Unpicking the forces behind Labor’s historic Australian election win

Monday, 5 May 2025

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese during his speech to Labor Party faithful after winning a second term in the general election.

Jennifer Curtin is a professor of politics and public policy in the School of Social Sciences, and director of the Public Policy Institute at the University of Auckland. She is the author of two books on independents in Australian politics.

OPINION: The Australian Labor Party won a stunning victory over the weekend, and although the count is not yet complete, it is a result that will be remembered as historic for several reasons.

Anthony Albanese appears to have won a bigger majority than the iconic wins of Bob Hawke in 1983 and Kevin Rudd in 2007. He is also the first prime minister since John Howard in 1998 to win back-to-back elections, although this is more a comment on Australia’s recent history of intra-party leadership turmoil than voter activism.

There is no denying that Albanese and his party trounced the Liberals. The Liberal leader Peter Dutton has lost his Brisbane seat of Dickson to Labor after 24 years. Several other Liberal ministers have also been ousted from parliament, while the Coalition’s stronghold over the state of Queensland has disappeared.

A defeated Australian Liberal Party leader Peter Dutton leaves the stage after making a concession speech, following his party’s trouncing in the election.

Part of the explanation for the Liberal loss can be attributed to the fact that more than one in three Australians voted for an independent or minor party. This did not translate into additional seats for the Greens - they may have lost two House of Representative seats, but they have held their Senate seats.

However, and an ongoing worry for the conservative side of Australian politics, is that the incumbent Teal independents won again. These winners are blue-green liberal women from affluent urban electorates which were once safely Liberal. As such, they represent a stark contrast to the Liberal Party’s ongoing commitment to coal, and its ambivalence to inclusive politics (gender and Indigenous rights).

Compulsory voting ensures an exceptionally high turnout in Australian elections.

It is true that Albanese performed better than Dutton throughout the campaign, on the road and in the final debate. He led with positive policy messaging on public health (Medicare), superannuation and living wages.

Towards the end, he went negative and was able to prime the anxieties that voters felt with respect to the cost of living, the Liberals’ threats to cut public sector jobs, and the chaos caused by Trump.

It might be tempting for New Zealand’s left-leaning parties to believe a similar outcome could be possible here, given the similarity in exogenous pressures facing both countries. That would be premature, as there are several institutional factors unique to the Australian system, which are absent in our political system.

The first is that role of compulsory voting. Those who are eligible to vote in Australia are compelled to enrol and vote. Some choose not to so, and are potentially liable for a small fine, but the result is that turnout seldom drops below 94%.

While some argue this feature represents an unwarranted denial of political liberty, the majority find it acceptable, indeed desirable, given it incentivises political parties to appeal to all potential voters.

There were various uniquely Australian factors at play in the country’s election outcome, writes Jennifer Curtin.

Second, the electoral system for their House of Representatives is preferential rather than proportional. That means voters list the party candidates in order of their preference (although the parties hand out “how to vote” cards at the polling booth to guide vote choice).

In this election, provisional results show Labor won around 34% of the primary vote, compared to 31% for the Coalition parties. But candidates must win 50% plus 1 of the vote to take the seat. To do this, a voter’s second preference or third preference becomes relevant to the final results. Thus, while smaller parties and independents also won a third of the primary vote, their preferences appear to have benefited Labor.

Finally, the Australian system incentivises the major parties to focus on marginal seats; that is, those that can be won with a swing of less than 5%. While this has always been the case, over the past 30 years, voters in safe seats, particularly in rural and regional Australia, began to feel their support was being taken for granted. Calls to make safe electorates marginal became common, and support for independents increased as a result.

While this phenomenon began in rural and regional Australia, there has been a contagion effect, with the Teal independents emulating the campaign techniques of their rural colleagues.

Two other points are worth mentioning. Labor may have won the House of Representatives, but they are unlikely to hold the balance of power in what is a comparatively powerful Senate. There, the minor parties and opposition parties can make the passage of legislation and federal budgets difficult.

Nor is it clear just how much the Trump factor mattered. While Dutton praised Trump for being a big thinker, with “gravitas” on the world stage, it is likely domestic politics mattered more.

Labour’s commitments to better health care, incomes and renewable energy options were rewarded, as was optimism over populism.

Finally, this time around, the Murdoch press scare campaigns had limited impact on the result.

That said, there was an evoking of national pride and independence in Albanese’s pitch for a second term. And a recognition that the public sector is critical to a functioning economy.

Perhaps a homegrown version of inclusive populism is the key lesson for the New Zealand left?