The Australian federal election held on May 3, 2025, marked a significant turning point in the nation’s political landscape. The Australian Labor Party, led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, secured a historic second term, winning at least 87 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives. In stark contrast, the Liberal-National Coalition, under the leadership of Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, suffered a catastrophic defeat, being reduced to approximately 40 seats and witnessing Dutton himself lose his long-held seat of Dickson. This landslide victory, described by many as a “bloodbath” for the Liberals, is widely interpreted as a repudiation of the Coalition’s hard-right policies and its perceived alignment with the interests of billionaires, notably mining magnate Gina Rinehart and advocacy groups like Advance, formerly known as Advance Australia. The role of media in shaping public perceptions surrounding these issues was pivotal, amplifying narratives of policy failures, elite influence and cultural disconnect.
The Scale of the Coalition’s Defeat
The results of the 2025 election defied expectations that a hung parliament might emerge, instead delivering Labor a commanding majority. The party capitalised on urban and mortgage-belt electorates, particularly in New South Wales and Victoria, where concerns over the cost of living and a progressive agenda resonated with voters. The Coalition, however, faced a severe decimation in urban centres, effectively being erased from Adelaide and Tasmania and failing to reclaim seats from Teal independents in affluent electorates such as Wentworth, Kooyong, and Mackellar. Goldstein, still in the balance with postal votes still being counted, underscores the tight margins in certain contests and may be the sole light of promise for the Liberal Party. While the Nationals managed to hold ground in regional areas, this was insufficient to counterbalance the Liberals’ urban collapse, marking the Coalition’s worst electoral performance in decades.
The magnitude of this defeat has prompted intense introspection within the Coalition, as moderates and conservatives grapple with competing explanations. Critics assert that the party’s rightward shift, exemplified by policies like nuclear energy proposals, cuts to public services, and reduced immigration, alienated mainstream voters. Conversely, figures such as Rinehart argue that the Coalition failed to fully embrace a hard-right agenda, attributing the electoral loss to media narratives that frightened voters away from Trump-like policies. The media’s role in shaping these debates and influencing voter perceptions was critical, framing the Coalition’s policies and leadership in ways that either bolstered or undermined their campaign.
The Coalition’s Hard-Right Turn: Policies and Media Framing
The Coalition’s campaign for the 2025 election was characterised by a blend of conservative populism and economic liberalism, but several of its policies were widely perceived as hard-right – a perception that was amplified by media coverage. The proposal to introduce nuclear energy became a contentious flashpoint, positioning the Coalition against Labor’s emphasis on renewable energy and alienating moderate Liberals who viewed it as undermining Australia’s net-zero commitments. Media outlets such as The Guardian and the ABC highlighted the policy’s lack of detail and the significant opposition it faced from environmental groups, framing it as a risky gamble that conflicted with voter priorities on climate action.
The Coalition’s plans to cut 40,000 public service jobs and reduce immigration levels were similarly scrutinised. Outlets like The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age portrayed these initiatives as austerity-driven and divisive, appealing to a narrow conservative base while alienating urban voters concerned about economic stability and social cohesion. Dutton’s campaign rhetoric, which included slogans like “get Australia back on track” and references to “hate media,” drew uncomfortable comparisons to US hard-right politics, particularly those associated with Donald Trump. Media analyses, particularly in The Australian Financial Review, pointed out that Trump’s unpopularity in Australia could be a significant liability for Dutton, and Labor’s campaign effectively capitalised on this association, linking Dutton to Trumpist tactics.
The Coalition’s decision to preference One Nation in some seats – an evident shift from previous practices – was another focal point for media scrutiny. Reports in The Guardian and ABC News framed this as a concession to far-right elements within the party, further alienating urban voters who valued inclusivity. Despite the Coalition’s platform containing cost-of-living measures such as fuel tax cuts, energy rebates, and a housing plan aimed at unlocking 500,000 new homes – intended to appeal to working-class voters – these policies received significantly less media attention, overshadowed by the more controversial nuclear energy debate and public service cuts that dominated headlines and Labor’s attack ads.
Billionaire Influence and Media Narratives
A central theme of the campaign was the perception of the Coalition as a party beholden to billionaire interests, particularly that of Gina Rinehart. Rinehart, Australia’s wealthiest individual, significantly increased her financial support for the Liberal-National opposition, donating $500,000 through Hancock Prospecting – an increase of 200% from previous election cycles – and hosting high-profile fundraisers, including events priced at $14,000 per head for Dutton. Her public endorsements of Trump-style policies, including deregulation, reduced environmental protections, and lower taxes, aligned closely with the Coalition’s resource-heavy agenda. Post-election, Rinehart’s assertion that the media had scared the Liberals away from adopting a harder right-wing stance underscored her influence over the party’s direction.
The media played a crucial role in amplifying this narrative. Investigative pieces in The Guardian and The Saturday Paper detailed Rinehart’s donations and her connections to conservative advocacy groups like Advance, known for promoting anti-woke and anti-climate agendas. These reports framed Advance as part of a broader ecosystem of think tanks, such as the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), believed to be funded by Rinehart. The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), quoted in multiple outlets like The Age, accused Rinehart of exerting “oligarch-style influence” over the Coalition’s industrial relations policies, particularly its plans to eliminate multi-employer bargaining, which critics argued would suppress wages. Labor’s campaign effectively leveraged this media coverage, portraying the Coalition as a party of billionaires, in stark contrast to its own emphasis on Medicare investments, education funding, and cost-of-living relief.
Media narratives surrounding Rinehart’s influence resonated with voters, especially in urban and working-class electorates where distrust of elite influence was prevalent. Editorials in The Sydney Morning Herald and opinion pieces in The Conversation criticised the Coalition’s reliance on wealthy donors, thereby reinforcing Labor’s message that the party prioritised the interests of the affluent over those of ordinary Australians. Nevertheless, it is essential to note that billionaire influence was not exclusive to the Coalition. Labor, too, received contributions from affluent individuals like Anthony Pratt and Harry Triguboff, who supported both major parties and independents. Reports in The Australian Financial Review highlighted this duality, suggesting that elite influence was a broader feature of Australian politics. The absence of Clive Palmer, a significant donor in previous elections, was noted in The Guardian, which reduced the narrative of a billionaire-driven Coalition campaign. Despite this nuance, the media’s focus on Rinehart’s outsized role contributed significantly to the Coalition’s urban wipeout.
Electoral Dynamics and Media Influence
The 2025 election was predominantly fought on issues related to the cost of living, and the media’s framing of the parties’ responses played a critical role in shaping voter perceptions. Labor’s targeted policies – such as energy rebates, Medicare investments, and student debt relief – were portrayed by outlets like ABC News and The Age as pragmatic solutions to pressing voter concerns, particularly in mortgage-belt seats where Labor unexpectedly gained ground. In contrast, the Coalition’s emphasis on tax cuts, nuclear energy, and resource sector deregulation was often framed as less tangible and skewed toward wealthier interests. Commentaries in The Australian Financial Review and The Conversation criticised the Coalition’s economic narrative as weak, with shadow treasurer Angus Taylor struggling to effectively counter Labor’s messaging.
Global factors, particularly the economic disruptions stemming from Donald Trump’s trade tariffs, were another focal point for media coverage. Reports in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Guardian indicated that these factors undermined trust in US-aligned policies, which Dutton found challenging to navigate. Labor’s focus on stability and diplomacy, including efforts to improve relations with China, was portrayed as a steady hand in contrast to Dutton’s perceived alignment with Trump. This narrative, while partly about optics, was further amplified by media comparisons of Dutton’s rhetoric to that of Trump, effectively alienating progressive voters.
The success of Teal independents, who retained key seats like Wentworth, Kooyong, and Mackellar, as well as the Greens’ strong national vote, were also influenced by media coverage. Outlets like Crikey and The Saturday Paper framed the Teal independents as a progressive counterweight to the Coalition’s rightward drift, emphasising their focus on climate action, gender equality, and integrity. The Greens’ gains were similarly portrayed as a rejection of conservative policies, although their loss of two Queensland seats was noted in The Australian as a regional counterpoint. The media’s focus on these crossbenchers, often backed by Climate 200, highlighted voter dissatisfaction with the Liberal Party, particularly in affluent urban electorates.
Regional dynamics, while receiving less attention, were not entirely overlooked. The Nationals’ resilience in rural and resource-heavy areas was covered in The Australian and ABC News, noting that the Coalition’s mining and agriculture policies resonated in regions where Rinehart’s influence was less controversial. This suggests that the media’s urban-centric focus may have overstated the nationwide rejection of the Coalition’s platform, even as it accurately captured the urban collapse that defined the election.
Internal Liberal Tensions and Media Scrutiny
The Coalition’s defeat laid bare deep divisions within the Liberal Party, with the media playing a crucial role in amplifying these tensions. Moderates, such as former Senator Simon Birmingham, quoted in The Age and The Guardian, argued that the “broad church” model of the party was broken, characterising it as “grudging” toward modern freedoms and overly harsh in its conservatism. Birmingham and others, including Andrew Bragg, called for a centrist shift, with media outlets like The Conversation publishing calls for gender quotas and diversity to reconnect with urban voters. The loss of moderates like Bridget Archer and Keith Wolahan in winnable seats was widely reported, underscoring the urgency for reform.
Conversely, conservatives, backed by Rinehart, pushed for a harder right-wing stance. Her post-election comments, covered in The West Australian, suggested that the Coalition’s failure was rooted in not fully embracing Trumpism. Figures such as Senator Alex Antic, quoted in The Australian, echoed this sentiment, urging the party to focus on deregulation and anti-climate policies. The media’s coverage of this internal divide, including analyses in The Sydney Morning Herald and Crikey, framed the Liberal Party as at a crossroads, with potential leadership candidates like Angus Taylor, Michael Sukkar, and moderates like Paul Fletcher vying to replace Dutton. This scrutiny heightened pressure on the party to clarify its direction, with editorials warning that a continued rightward shift could further alienate urban voters.
Did Voters See Through the Facade?
The assertion that voters saw through the Coalition’s “facade” as a party of billionaires holds substantial merit, particularly in urban and mortgage-belt electorates. Labor’s focus on cost-of-living relief, healthcare, and education was depicted as voter-centric, resonating with those prioritising immediate support. The Coalition’s flirtation with Trump-style rhetoric and culture wars was critiqued in outlets like The Guardian and The Conversation as clashing with Australia’s egalitarian ethos, alienating younger voters and women. Rinehart’s high-profile donations and fundraisers fuelled perceptions of elite influence, further amplified by Labor’s campaign and ACTU critiques of her “oligarch-style” agenda. The urban wipeout, combined with the success of Teal independents and the Greens, suggests that voters rejected policies perceived as serving the wealthy – a narrative the media reinforced through its focus on Rinehart and the Coalition’s policy missteps.
Yet, The Nationals’ strongholds in regional areas, indicates that the Coalition’s policies still resonated with resource-dependent communities, where Rinehart’s influence over mining policy was less contentious. The outcome in Goldstein illustrates that even Teal independents face electoral uncertainty, complicating the narrative of a progressive wave. The media’s urban bias may have amplified the perception of a nationwide repudiation, but local resilience suggests a more complex voter response.
The Media’s Role: Amplification and Bias
Progressive outlets like The Guardian, The Age, and Crikey emphasised the Coalition’s hard-right policies and ties to billionaires, aligning with Labor’s narrative and resonating with urban voters. Conservative outlets like The Australian and The West Australian provided counterpoints, defending the Coalition’s economic policies and amplifying Rinehart’s perspective, but their reach was limited in urban centres where the Liberals faced collapse. The ABC, as a public broadcaster, aimed for balance, but often highlighted policy critiques and internal Liberal divisions, reinforcing the narrative of a party in disarray.
Media focus on controversial policies such as nuclear energy and public service cuts, coupled with comparisons to Trump, created a feedback loop that amplified voter discontent. Yet, whilst framing the Coalition as a “party of billionaires,” the media’s urban-centric coverage may have downplayed the Coalition’s regional appeal, contributing to an incomplete picture of voter sentiment. Bias, whether perceived or real, was a factor – Rinehart’s claim of a “left media” skew was echoed in conservative commentary, yet the diversity of media critiques suggests that the Coalition’s policy weaknesses, rather than solely media framing, were instrumental in driving the election outcome.
Conclusion
The Australian federal election of 2025 represented a resounding defeat for the Liberal-National Coalition, driven in part by a rejection of hard-right policies and billionaire influence, with the media playing a central role in shaping public perceptions. The Coalition’s nuclear energy proposal, cuts to public services, and Trump-like rhetoric were framed as out of touch, alienating urban voters, while Rinehart’s financial contributions and the advocacy of Advance fuelled narratives of elite influence. Labor’s voter-centric policies, depicted as pragmatic and progressive, secured a landslide victory, further amplified by media coverage that contrasted the priorities of the two major parties. Global factors, internal divisions within the Liberal Party, and the continued success of Teal independents further shaped the electoral outcome, with the media playing a significant role in amplifying these dynamics through investigative reporting and commentary.
Yet, the defeat was not solely about ideology or billionaire influence. The Coalition’s weak policy offerings, inability to counter Labor’s narrative, and urban disconnect were critical, as was the media’s selective focus on controversial issues. The Nationals’ resilience in regional areas suggests that the Coalition maintained appeal in resource-dependent communities, a nuance less prominent in urban-centric coverage. The Liberal Party now faces a pivotal choice: to pivot toward the centre or to entrench its rightward shift, a debate that the media will continue to scrutinise. Meanwhile, Labor must deliver on its promises amidst global uncertainty, all under the same media spotlight. The 2025 election, shaped by the media’s amplification of policy failures and elite influence, signals that Australian voters demand authenticity and policies that prioritise the many over the few – a message the Coalition would be wise to heed.
