The "Liberal" party (the party of the right, although as we 've noted before, they're basically Democrats in U.S. terms) was roundly defeated, while a Labor Prime Minister was elected, albeit without a majority in the legislature. The Greens and the "Teal Independents" both showed an increased share of the vote, allegedly reflecting increasing anxiety about climate change. (Of course, if Achen & Bartels are right, this explanation is too simple.) At a time when some countries (the U.S., the U.K., Poland, Hungary) are veering to the right, it's nice to see another veering to something resembling the left.
It's not implausible, of course, that "climate change" was a key issue, since there aren't a lot of substantive policy differences on major national issues between the Liberal and Labor parties: Labor will increase spending on child care support, Medicare, universities, that seems to be it--apart from climate change. The irony, of course, is that Australia's civilized social democracy depends very heavily on the export of fossil fuels ($200 billion plus per year, accounting for more than 50% of exports). And while Australia has a high per capita carbon footprint, it's total contribution to global climate change is not substantial. So better climate behavior by Australia will have only a limited effect.
So I do wonder how this will play out: too much progress on climate change in domestic policy may strain the financial resources of the country, given its dependence on fossil fuel exports. Or so it looks to this amateur observer. What do locals--or those well-informed about Australian politics and economics--think about the election results, the role of climate change, the likely priorities of a Labor government (in alliance, it seems, with the Greens), etc.?
