In the recent federal election, polling remained narrowly focused on the two-party contest between Labor and the LNP. As a result, it failed to detect the growing momentum towards independents and minor parties.
The outcome was not an endorsement of Labor—it was a clear repudiation of a Dutton-led Coalition. Despite media portrayals, this was no landslide. A modest swing in the national vote could easily deliver a minority government next time.
More voters backed the crossbench—independents and minor parties—than the LNP. And it’s not only the Coalition that finds itself under pressure. Labor remains vulnerable to the crossbench in some electorates: Franklin, Bean, Fremantle, and inner-Melbourne seats such as Wills.
The question now is whether Labor will repeat the LNP’s mistake—ignoring the warning signs that were evident well before 2022. Then, disaffection among socially progressive voters in Liberal-held seats fueled the rise of the Teals. The political centre is shifting again—and ignoring it would be folly.
Generation Z and Millennials are becoming the dominant voting bloc.
Labor entered the election with a deliberately narrow mandate. But pressure must now come from within and outside the party to broaden that mandate—because the vision Labor took to voters was far from aligned with the ambitions and needs of the broader community.
Heading into the campaign, there was a widespread perception that Labor had failed to act meaningfully on the cost of living. By late 2024, its political position was weak. Labor then sought to reframe the debate—emphasising renewable energy, the care economy, free TAFE, small adjustments to HECS, and a token measure of tax relief.
Its central message focused on Dutton’s nuclear energy proposal—an ill-defined risk—repeatedly asking: What will Dutton cut to pay for it? This became the dominant refrain at polling booths. Campaign visuals featured few images of Albanese—but a relentless barrage of ominous warnings about Peter Dutton.
Dutton, for his part, was undone by the broader fallout of Trumpism. His early attempts to position himself as a kind of Australian Trump invited chaos into the Coalition. When he tried to retreat from that framing, it was already too late.
Even after the election, a clear majority of Australians still believe the country is not on the right track.
Across the electorate—not only among Muslim voters—there is a growing sentiment that Labor is tinkering at the edges and unwilling to challenge the entrenched interests of weapons manufacturers, fossil fuel giants, big banks, property developers, and the gambling industry.
Relying on the Greens’ Senate balance of power offers little reassurance. Labor has repeatedly passed regressive legislation with the LNP, just as it did in the previous parliament.
Civil society can no longer afford to wait passively. It must disrupt, agitate, and apply pressure. While the Labor Left may have the numbers in caucus, its MPs remain guided by one question: how many people in their electorates really care? Yet across a range of issues, fairness continues to resonate deeply with voters.
Take the North West Shelf gas expansion. Australians understand instinctively that it is not fair for Woodside to reap billions in profit while everyday people bear the rising costs of disasters and heat driven by climate change. We carry the burden—while corporations avoid their fair share of tax and accountability.
Jim Chalmers, Treasurer and MP for Rankin—the seat with Queensland’s largest Muslim population—has positioned himself as a champion of fairness. But what’s fair about billions flowing to weapons companies responsible for bombing children?
So how do we show MPs like Chalmers that their electorates care about Gaza? What are the consequences if they fail to act? Are we prepared to preference Labor below the LNP—to reduce their margins and leave them politically exposed? Are we willing to risk an LNP government in order to force a minority Labor one?
These are the questions our communities must grapple with—especially in a post-election landscape where Dutton’s shadow may no longer loom as large.
I’ve argued before that there is no substantive difference between Labor and the LNP on critical issues facing our community, and I maintain that position. I hope I’m wrong. But experience teaches us to expect the worst.
A message with broader traction is this: we want a society at peace with itself—at peace with its conscience.
We should be working towards incremental but systemic change. For the Muslim community: Redefining terrorism in law as politically motivated—rather than religious or ideological—is one such shift. It is modest, but it chips away at the architecture of institutional bias.
By contrast, calls for more anti-racism programs are failing to deliver that change. Messaging cannot succeed in a system that continues to conflate Muslims with terrorism. These surface-level interventions offer no challenge.
The same applies to calls for sanctions on Israel. Do we want history to repeat itself, as it almost certainly will? Or are we ready to campaign for something like the Red Lines Package—forcing every MP to answer a moral question: do they stand for protecting children from bombs, or for profiteering with the companies that supply them?
We must speak more clearly—and more bravely. Gaza, like so many other crises, is a choice between lives and profits. We should not feel obliged to tie our advocacy to economic arguments or job metrics. That framing doesn’t move people. But appealing to our collective responsibility to protect children does.
This Labor Government is addicted to downstream fixes: rent assistance instead of housing reform, disaster recovery rather than real climate adaptation, humanitarian aid to Palestinians while maintaining arms deals with their oppressors.
To call this “tinkering at the edges” is generous. A more honest description would be: complicity.
The question is, what are we, as local communities, are prepared to do about it.
Comments