The recent Australian election was more than a domestic political upset. It marked a decisive shift in the values of the electorate, and it sent a clear signal across the Indo-Pacific.
- Originally Published On Modern Diplomacy
- Nigel Grier
- May 20, 2025
The recent Australian election was more than a domestic political upset. It marked a decisive shift in the values of the electorate, and it sent a clear signal across the Indo-Pacific. The Coalition did not lose to a populist wave or a radical left. It lost to a centrist, environmentally minded movement that mirrors shifts seen in other advanced democracies, where climate credibility is now a baseline expectation, not a policy differentiator. This was personified in the rise of the so-called Teals, who combined economic liberalism with ecological responsibility.
As the ABC’s 2025 Federal Election analysis confirmed, the Teal independents did not emerge from nowhere. They rode a wave of disillusionment in traditionally blue electorates, especially across Sydney and Melbourne’s professional class.
These were not protest votes. They were realignments. The voters who once formed the coalition’s urban and suburban heartland, especially in affluent electorates, did not abandon conservative values. They simply found those values better represented elsewhere. If anything, they are echoing a style of leadership many once saw in Malcolm Turnbull: economically competent, socially modern, and environmentally aware. His political demise within the party marked the beginning of a growing disconnect between the Coalition and the emerging mainstream.
Turnbull’s energy and climate policies, though constrained by internal opposition, pointed toward a viable center-right pathway. He recognized, as the Grattan Institute observed, that national credibility in the twenty-first century would depend on economic modernization, clean energy investment, and international climate engagement. His vision remains unfinished but not forgotten.
What is teal if not the marriage of blue and green? Often professionals from business, law, or science, they ran as independents advocating climate action, transparency in politics, and economic discipline. These voters are business owners, professionals, and policy-literate citizens. They believe in market solutions, national security, and responsible governance. But they also demand action on climate change, protection of biodiversity, and respect for the science that underpins environmental resilience.
Australia’s own scientists, including those at CSIRO and the Climate Council, have long warned of the escalating risks from drought, heatwaves, and coastal inundation. Too often, environmental policy is treated as ideological theater rather than the risk management priority it is.
The Coalition’s refusal to seriously engage with environmental policy is not just a political oversight. It is a strategic miscalculation. Environmental leadership is now bound to national security, economic stability, and regional trust. In the Indo-Pacific, climate change is not a peripheral issue. It is central to the foreign policy and development agendas of Australia’s neighbors.
Australia’s own Defence Net Zero Strategy acknowledges the threats climate instability poses to defense readiness and infrastructure. Pacific Island nations have issued formal declarations asserting that Australia’s regional standing will be judged on climate credibility. As the Australian Security Leaders Climate Group has consistently argued, climate disruption is now a core issue of national interest, requiring whole-of-government foresight. The stakes are not only environmental. They are strategic.
Australia’s strategic identity as a middle power, a regional partner, and a sovereign nation is increasingly tied to its capacity to lead on climate. Failure to act on environmental degradation erodes diplomatic capital, creates strategic vacuums, and allows competing narratives to take hold. Inaction is not neutral. In the Indo-Pacific, it is often seen as neglect or even retreat. Strategic patience is no longer a viable position. As low-lying nations face existential threats, Australia must determine whether its engagement reflects genuine solidarity or self-interest cloaked in diplomacy.
This loss of relevance abroad is mirrored by a loss of identity at home. The idea that environmental stewardship is the domain of the left is a relatively recent distortion. True conservatism is not about extraction without accountability. It is about continuity, heritage, and responsibility to future generations. Australian conservatives once understood this well.
Australia has a history of practical environmental leadership. The creation of institutions such as the Murray–Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) and the scientific authority of CSIRO reflect a tradition of grounded, bipartisan responses to environmental stress. These frameworks were built out of necessity, not ideology. They remain vital tools for restoring public trust and policy coherence in a time of accelerating ecological risk.
From the creation of the Landcare movement to early marine conservation efforts, environmental responsibility was embedded in the national character. Programs like Marine Bioregional Planning and community-driven sustainability initiatives were not fringe issues. They were practical responses to real risks, supported by coalition governments who understood that working the land meant looking after it.
For the coalition to regain political and strategic footing, it must rediscover that tradition. That means listening to farmers restoring soil health, engineers building renewable infrastructure, and families investing in rooftop batteries. It means recognizing that both urban and regional Australians care about clean water, stable weather, and the ecosystems that underpin prosperity and national identity.
The rise of the teals is not the problem. It is the symptom. The solution is not to move left but to move forward, toward a conservatism that conserves, a market economy that innovates, and a foreign policy that recognizes ecological stability as a foundation for peace and prosperity.
Across the region, neighboring countries are already adapting. Vietnam has committed to a Just Energy Transition Partnership to accelerate renewables. Indonesia is rolling out a multi-decade energy transition strategy. Singapore and Australia have formalized a Green Economy Agreement, linking trade, investment, and emissions reduction in a shared framework. These nations do not treat environmental policy as aspirational. They treat it as economic survival, diplomatic strategy, and a core feature of modern statecraft. If Australia continues to frame climate action as a political liability, it risks becoming diplomatically isolated and strategically diminished.
Leadership in the twenty-first century will not be measured only by budget surpluses or defense capability but by the ability to steward a livable future. Rising voices within the Coalition, including Andrew Hastie, represent a new generation of leaders shaped by duty, discipline, and clarity. The question is, can they absorb the lesson the electorate is teaching? That environmental integrity is no longer optional. It is foundational.
If the Coalition does not conserve the country, it will not conserve power. Without environmental leadership, it may soon find itself with no one left to follow.