elections

The election result must have been a shock to all those who predicted that Anthony Albanese would only last one term. Here’s a few pointers why this did not happen.

His opponents opposed their key policies, even though they were designed to relieve the major issue confronting the electorate, namely, cost of living. They went off on a tangent about the wonders of a futuristic nuclear policy and temporary fuel excise relief. They believed Sky-after-dark and internal polling when they were telling them they were on track for victory.

When Albanese gave, he was accused of over-spending, by an opposition that had produced nine deficits in a row. They had also given billions of dollars of handouts during Covid to companies that did not meet the requirements to receive that largesse. Some never returned the money.

When Albanese tried to be level-headed about the war in the Middle East he was accused by the Greens of committing genocide and by the Coalition of being anti-semitic. He was vilified for lying by those who had turned a blind eye to sports rorts, robo-debt, killing the weekend and stealing our utes. He was pilloried for daring to say that Peter Dutton had deprived Medicare when an examination of the records of his time as health minister shows that that was indeed the case.

Last, but not least, Dutton’s party failed to encourage more women into politics. The Coalition has only about 20% female representation in the House of Representatives. Today Labor has a majority of women MPs in the lower house.

But the opposition is not facing an existential crisis. Such is the nature of a good democracy. Annastacia Palaszczuk was left with a coterie of 7 MPs and yet she came back to win government in less than 3 years. It is now up to a battered federal Liberal party to pick up the pieces.

The 2025 federal election is finally drawing to a close, and with it one of the worst performances from an Opposition Leader in living memory. After leading in many polls over the last 18 months, the Coalition is unbelievably staring down a defeat, caused by their own making.

During this longer than usual campaign we have seen policy backflips and contortions – such as the APS job cuts and working from home issue. After the confusion, Peter Dutton eventually confirmed that 41,000 public servants would be shed from Canberra after all.

But it doesn’t stop there. Some in the media have rightly called out the Coalition for their policy ambiguity – on electric vehicles, for example, as well as suggested changes to the school curriculum. As the campaign progressed, we have witnessed Dutton and his team at odds with each other and unclear as to the details of their policies.

Remember, the Opposition have had three years to develop their platform.

Extraordinarily, Dutton has come across as awkward. After receiving the ‘wet lettuce’ treatment from much of Australia’s media for the last three years, Dutton frequently appeared uncomfortable and was clumsy in answering the more difficult questions. His non-appearance at the National Press Club comes across as petulant and his recent use of Trumpian language to describe some media outlets as ‘hateful’, is not only unprecedented, but dangerous.

The leader debates have also been a good reminder to voters of how unprepared and ill-suited Dutton is for the role of Prime Minister. Across these debates, Albanese demonstrated to the average punter that Dutton equalled a risk. Dutton doesn’t have an answer on many key issues, health and housing among them. This simple message, pushed by Labor, that Dutton is a risk, is timely. The world is experiencing seismic shifts with the liberal democratic consensus under a clear threat for the first time in 80 years. Part of the uncertainty growing across the world has been fuelled by Trump and his spectre has certainly haunted this election – bringing no benefit at all to the Coalition.

However, the ‘Dutton risk factor’ is working as we have seen a small, but distinct movement to Labor in the polls over the course of the campaign and a rise in Labor’s focus in some Liberal-held marginal seats.

Comparatively, Labor has run a reasonably tight campaign, focussing on the key issues and presenting a coherent message aimed at re-assuring voters that they will be in safe hands for the next three years – especially as we navigate a world experiencing the rapid decline of the United States and its leadership role.

This election has been about cost of living, housing, healthcare and energy. Importantly, compared to its adversaries, Labor has campaigned consistently on these issues. As part of its platform, it has highlighted several core policies such as tax reform, $8.5 billion to expand bulk billing services, investing $10 billion to construct 100,000 homes and implementing an 82% renewable energy target. Head-to-head with the Coalition, Labors policies have been more coherent and way more appropriate. And of course, far more fiscally responsible, as we have now seen.

Compared to his opponent, Albanese has looked more comfortable and has appeared calmer as the campaign progressed. Despite growing cynicism expressed towards the major parties, Labor’s policies and messages are landing.

The choice is clear. Labor has the record and the credentials to be re-hired for three more years.