As incoming prime ministers from opposition parties tend to do, Anthony Albanese declared that Australians had “voted for change”. In fact, this was an election lost due to the unpopularity of the nine-year-old conservative Liberal-National coalition and especially the outgoing premier, Scott Morrison, more than it was won by the uncharismatic, somewhat gaffe-prone Albanese and his Labor party. It was striking, above all, for the decline in combined support for both main parties and the breakthrough — even in a big fossil fuel exporter — by Greens and independent candidates demanding climate action. The result promises to make Australia less of a global outlier on climate policy, and carries warnings for parties of the right elsewhere.

The decisive swing against Morrison’s coalition followed three years when Australia has battled devastating bushfires, a pandemic, and floods. The abrasive premier’s reputation was badly dented by his holiday in Hawaii during the fires (“I don’t hold a hose, mate,” he retorted) and he alienated women with his clumsy handling of a sexual assault scandal in parliament. Even members of his own party in leaked messages called him a “fraud”, a “hypocrite” and a “liar”. Morrison’s promise to change his “bulldozer” style could not reverse his fortunes.

Albanese, the son of a single mother on disability benefits, attracted some support for his seeming authenticity in comparison — despite his embarrassing inability early in the campaign to quote the national unemployment rate or the central bank cash rate. Australia’s first Labor premier in almost a decade seems unlikely to adopt a substantially different approach to the US, China, or other major powers or, mostly, to economic policy. Albanese deliberately presented an unambitious platform to make his party the smallest possible target for Morrison’s Liberals, who successfully hammered Labor’s bolder reform plans in the 2019 election.

The big change is set to be climate policy. Albanese has vowed to end the “climate wars” — the decade of ideological battles over global warming that has left Australia a laggard on climate policy. He says Labor will keep its target of cutting carbon emissions by 43 per cent from 2005 by 2030, well above the Liberals’ target of up to 28 per cent — though scientists have called for more. Whether he has to be more aggressive may depend on whether Labor has an outright majority in Australia’s lower house — still unclear on Monday — or needs to negotiate with Greens or pro-climate independents. The Greens have called for a halt to all new gas and coal projects.

The Greens’ record showing was accompanied by a string of successes for independent, pro-climate and anti-corruption “teal” candidates in wealthy urban districts that are traditionally Liberal heartlands. The rise of the “teals” — whose colour is a blend of conservative blue and environmentalist green — also demonstrates the power of a new generation of climate-minded millionaires who helped to support them, in a country with compulsory voting and a preferential vote system.

The pro-climate swing highlights the risk, too, of ignoring opinion in favour of climate action. It is a lesson to rightwing parties elsewhere — if not yet, perhaps, in the US — that there is a price to pay for attempting to turn climate change into a left-right issue. One positive feature of European and British conservatism is that, despite some internal pressure, they have not made climate a divisive “wedge” issue. Australia’s Liberals under successive leaders have made the mistake of doing just that. The message from this election is that pro-business and pro-climate policies can coexist.