After Labor’s recent election win, many in the climate and environment space breathed a sigh of relief. The Coalition and its nuclear fantasy were resoundingly rejected. In its place, a government that at least says the right things about climate change, even if its policies don’t match the rhetoric. For some, that alone felt like progress. 

But when viewed through the old climate adage that winning slowly is actually losing, can we afford another three, or six, years of muted ambition?

A critical court case last week showed yet again how we have to tell the truth on climate action, even when it’s hard to take.

How many times have you read something along the lines of: “This is our last chance to avoid climate chaos”? Probably more times than you can count. It’s become a climate messaging cliche. It's urgent, emotional, and designed to jolt people into action. But the more we hear it, the less it moves us. When the “last chance" comes quarterly, the phrase stops hitting like an alarm and blends into the background noise. 

With the results of the Australian federal election now largely settled, it seems clear that Australians cast a vote for stability in an increasingly unstable world by returning the Albanese Labor government with an enlarged majority of at least 90 seats.

Here’s what matters from the results as they fell into place.

As talk of a hung parliament grows louder, it’s worth asking: can a minority government deliver meaningful climate action?

History offers some important lessons, both for what’s possible, and what can be undone.

As Campaign Republic grows, we will share our analysis of key issues of concern to our network, including climate action, civil society and democratic space, campaign strategy and tactics, communications and media trends, and global politics.