On May 3 of this year, Australia held general elections for its bicameral parliament. The Labor Party, led by current Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, emerged victorious.
It’s worth noting a considerable degree of manipulation in how these media interpret the facts — a trend that is hardly surprising, given that most Western outlets today act as tools, if not outright weapons, in the hands of the international opponents of the 47th U.S. President.
Election Results and the “Canadian Analogy”
It should be noted that elections for the entire lower house (150 seats) and half of the upper house (40 out of 76 seats) in the Australian parliament are held every three years — more frequently than in most other “Western” countries. In the previous election, held in May 2022, the Labor Party won 77 seats and, for the first time since 2013, formed the government led by party leader Anthony Albanese. Considering that Labor at the time entered into a coalition with partners leaning more toward the ideological right (a classification that is increasingly vague, not only in Australia), that victory was also somewhat conditional.
All the more favorable, then, are the results of the current elections for the Labor Party — especially in the lower house, where it now holds 85 seats (an increase of 8). The defeat of the right-wing conservative forces, led by the Liberal Party, also appears definitive this time. The Liberals now hold only 39 seats in the lower house (down 19). Conservative leader Peter Dutton also failed to win a seat in parliament.
This latter development has become one of the main reasons for speculative narratives about the negative impact of the “Trump factor” on conservatives, both in Australia and earlier in Canada. Canadian conservative leader Pierre Poilievre also failed to enter parliament. However, unlike their Australian counterparts, the Conservative Party of Canada significantly increased its presence in parliament — from 119 to 144 seats. Meanwhile, the ruling Euro-Atlanticist Liberals added only 9 seats to their previous 160.
Furthermore, Canada’s Prime Minister, Mark Carney, has already spoken by phone with Donald Trump. Judging by this, after the recent rounds of public posturing, the format of Canada–U.S. relations seems to be returning to a standard “routine intergovernmental” framework.
As for the Australian conservative leader Peter Dutton, it would be hard to classify him as a “Trumpist.” At the very least, nothing suggests this — particularly his comment during one of the pre-election debates with Albanese, in which he described the well-known “Oval Office incident” involving Zelensky as “shameful” and “disgraceful,” blaming Trump and J.D. Vance.
Therefore, a more integrated assessment of the parliamentary election results in both Canada and Australia might point to the fact that neither country has yet fully aligned with the growing political mainstream taking shape across what used to be the “collective West.” A rising resistance is becoming apparent — resistance to the ideological absurdities that have recently been pushed by the shadowy backroom elites, often represented by London and Brussels.
It should be noted, however, that the results of recent local elections in the United Kingdom have put both the current Labour leadership and their Conservative predecessors — who are part of those same “backroom elites” — in a hot seat, with pressure rapidly mounting. Similar patterns are observable in nearly every European country.
In this context, the rhetoric about the inevitability of a war between Russia and Europe, potentially involving nuclear weapons, sounds strange — if not outright bizarre. These narratives often rely on a peculiar reinterpretation of “history,” rejecting its status as a proper academic discipline. This point is notably made by the authors of the “Blois Appeal.” Meanwhile, the ruling international bureaucracy on the continent could more accurately be described as “anti-Europe.” This bureaucracy has “incidentally” enlisted a troupe of costumed Kyiv clowns, who profit from the blood of their own people. These are parasitic bloodsuckers on the body of a continent deeply infected with the “new normal.” But none of this should be seen as justification for Europe’s erasure from the political and geographical map of the world.
Of particular interest are the preliminary analyses by CNN and APNews concerning the latest parliamentary elections in Australia. Even in their coverage, special attention is given to that very same “Trump factor.”
What to Expect from Australia’s “New-Old” Government on the Foreign Policy Front
The aforementioned ideological fluidity of Australia’s main political forces applies to both domestic and foreign policy. This was already noted in commentary by NEO during Labor’s first term in office. Since then, no significant developments have emerged to justify revisions to those earlier conclusions.
Such developments may appear — but only in the context of broader shifts in the Indo-Pacific region. It’s important to emphasize that Australia is not a passive observer but an active and important participant in regional affairs, although its capabilities are objectively limited. A key element of Australia’s foreign policy over recent decades has been its “optimal” (from some viewpoints) balancing act between major global powers.
In the Indo-Pacific, these include the United States, Japan, India, and China. Australia’s relations with each of these countries are distinct. Together with the U.S., Japan, and India, it is part of the Quad — an informal group with a focus that is increasingly perceived as countering China. The “specificity” of these relations lies in the official nature of Australia’s ties with each Quad member: a military-political alliance with the U.S., quasi-allied relations with Japan, and a developing partnership with India that is moving in a similar direction.
The “specifics” of Australia’s relationship with the PRC, however, are determined both by the differing levels of Australia’s ties with the three aforementioned opponents of Beijing, and by the fact that China remains its principal and critically important trade and economic partner. In this light, Albanese’s carefully calibrated and restrained pre-election rhetoric regarding relations with both the new U.S. administration and the Chinese leadership is noteworthy. Both, incidentally, have already congratulated Albanese on his latest electoral victory.
The major new element in the regional equation stems from the global-scale “Trump tariff war.” While its full consequences remain difficult to assess, Australia’s “new-old” government is already having to respond to its effects.
Thus, we will continue to monitor both the evolving dynamics in the Indo-Pacific and how the victors of Australia’s latest general election respond — given that Australia remains one of the key players in this unfolding geopolitical game.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region
