatising ways, rather than universal approaches. Most children will develop resilience without intervention programs.
To promote resilience, schools can foster positive peer relationships, cultural identity and involvement in creative, sporting and academic pursuits. They can also highlight others’ recovery and resilience stories to demonstrate how growth can occur from adversity.
More broadly in the community, people can work on developing their own emotion regulation skills to bolster their confidence in their ability to manage adversity.
Think about how you can:
approach challenges in constructive ways
actively problem-solve rather than avoid challenges
genuinely accept failure as part of being human
establish healthy boundaries
align your behaviour with your values
receive social and professional support when needed.
This will help you navigate the ebbs and flows of life in ways that support recovery and growth.
Peter McEvoy is a Professor of clinical psychology at the Curtin enAble Institute and School of Population Health. He is also a Senior Clinical Psychologist at The Centre for Clinical Interventions, Perth, and a Board Member of the Australian Association of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. He does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. The opinions and perspectives in this article are his own.
Australia (ranked 29th) and New Zealand (ranked 16th) are cited as positive examples by Reporters Without Borders in the 2025 World Press Freedom Index of commitment to public media development aid, showing support through regional media development such as in the Pacific Islands.
The 2025 World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has revealed the dire state of the news economy and how it severely threatens newsrooms’ editorial independence and media pluralism.
In light of this alarming situation, RSF has called on public authorities, private actors and regional institutions to commit to a “New Deal for Journalism” by following 11 key recommendations.
Among the many lessons to be learnt by the Liberal-National Coalition parties from the election is that they should stop getting into bed with News Corporation Australia.
Why would a political party outsource its policy platform and strategy to people with plenty of opinions, but no experience in actually running a government?
The result of the federal election suggests that unlike the Coalition, many Australians are ignoring the opinions of News Corp Australia’s leading journalists such as Andrew Bolt and Sharri Markson.
Last Thursday, in her eponymous program on Sky News Australia, Markson said:
For the first time in my journalistic career I’m going to also offer a pre-election editorial, endorsing one side of politics […] A Dutton prime ministership would give our great nation the fresh start we deserve.
After a vote count that sees the Labor government returned with an increased majority, Bolt wrote a piece for the Herald Sun admonishing voters:
No, the voters aren’t always right. This time they were wrong, and this gutless and incoherent Coalition should be ashamed. Australians just voted for three more years of a Labor government that’s left this country poorer, weaker, more divided and deeper in debt, and which won only by telling astonishing lies. That’s staggering. If that’s what voters really like, then this country is going to get more of it, good and hard.
The Australian and most of News’ tabloid newspapers endorsed the Coalition in their election eve editorials.
The election result was a repudiation of the minor culture war Dutton reprised during the campaign when he advised voters to steer clear of the ABC and “other hate media”. It may have felt good alluding to “leftie-woke” tropes about the ABC, but it was a tactical error. The message probably resonated only with rusted-on hardline Coalition voters and supporters of right-wing minor parties.
But they were either voting for the Coalition, or sending them their preferences, anyway. Instead, attacking the ABC sent a signal to the people the Coalition desperately needed to keep onside – the moderates who already felt disappointed by the Coalition’s drift to the right and who were considering voting Teal or for another independent.
Attacking just about the most trusted media outlet in the country simply gave those voters another reason to believe the Coalition no longer represented their values.
Reporting from the campaign bus is often derided as shallow form of election coverage. Reporters tend to be captive to a party’s agenda and don’t get to look much beyond a leader’s message. But there was real value in covering Dutton’s daily stunts and doorstops, often in the outer suburbs that his electoral strategy relied on winning over.
What was revealed by having journalists on the bus was the paucity of policy substance. Details about housing affordability and petrol pricing – which voters desperately wanted to hear – were little more than sound bites.
This was obvious by Dutton’s second visit to a petrol station, and yet there were another 15 to come. The fact that the campaign bus steered clear of the sites for proposed nuclear plants was also telling.
The grind of daily coverage helped expose the lateness of policy releases, the paucity of detail and the lack of preparation for the campaign, let alone for government.
On ABC TV’s Insiders, the Nine Newspapers’ political editor, David Crowe, wondered whether the media has been too soft on Dutton, rather than too hard as some Coalition supporters might assume.
He reckoned that if the media had asked more difficult questions months ago, Dutton might have been stress-tested and better prepared before the campaign began.
Instead, the Coalition went into the election believing it would be enough to attack Labor without presenting a fully considered alternative vision. Similarly, it would suffice to appear on friendly media outlets such as News Corp, and avoid more searching questions from the Canberra press gallery or on the ABC.
Reporters and commentators across the media did a reasonable job of exposing this and holding the opposition to account. The scrutiny also exposed its increasingly desperate tactics late in the campaign, such as turning on Welcome to Country ceremonies.
If many Australians appear more interested in what their prospective political leaders have to say about housing policy or climate change than the endless culture wars being waged by the coalition, that message did not appear to have been heard by Peta Credlin.
The Sky News Australia presenter and former chief of staff to prime minister Tony Abbott said during Saturday night’s election coverage “I’d argue we didn’t do enough of a culture war”.
Andrew Dodd has been the recipient of Australian Research Council funding
Matthew Ricketson 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Smith, Associate Professor in American Politics and Foreign Policy, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney
Australia’s federal election, held less than a week after Canada’s, has produced a shockingly similar outcome. Commentators allover the world have pointed out the parallels.
In both countries, centre-left governments looked like they were in serious trouble not long ago.
On February 23, a Resolve Strategic poll found the Coalition leading Labor 55-45% on a two-party-preferred basis. An Angus Reid poll in December found voting intention for Canada’s Liberals dropping to just 16%, compared to 45% for the Conservatives.
Yet, both governments are now celebrating historic victories. And in both countries, the conservative opposition leaders, Pierre Poilievre and Peter Dutton, lost their own seats.
In Canada, Trump cheerfully presented himself as an existential threat to the country.
But if anything, Labor’s landslide win in the Australian election on Saturday highlights just how poorly the Coalition fared under Dutton compared to Canada’s Conservatives. The Coalition bottomed out, while the Tories fared reasonably well in the face of difficult circumstances.
A painful but respectable loss for Conservatives in Canada
So, why the huge difference between the two parties? This is largely because of the differences between the Canadian and Australian electoral systems.
Unlike Australia, Canada does not have preferential voting – a vote for one party is a vote against another. The Liberals’ rise in the polls came mostly at the expense of the left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP) rather than the Conservatives.
Back in December, 21% of voters preferred the NDP, compared to 16% for Justin Trudeau’s deeply unpopular Liberals. But when Trudeau stepped down and Mark Carney became the party’s new leader, the threat posed by Trump unified centre-left Canadian voters behind the Liberals, who had the best chance of winning.
This is the strategic voting that is necessary in winner-take-all systems. The NDP has never won the largest share of seats in a national election, and it never had a chance of winning this one.
The NDP was left with seven seats in last week’s election and under 7% of the vote, losing their party status in parliament and their leader. This was the most significant “Trump effect” on the Canadian election.
Canada’s Conservatives ended up with 41.3% of the vote. This was only a few points down from their December high of 45% in the Angus Reid poll. They also won the greatest share of the national vote by any centre-right party since 1988, and expanded their share of seats in the parliament.
Poilievre was rightly criticised for failing to respond effectively to the challenge posed by Trump’s bullying, instead continuing to campaign as if the election were still a referendum on Trudeau.
That may have cost him a victory that seemed certain months earlier, especially considering Carney made his campaign all about standing up to Trump.
Yet, the Conservatives still performed well enough for Poilievre to retain his position as opposition leader despite losing his seat. Another Conservative sacrificed his own seat to let Poilievre back into parliament.
Dutton’s mistakes were bigger
It’s hard to imagine any member of Dutton’s party doing the same. Dutton handed Labor a staggeringly high two-party-preferred vote and (likely) the most seats it has ever had. Labor won 86 seats in 1987, while Anthony Albanese’s party will have at least 86, with the count continuing.
Dutton’s campaign has been widely described as “shambolic”. But it wasn’t just the last five weeks that doomed the Coalition.
From the moment he became leader, it was clear Dutton had little interest in winning back the former Liberal heartland seats that fell to Teal independents in 2022. Instead, he held out the promise the outer suburbs would become the new heartland.
Following the patterns established by John Howard, Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison, he believed the loss of middle-class women, once the backbone of the Liberal vote, could be compensated by gains among working-class men.
This was always a pipe dream, given the flimsiness of the culture war issues that have been Dutton’s preferred terrain. But it drove urban voters further away from the Liberal Party.
The Liberals should have been alarmed that in state elections and byelections last year, they were making almost no gains in metropolitan seats, whether inner suburban or outer suburban.
Not all right-wing populists are the same. Poilievre and Dutton have their own brands of populism they have spent decades cultivating, as have other right-wing populists like Javier Milei in Argentina. But in the suffocating global environment created by Trump, there is limited room for brand differentiation. He is the unavoidable reference point of right-wing politics.
Last November, many right-wing figures thought this would benefit them. One of them is now a spectacular political casualty.
David Smith 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maxine Newlands, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Policy Futures, University of Queensland, Adjunct Principal Research Fellow, Cairns Institute, James Cook University
Minor parties were all the rage at the last election when, along with independent candidates, they secured almost a third of votes.
But they have failed to build on that success at this election. The biggest and best funded of the minor parties – the Greens, One Nation and Trumpet of Patriots – have all had disappointing results.
Few green shoots
The Greens are the largest party outside of the traditional two-party system. But they failed to launch on Saturday night.
In 2022, the Greens secured 12.2% of the primary support which returned a record four members to the lower house. This time around, their nationwide vote is up – but only marginally and not where it matters.
The party has lost big in Queensland, with Stephen Bates in Brisbane and Max Chandler-Mather in Griffith relinquishing their seats to Labor. Elizabeth Watson-Brown could hold on in the neighbouring seat of Ryan, though preference flows will be critical.
Peter Dutton might not be the only party leader to lose his seat, with Adam Bandt on a knife’s edge in Melbourne, which he has held for 15 years. Again, it will come down to the spread of preferences.
The Greens had high hopes for two other Melbourne-based seats. They remain a chance in Wills, but got nowhere near it in Macnamara.
And it is unlikely to snatch the New South Wales seat of Richmond from Labor despite running a close second on primary vote.
Balance of power
The Greens have performed much better in the Senate, where they will once again be the largest cross bench party with a predicted 11 seats.
While the ALP will clearly dominate the lower house in the 48th parliament, the Senate is looking to be more of a two-way spilt between Labor and the Coalition.
The Albanese government will likely require only the support of the Greens to pass legislation. This is a much better scenario for Labor than the previous parliament when it needed to stitch together all the Greens and four independents to navigate the Senate.
Once again, the Greens will effectively hold the balance of power. However, Labor will have other crossbench options, such as independents David Pocock, Lidia Thorpe and Fatima Payman if the Greens obstruct bills that are also opposed by the Coalition.
Minor party fizzers
Despite their disappointing result in the lower house, the Greens easily outperformed the right-wing minor parties, most of which flopped.
None more so than Clive Palmer’s newly registered Trumpet of Patriots, which fielded candidates in most lower house seats and in the Senate. It scored 1.8% of the vote, the highest positive swing of all the minor parties.
But it misfired everywhere, despite Palmer’s reported $A50-60 million advertising spend. While Senate votes are still being counted, Trumpet of Patriots is lagging behind both One Nation and the Legalise Cannabis Party.
Pauline Hanson’s One Nation recorded just over 6% of first preference votes, up only slightly on its 2022 result and nowhere near enough to win any lower house seats. However, there are enough disaffected voters in Queensland to return Malcolm Roberts to the Senate. Hanson won’t be up for reelection until 2028.
Hanson’s daughter Lee Hanson is an outside chance of securing a Senate spot for One Nation in Tasmania. Her main rivals are Jacqui Lambie and Legalise Cannabis, which is also in the mix to win the final Senate seat in Victoria.
Minor parties play an important role in the Australian political landscape, and have long been players in federal parliament.
The previous two elections have seen shifts away from the two-party system, with one in four voters preferring minor parties or independent candidates in 2019, and one in three in 2022.
On the numbers counted so far in this election, voters have favoured either the traditional major parties or the array of independent candidates.
The trend towards minor parties has been halted, at least for now.
Maxine Newlands 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.
On February 1, on The Conversation’s podcast, Anthony Albanese not only declared that Labor would retain majority government, but held out the prospect it could win the Victorian Liberal seats of Menzies and Deakin.
This was when the polls were still bad for Labor and the Coalition was confident of gaining a swathe of seats in Victoria.
Now Liberal Michael Sukkar has lost Deakin to Labor’s Matt Gregg, while fellow Liberal Keith Wolahan says it is “more likely than not” he’ll be ousted from Menzies.
Obviously Albanese’s political judgement was better than most. Two other points are notable. The first is how quickly things turned around. But there’s a counterpoint: maybe they didn’t turn around in quite the way they seemed. Perhaps a few months ago, voters were expressing their frustrations, but many were always going to be reluctant to endorse Peter Dutton when decision-time came.
Even so, the extent of the decimation of the Liberals was nearly unthinkable. Labor minister Don Farrell said that two days out, Labor’s polling showed a majority but not this result. The Liberals are a rump, without a leader, with no obvious successor, and no clue of what direction to take a party left with hardly any urban seats and the prospect of another two terms, at least, in the wilderness.
First, however, to the government. Albanese is basking in golden days. But he knows Labor must avoid hubris. As he enjoyed Sunday morning at a local coffee shop, he said “we will be a disciplined, orderly government”.
To state the obvious, the win will boost Albanese’s authority. But it will also open him to pressures, externally and internally.
In Labor’s first term, many commentators and stakeholders argued the government was too cautious. Some urged it should tackle more robust economic reform; others wanted it to shift left. Those voices will strengthen now Labor has the numbers to flex its muscles more vigorously. But Albanese is wary of breaking promises – it took a long time for him to go back on his word over the stage three tax cuts – or surprising the electorate.
The person to watch is Treasurer Jim Chalmers.
On Saturday night, the treasurer said, “We do believe we’re an ambitious government but we know there is a sense of impatience as well when it comes to some of our big national challenges”.
Chalmers told the ABC on Sunday, “The best way to think about the difference between our first term and the second term that we won last night [is the] first term was primarily inflation without forgetting productivity, the second term will be primarily productivity without forgetting inflation”.
This is a very big aspiration. Australia’s productivity performance is dreadful. If that’s to improve significantly, Chalmers may have to take on battles in some policy areas, such as industrial relations, that are very sensitive for Labor and the unions.
The win, but more particularly the issues ahead, which focus on the economy here and overseas, will give Chalmers an even more central voice, as well as present even tougher tests for him. Chalmers was lavish in his praise of Albanese on Saturday night and Sunday; he said he had rung the PM during Saturday, before the result, and “I said his was an extraordinary campaign, he’s got a lot to be proud of and we are certainly proud to be part of his team”.
For all that, Chalmers is, and sees himself as, Albanese’s most credible successor, although other aspirants are in the mix. Despite Albanese indicating he will serve a full term and the result leading people to say he will be well placed to lead into the 2028 election, that is not inevitable.
Who will lead the Liberals into that election is absolutely unknowable. The potential field for the post election leadership vote is lacklustre, and whoever wins that vote could be a seat warmer.
That field includes shadow treasurer Angus Taylor, deputy leader Sussan Ley, shadow immigration minister Dan Tehan, and defence spokesman Andrew Hastie.
Taylor, an economic conservative, has faced immense criticism for his performance over the past three years. Ley, who is more towards the centre, has been guilty of overreach, although she’s toned down somewhat recently. Hastie has not broadened out from his defence comfort zone. Tehan is experienced but does not present well to voters.
Dutton had a weak team around him; the next leader will have an even thinner one.
Even more diabolical than who the Liberal Party should choose is where it should go in its positioning. The party has become an identity vacuum. It has lost its more genteel urbanites, and failed to win the aspirational suburbanites. These constituencies have different priorities but to revive themselves the Liberals have to thread the needle between them, which looks, at the moment, an impossible task.
Then there are the problems with women and younger voters. The Liberals’ “women problem” has been debated for years; they seem further than ever from grappling with it. The failure ranges from candidate selection to policy blindness.
On the latter, the working-from-home debacle was a classic example of disconnect with many women’s lives. The policy (later dumped) to bring public servants back to the office five days a week was driven by a woman, shadow finance minister Jane Hume. It wasn’t properly workshopped, but surely it was obvious that running this policy would be a disaster, especially with female voters. You wouldn’t need a focus group to tell you that.
As the baby boomers, already outnumbered, fade further, how are the Liberals to connect with the younger voters who are now the dominant demographic? These voters are increasingly progressive. For them, the Liberals need generational change. But the only new generation contender in the present leadership list is Hastie, and he is a conservative.
Another complication for the Liberals is that the Nationals have done well. This means they’ll have a bigger say in the Coalition, including a bigger share of the frontbench. This might push the Coalition further to the populist right. A few will argue the Coalition parties should separate, but this is not the answer – it hasn’t worked in the past.
There’ll be a policy overhaul, and that could involve a tricky argument over nuclear, to which the Nationals especially are deeply committed. And will the Coalition commitment to the Paris agreement and the 2050 net zero emissions target come under assault?
The Liberals are in an extraordinarily bad place. Politicians in such circumstances search for so-called “narrow goat tracks” to better ground. Debris is littering any track in sight for the Liberals. Their only comfort can be that politics is volatile.
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.
World Media Freedom Day reflections of a protester
Yesterday, World Media Freedom Day, we marched to Television New Zealand in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland to deliver a letter asking them to do better.
Their coverage [of Palestine] has been biased at its best, silent at its worst.
I truly believe that if our media outlets reported fairly, factually and consistently on the reality in Gaza and in all of Palestine that tens of thousands of peoples lives would have been saved and the [Israeli] occupation would have ended already.
Instead, I open my Instagram to a new massacre, a new lifeless child.
I often wonder how we get locked into jobs where we leave our values at the door to keep our own life how (I hope) we wish all lives to be. How we all collectively agree to turn away, to accept absolute substandard and often horrific conditions for others in exchange for our own comforts.
Yesterday I carried my son for half of this [1km] march. He’s too big to be carried but I also know I ask a lot from him to join me in this fight so I meet him in the middle as I can.
Near the end of the march he fell asleep and the saying “dead weight” came to mind as his body became heavier and more difficult to carry.
I thought about the endless images I’ve seen of parents in Gaza carrying their lifeless child and I thought how lucky I am, that my child will wake up.
How small of an effort it is to carry him a few blocks in the hopes that something might change, that one parent might be spared that terrible feeling — dead weight.
Republished from an Instagram post by a Philippine Solidarity Network Aotearoa supporter.
When the newspapers delivered their standard election-eve editorials, there were few surprises. Former Fairfax papers and smaller outlets offered qualified support for Labor, while the News Corp papers unashamedly championed the Coalition. In Adelaide, The Advertiser ran a curious line recommending a majority government of whatever persuasion, “lest our futures be in the hands of the mad Greens, self-serving teals or the independent rabble.”
How must those editors feel this morning? On the one hand, they got the majority government they wished for, and then some. The 2025 election will be mythologised in Labor circles for decades to come.
On the other hand, the “independent rabble” defied the expectations of some, and the best efforts of others, holding their seats and making gains in Sydney and Canberra, and potentially Melbourne and Perth as well. New crossbenchers will certainly be welcomed into the 48th parliament. And with the Coalition reeling from an historic defeat, they may all play a critical role in policy the debates to come.
Weathering the storm
The election campaign put all of the incumbent independent MPs through their paces. Coalition candidates and some of their outspoken media allies applied enormous personal pressure, with accusations of weakness on the issue of antisemitism and piercing questions from conservative news outlets about the transparency of some independent MPs’ donations.
Vast sums of money were also involved. In the Perth-side seat of Curtin, for example, independent MP Kate Chaney’s supporters and the Liberal Party allegedly spent $1 million each on their respective campaigns.
In the end, incumbent independents benefited from the historic pattern in federal politics: that a good independent is a tough proposition to beat. At election time, successful independent MPs benefit from the advantages of incumbency, the ability to point to specific policy or project victories arising from greater political competition for the seat, and the flexibility to adapt more quickly to changing voter attitudes, unencumbered by any party machinery.
Zali Steggall in Warringah and Helen Haines in Indi enjoyed their third successive wins, Rebekah Sharkie in Mayo a fourth general election win (she won a competitive byelection in 2018), Andrew Wilkie in Hobart a sixth victory on the trot, and north Queensland’s Bob Katter yet another term after 50 years of parliamentary service.
At the time of writing, all of the independents who won their seats in 2022 appear to have been returned. (The exception was Kylie Tink, whose electorate was abolished last year.) The closest count is in Goldstein, where incumbent Zoe Daniel narrowly leads her Liberal predecessor Tim Wilson. Other incumbents, such as Sophie Scamps in Mackellar, Allegra Spender in Wentworth, Monique Ryan in Kooyong and Kate Chaney in Curtin, have enjoyed distinctive swings toward them. In the formerly safe Labor seat of Fowler, where the party hoped to win, independent MP Dai Le enjoyed a handsome primary vote swing of around 6% in her favour.
Changing hands
The picture has been more mixed for the rest of the crossbench and other minor parties. The Greens seem set to lose two of their Brisbane seats, but a close race in the formerly safe Labor seat of Wills in Victoria may yet provide a win. Another record spendathon from Clive Palmer will see the Trumpet of Patriots win zero seats. One Nation may keep Queensland senator Malcolm Roberts in his place, but there do not appear to be any other gains for Pauline Hanson’s team.
Coalition defectors fared poorly, too. Monash MP, independent and former Liberal Russell Broadbent, appears to have secured just 10% of the primary vote, placing him behind both major parties and the community independent candidate.
In the Perth seat of Moore, Liberal defector Ian Goodenough has fallen behind Labor, Liberal and the Greens, with preferences flowing mainly to Labor candidate Tom French. Right-wing LNP defector Gerard Rennick appears unlikely to win his contest for a Queensland senate seat. In the regional NSW seat of Calare, ex-National MP Andrew Gee appears the only one able to buck the trend, coming second on primary votes and benefiting from a stronger flow of preferences than his National Party opponent.
New crossbench faces?
A series of close contests may yet result in extra independent members of parliament. Despite a bitter campaign, community independent Nicolette Boele appears likely to win in the north Sydney seat of Bradfield. In the Victorian seat of Flinders, independent Ben Smith has enjoyed a 5.4% swing toward him, and away from Liberal MP Zoe McKenzie, though preferences have not yet been published in that seat. In Fremantle, where the Australian Electoral Commission is yet to report any preference flows, independent candidate Kate Hulett may still be in with a shot to beat Labor’s Josh Wilson. The competitive result follows an impressive campaign from Hulett at the state election earlier this year.
After five weeks of vicious debates about the public service and Canberra, voters in the ACT sent clear messages to both major parties. Voices for Bean candidate Jessie Price appears to have taken one of the three ACT electorates from Labor, and independent Senator David Pocock enjoyed an easy victory. Labor received less than a third of the primary vote in that Senate race, and barely one in seven ACT residents voted Liberal.
Not burning down the house
Despite that qualification, Labor’s victory is historic by several measures. It is one of only four occasions over the past 30 years where its primary vote actually grew at a federal election. It looks to have won a lower house majority comparable with that of the Howard government’s final term, and maybe even with the Coalition’s 2013 victory (when it won 90 seats, more than double the figure it is likely to have won this time). The two-party preferred vote shows Albanese securing the kind of victory that made John Curtin a Labor hero in 1943.
So what role does that leave for independents in the 48th parliament?
Returning crossbenchers will regard their impressive primary votes as confirmation their voters want them to keep doing politics differently. The Liberal and National parties, on the other hand, will be consumed for much of the parliamentary term with introspection and institutional reckoning. Given how unhelpful their studied unity over the past term ultimately proved, it may be there’s more infighting within the Coalition during the next parliament.
Does it matter that the crossbenchers will not hold the balance of power in the lower house? Not necessarily. In the event of a serious policy misstep from the Albanese government during this term, the crossbenchers may prove to be the more influential voices of opposition in the lower house.
Sometimes a solo voice speaks with powerful volume. In 2001 the rural independent for Calare, Peter Andren, proved to be a singularly powerful voice against the Howard government’s draconian offshore detention program for asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat. Andren defied the national trends (and the local opinion polls) and was returned with an increased primary vote, and again in 2004. When he died, some said his opposition to the Howard government showed “more guts and decency” than “all the other Coalition and ALP candidates combined”.
Several of the current independents have earned themselves a national profile and are trusted advocates on issues such as public integrity and accountability, climate and energy policy and even foreign and security affairs. There will certainly be few MPs left on the opposition benches who can speak with compelling authority on some of these issues. In the face of an emboldened Labor government, their opposition to contentious legislation may sometimes have outsized influence.
In pragmatic political terms, it is arguably in the Labor Party’s interests to negotiate, and to be seen to negotiate, with the crossbench. The independents in formerly safe Liberal seats are some of the biggest obstacles in any future Liberal pathway back into office.
Newly-elected Labor MPs may also depend on preferences from community independent candidates next time they go to the polls. The Menzies government owed part of its longevity in the late 1950s and 1960s to its ability to win the preferences of the Democratic Labor Party, an anti-communist breakaway party from Labor.
Independents are nothing like the DLP, and many run open tickets instead of strictly recommending preferences on their how to vote cards. But in some seats, including the leader of the opposition’s seat of Dickson, independent and Greens voters’ preferences will have proven crucial for Labor’s success.
‘Every day is minority government in the Senate’
The other crucial reason independents still have a role to play is the Senate. Pocock recently remarked that “every day is minority government in the Senate”. Albanese’s victory, no matter how impressive, does not extend to a majority in the red chamber.
The last time a party won a majority in the Senate was in 2004. Before that, it was 1977. No matter how large a lower-house majority, negotiation and compromise are simply unavoidable for laws to get passed in the federal parliament.
The Greens will continue to exercise their crucial balance of power role in the Senate. So too will Pocock and, assuming she is re-elected as the sixth senator for Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie. During the 47th parliament, Pocock and Lambie often proved decisive in shaping, amending and sometimes postponing legislation they felt needed improvement.
Both will bring a range of priorities to the 48th parliament. They may also collaborate more routinely with lower house crossbench colleagues to make those critical votes in the senate count for everything that they are worth. That would be a good thing. After all, both chambers really do matter in our parliamentary system.
Joshua Black is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at The Australia Institute.
David Clune, honorary associate, government and international relations, University of Sydney
The election results showed, in NSW as with the rest of Australia, a stronger than predicted swing to the government, returning it with a solid majority.
Not only did Labor hold all its NSW marginals, many with increased margins, but it appears to have gained from the Liberals the seats of Banks and Hughes in suburban Sydney. Labor’s Jerome Laxale has retained Bennelong which was notionally Liberal after the redistribution.
The Liberals appear likely to lose Bradfield to Teal Nicolette Boele and former National Andrew Gee seems likely to retain Calare in the central west as an independent.
The three sitting Teals were all easily re-elected and right wing independent Dai Le held Fowler.
At the time of writing, Labor has won 28 seats in NSW to the Coalition’s 12, a gain of three, with four independents so far and the probability of two more.
The ALP two-party preferred vote in NSW was 54.8%, a swing towards it of 3.4%.
Labor’s primary vote was 35.0% to the Coalition’s 31.8%, a swing against the latter of 4.7%.
Albanese staged a Houdini-like escape from what seemed to be, in 2024, a steady decline in his prospects. Although only an average campaigner in 2022, he ran an almost flawless campaign three years later. The prime minister had a consistent, resonant message about Labor’s record, appealing policies for the future, and projected an image of stability in government.
Given the bite of the cost of living, particularly in Western Sydney, the government should have been vulnerable. Instead, Albanese transformed this into a strength by persuading voters he was best placed to deal with the crisis.
Queensland
Swing to Labor: 3.9%
Paul Williams, associate professor of politics and journalism, Griffith University
I long argued Queensland would be inconsequential as to who would win the keys to The Lodge at this election.
I was partly right. If Labor, as projected, wins 93 of the 150 House of Representatives seats, the six Queensland Labor appears to have seized from the Liberal-National Party (LNP) are but a small fraction of the government’s national haul. Even with no Labor gains in Queensland, Albanese could still have governed with a comfortable majority.
But I was also partly wrong. The fact there were primary swings of up to five percentage points away from the LNP across Queensland (even in very safe seats like Maranoa), and the fact Labor appears to have captured two seats (Brisbane and Griffith) from the Greens, suggests the state has behaved very differently from expectations and, for the first time in more than a decade, become one of real consequence.
Labor now looks to hold 13 of the state’s 30 seats, the LNP 15, the Greens one, and Bob Katter returned in Kennedy for the KAP. Few would be surprised that Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (PHON) and Clive Palmer’s Trumpet of Patriots failed to win any House seats, although PHON’s Malcolm Roberts is likely to be returned to the Senate.
Nor is it unexpected that Dickson, held by the LNP by a tiny 1.7% margin, should have been in play this election. But that fact Dickson was lost by an opposition leader – the first such occurrence at federal level – is astonishing.
So, too, are the LNP losses in the outer-suburban “battler” seats of Forde and Petrie (held by the LNP since 2010 and 2013 respectively) that embraced former Liberal PM Scott Morrison, even when he was at his nadir.
The additional reality of an LNP losing such contrasting seats as Leichhardt in far north Queensland and Bonner in middle Brisbane suburbia now points to a deep existential crisis for conservatives even in their Queensland heartland.
In the Northern Territory, Labor’s Marion Scrymgour has retained the seat of Lingiari and strengthened her position, with a 6.6% swing in her favour.
So, what happened? How did Queensland, like the rest of Australia, defy electoral gravity? Was it that angry Queenslanders, stinging from a cost-of-living crisis, had already vented their wrath on a state Labor government six months ago? Or did the state finally warm to an Albanese it now concluded was a more competent economic manager? Or did Queensland, like every other state, reject a hard-right Peter Dutton – offering little in meaningful policy amid a ramshackle campaign – as out of touch with a moderate, centrist Australia?
After defeats at local and state elections in 2024, Labor is back in Queensland.
South Australia
Swing to Labor: 5.1%
Rob Manwaring, associate professor of politics and public policy, Flinders University
On first glance, South Australia did not seem to be at the centre of the Albanese government’s landslide win. Of the ten electoral seats in the state, only one changed hands – the seat of Sturt which Labor’s Claire Clutterham won from the Liberals’ James Stevens. Yet, this was a massive win for Labor, with a 57–43 two-party preferred vote.
This is a seismic result and exemplifies all of the Coalition’s electoral problems. Sturt was a classic Liberal blue ribbon seat which the Liberals had held since 1972. The Teal candidate in Sturt, Dr Verity Cooper, might well be disappointed not to have scored a higher primary vote than her 7.2%.
Elsewhere, Labor handsomely improved its position in the hitherto marginal seat of Boothby. A 8% swing to Louise Miller-Frost saw the Liberals’ Nicolle Flint easily routed.
To confirm the Liberal misery in the state, the Centre Alliance’s Rebekha Sharkie consolidated her place in Mayo. The scale of Labor’s performance also brought into scrutiny the Liberal regional seat of Grey, where long-standing member Rowan Ramsay retired. The Liberals will retain it despite a swing against them.
Overall, this is now a solidly Labor state, and the party holds a remarkable seven of the ten seats. Those with long memories, will know seats like Kingston and Adelaide, traditionally bellweather, are now solidly safe Labor seats.
The Liberals’ loss of Sturt confirms the party now has only two seats in the state, and no representation at all in the major cities around the country. It might well be a long road back for the centre-right.
Tasmania
Swing to Labor: 8.1%
Robert Hortle, deputy director of the Tasmanian Policy Exchange, University of Tasmania
If the Liberal Party’s ranks were thinned out on the mainland, in Tasmania they have been clear-felled. The state elected four Labor candidates out of five, and notably, all women.
In Braddon, Labor’s Anne Urquhart overturned the 8.3% margin enjoyed by retiring Liberal MP Gavin Pearce. It looks like the swing to Labor will be around 15%, with Urquhart’s pro-salmon farming and pro-jobs position resonating in the traditionally conservative electorate.
A swing of around 10% to Labor in Bass was more than enough for first-time candidate Jess Teesdale to defeat Liberal MP Bridget Archer. Labor’s messaging that “a vote for Archer is a vote for Dutton” successfully neutralised Archer’s personal popularity in the electorate and reputation for standing up to her party.
Lyons was Tasmania’s most marginal seat after the 2022 election. That’s no longer the case, with Rebeca White, former state Labor leader, securing a swing of around 10%. White’s popularity as a state MP transferred smoothly to the federal level – Labor’s primary vote in the seat looks to have jumped by more than 14%.
So why was the swing to Labor in these Tasmanian seats so much greater than on the mainland? Astute candidate selection played a role – in particular, White and Urquhart were well-known in their communities.
It is also possible the ongoing travails of the state Liberal government played a part. Northern Tasmanians are strongly opposed to the controversial AFL stadium in Hobart, and the ongoing Spirit of Tasmania ferry fiasco has involved prominent mismanagement of port upgrades in Devonport in the state’s north-west. State politics isn’t usually considered to have a big impact on federal elections, but these issues may have been high profile – and long running – enough to make a difference.
The southern seat of Franklin was a focal point for a lot of drama during the campaign. In the end, Julie Collins, Tasmania’s only cabinet minister, received a bit of a scare. She slightly increased her primary vote, but the ABC currently projects her overall margin will be cut in half. Anti-salmon farming independent Peter George achieved the second highest primary vote, but wasn’t close enough to Collins for preferences to get him over the line.
As expected, independent Andrew Wilkie won the Hobart seat of Clark for a sixth time, with a margin of just over 20%. He increased his primary vote, but it looks like Labor will shave a tiny amount off his margin.
Victoria
Swing to Labor: 1.8%
Zareh Ghazarian, senior lecturer in politics, school of social sciences, Monash University
The Liberal Party’s fortunes in Victoria went from bad in 2022 to much worse in 2025.
The ALP’s primary vote increased by about 1% while the Liberal Party’s primary vote fell by about 2.5%. While the percentages are smaller than in other states, this performance had a significant affect on the representation of the parties in Victoria.
The Liberal Party lost Deakin in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Held by Michael Sukkar since 2013, the seat has been marginal for several elections. The primary vote swing against the Liberal Party was 4.2%. In a two-party preferred outcome, Deakin now appears to be a relatively safe seat for Labor.
The Liberal Party primary vote also went backwards in Kooyong which was held by independent Monique Ryan. High profile Liberal candidate Amelia Hamer could not reclaim the seat which had previously been held by then-Treasurer Josh Frydenberg.
Goldstein, the other inner metropolitan seat won by an independent at the last election, looks to be a closer contest with the Liberal Party’s Tim Wilson experiencing a rise in the primary vote but it may not be enough to defeat incumbent Zoe Daniel.
Compounding the problems for the Liberal Party was that it could not make any inroads in other key seats across the eastern suburbs in Melbourne. This was where the party needed to win seats if it was to be competitive in forming government. In Aston, the seat the party lost at a byelection in 2023, the Liberal Party’s primary vote fell by 5%. The party’s primary vote also went back in Chisholm and McEwen.
In short, this was a disastrous result for the Liberal Party in the state of Victoria.
Western Australia
Swing to Labor: 1.2%
Narelle Miragliotta, associate professor in politics, Murdoch University
WA didn’t disappoint for Labor. Although the two-party swing was more muted than in other parts of the country, it came off the back of a more much stronger electoral position entering this contest. On a two-party preferred basis, Labor gained 56.2% of the vote.
Labor has retained the nine lower house seats it won in 2022, and it has also managed to make decent, even if not spectacular, gains in the party’s share of the primary vote in Tangney (+4.9%), Hasluck (+5.93), Swan (+3.5%), and Perth (+4.7%).
One of the unexpected wins for Labor was the former Liberal held seat of Moore. Labor won the seat on the back of +0.9% increase in the party’s primary vote. Assisting Labor’s electoral fortunes was a former Liberal incumbent who ran as an independent, and whose vote accounts for much of the -10.4% swing against the Liberal candidate.
But it wasn’t all good news for Labor, going backwards on primary votes in Fremantle (-4.48%) Brand (-5.96%) and Pearce (-0.01%).
The Liberals’ performance affirms just how much trouble the party in the West. The Liberals recorded a swing of -5.66% in their primary vote, winning only 28.5% of the first preference vote.
In addition to the loss of Moore, the party failed to win back the once-prized seat of Curtin, despite a heavy investment of resources into the contest. The Liberals also have a fight to retain the seat of Forrest, where is registered a -13.4% swing in its primary vote. The Liberals are, however, expected to win it.
There were very few bright spots for the Liberals. The Liberals did achieve an increase in their two-party preferred vote in O’Connor (+6.3%) and Canning (+3.8%). And at last check, the Liberals are still in the hunt for the new seat of Bullwinkel.
In the senate, the swing against the Liberals on primary votes was even more pronounced (-7.36%) although the party are on track to elect two senators. The Greens senate primary vote held up, enjoying a very slight increase (+0.74%) and comfortably returning a senator. Although recording a -0.04% swing, Labor has two senators confirmed and the possibility of the election of a third.
Paul Williams is a research associate with the T.J. Ryan Foundation.
David Clune, Narelle Miragliotta, Rob Manwaring, Robert Hortle, and Zareh Ghazarian do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on May 4, 2025.
Too many journalists remain silent over the Gaza genocide, a threat to our media credibility Report by Dr David Robie – Café Pacific. – By David Robie on World Press Freedom Day 2025 I ask you now: Do not stop speaking about Gaza. Do not let the world look away. Keep fighting, keep telling our stories – until Palestine is free. These are not my words, although I believe and
Labor makes Senate gains, and left-wing parties will hold a Senate majority Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne On Saturday, Labor won a thumping victory in the House of Representatives, and this has carried over to the Senate results. Only 35% of enrolled voters have
Rabuka salutes Fiji media but warns against taking freedom for granted By Anish Chand in Suva Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has paid tribute to all those working the media industry in his message to mark World Press Freedom Day. He said in his May 3 message thanks to democracy his coalition government had removed the “dark days of oppression and suppressions”. “Today as we join
Albanese increases majority and Dutton loses seat in stunning election landslide Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra The Albanese government has been re-elected with a substantially increased majority, and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has lost his seat, in a crushing defeat of the Coalition. As of late Saturday night, there was a two-party swing to Labor of
Labor wins election in landslide: full results Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Digital Storytelling Team, The Conversation The Conversation, CC BY-SA Digital Storytelling Team 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. – ref. Labor
Labor wins surprise landslide, returned with a thumping majority Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne With 52% of enrolled voters counted, The Poll Bludger has Labor ahead in 92 of the 150 House of Representatives seats, the Coalition in 43, the Greens
Labor routs the Coalition as voters reject Dutton’s undercooked offering Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra In a dramatic parallel, what happened in Canada at the beginning of this week has now been replicated in Australia at the end of the week. An opposition that a few months ago had looked just possibly on track to
Dutton and the Coalition did not do the work, and misread the Australian mood Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Kenny, Professor, Australian Studies Institute, Australian National University The former federal director of the Liberal Party, Brian Loughnane, used to tell media companies that their practice of commissioning expensive opinion polls right through a parliamentary term was a waste of money. Election 2025 seemed to vindicate
Labor wins with a superior campaign and weak opposition – now it’s time to make the second term really matter Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Wallace, Professor, School of Politics Economics & Society, Faculty of Business Government & Law, University of Canberra Superior campaigning by the Labor machine, a lift in the personal performance of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, and a woeful campaign by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton have seen Labor
Albanese’s government might not thrill, but it has shown unity and competence – and that’s no mean feat Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Bongiorno, Professor of History, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University The Coalition’s election campaign of 2025 has a strong claim to be considered among the worst since federation. I know of none more shambolic. Barely a day passed without some new misstep
Palestine protesters march on TVNZ, accuse broadcaster of bias on Gaza Asia Pacific Report About 1000 pro-Palestinian protesters marked World Press Freedom Day — May 3 — today by marching on the public broadcaster Television New Zealand in Auckland, accusing it of 18 months of “biased coverage” on the genocidal Israeli war against Gaza. They delivered a letter to the management board of TVNZ from Palestine
Keep fighting, keep telling our stories – until Palestine is free.
These are not my words, although I believe and support them absolutely. They are the words of Palestinian journalist Hossam Shabat in his final message left behind when he was killed by an Israeli air strike on March 24.
His message is a poignant one today, especially today which is May 3 — World Press Freedom Day.
It is a message that I have been carrying in my heart since even earlier, since the assassination of another Palestinian journalist, the famous Shireen Abu Akleh, who was murdered by Israeli sharpshooters six days after Media Freedom Day in 2022 while reporting in Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank.
It was her blatant killing in plain view on live video with impunity that signalled how the rogue state Israel was flaunting all international laws and accountability with contempt. And it was a hint of how it would it conduct itself in this disaster.
According to the United Nations Human Rights Office in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OHCHR), since October 2023, Israeli occupation forces have killed 211 Palestinian journalists, including 28 women reporters reporting on Gaza. At least 47 journalists have been killed while on duty, and at least 49 media people are languishing in Israeli detention or hidden in prisons, mostly without charge.
Why? To silence the journalists.
To silence their storytelling, as Hossam Shabat indicated in his final message.
And for more than 18 months Israel has refused access to Gaza by international journalists.
Why? To kill the truth. To stop the world’s media from exposing the Israeli lies and their controlled narrative.
But it hasn’t worked. The Zionists are losing control of the narrative — and they know it. As Amnesty International called it this week, the mass atrocity is a “livestreamed genocide” thanks due to the courage and dedication of the Gazan reporters and citizen journalists.
A year ago — on this very day — the Gazan journalists were honoured with the UNESCO Guillermo Cano Prize in Santiago, Chile, in recognition of their “unique suffering and fearless reporting”.
The protest march to Television New Zealand headquarters. Image: Asia Pacific Report
Who would have thought this grotesque war, this obscene war would still be causing such terrible suffering more than year later?
And we can’t even really call it a war at all because it is continuous massacres carried out by one of the most advanced and powerful military machines in the world, supplied and aided by the United States, on one side, with a relatively tiny resistance force armed with small arms on the other.
Gaza is a “killing field – and civilians are in an endless death loop”, as the UN Secretary General, António Guterres, said the other day. Horrendous!
And since the Cano award for the Gazan journalists, a further 111 media workers have been killed by Israel.
Gazan journalist Hossam Shabat’s final message . . . he was killed by the Israeli military last month. Image: APR screenshot
In the latest survey by Reporters Without Borders 2025 World Press Freedom Index released yesterday, global zones have been flagged where press freedom is “entirely absent and practising journalism is particularly dangerous”.
“This is the case in Palestine, where the Israeli army has been annihilating journalism for more than 18 months, killing more than 200 media professionals — including at least 43 murdered while working — and imposing a blackout on the besieged strip.”
Just a couple of weeks ago, a group of French and international journalists staged a “die-in” in Paris. They lay down on the steps of the Opera-Bastille as a street theatre representation of the unprecedented scale of the killing of journalists.
It was organised by Reporters Without Borders, and secretary-general Thibaut Bruttin said:
“The difficulty of making the cause of Palestinian journalists heard is proof that the insidious poison of the Israel armed forces has sometimes even penetrated our own narrative.
“I have never seen a war in which, when a journalist is killed, you are told that they were really a terrorist.”
Bruttin also reflected: “I think it must be said that solidarity is a form of strength. It is a source of strength, I hope, for Palestinian journalists to whom we send these images and to whom we express our solidarity through words and action.
“And I also think that is an appeal to the media profession, and it’s true that this demonstration is happening late, perhaps too late. It must be recognised.
“In the 10 years that I have been working at Reporters Without Borders, this is the first time that I have been asked if the journalist was really a journalist when they were killed. This had never happened. Never.
“And I think we must salute all those who have been marching and all those professionals who have come and who say: ‘Yes, we must continue to report what is happening but we must also protest and do more. Journalists are being targeted. And they are also being defamed after their deaths.’”
In January 2024, I wrote an article for Declassified Australia headlined: “Silencing the messenger: Israel kills journalists, while the West merely censors them.”
I declared then that reporting Israel’s war on Gaza had become the greatest credibility challenge for journalists and media of our times.
Dr David Robie and Del Abcede speaking at Auckland’s “Palestine Corner” rally on World Press Freedom Day. Image: Bruce King
“Covering the conflict has opened divisions among media groups about fairness and balance that have become the most bitter since the climate change and covid pandemic debates when media ‘deniers’ and ‘bothsideism’ threatened to undermine the science.”
It shocks me that so many journalists have remained silent. They should also be on the streets like us and reporting the truth. To me, the deafening silence is a betrayal of the 50 years of truth to power journalism that I have grown up with.
Minto says: “Over the past 18 months of industrial scale killing of Palestinians by the Israeli military in Gaza we have been regularly appalled at the blatantly-biased reporting on the Middle East by Television New Zealand.
“TVNZ’s reporting has been relentlessly and virulently pro-Israel . . .
“The damage to human rights, justice and freedom in the Middle East by Western media such as TVNZ is incalculable.”
I endorse and support these comments and call a halt to Israel deliberately targeting of Palestinian journalists. Let the truth be told, as Hossam told us, over and over again and prevent this blatant Western attempt to “normalise” genocide.
Dr David Robie is editor of Asia Pacific Report and convenor of Pacific Media Watch. He gave this address at the World Press Freedom Day rally in “Palestine Corner” in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland’s Te Komititanga Square on 3 May 2025.
The Television New Zealand protest on World Press Freedom Day – “Remembering the journalists killed by Israel”. Image: APR
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne
On Saturday, Labor won a thumping victory in the House of Representatives, and this has carried over to the Senate results.
Only 35% of enrolled voters have been counted in the Senate so far, compared with 71% in the House. It’s likely that the current Senate count is biased to Labor, so Labor is likely to drop back in some states as more votes are counted.
There are 76 senators, who have six-year terms, with about half up for election at every House election. Each state has 12 senators, with six up for election, and the territories have two senators each, who are all up for election.
Senators are elected by proportional representation with preferences. A quota in a state is one-seventh of the vote, or 14.3%. In the territories, it’s one-third or 33.3%. I had a Senate preview on April 16.
Comments on each state are below. I disagree with the ABC’s view that Labor is “likely” to win a third New South Wales seat. Putting this seat into the doubtful column reduces Labor to an overall 27 senators with the Greens on 11, so the two main left-wing parties would hold a minimum 38 of the 76 seats in the new Senate.
This would represent a two-seat gain for Labor (one in Queensland, one in South Australia). Labor has reasonable chances to gain further Senate seats.
If Labor and the Greens combined hold the minimum 38 seats after the election, Labor will only need one more vote to pass legislation supported by the Greens but opposed by right-wing parties. Independent David Pocock, former Green Lidia Thorpe and former Labor senator Fatima Payman will be good options.
In NSW, Labor has 2.6 quotas, the Coalition 1.9, the Greens 0.9 and One Nation 0.4. Labor would win three seats on current primaries, but the Senate swing to them is much greater than in the House, so they will drop back.
In Victoria, Labor has 2.4 quotas, the Coalition 1.9, the Greens 1.0, One Nation 0.3 and Legalise Cannabis 0.3. Labor is likely to drop back, with the final seat likely a three-way contest between Labor, One Nation and Legalise Cannabis.
In Queensland, Labor has 2.1 quotas, the Liberal National Party 1.8, the Greens 0.9, One Nation 0.5 and former LNP senator Gerard Rennick 0.35. One Nation is the favourite to win the sixth seat.
In Western Australia, Labor has 2.4 quotas, the Liberals 1.7, the Greens 1.1, One Nation 0.4, Legalise Cannabis 0.3 and the Nationals 0.3. Labor would be the favourite to win the sixth seat on current counting, as the Liberals would absorb right-wing preferences that would otherwise help One Nation.
In SA, Labor has 2.6 quotas, the Liberals 1.8, the Greens 1.0 and One Nation 0.4. Labor won the House vote in SA by 58.4–41.6, so the Senate result looks plausible. Labor and the Greens are likely to win four of SA’s six Senate seats.
In Tasmania, Labor has 2.4 quotas, the Liberals 1.5, the Greens 1.2, Jacqui Lambie 0.5, One Nation 0.4 and Legalise Cannabis 0.3. It’s difficult to determine which parties are the favourites to win the last two seats.
In the ACT (two senators), Pocock has been easily re-elected with 1.3 quotas, and Labor will win the second seat. In the Northern Territory, Labor and the Country Liberals will win one seat each.
Doubtful House seats, and the Greens’ and teals’ performance
There are many seats where the electoral commission selected the incorrect final two candidates on election night and now needs to redo this count. Labor could lose Bean, Fremantle or Calwell to independents. Labor could also lose Bullwinkel or Bendigo to the Coalition.
The Greens have lost Brisbane and Griffith to Labor. They lost Brisbane after falling to third behind Labor and the LNP and Griffith because the LNP fell to third and their preferences will help Labor. Labor is narrowly ahead against the Greens in Wills.
In Greens leader Adam Bandt’s Melbourne, there was a substantial primary vote swing to Labor and against Bandt, and the electoral commission needs to redo the preference count between Bandt and Labor.
Teal independents in Kooyong, Goldstein and Curtin are likely to retain their seats, but they didn’t gain substantial swings that usually occur when an independent elected at the last election recontests. It’s possible they’ve become too associated with the left in their seats. Fortunately for them, the left won a thumping victory at this election.
Adrian Beaumont 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.
Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has paid tribute to all those working the media industry in his message to mark World Press Freedom Day.
He said in his May 3 message thanks to democracy his coalition government had removed the “dark days of oppression and suppressions”.
“Today as we join the rest of the international community in celebrating World Press Freedom Day, let us recommit ourselves to the values and ideals of our fundamental human rights freedom of expression and the freedom of the press,” said Rabuka, a former coup leader.
“With our recent history, let as not take this freedom for granted.”
RNZ Pacific reports Moce was left paralysed and bedridden in 2007 after being assaulted by soldiers shortly after the 2006 military coup.
“Today is also an opportune time to remember those in the media fraternity that made the ultimate sacrifice.”
‘Brave photographer’ “In particular, I pay tribute to my ‘Yaca’ (namesake), the late Sitiveni Moce who died in 2015.
“This brave newspaper photographer was set upon by a mob in Parliament House in 2000, and again by some members of the disciplined forces in 2007 for simply carrying out his job which was to capture history in still photographs.
“His death is a sombre reminder of the fickleness of life, and how we must never ever take our freedoms for granted.”
The Albanese government has been re-elected with a substantially increased majority, and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has lost his seat, in a crushing defeat of the Coalition.
As of late Saturday night, there was a two-party swing to Labor of about 3.4%, with two-party vote of 55.5%-44.5%
It was sitting on about 86 seats (up from 78), and in the hunt for more. The Coalition, which went into the election with 57 seats, has won 41, and may pick up one or two more.
The Labor primary vote was 34.7%, up 2.1%; the Coalition primary vote was 31.1%, down 4.6%.
Among the Liberal losses is frontbencher Michael Sukkar in his Victorian seat of Deakin. Shadow foreign minister David Coleman is likely to lose his Sydney seat of Banks. Outspoken Liberal backbencher Bridget Archer has lost her Tasmanian seat of Bass.
It was all over by 8.30PM, as it became increasingly clear a big swing to Labor was underway.
A trumphant and emotional Anthony Albanese told a jubilant Labor crowd: “Australians have chosen a majority Labor government”.
“Today the Australian people have voted for Australian values. For fairness, aspiration and opportunity for all. For the strength to show courage in adversity and kindness to those in need.
“And Australians have voted for a future that holds true to these values, a future built on everything that brings us together as Australians and everything that sets our nation apart from the world.
“Australians have chosen to face global challenges the Australian way, looking after each other while building for the future.
“I make this solemn pledge. We will not forget that we will never take it for granted, repaying your trust will drive a government each and every day of the next three years.”
Albanese, who has used a Medicare card as a prop through the campaign, produced it once again. “We will be a government that helps every Australian who relies on Medicare.”
According to the ABC, seats changing hands from the Liberals to Labor are Banks and Hughes in NSW; Forde, Bonner, Dickson, Petrie, Leichhardt in Queensland; Deakin in Victoria; Braddon and Bass in Tasmania; Sturt in South Australia, and Moore in Western Australia.
It was a bad night for the Greens. They are likely to lose two of their three Queensland seats, Griffith, held by high profile MP Max Chandler-Mather, and Brisbane held by Stephen Bates.
The Greens’ expected losses occurred despite roughly holding its primary vote, which is 12.5%, up 0.2%. Their leader Adam Bandt is in trouble in his seat of Melbourne.
Dutton said in his concession speech he had called Albanese and congratulated him. “I said to the prime minister that his mum would be incredibly proud of his achievement tonight, and he should be very proud of what he’s achieved.”
Dutton said he had also spoken to Ali France, the Labor candidate who has beaten him in Dickson. “She lost her son Henry, which is a tragic circumstance that no parent should ever go through. And equally I said to Ali that her son Henry would be incredibly proud of her tonight and that she’ll do a good Local member for Dixon.”
He expressed his sorrow for the Liberal MPs and candidates who had lost.
All the teals have held their seats. The teal candidate in Bradfield, Nicolette Boele, is ahead of her Liberal opponent. The teal Jessie Price is also ahead in the ACT Labor seat of Bean.
Queensland LNP Senator James McGrath said it was a brutal night for Peter Dutton and the Coalition. “We have got to make sure we take stock of why we lost this election and have a serious review into those reasons.”
As the Liberals prepare to review their disastrous loss and choose a new leader, their Senate leader Michaelia Cash is backing fellow West Australian Andrew Hastie. “I think Andrew Hastie is an outstanding member … I’m a very good friend of his. Andrew’s always been seen as leadership material.”
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.
About 1000 pro-Palestinian protesters marked World Press Freedom Day — May 3 — today by marching on the public broadcaster Television New Zealand in Auckland, accusing it of 18 months of “biased coverage” on the genocidal Israeli war against Gaza.
They delivered a letter to the management board of TVNZ from Palestine Solidarity Network (PSNA) co-chair John Minto declaring: “The damage [done] to human rights, justice and freedom in the Middle East by Western media such as TVNZ is incalculable.”
The protesters marched on the television headquarters near Sky Tower about 4pm after an hour-long rally in the heart of the city at a precinct dubbed “Palestine Square” in the Britomart transport hub’s Te Komititanga Square.
Several opposition politicians spoke at the rally, calling for a ceasefire in the brutal war on Gaza that has killed more than 62,000 Palestinians with no sign of a let-up.
Labour Party’s disarmament and arms control spokesperson Phil Twyford was among the speakers that included Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson and Ricardo Menéndez March.
All three spoke strongly in support of Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick’s Member’s Bill to sanction Israel for its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Davidson said the opposition parties were united behind the bill and all they needed were six MPs in the coalition government to “follow their conscience” to support it.
Appeals for pressure They appealed to the protesters to put pressure on their local MPs to support the humanitarian initiative.
Protesters outside the Television New Zealand headquarters in Auckland today. Image: Asia Pacific Report
In The Hague this week, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) heard evidence from more than 40 countries and global organisations condemning Israel over its actions in deliberately starving the more than 2 million Palestinians by blockading the besieged enclave for more than the past two months.
Only the United States and Hungary spoke in support of Israel.
Mutlaq al-Qahtani, Qatari Ambassador to The Netherlands, also said there were “new trails of tears in the West Bank mirroring Gaza’s fate”.
Israel executing ‘genocidal war’ against Gaza, Qatar tells ICJ. Video: Al Jazeera
Among the speakers in the Auckland rally, one of about 30 similar protests for Palestine across New Zealand this weekend, was coordinator Roger Fowler of the Auckland-based Kia Ora Gaza humanitarian aid organisation, who denounced the overnight drone attack on the Gaza-bound Freedom Flotilla aid ship Conscience in international waters after leaving Malta.
The ship was crippled by the suspected Israel attack, endangering the lives of some 30 human rights activists on board. Fowler said: “That’s 2000 km away from Israel, that’s how desperate they are now to stop the Freedom Flotilla.”
A protester placard declaring “TVNZ, you’re biased reporting is shameful. Where is your integrity?” Image: Asia Pacific Report
He reminded protesters that Marama Davidson and retired trade unionist Mike Treen had been on previous aid protest voyages in past years trying to break the Israeli blockade, but there was no New Zealander on board in the current mission.
Media ‘credibility challenge’ Journalist and Pacific Media Watch convenor Dr David Robie spoke about World Media Freedom Day. He paid a tribute to the sacrifices of 211 Palestinian journalists killed by Israel — many of them targeted — saying Israel’s war on Gaza had become the “greatest credibility challenge for journalists and media of our times”.
Many protesters carried placards declaring slogans such as “TVNZ your biased reporting is shameful. Where is your integrity?”, “Journalists are not targets” and “Caring for the children of Palestine is what it’s about.”
After marching about 1km between Te Komititanga Square and the TVNZ headquarters, the protesters gathered outside the entrance chanting for fairness and balance in the reporting.
“TVNZ lies. For the past 18 months they have been nothing but complicit,” said one Palestinian speaker to a chorus of: “Shame!”
He said: “Every time TVNZ lies, a little boy in Gaza dies.”
Another Palestinian speaker, Nadine, said: “Every time the media lies, a little girl in Gaza dies.”
The Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) letter to Television New Zealand’s board. Image: Asia Pacific Report
Deputation delivers TVNZ letter A deputation from the protesters delivered the letter from PSNA’s John Minto addressed to the TVNZ board chair Alastair Carruthers but found the main foyer main entrance closed so the message was left.
Minto’s two-page letter calling for an independent review of TVNZ’s reporting on Palestine and Israel said in part:
“Over the past 18 months of industrial scale killing of Palestinians by the Israeli military in Gaza we have been regularly appalled at the blatantly-biased reporting on the Middle East by Television New Zealand.
“TVNZ’s reporting has been relentlessly and virulently pro-Israel. TVNZ has centred Israeli narratives, Israeli explanations, Israeli justifications and Israeli propaganda points on a daily basis while Palestinian viewpoints are all but absent.
“When they are presented they are given rudimentary coverage at best. More often than not Palestinians are presented as the incoherent victims of Israeli brutality rather than as an occupied people fighting for liberation in a situation described by the International Court of Justice as a “plausible genocide”.
“This pattern of systemic bias and unbalanced reporting is not revealed by TVNZ’s complaints system which focuses on individual stories rather than ingrained patterns of pro-Israel bias.
“Every complaint we have made to TVNZ has, with one minor exception, been rejected by your corporation with the typical refrain that it’s not possible to cover every aspect of an issue in a single story but that over time the balance is made up.
“Our issue is that the bias continues throughout TVNZ’s reporting on a story-by-story, day-by-day basis — the balance is never achieved. The reporting goes ahead just the way the pro-Israel lobby is happy with.”
The rest of the letter detailed many examples of the alleged systematic bias, such as failing to describe Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem and as “Occupied” territory as they are designated under international law, and failing to state the illegality of Israel’s military occupation.
Minto concluded by stating: “It is prolonging Israel’s illegal occupation, its apartheid policies, its ethnic cleansing and theft of Palestinian land. TVNZ is part of the problem – a key part of the problem.”
The letter called for an independent investigation.
Palestinian protesters at TVNZ headquarters while demonstrating against the public broadcaster’s coverage of the Israeli war against Gaza on World Press Freedom Day. Image: Asia Pacific Report
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Bongiorno, Professor of History, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University
The Coalition’s election campaign of 2025 has a strong claim to be considered among the worst since federation. I know of none more shambolic. Barely a day passed without some new misstep or about-face, some embarrassing revelation about a candidate, some new policy condemned by experts as half-baked, uncosted or worse. Three years of waiting for Labor and Anthony Albanese to fall over instead of doing serious policy work came home to roost, and the chicken concerned was very ugly.
The campaign more generally was nothing to write home about. From the preoccupations of the major players, if you didn’t already know, you’d hardly have guessed that the wider world was in the midst of its greatest convulsions since the second world war, as the United States retreated from its longstanding global role into protectionism and isolationism, abandoning and bullying old friends and allies, helping rivals and enemies, upending international trade, and dismantling democracy and the rule of law.
The government assured voters it had everything in hand, adopting a small-target re-election strategy, to pair with its similar 2022 approach. Albanese invariably looked solid and prime ministerial. There was no fumbling the figures on the level of unemployment or the Reserve Bank cash rate this time.
Like the Coalition, Labor threw itself enthusiastically into a spendathon. It did not take major policy reform into the campaign. We live in the shadow of the two elections that saw parties with policy ambition suffer humiliating defeat: the Coalition in 1993 and Labor in 2019. That made the Coalition’s policy of building nuclear power plants foolhardy rather than brave.
Trump’s shadow followed Peter Dutton everywhere, making a small-target strategy unviable for the Coalition. On Trump, Dutton sometimes sounded a bit like Saint Peter thrice denying he knew Jesus Christ, but he reverted to type as the campaign wore on by playing up favoured culture war topics of the moment, such as winding back Indigenous Welcomes to Country.
But the Liberals’ biggest mistake – the one on which all others would be built – occurred three years ago, on May 30 2022.
Dutton, unopposed as the Liberal Party’s new leader, told his first press conference that his policies would be aimed at the “forgotten people” of the suburbs. It was a pitch so hackneyed as to be barely worth attention. But it was also a strange thing to say given the reality of the situation his party then faced – and still faces today.
Hackneyed, because Dutton’s promise recalled the Liberal Party’s talismanic foundational document, Robert Menzies’ “The Forgotten People”, broadcast 80 years before to the very month. But strange because the Coalition had been in office for nine years. If there were indeed “forgotten people” in the nation’s suburbs, the Coalition had surely enjoyed ample opportunity to remember them.
It was strange for another reason, too: the Liberal Party had just been devastated by the loss of its traditional urban heartland, Menzies’ old seat of Kooyong among the casualties. The residents of these electorates – most of them not far from city centres – may well have felt “forgotten”, but not in the sense Dutton imagined. They felt their values and interests were not reflected in the modern Liberal Party.
It is worth revisiting what Dutton said on that occasion, because it seems to have guided his whole pitch as opposition leader ever since:
I’m not giving up on any seat, but I do want to send a very clear message to those in the suburbs, particularly those in seats where there has been a swing against the Labor Party on their primary vote, in many parts of the country.
The emphasis here was not really on winning back teal seats. They received just a grudging nod of acknowledgement. For Dutton, it was all about going out into the suburbs and winning seats held by Labor. And true to form, teal seats received very little of his campaign attention during the 2025 campaign.
This was a foolish strategy of avoidance for which Dutton and the Liberal Party have now paid a heavy price. The Coalition’s journey took it into support for nuclear power, blaming housing shortages on immigration, and opposing a First Nations Voice to Parliament – the latter an issue the Coalition even desperately sought to revive against Labor during the campaign.
The Voice referendum nurtured the illusion that the six in ten “no” voters were ripe for Coalition picking. Wiser heads might have noticed Labor continued to rule for eight years after the Hawke government was humiliated at a 1988 referendum, and Menzies was prime minister for 15 years following his Communist Party referendum defeat.
Wiser heads might also have noticed that the Coalition’s only path back to power demanded it address its losses in the more affluent metropolitan seats won by Independents, Labor and the Greens. Short of huge and unlikely advances in the outer suburbs and regional cities and towns, the Liberals need to win metropolitan seats with high proportions of well-off, well-educated, socially progressive and younger voters to be competitive for majority government.
Still, that was a hard ask in three years. It nonetheless left a chance of minority Coalition government, which many pundits believed a distinct possibility for much of 2024 and early 2025.
But where were the Coalition’s votes on the floor of the House going to come from, if not from teal and teal-like independents? The Greens? Hardly. It would have made a great deal of sense to pitch policies that might help to win over community independents and their supporters.
Instead, the Coalition alienated them, such as by joining with Labor to produce an ineffectual National Anti-Corruption Commission and new electoral finance laws opposed by the teals.
The Liberals and Nationals made little effort to attract women voters – indeed, policies such as opposing working from home alienated them – and they wandered off on their nuclear frolic. Dutton flirted with Trumpish policies on reducing immigration and public service cuts, before retreating on the latter but in such a confused manner as to leave voters without a clue what his intentions actually were.
And as the Liberals’ election campaign unravelled, its friends in the right-wing media continued to campaign relentlessly against the teals. There was no method to this madness, unless it was shoring up the Coalition against possible depredations on its dwindling voting base from parties further to the right.
It is not that Labor was invincible. Its majority was the narrowest of any first-term government since 1913. It was under pressure in normally friendly Victoria. It lost momentum through the Voice referendum. Interest rates intensified mortgage stress. People complained they could afford a visit to neither the supermarket nor the doctor’s surgery. There was growing unease about immigration levels, and continuing frustration at the lack of housing.
The contest for government, however, is still largely a two-horse race and each of the major party leaders is the main bearer of their side’s colours. Dutton and the Liberals failed to do the hard yakka on policy, ideology, image or strategy.
Dutton himself continued to worry many voters as a risky proposition or worse. The few weeks of the election campaign itself seemed more consequential than most in living memory because it so amply demonstrated his lack of fitness for prime ministerial leadership.
For Labor, the Rudd and Gillard years remain the central reference in modern political history, formative of their understanding of what not to do in government if you want to be treated respectfully by voters.
In contrast, in the past three years, Labor established an image of unity and competence. We should not underestimate this achievement. It amounted to a significant rebuilding of the Labor brand.
“You campaign in poetry, you govern in prose,” New York governor Mario Cuomo was fond of saying. Labor has defied him: it campaigns and governs in prose.
But perhaps that’s what those fabled punters want: not a Trump-inspired disruptor, nor a radical visionary, but the kind of bloke you’d trust with your tax return.
The times ahead will call for more.
Frank Bongiorno 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Wallace, Professor, School of Politics Economics & Society, Faculty of Business Government & Law, University of Canberra
Superior campaigning by the Labor machine, a lift in the personal performance of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, and a woeful campaign by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton have seen Labor re-elected for a second term.
Albanese will go down as one of the luckiest Labor leaders in Australian political history. He faced two deeply unpopular and somewhat odd Coalition leaders – Scott Morrison in 2022 and Dutton in 2025 – and edged out both to first win, and now retain, power. Dutton even lost his seat.
Albanese was lucky, too, that the distress and dysfunction evident in the United States in the first 100 days of the Trump administration made voters reluctant to risk a version of that under the Trumpesque Dutton in Australia.
His luck was compounded by the Liberal team’s shocking underperformance, along with that of Dutton personally. Policy reversals, ineffective advertising and an overall lack of focus blighted their campaign from the outset.
In contrast, Labor National Secretary Paul Erickson and key party figures combined to ensure the government got the jump on the Coalition before the election was imminent. This included getting Albanese onto the hustings early in the new year, making policy announcements that demonstrated a commitment to build Australia’s future.
Albanese himself shook off the torpor evident since the failed Voice referendum campaign and presented a more energetic and congenial face to Australians than the awkward and floundering Dutton.
For the first time in many elections, Labor produced memorable, cut-through advertising with its “He cuts. You pay.” ad, designed to persuade voters they would be worse off under the Coalition.
The swing to Labor was a big turnaround in the fortunes of a party that only months ago looked at risk of struggling to achieve even minority government. As in last month’s Canadian election, the long shadow of Donald Trump helped secure victory for an incumbent government against a Trumpesque opposition.
Dutton flip-flopped under pressure between masking his usual right-wing approach and reverting to type with hardline positions of limited appeal to swinging voters. The more Australians saw of him during the campaign, the worse his net approval rating became.
The Coalition’s election postmortem is likely to hinge on the mystery of why, given the scores of interest rate rises since the previous election and misery experienced by so many Australians as a result, it did not simply hammer the cost of living as its return ticket to power.
It should also dwell on the lesson that a leader and policies that please local oligarchs and right-wing media echo chambers make winning the centre ground needed for election victory in Australia hard.
That one-third of Australians gave an independent or minor party candidate their first preference vote should be the focus of serious contemplation by the major parties, even by Labor in victory.
The crossbench will remain sizeable in the 150-member House of Representatives, though without the balance of power eagerly sought by the teal and orange independents. The Senate will continue to be a challenge for the government to get its bills through.
One clear message is that voters aren’t impressed by the leaders the major parties are offering.
Albanese campaigned well, and got better as the election went on. However, like Dutton, he remained in net negative approval territory. In the final Newspoll of the campaign, published on election day, Albanese and Dutton had –10% and –27% net approval ratings, respectively. Both leaders were a drag on their party’s vote.
Labor’s low primary, but emphatic two party-preferred vote signals Australians want it in office but expect more than tinkering around the edges. The Albanese government will be expected to come up with structural solutions that meet contemporary Australians’ real needs in this second term.
With his re-election as prime minister, Albanese can be confident and secure in his governing style, giving talented frontbenchers more scope to develop the deeper policy solutions Australians seek.
That increased security will also enable him to drop the petty persecution of rivals that gives voters an insight into the lesser side of the sunny personality he publicly presents.
Whether he does either of those things will remain to be seen.
Labor MPs will also have to play their role properly in this term of government.
Slavish quiescence to an all-powerful prime minister produces paltry results. Caucus needs to get elbows up with the re-elected Albanese and make sure he doesn’t clock off between elections like he appeared to at times last time around.
Chris Wallace has received funding from the Australian Research Council.
The former federal director of the Liberal Party, Brian Loughnane, used to tell media companies that their practice of commissioning expensive opinion polls right through a parliamentary term was a waste of money.
Election 2025 seemed to vindicate his charge. For example, polls conducted within sight of the election – since about February this year – returned markedly different results from those that had been breathlessly reported through 2024.
A rigorous strategist, Loughnane had reasoned that the central polling task of establishing “who you would vote for were an election held this Saturday” prompts a meaningful answer only when an election is actually about to occur. Midway through a term, voters simply see the question as a hypothetical exercise limited to assessing the incumbent government’s performance.
Come the campaign, though, considerations shift to stereo. Inexorably, voters’ attention expands to include the would-be government: the opposition. What are its solutions? Is it really ready for office? And perhaps most crucially, who is its leader, this person insisting on becoming prime minister?
This electoral reckoning – a turning point from the abstract to the applied – is where Peter Dutton’s three-year strategy started to come unstitched.
The conservative Queenslander had risen in the polls through 2024, buoyed by his surprisingly effective dismantling of the Voice in the 2023. He had been lifted further by the Albanese government’s handling the cost-of-living crisis. Dutton’s team was uncommonly unified, his focus laser-like on Labor’s shortcomings.
As 2025 approached, Dutton looked to be in a strong position, drawing encouragement from the success of populist right-wing parties across the democratic world. These victories suggested Dutton had a winning formula – a pitch consistent with the populist-nationalist zeitgeist.
The biggest of these international success stories, the barnstorming election of US President Donald Trump in November 2024, lifted right-wing spirits into the stratosphere.
Trump’s defiant return was a frontal repudiation of liberal elites and their priorities around climate change, procedural governance, feminism and other identity-based politics.
To Dutton, this new, brash and disruptive electoral mood felt propitious. He faced a uncharismatic opponent, widely perceived as weak, during a cost-of-living crunch. Voters were angry at the government. The opposition leader had the wind at his back. He told his colleagues he would win. Albanese was “weak, woke, and sending you broke”.
More explicitly, he praised Trump as “shrewd” and a “big thinker”, and when tariffs were placed on Australian imports to the US, Dutton hinted he would have secured exemptions because of his ideological like-mindedness with the president.
Actions followed.
Within days of Trump’s headline-grabbing appointment of Elon Musk to lead a department of government efficiency, Dutton followed suit, promoting the Indigenous hero of the anti-Voice campaign, Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa-Price, to his shadow cabinet in charge of government efficiency.
He would go on to announce a consciously Trumpian-sounding plan to slash Australia’s public service jobs by 41,000, and another policy to end work-from-home arrangements. The latter proved so disastrous he was forced into an embarrassing backdown on it.
Fuelling his growing ebullience, Dutton unwisely favoured soft-ball interviews with conservative backers on Sky News and talkback radio. Where orthodox media interviews might have sharpened his communication skills and also alerted him to holes or excesses in his suite of policies, Dutton received pats on the back and encouragement to go harder.
This meant he came away even more convinced that the times were suiting him, and that the prize of unseating a first-term government for the first time since the Great Depression was within reach.
By the time the pace lifted and the scrutiny intensified as the election campaign neared, the weaknesses in Dutton’s campaign were structural and impossible to hide.
Trump had trashed the global trading system. He insulted America’s closest and most dutiful friends, Australia included.
Polls showed that Australians saw Trump as a threat. Dutton had backed the wrong horse.
A preoccupation with attacking the Albanese government rather than undertaking the detailed policy development work needed for government – replete with potentially difficult internal disputes both within the Liberal Party and within the Coalition – had left Dutton with a thin offering to voters.
And an unwillingness to brook these searching introspections also left Dutton with an overly compliant and unimpressive frontbench.
In policy terms, this thinness led to election commitments that had not been adequately stress-tested. Some would draw fire and be abandoned while others would be announced and then de-emphasised, effectively back-officed for the campaign.
On personnel, most shadow ministers were kept out of the national campaign spotlight. This was either because they were consumed with their own electoral survival, were considered by Dutton’s office to be incompetent, or simply because there was insufficient policy meat to defend within their allotted area of responsibility.
This meant an ever-greater “presidential” focus on Dutton, even as he became a net drag on the Coalition vote. The Liberal Party’s polling must have identified his low standing, yet still the campaign remained unusually focused around him as leader. A stark measure of how crazy-brave this was came on election night when Dutton lost his seat (Dickson). Albanese had made a point of going straight to Dickson as his first move on day one of the campaign, and returned there at the end.
When policy promises were announced, they tended to be late in the campaign, swamped by other events, or lost in public holiday periods (Easter and Anzac Day).
The late-to-very-late release of policy fuelled criticism that Team Dutton was not confident of its own programs and wanted to attract as little attention as possible.
Thus a major $21 billion increase in defence spending came with scant detail in the penultimate week, sandwiched between public holidays and after early voting had already begun. It attracted little sustained attention.
An otherwise attention-grabbing proposal to legalise the sale of vaping products outside of pharmacies to better regulate its harm and derive billions in revenue, lobbed on Thursday afternoon of the final week. Millions of Australians had already voted. It suggested even Dutton was sheepish about its virtues.
While a public service work-from-home ban was abandoned mid-campaign amid a backlash, public service job cuts, a policy that initially had been regarded as a positive was softened to apply only to Canberra, to exempt front-line service jobs, and to be achieved only through attrition rather than sackings. Its cost savings were thrown into doubt.
It became such a liability that even the Liberals’ ACT Senate candidate campaigned against it, putting him in the invidious position of effectively saying, “vote Liberal to give Canberrans better protection from the Liberals”.
Dutton’s formal campaign was untidy and inept, but it was led by a man intent on bending the electorate to his will rather than building a broader constituency for his party’s worldview.
In the end, the campaign asked to do too much after a wasted three years in which hard policy development was shirked, and tough decisions to strengthen an underperforming frontbench were avoided.
Mark Kenny 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.
In a dramatic parallel, what happened in Canada at the beginning of this week has now been replicated in Australia at the end of the week.
An opposition that a few months ago had looked just possibly on track to dislodge the government, or at least run it close, has bombed spectacularly. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has lost his Queensland seat of Dickson, as did the Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre in Canada.
Far from being forced into minority government, as most observers had been expecting, Labor has increased its majority, with a substantial swing towards it.
Its strong victory reflects not just the the voters’ judgement that the Coalition was not ready to govern. It was worse than that. People just didn’t rate the Coalition or its offerings.
Multiple factors played into this debacle for the Coalition.
A first-term government historically gets a chance of a second term.
The Trump factor overshadowed this election. It made people feel it was best to stick with the status quo. People also were very suspicious of Dutton, whom they saw (despite disclaimers) as being too like the hardline US president.
After the last election, Dutton was declared by many to be unelectable, and that proved absolutely to be the case, despite what turned out to be a misleading impression when the polls were so bad for Labor.
Even if they’d had a very good campaign, the Coalition would probably not have had a serious chance of winning this election.
But its campaign was woeful. The nuclear policy was a drag and a distraction. Holding back policy until late was a bad call. When the policies came, they were often thin and badly prepared. The ambitious defence policy had no detail. The gas reservation scheme had belated modelling.
The forced backflip on working from home, and the late decision to offer a tax offset, were other examples of disaster in the campaign.
Dutton must wear the main share of the blame. He kept strategy and tactics close to his chest.
But the performance of the opposition frontbench, with a few exceptions, has been woeful. Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor and finance spokeswoman Jane Hume have been no match for their Labor counterparts Jim Chalmers and Katy Gallagher.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Labor ran a very disciplined campaign. Albanese himself performed much better than he did in 2022.
Labor was helped by an interest rate cut in February and the prospect of another to come later this month.
Albanese transformed himself, or was transformed, from last year to this year.
The cost of living presented a huge hurdle for Labor, but the government was able to point to relief it had given on energy bills, tax and much else. The Coalition had opposed several of Labor’s measures and was left trying to play catch-up at the end.
The Liberal Party now has an enormous task to rebuild. The “target the suburbs” strategy has failed. At the same time, the old inner-city Liberal heartland is deeply teal territory.
Hume said, in an unfortunately colourful comment, on Friday, “You do not read the entrails until you have gutted the chicken”.
The chicken has now been gutted. There will be a much more bitter post mortem than in 2022. The leadership choices are less than optimal for the party: Angus Taylor? Andrew Hastie? Sussan Ley?
An interesting thought: if Josh Frydenberg had held his seat in 2022, and led the Liberal party to this election, would be result have been better? One thing is clear: Frydenberg took the right decision in not recontesting Kooyong, which teal Monique Ryan has held.
Anyway, who would want to lead the Liberals at this moment?
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.
