How a historic victory really happens

Last Saturday’s 2025 Australian federal election was a historic landslide victory for the Labor Party, led by Prime Minister Albanese. Labor, led by Prime Minister Albanese, won a historic landslide victory, winning at least 87 seats so far, far more than the 76 seats needed to form a majority government. This is the first time since the formation of the federal government in 1901 that the Labor Party has expanded its seat count in a re-election and has reshaped the national political landscape. Labor not only managed to take a number of seats from the Liberals in Queensland, but also made significant gains in key marginal electorates in Tasmania and Western Sydney. In contrast, the Liberals suffered a major defeat under Dutton’s leadership, losing not only the mid-range election, but also Dutton’s own seat in Dickson, which he had held for 24 years, making him the first opposition leader in Australian political history to lose a seat in a general election.

It has been suggested that the result of the 2025 federal election marks a significant turning point in Australia’s political evolution. Since the formation of the federal government, Australia’s political ecology has been dominated by two major parties, Labor and the Liberal Party, which has resulted in a stable system of two-party rotation. Under this system, when one of the parties gains a majority of seats, it becomes the ruling party, while the losing party becomes the opposition party, which not only monitors the government’s administration, but also prepares for the next election victory. In many cases, the difference in the number of seats won by the two parties is not very large. This time, the Labor Party won more than 60% of the seats in its re-election bid, which is rare in history.

Prior to the 1980s, Australia’s economic structure was dominated by agriculture, and the political center of gravity was therefore more in favor of the Liberal-National coalition, which represented rural and conservative interests, while Labor was often in the position of the opposition party. However, after the Rudd-led Labor Party defeated the Howard government in 2007, and caused Howard to lose in the electorate, this stable political situation began to change, and party turnover became frequent. In this federal election, Albanese became the first Prime Minister since Howard to lead a party to a second term, symbolizing Labor’s return to a dominant position and marking a major milestone for the party.

Mandatory voting key to Labor victory

Just because Labor won the 2025 election by a large margin does not mean that all voters are satisfied with its performance over the past three years. In fact, many Australians were still unhappy with the high cost of living, heavy housing burdens and slow wage growth before the election, and were even disappointed with the Labor government’s effectiveness in dealing with these issues.

However, under Australia’s mandatory voting system, all eligible voters must vote or be fined, so many voters had to make a choice even though they were dissatisfied with the ruling party. And because the Liberal Party, as the opposition party, was even more confused in this election, many voters ended up choosing the Labor Party, which was not as bad. To put it bluntly, they voted for the Labor Party out of distrust and unacceptance of the Liberal Party, not out of enthusiastic support for the Labor Party.

Take Victoria as an example, people’s swing towards the Labor Party in the two-party preference voting was only 1.8%, and the Labor Party’s primary vote only slightly increased by about 1%. It can be seen that voters’ support for the Labor Party in Victoria has not increased significantly, but is more like the result of having to choose. For these voters who are dissatisfied with the Labor Party’s performance, despite their grievances, they have no choice but to cast their votes to the incumbent ruling party in the face of an opposition party with confusing policies and a tarnished image, so as to seek for a seemingly more stable government. This is another aspect of the reality of the mandatory voting system. Votes are sometimes cast not out of trust and hope, but out of disappointment and rejection of another option.

Liberal Party’s boom and bust dragged down by ‘Trump’ persona?

Since the end of 2023, Australia’s opposition Coalition Leader David Dutton has maintained his lead in the polls and is seen as a formidable challenger. At the beginning of the year, polls showed Labor and the Liberals neck and neck, which boosted the morale of the conservatives. Dutton, who has been dubbed “Australia’s Trump”, has become more hard-line and conservative, advocating a crackdown on immigration and a reduction in the number of federal civil servants, a stance that is highly similar to that of U.S. President Donald Trump.

Dutton has not only publicly praised Trump on many occasions, but has even emulated his policies. Earlier in the year, polls showed that 34 percent of Australians thought he was the best candidate for prime minister to deal with Trump, but much of that perception came from the similarity in the two men’s images rather than out of trust.

On January 20, 2025, the day Trump was sworn in as President of the United States, the Australian Coalition also had a 51.1% approval rating, ahead of the ruling Labor Party’s 48.9%. Right-wing thinking seemed to be sweeping across the Western world. Only 40% of Australians thought Trump’s election was bad for Australia.

But Dutton was no Trump. He’s a tough guy, but he lacks a track record. During the election, Mr. Dutton made a number of gaffes, made unclear policies, and even proposed controversial policies such as drastic cuts to the public service and nuclear energy. This style of leadership has caused many voters to feel a lack of stability, and has even provoked alarm and resentment towards ultra-conservative politics.

At the same time, Trump’s controversial policies around the world are beginning to generate more opposition. By March 2025, dissatisfaction with Trump in Australia had risen to 60%, and climbed to 68% before the election. This anti-Trump sentiment quickly spread to other countries as well. Four days before the election in Australia, the Liberal Party in Canada took advantage of the public’s dislike of Trump to defeat the Conservative Party and become the ruling party. This seems to indicate that many elections around the world have been deeply affected by the Trump effect, with people becoming increasingly disenchanted with conservative forces.

This sentiment is also reflected in the shift in traditional vote share in the Australian election. According to census data, the Liberal Party retained only five of the 50 highest-income electorates in the country. In this election, voters in high-income electorates generally shifted from supporting the Liberal Party to Labor or independent candidates, with about half of the electorates swinging by more than 4%. This can be partly attributed to the fact that the middle class, affected by the US trade war, lost confidence in the economic outlook and switched to the Labor Party, which has more protection for them.

Speaking to The Australian, Mr. Dutton said Trump was “not someone to be feared, but a partner we can work closely with” and that the two were “easier to get along with”. Earlier too, 34% of respondents thought that Dutton would be suitable to deal with Trump, while only 18% thought Albanese would be more suitable. But as the US continues to push for trade protectionism, many Australians are coming to realize that what they really need is not a leader who can “get along” with Trump, but a prime minister who will stand firm against his policies.

What’s even more ironic is that in a post-election interview, US President Donald Trump said, “Albanese is a very friendly friend of mine …… I don’t know the other guy he ran against”, a statement that seemed to erase Dutton’s admiration and emulation of Trump for the entirety of his campaign, which ultimately appeared to be just wishful thinking. In the end, it seems to be just his wishful thinking – or is he just a throwaway move?

Furthermore, unlike the American electoral system, Australia has mandatory voting, and the electorate structure is more representative of overall public opinion. Under such a system, an anti-immigrant stance in a multicultural country with a high proportion of highly educated immigrants is an electoral disadvantage.

When Trump’s trade policies triggered global economic turmoil, more Australians realized the potential threat. Had Mr. Dutton responded to Trump’s election with a more detached, clear-cut approach, the situation today might have been more favorable for him. Instead, Dutton’s repeated association with Trump further dragged the race down and ultimately led the Coalition from a lead to a rout.

Voters prefered Local Policies to Noble Left-Wing Ideas

While ideology does have an impact on the direction of the vote, in today’s economically stressed society, ideals are not food. This is most evident in the Green Party’s loss. As the largest minority party in Parliament, the Greens have long advocated left-wing ideas, emphasizing environmental protection, social justice, democracy and peace, and had 11 seats in the Senate and 4 in the House of Representatives, with their support rate rising steadily.

However, the Greens suffered a crushing defeat in this election, and may even lose all seats in the House of Representatives. Even the Melbourne electorate, which has been held steadily by party leader Bent since 2010, is at risk.

It is worth noting that the Australian Federal House of Representatives uses a preferential voting system. Unlike other jurisdictions, voters must rank all candidates in order of preference. If the first choice is not elected, the votes are shifted in that order until a candidate receives a majority of support. Traditionally, the Liberal vote has favored the Greens, making it possible for a Green candidate to overtake Labor. However, this time, the Liberal Party received fewer votes, which in turn led to fewer votes being allocated to the Greens, and the Greens may lose all seats in the House.

Meanwhile, although the Labor Party also emphasizes on human rights and tolerance, it has obviously toned down its idealistic slogans in this election, focusing more on livelihood policies instead, and portraying an image of being close to the people.

The core issue of this election is undoubtedly the public grievances triggered by the cost of living crisis. Theoretically, this should have been an election in which the Liberal Party would have had an edge, after all, the party has long boasted of its ability to manage the economy. However, Dutton’s repeated attempts to be pro-people have backfired. For example, he cited his own son as an example of the housing difficulties of young people, only to be revealed as the owner of a number of properties. He was also challenged for “going off the reservation” when he put the price of an egg at A$4.20 during the debate. In contrast, the Labor Party has been vigorously promoting livelihood policies, emphasizing that social welfare will not be reduced, expanding free medical and healthcare services, and proposing tax cuts for all, giving voters the impression that the government is taking livelihood issues seriously. In addition, most of the candidates of the Labor Party are political veterans without any political baggage, which has successfully impressed the voters and stabilized the base.

How migrants Voted?

The Liberal Party’s main policy theme is to blame immigrants for Australia’s cost of living and economic problems, so cutting immigration has become the focus of his solution, the same as Trump. Criticisms of Chinese immigrants, including the perception of Chinese immigrants as Chinese spies, have further cost the Liberal Party almost all of the electorates with a large Chinese population.

It is important to remember that most immigrants do not grow up in democratically elected countries and do not have a good understanding of the development of Australian society, so it is not easy for them to understand how party policies affect social development. For many immigrants, they only look at which party’s policies are favorable to their lives. The Liberal Party has always emphasized the equality of all people, and has seldom provided policies and resources to promote the development of a multicultural society. Therefore, it has been said that the Liberal Party does not care about immigrants. If the Liberal Party fails to change this concept, the main reason for the depletion of votes for the party is that it has not been able to get the first generation of immigrants to recognize, understand and support its policies.

The Scanlon Social Cohesion Study 2024 shows that Australians generally believe and support the contribution of immigrants to Australian society despite the increased pressures of life. One explanation for this is that the majority of Australians have been migrants for the past two or three generations, and therefore it is widely recognized that it is the responsibility of the government to set up policies to help migrants integrate into the community.

People’s livelihood matters

The future of Australian politics will undoubtedly depend on whether the government can effectively respond to people’s livelihoods. As mentioned earlier, even if Labor wins this election, it may not reflect the people’s wishes. Voters may be motivated to vote out of dissatisfaction with the opposition parties, or they may be constrained by the compulsory voting system, or the votes of the supporters of small parties may eventually go to the big parties. Under such circumstances, in order to consolidate its support, the Labor Party has to solve real livelihood problems such as the soaring cost of living as soon as possible in order to gain long-term trust.

In addition, as a trading economy, how to renegotiate economic and trade relations with the US will also be one of the issues of great concern to voters. In the face of the trend of protectionism in the US, the Australian government needs to strike a balance between safeguarding domestic interests and maintaining diplomatic stability.

As for the Liberal Party, although it has lost almost all of its seats in some constituencies in this election and the situation is uncertain, crisis often breeds opportunities. The key lies in whether the Liberal Party truly understands the aspirations of its voters – what kind of leadership are they looking for? Is it hard-line and out-of-touch internally, but nice externally? Or is it caring on the inside and resolute on the outside?

If the Labor Party fails to fulfill its election promises and public opinion rebounds, the Liberal Party will have a chance to make a comeback. However, the prerequisite is that they must thoroughly rethink their current line and rebuild their trust with the public.

Article/Editorial Department Sameway Magazine

Photo/Internet