The Amazing 2026 South Australian Election: Final Lower House Results And Poll Performance

SA 2026 ALP 34 (+5) Lib 5 (-9) ON 4 (+4) IND 4 (-)
(Changes from pre-election/notional; Labor gained two seats from Liberal during 2022-6 term)

Estimated 2PP ALP 57.89 vs Liberal (+3.3)

Estimated "Shadow 2PP" ALP 58.19 vs One Nation

The 2026 South Australian lower house was remarkable in so many ways.  It makes Queensland 1998 seem almost boring by comparison, except that Queensland 1998 was there first.  Maybe all elections are going to be like this now and this soon will not seem so unusual but if that's so my colleagues and I are going to have a very busy time in the future!

All manner of curious things happened here.  Finally, someone (Lou Nicholson in Finniss) won a state or federal seat from fourth on primaries; hooray we have lived to see it.  Both majors missed the 2CP in Stuart and Mount Gambier in the first such cases since Nicklin 2001.  The Liberal Opposition missed more 2CPs (29) than they made (18) and were outpolled by One Nation (unprecedented) but are still the Opposition.  Worse than that they missed nine 3CPs as well and even managed to finish fifth in Port Adelaide and Black - Black being a seat they won at the previous election!  And so on.  It was obvious this was going to be a very messy election - a little while out I thought how on earth will we ever make a pendulum from THIS - but aspects of it were even more unique than I saw coming.

What this election was not about

This election was not about preferences.  It takes its place alongside Victoria 2022 as an election where there has been a high volume of blaming preferential voting for a disproportionate result but preferences had virtually nothing to do with it!  The primary vote leader won in 45 of the 47 electorates.  Each major party had one seat where they led on primaries (Finniss for the Liberals and Kavel for Labor) but were beaten by an independent.  With such low primary vote shares that is bound to happen somewhere.

Much of the nonsense about the impact of preferences came from the One Nation corner, and to be fair in the early stages of the postcount this was exacerbated by confusing wording (or lack thereof) around counting realignments on the ECSA website and by the ABC not quickly calling One Nation's wins.  (And with good reason as Narungga which ended up extremely close was called by some sources on the night.)

But ultimately the reason why One Nation won 4/47 seats off their 22.9% is simply that they were only ahead on primaries in that many.  They were almost run down by an incredible preference flow to the Liberals in Narungga but survived by 58 votes.  Cory Bernardi, showing he is just as good at spreading nonsense about elections as he was at spreading it about human beings getting married, has claimed One Nation should be the opposition because "preferences got some of the uniparty people over the line".  In fact only two of the five Liberal wins even had a Labor exclusion and in both of those the Liberal candidate was well ahead of One Nation at the time.  This cannot be said for One Nation themselves in Hammond where they fell behind during the distribution and would in fact have lost had the Liberals followed the "uniparty" plot and recommended preferences to Labor.  Indeed it's another shameless (or brainless) display by Bernardi to be pushing this "uniparty" nonsense when the fact is that the Liberals tried to help One Nation beat Labor via their how to vote cards and One Nation didn't return the favour.

Estimating 2PPs - is this even worth it?

This section has been rated Wonk Factor 5/5. Beware!

The ECSA is not going to put out an official 2PP and it looks like what we will get instead is a Labor vs Non-Labor figure estimated by Antony Green (who has done a tremendous amount of analysis very quickly here) at 55.7 to Labor.  I decided I would have a go at estimating a 2PP and a Labor vs One Nation equivalent for this election anyway, partly because I wanted to have a look at Liberal vs One Nation competitiveness against Labor in certain seats and partly because, well, it was there and somebody has to climb the north face.  

The method I used is the same method (which I call the "actual distribution method") that I used for Queensland 2017 among other cases:

- where one of the 2PP sides is excluded prior to the 2CP, follow the exclusion to that point and credit all votes received by each side to that point to their 2PP.  

- for votes with other candidates at this point (One Nation for the classic 2PP and Liberals for the alternate, Greens and Independents in both cases) assign those votes on 2PP based on the total of all preferences that flowed from that source in other seats to each of the 2PP sides.  

This means that I use partial preference distributions and not just the cases where a party is excluded at the final stage; this partly helps cancel out the tendency of 3CP preference flows to be weaker than the flow from an excluded party's actual voters because of votes coming in from other sources.  Sometimes this can produce exaggerated flows in some seats - for instance if Greens preferences split 80-10-10 between Labor, Liberal and One Nation in a seat I will credit this as 88.9% for Labor vs each party, but a voter voting Greens-One Nation isn't that likely to go to Labor next.  (A voter voting Greens-Liberal, incidentally, generally will go to Labor over One Nation).  

As a sanity check I also considered the following: as we have seen with Hunter, parties do better on preferences from a given source in seats where they perform better, so it could be that One Nation and the Liberals would each do worse on each others' preferences in the seats where they don't receive them than the seats where they do.  Therefore, for instance for the classic 2PP, I graphed the ratio (Labor/(Labor+Liberal) at the point where one major was excluded) vs Labor's share of One Nation preferences, and then modelled what that should look like across every seat.  In both cases the modelled flow from one conservative party to the other came out between 1 and 2 points weaker than the flow I had already obtained, which is not significant and is about what I would expect based on batched preference flows being weaker than the flows of voters who voted 1 for a party.

Where I have the most reservation about my numbers is that there was a curiously weak flow from excluded independents to Labor vs Liberal.  This is partly driven by the exclusion of ex-Liberal Nick McBride whose preferences flowed strongly to the Liberals.  But two of the eight independents for whom there are no 2PP preference flows were also ex-Liberals, and the weak pattern extends further than just McBride.  I'll adjust my numbers if any more light is shed on these; for instance in Flinders there should eventually be a classic 2PP.  

Overall my model has the following preference flows (note that these are not necessarily primary votes for the preference sources, they may be, eg, someone who votes 1 for an obscure party, 2 Greens etc).

* To Labor vs Liberal: One Nation 27.2%, Greens 85.9%, IND 50.8%

* To Labor vs One Nation:  Liberal 33.9%, Greens 84.8%, IND 55.9%

The estimate I've obtained to date is that despite the slightly lower primary vote, the Liberals lose the 2PP vs Labor very slightly less heavily than One Nation loses the equivalent figure: I get Labor at 57.89 vs the Liberals, and 58.19 vs One Nation.

I also did (extremely rubbery) 2PP and shadow 2PP estimates for every seat using the above flows for candidates who outlasted the relevant exclusion points.  On these estimates, the win/loss outcome for Labor vs the Liberals is the same in every seat except for Heysen (49.3 vs Liberal, 56.6 vs One Nation) and Bragg (41.5 vs 56.6).  One Nation outperforms the Liberals in 24 seats but nearly all of them are either safe for Labor in either case or seats Labor lost to both parties.  Four Labor seats that are not marginal vs the Liberals are marginal vs One Nation: the northern Adelaide set of Elizabeth, King, Light and Taylor.  If One Nation sticks around Labor may be vulnerable in these seats next time around, but Elizabeth and Light were vacant so new Labor MPs should pick up personal votes.

The flows observed, by the way, suggest there is nothing wrong with continuing to use last election modelled flows for 2PPs and ALP vs ON shadow-2PPs.  The Liberal to One Nation flow at 66% is somewhat lower than the 71% that I model for the 2025 election nationwide, but that will be largely because there was no Nationals component.  The One Nation to Liberal flow is only slightly weaker than the federal election and that is with an uncompetitive Liberal Party.  The Greens to Labor flows seem slightly weaker but that is normal for state elections.  

Two-party swing strikes again

People are always complaining about two-party-preferred being useless and surely this election would be a standard for that measure if ever there was one, but not quite so fast.  Again, the two-party swing (which I've modelled as 3.3%) told much of the story of this election.  It would have been expected from this swing that Labor would have gained about four seats from the Liberals; they in fact gained five.  Below that swing level Labor won Morialta and Unley but Josh Teague somehow retained Heysen, and Ngadjuri was a dud for Labor but fell to One Nation anyway.  Slightly above the swing level, Labor won Hartley, Morphett and Colton.  So they outperformed the pendulum, but not by much, especially as three of the five seats they won became vacant.  On my estimates they may have also won the 2PP in Kavel (or not, see Addendum below), but that was in effect a retain for independents.  

For all that there was a striking pattern that Antony has also observed regarding Labor getting great swings in marginals and having swings against it in its own safe seats.  Antony has graphed it in terms of pseudoswings (eg ALP/Lib to ALP/ON) but in terms of estimated 2PP swings the pattern (coloured by seat winner) is just as stark:

The suggestion here is there could have been a "hybrid vigour" issue for Labor in seat share terms based on One Nation running strongly in some areas and the Liberals in others, except that Labor more than drowned it out by doing so well in the marginals.  Victoria might be a different story ...

I've decided not to do a mixed post-election pendulum; Ben Raue has one here and I will decide what SA pendulums come to my site and the circumstances in which they come much closer to the next election.  What is worth noting is that there are hardly any classic two-way marginals left because of the smashing inflicted on the Liberals in most of their marginals - only Heysen (Lib 0.6%), Morphett (ALP 0.7%) and Hartley (ALP 4.7%) - all the others that I model as 2PP marginals are occupied by someone else.  On the other scale Labor vs One Nation marginals are Hammond (ON 4.9%), Light (ALP 1.6%), Taylor (ALP 4.2%), Elizabeth (ALP 4.5%), King (ALP 5.2%).  Four years is an eternity in the history of One Nation being competitive or not so we will see in 2030 whether any of this matters.  Ben also has lots of excellent detail about 3CP marginality of which there is plenty (most notably Heysen, the latest in a national string of very close Liberal/ALP/Green postcounts).  Also see Ben Messenger's Blusky thread with diagrams.  

The biggest victory ever?

Labor shouldn't let this one go to their heads as there are warning signs in these results, well if you stare at them for long enough there might be.  But one theme I go on about a lot on here is federal drag, the theory and fact that when a state government is of the same party as the federal government, it tends to go backwards (and the older it is the more it does so).  Yet here a federally dragged government that had been in office throughout the previous term has beaten its previous election result by 7/47 seats (14.9%).  And this has never happened, in any state, ever.  It's not quite the seat share record for an at-election change (because the 7 seats includes the two the government, also remarkably, picked up in by-elections during the term, so if ignoring those it's beaten by the Playford government's 5/39 coming off an indie rebellion in SA 1941) but something has gone very right for SA Labor and very wrong for its main opponent here.  

Despite this, it could have been worse for the conservative forces, with widespread predictions that either the Liberals or One Nation might actually get zero or one seats.  (I saw at least half a dozen forecasts of a One Nation seat zero by people who were pretty well informed about elections but may in some cases have let their dislike of the party lead them astray).  With nine seats between them, the two parties did even do slightly better than my read of the polls as pointing to a few seats each if correct, but that was partly because the election was actually just a little bit closer than the polls suggested.  The major party gap was slightly lower, and so was the Greens primary, and the preference flow from independents may have been weaker - all pointing to a lower 2PP swing than expected.  It was also because independents on the whole did not have such a great election.  Fraser Ellis finally lost (perhaps because voters realised a vote for him could be a vote for having to vote again) and Lou Nicholson was the only gain in a seat that didn't have an outgoing independent.  Other touted indies flopped even if they had done well in 2022.  Credit by the way to Australian Election Forecasts for a remarkably close to exact seat tally forecast.

And finally ... the polls!

This was an excellent election for Australian polling under unusual and difficult circumstances.  Four pollsters using online panel polling polled at least twice each (Newspoll, YouGov, DemosAU and Fox&Hedgehog) and these collectively did very well on the overall shape of the result.  Non-online offerings such as an SMS poll by Roy Morgan and an experimental AI voice automated poll by Resolve were a bit more excitable on the size of the One Nation vote, whether because of the method differences or otherwise.  

Three of the six pollsters decided not to release two-party figures (the three who did were YouGov, Fox&Hedgehog and Roy Morgan; these also all issued ALP vs One Nation figures).  I've decided it is not appropriate to formally measure 2PP accuracy for an election where the utility of 2PP is so heavily debated by analysts with many not even estimating it, and where there is no single method of estimating it, so for this election I am only using primary votes.  Here is my usual table minus the 2PPs (note: I am using the ABC's figures as there is an issue with the ECSA total numbers):

Ave is simply the average of the raw errors and RMSQ is root mean square error, which punishes big misses on one party more than several small differences.  For the record I am using Ave as the lead method this time but the order is the same in both cases.  And if I was to include the 2PPs for those producing them then YouGov with 59-41 for both is closest to my estimate (all who bothered had 59-41 for ALP vs One Nation, Fox&Hedgehog had 60-40 for the classic 2PP and Morgan had 61-39).  Such has been the accuracy of Newspoll in recent years that this is the first election since Victoria 2018 where there have been more pollsters above it than below it, but this is a tribute to just how well the others did.  Extremely close between the top three but YouGov has taken home the Easter chocolates.

There's not much to do with the upper house except wait for the button to be pressed late this month, with no signs at present that anyone will get near Labor for the final seat.  So I think that's the end of my SA coverage for now.  In the next few weeks I will be on holiday and won't be online much but I will be back on May 2 with live coverage of the curious set of Huon, Rosevears and Nepean and then also covering Farrer on May 9.  

--

Addendum April 11: Antony Green has estimated 2PPs for eight seats that are missing them; these figures for Labor with my method's estimates are shown below (Green/Bonham):

Chaffey 31.4/31.4

Finniss 42.9/41.1

Flinders 25.9/30.9

Kavel 49.2/52.4

Mackillop 32.5/34.1

Mount Gambier 44.4/46.4

Narungga 35.4/38.4

Stuart 39.4/40.3

These may be based off pulled 2CP counts and if so will be more accurate than my estimates.  There is however a large discrepancy in the 2PP vote totals for Stuart and a smaller one for Mackillop.  If I include these numbers as is my 2PP estimate for Labor reduces to 57.72 (perhaps slightly further accounting for the Stuart undercount).  However as this is a skewed sample of the seats that do not have exact 2PPs (skewed towards seats where Labor polled poorly and was eliminated) it is better not to do this so 57.89 remains my overall estimate for now.  Antony has also provided an ALP/ON estimate for Croydon of 79.7 vs my 78.8; if this is included then ALP vs ON changes to 58.21; again, it's better not to do this.  

Legislative Council 2026: Rosevears

ROSEVEARS (2020 margin Lib vs IND 0.57%)

This is my second guide to the Legislative Council this year.  My guide for Huon is here and my latest guide to voting patterns in the upper house is up.   

I expect to be doing live coverage of the Legislative Council elections on this site on election night, scheduled for Saturday May 2.  However, updates to this page in the lead-up will probably be less frequent than normal. 

The current numbers in the Council are three Liberal, three Labor, one Green and eight independents, with the independents ranging fairly evenly across the Green to Liberal spectrum.  Labor gives up one vote on the floor and in the committee stages because it holds the Presidency.  As the major parties frequently vote together, the Government has not had an especially difficult time of it in the upper chamber lately, most notably getting the hugely controversial Macquarie Point stadium through 9 votes to 5.  But that is not to say the Liberals get everything their own way, for instance having their legislation to wind up greyhound racing referred to an inquiry.

This year sees just two Legislative Council contests, being the first defence for independent Dean Harriss in Huon and likewise for Liberal Jo Palmer in Rosevears.  

Seat Profile

Rosevears (see map) is situated on the west Tamar in northern Tasmania. It includes much of western and central Launceston and the towns of Beaconsfield, Legana, Exeter and Beauty Point.  Industries outside the urban area include tourism, mining and vineyards.

Rosevears was created as a new division out of parts of various pre-existing divisions in the 1999 redistribution.  Sitting MLC Ray Bailey was allocated to the division when it was formed but retired in 2002.  Prominent former radio announcer Kerry Finch, a left-wing independent, held the seat without serious challenge for three terms.  The seat is mostly an expanded version of the former division of Cornwall, which always returned independents except for electing one Liberal between 1942 and 1951.  One of the independents, Mac Le Fevre (member from 1978-1984) was a former Labor lower house MP.  

The seat got another Liberal MP in 2020 when Jo Palmer won by just 260 votes against then independent Janie Finlay.  So much water has flowed under King's Bridge since that Finlay has now been elected to the Lower House three times as a Labor candidate and is now Labor's Deputy Leader.  In scenes like a Sydney teal seat, Finlay's campaign was so successful (just not quite successful enough!) that Labor polled a miserable 9.1% in third place - and the Labor candidate Jess Greene was hardly a bad pick; she has since gone on to join Finlay as state MP for Bass.

At the 2025 state election, with an adjustment of the booths for non-booth votes, I estimate the Liberal Party polled 43.3% in Rosevears, Labor 25.8%, the Greens 17.6%, independent George Razay 3.4% and the Shooters Fishers and Farmers 3.3% and the rest went to the latest Tasmanian Nationals flopfest and to ungrouped independents.  The Greens won the Trevallyn booth, always a strong one for them, with 35.1% and beat Labor in a few others.  Labor won the Beauty Point booth with a similar vote and the Liberals won all the rest, approaching or exceeding 50 in the Legana/Riverside booths which have a high bible belt component.  

Incumbent

Jo Palmer (Facebook, Instagram) is the Liberal incumbent since winning the slightly COVID-delayed August 2020 election by the closest LegCo seat margin in 21 years (or since).  Prior to politics Palmer was best known - to household name standards - as a former Southern Cross (now Seven) Tasmania newsreader and journalist, and also as a charity worker and former Tasmanian of the Year.  The frequency of said station's alumni winning seats has led to many jokes about the "Southern Cross faction" in the party room.  My 2020 guide contained the following dubiously relevant addendum: "In the celebrity trivia department I note that Palmer is a former Miss Tasmania and Miss Australia 1993, that she is Lyons Labor MHA Jen Butler's sister-in-law and that she is the parent of a Dancing With The Stars house dancer. "  Palmer's husband Andrew is a Launceston City Councillor.

Palmer is currently Minister for Education, Minister for Children and Youth and Minister for Disability Services.  She has also held other portfoilios including Primary Industries and Water and also Women.  She was promoted to the front bench in April 2022.  Palmer has not been involved in any personal controversies in her term, but see the Education section under Issues below.  Palmer featured in a nationally viral episode known as the Sportsgirl pants saga after a question from a journalist about her wardrobe choices went to air.  Her handling of the question was praised while the journo's turned out to be an unlucky hot mic moment.  

(Note: candidates may contact me once only to request a change to the link their name goes to, or additional links which will be added, or not, at my discretion and subject to my time. They may absolutely not send me long emails of bio or waffle at the same time.    I will be mostly offline during mid to late April.  No other changes will be made on request except to correct clear factual errors, and I reserve the right not to correct errors caused by a candidate failing to keep their linkedin up to date, and certainly won't remove any link to a outdated linkedin.  Any differences in the length of different candidate sections reflect differences in amount of available/(in my view) interesting material; candidate sections tend to be longer when candidates have past electoral form.)

Challengers (3)

To my knowledge all candidates live within Rosevears; if I find out otherwise a note will be added accordingly.

Ben Mckinnon (Facebook, Instagram, candidacy announcement) is the endorsed Labor candidate.  Mckinnon has been a teacher in the Launceston area for nearly 20 years, including at Longford Primary where he currently teaches music and PE, and previously Brooks High.  He has also been a case manager at City Misson and "a Social Inclusion Officer delivering employment programs", and is a musician who has toured nationally playing original indie/folk style music.  I have not found any evidence of any previous political forays.  In an interesting Easter post Mckinnon, who is clearly a Christian, acknowledged "heroes who have shaped my thinking and heart": "MLK, C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Carl Jung, Iain McGilchrist, and John Smith" and also went on to give a long list of local heroes including Finlay, who is strongly promoting his campaign.  

Charlene McLennan (Facebook, Instagram, candidacy announcement) is the endorsed Greens candidate.  McLennan was the party's candidate for Bass at the 2025 federal election, polling 12.9% (the party's third highest vote in the seat behind the pulp mill days of 2007-10).  She was also the party's #2 candidate for Bass at the state election and polled 871 votes.  McLennan is a family lawyer and mediator with a background according to one firm in "family law, property, and wills and estates" and having also earlier represented children in refuges and displaced women.  While living in Dorrigo NSW she served with the NSW Rural Fire Service in the 2019-20 Black Summer fires and was also affected by the 2013 Dunalley fire.  Her personal Facebook page appeals to my sensibilities by referencing owls and tea.  

Susan Monson, an independent, is a registered candidate with the TEC since 31/3/2026 and becomes the first prospective candidate to become first known to me by that method.  However I have found no online campaign material. I did find a post by someone else that said she was running but no evidence beyond that, yet her name did appear when nominations were announced.  Monson appears to be co-owner of Monson Construction. I have found some Facebook comments by her (the most informative one of which I can summarise as 'my kids should get free stuff from the government' - national parks access and sporting insurance specifically) but her profile has been locked.  More later maybe!

Rumours

There was an on-off unsubstantiated rumour linking Launceston Mayor Matthew Garwood to a run for the seat, which he wouldn't have to quit the mayoralty to pursue.  As of 7 April I hadn't seen this one for a while, and it evidently didn't happen.  

Issues

Issues noted on the campaign trail will be listed here.  This list is not comprehensive or in order and issues may be added over time.  The presence of an item on the list does not necessarily mean it will sway votes, only that it is being talked about.  

1. Education: When it's teacher vs Education Minister as the major party candidates expect to hear a lot about how the government and the Minister are going on Tasmania's education system, which has attracted opprobrium in recent years for dire post Year 10 retention rates.  Palmer's performance as Education Minister has come under sustained attack from education unionists and also questions about the extent to which she is being consulted.  The Australian Education Union recorded a no confidence vote in Palmer's performance and also released comments from principals about proposed Multi=School Organisations while Palmer has challenged claims that the state is doing terribly.

2. Stadium: Rosevears is in Bass and Bass hates the stadium, largely because it is to be built south of Oatlands.  The stadium has been passed with bipartisan support but there remains the issue of how to deal with cost blowouts down the track.  While rage may have faded in the face of futility, the Greens do have the advantage here since both of the majors voted for it.

3. Budget: While I haven't seen much sign of budgetary debate in Rosevears yet, the dire state of Tasmania's debt levels and what exactly should be done about them is bound to surface during the campaign.  

4. Cost of living: Inescapable again with Donald Trump starting a war nobody understands that briefly sent petrol to $2.50 before fuel excise cuts brought it down somewhat.  The government has announced free public transport until mid-year.  

Campaign

Campaign style issues and incidents may be noted here.  During a visit to Rosevears in early March Palmer was certainly first out of the blocks in the corflute wars; her posters were everywhere including even deepest greenest Trevallyn.   However I have now heard that Mckinnon is also established in said suburb as well as the usual Greens signs.  

The major party candidates' Facebook pages are pretty positive with few political attacks, with Palmer's mainly focusing on local community and announceables and Mckinnon's profiling "local legends" he encounters on the rounds.  

Prospects

Rosevears is a very Liberal-friendly seat but this didn't stop it electing Finch for three terms, with attempts to blast him out based on his voting record failing dismally.  It was a cracking contest to replace him but either Palmer or Finlay would have beaten anybody but each other easily, and the seat's notionally very marginal status from 2020 is meaningless now.  

Finlay had the advantage then of being an indie, which is a bigger thing in the north of the state than the south, and she also had a massive profile.  Which raises the question of how there is no significant independent running for this seat this time as of four weeks out.  Despite one commenter's hope that somebody would "clone Ruth Forrest" I suspect potential indies have given running against Jo Palmer a miss because they don't think they can beat her.  Labor are giving it a go but they're deep underdogs here and, strikingly, haven't won a LegCo seat in the north with an endorsed candidate since 1952.   (Silvia Smith served one term in Windermere as "Independent Labor").  Kerry Finch makes an interesting case that Labor can yet win his old seat based on the burdens of education and the stadium and the absence of the Gutwein effect.  

More comments may be added later. 

Tasmania Redistribution: The Reaction

Yesterday the AEC released public feedback on the proposed radical redistribution as previously covered here (Draft Scraps The Franklin Divide).  Frankly I thought there might be more complaints than there were, but some of those that there are are pretty punchy.  Of the 90 distinct submissions received, exactly half by my count discussed the proposed boundaries at all, and of these I counted 14 as purely supporting the proposal (one or two noting some initial reluctance in doing so) and 31 objecting, nearly all of these proposing something substantially different if they proposed anything at all.

Predictably the most common objections concerned the condition of Lyons and especially the placement of Glenorchy in it.  Objectors raised Glenorchy's disconnection from the bulk of Lyons through the inclusion of Brighton in Franklin, argued that neo-Lyons was thematically incoherent, complained about the severing of Glenorchy from Greater Hobart and also objected to rural Tasmania being fragmented into majority urban seats.  Submission 34 by Mark James is a good representative of the objections:

"Under the proposed model, rural/regional voters will be outnumbered by city voters in all five electorates. There is no community of interest at all between Glenorchy, Sheffield, and St. Helens. - For a state with a famously decentralised population, in which the majority of the population live outside the capital city, voters in the capital city will form the bulk of three out of five electorates."

Similarly, some submissions objected to the placement of Brighton or at least the whole thereof in Franklin on the grounds of it having stronger links to the southern midlands (in my view this is true of the Brighton part but not so much of the Bridgewater/Gagebrook part).  

A different objection in a small number of submissions was the position of Break O'Day in neo-Lyons as the only east coast touching council.  Some submissions preferred Break O'Day to go into Bass with the whole of Meander Valley LGA including Prospect Vale and Blackstone Heights remaining in Lyons.  This new Lyons would be virtually landlocked, touching the Derwent foreshore in Glenorchy but not reaching the actual sea as such anywhere. I certainly wouldn't be going there for any seashell collecting trips.  

Submission 83 by Aussies Elect raises a point also raised here in comments - some issues are caused by the weird boundaries of Southern Midlands if that council becomes the Lyons boundary.  In the area of Runnymede, Southern Midlands crosses the Tasman Highway, meaning that as one goes from Orford to Sorell and vice versa, the highway will briefly pass from Franklin to Lyons and then back to Franklin again.  Furthermore, the Southern Midlands boundary cuts Richmond (currently in Lyons) off Colebrook and Campania in the Coal River Valley.  If one is willing to break up LGAs then there's an opportunity here to expand the new Franklin in this area and in the process keep the northern part of Glamorgan-Spring Bay in Lyons.  

Local government areas often don't like being split between electorates and this redistribution process has made me wonder about the extent to which the tail wags the dog.  Why are Tasmania's local government boundaries like they are (in some cases I suspect the answer is about rates bases) and should LGA boundaries be adaptive to the needs of the federal boundary process rather than the other way around?  Anyway the Redistribution Committee can only work with what there is.

By far the most common suggested solution to the Lyons problem was to put Glenorchy into Franklin and keep the east coast in Lyons.  Those supporting this stressed that while this solution crosses the Derwent, the divide is nothing like the existing Franklin divide in that Glenorchy and Clarence are connected directly by at least one bridge (depending on exact boundaries) and there is significant direct commuting between the two, unlike the existing Franklin divide where the only connections with any real level of usage pass through Clark.

A minority supported putting Derwent Valley into Clark (see my comments on this in the "Clark extends up the river" section of my first article), which provides scope for maintaining more of Kingborough in the current Franklin.  I detected basically no support for the minimal change option of moving Clark further south into Kingborough, suggesting that most objectors realise this is a problem but prefer a different solution to the one found.

There were a number of eccentric proposals.  I'm not going to go through those in detail for cases where the submission doesn't realise this is a federal redistribution, hasn't noticed the number of seats is fixed at five, or is barely comprehensible.   (In at least one case the AEC seemed confused whether the submission actually referred to the boundaries or just the seat names).  However it was disappointing to see some people supporting putting Huon Valley and in cases parts of Kingborough into Lyons without noticing that these areas are essentially disconnected from the rest of Lyons with the connecting bushland having only one significant unsealed link road through it.  

The Glenorchy submission (72) caused serious threats to my Panadol supply and includes a bizarre example "contiguous Franklin" alternative in which in order to keep Glenorchy in the same seat as most of Hobart City and move Kingborough into Clark, a substantial chunk of inner Hobart political greenery is donated to Lyons, becoming an urban exclave and also meaning that to remain in Clark while commuting from Glenorchy to the remaining Hobart City part of it you would have to undertake a 13.5 km bushwalk from Tolosa St to Old Farm Road peaking at around 1120 m near Big Bend.   (Looks like a rather good walk actually).  If this submission was actually entirely written by humans then they've passed a reverse Turing test with flying colours (sorry this is not a compliment; hat tip to a colleague who suggested that it looked partially AI written.)

In terms of the draft redistribution proposal (as distinct from the daft redistribution proposals in some of the submissions) the Greens and Labor have supported it. The Liberals have opposed it without making further comment on any particular alternative.  Sorell Council has supported the proposal while Glenorchy, Break O'Day, Southern Midlands, Brighton and Central Highlands are objecting.  I am surprised more councils did not make submissions.

Meanwhile, readers of this site continue to have a positive view of the draft proposal.

Many new names were suggested for Franklin especially but I wasn't wildly enthused by the suggestions.  It just doesn't seem that there's anything near a community consensus on an individual with a strong link to the proposed new Franklin whose contribution is such as to deserve an electorate named after them.  Some submitters suggested calling the proposed Clark Franklin and vice versa, but this involves transplanting the name Clark to an area it entirely doesn't cover at the present (always best avoided if possible).  

What next?

There is now a phase in which people can reply to the submissions.  Following that the Augmented Electoral Commission (which adds the Chair and the non-judicial member of the AEC to the existing Redistribution Committee of two AEC and two non-AEC staff) can make a decision, and can hold public hearings prior to doing so if it wishes.  In the event that it now wished to switch from the initial proposal to one that was substantially different (such as Glenorchy into Franklin instead of the east coast) then there would be likely to be another round of ideas submission on the current proposal.  

Legislative Council Voting Patterns 2022-6

In the leadup to the 2026 Legislative Council elections for Huon and Rosevears (link TBA when I've written it) this article is my annual review of voting patterns on divisions in the upper house in the previous four years.  But before I get into it, I need to deal with some methods nerdery at the start.

Shy Division Losing

Some Labor MLCs aren't particularly fond of my findings, and they were especially defensive about a stat that in the small sample added to the mix last year Labor had voted with the Liberal Government 90% of the time.  (Fear not, in this year's sample it is 86%).  This even led to an attempt on election night live TV to shoot down (but not shag or marry) my methods in which it was falsely claimed that if there were thirty divisions on a single Bill I would include them all in my assessment.  Fortunately the incorrect claim has since been retracted.  

What in particular the Labor MLCs do not like goes to an unfortunate quirk of the LegCo's standing orders. When votes are called for on a motion they are initially taken on the voices.  The President or whoever is in the chair at the time declares a provisional result, eg "I think the ayes have it".  At this point someone can call for a division - but only if they are voting on the side that lost the call on the voices.  

In a case where the Government has no friends on a vote they might vote one way on the voices, but then not bother having that vote recorded to avoid embarrassment.  And in this case, while Labor voted the other way, there is nothing Labor can do here to cause a division such that them voting on the other side shows up in my figures.  This does sometimes happen, though no evidence that it happens often has been presented.  (I had thought this was in contrast to federal parliament because of something that happened in the same-sex marriage vote, but was mistaken - see comments.)

South Australia Postcount 2026: Finniss

FINNISS (Lib vs ALP 6.7%, Lib vs IND 0.7%)

David Basham (Lib) vs Lou Nicholson (IND) 

Nicholson wins from fourth position on primaries.  Unprecedented in state and federal elections

(Link to tallyboard thread)

The Victor Harbour/Goolwa seat of Finniss sees a similarly messy count to Kavel with four candidates with currently very similar primary votes, as I start this thread with the prepoll not yet in and sadly only 33.1% of enrolment counted.  It may be very different after prepoll and it was very different in 2022.  On the night Lou Nicholson was on 54.7% 2CP vs Basham and the doubt seemed to be would she make the final two or not.  She ended up making the final two but very poor numbers on prepolls and absents resulted in Basham winning (just) 50.7-49.3.  Now, the rematch ...

As with Kavel this is another seat where nobody has a quarter of the primary vote.  Currently One Nation's Greg Powell (23.6%) leads Basham by six votes, with Nicholson on 20.5% and Phoebe Redington (ALP) on 17.6%.  The Greens have 7.2% and the top of the ballot paper, and have recommended preferences to Nicholson.  The others are Bron Lewis (a tealish sounding independent on 4.3%), Animal Justice 1.6%, Aus Family 1.2% Fair Go 0.4%.  

South Australia Postcount 2026: Hammond (And Ngadjuri)

Hammond (Lib 5.1%)
Robert Roylance (ON) vs Simone Bailey (ALP) vs Adrian Pederick (Lib)
Roylance expected to win

(Link to tallyboard thread)

The rural lower Murray seat of Hammond was one of those that stood out in pre-election modelling as being a seat on a relatively low Liberal vs ALP margin but nonetheless being apparently fertile ground for One Nation.  And this looks like this is how things have panned out.  As I start this article Simone Bailey (Labor) holds a thin lead with 27.5% over Robert Roylance (One Nation) on 27.0% with incumbent Adrian Pederick in third on 22.1%.  The most significant preference source is independent Airlie Keen on 10.4%.  Keen ran competitively in 2022 but there has been a large swing against her with the rise of One Nation.  The rest: the Greens 4.5% Legalise Cannabis 3.3% FF 1.9% Animal Justice 1.4% Lucas Hope (IND) 1.0% Aus Family 0.5% United Voice 0.4% Fair Go 0.1%.  Yes there is a candidate in this seat who actually at present has 27 votes, their presence on the ballot paper probably costing thousands of dollars in staffing costs.

South Australia Postcount 2026: Kavel

KAVEL (Retiring IND vs Lib 25.4, notional Liberal vs ALP 3.5)

Matt Schultz (IND) vs David Leach (ALP) vs Bradley Orr (Lib) - Schultz expected to win

Link back to summary page

Sunday 22nd 11:50am: I really wanted to wait til the prepolls were in before unrolling postcount threads for the messy seats, because prepolls often put scenarios to bed.  But as it's taking a while to get there on Sunday, I will start the Kavel thread before that point (and probably the Finniss one too) and if things do later simplify then this is at least a time capsule of how insane this seat looked.  

The problem with the Mt Barker / Adelaide Hills seat is simple; nobody has any votes.  The succession war for the former conservative Liberal turned indie/Speaker/Minister Dan Cregan has produced a splatter of primaries with nobody with even a quarter of the vote (I'm wondering if this is some kind of record for a mainland state seat if it persists).  With just 39.5% of enrolment counted, Labor's David Leach leads on 23.9%, Cregan's nominal successor Matt Schultz has 20.7%, Christiaan Loch of One Nation has 19.7% and the Liberals' Bradley Orr has 17.3%.  The Greens have 12.8% and the detritus (ballot clutter makes good snail food) is Family First 1.7% Animal Justice 1.6% Real Change 1.1% Australian Family 0.5% Jacob van Raalte (IND) 0.5% and Fair Go 0.2%.  

South Australia 2026: Postcount Summary, Links Hub and Basic 2CP Contests

SEATS WON ALP 34 Lib 5 ON 4 IND 4

Seats covered

Finniss (Liberal) - Liberal vs One Nation vs IND, IND has won from fourth

Kavel (IND vacancy) - Labor vs IND vs One Nation, IND stayed in top two and won easily

Hammond (Liberal) - ON win staying in top two and beating Labor on preferences

Heysen (Liberal) - Liberal vs ALP or Green, Greens narrowly missed final two with Liberal defeating Labor (Liberal probably would have won anyway)

Light (Labor) - close but Labor win

Mackillop (notional Liberal) - One Nation narrow win over Liberal

Narungga (IND) - One Nation appears to have very narrowly won subject to recount.

Morphett (Liberal) - narrow Labor win

Ngadjuri  One Nation win.  

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL  4 ALP 3 ON 2 Lib 1 Green,  ALP currently strongly leads for final seat.

South Australia 2026 Postcount: Heysen

HEYSEN (Lib 2.6%)

Josh Teague (Lib) vs Marisa Bell (Labor) and Genevieve Dawson-Scott (Green)

Teague very narrowly leads Bell, but Bell not sure of making the final two.  No direct information on Liberal vs Green flows

Link back to summary page

The first of my postcount threads focuses on the Adelaide Hills seat of Heysen, which was the Greens' biggest target seat at this election.  What do you get if you take Prahran 2014 and throw in a One Nation candidate with 14% of the vote?  Well something like whatever this is.  Because of the slow count in other threads and the relatively settled picture for the night in Heysen I've started writing this one on the night, and it will run ahead of the tally board thread.

South Australia 2026 Live

START POSITION*: LABOR 29 LIB 14 IND 4

Labor re-elected with several seat gains.  Liberals and One Nation fighting for opposition status with Liberals currently best placed.  

Seats apparently changing (not all absolutely confirmed):

Liberal to Labor: Colton, Hartley, Unley, Morialta

IND to One Nation: Narungga

Notional Liberal to One Nation: Mackillop

Incumbents in trouble:

Liberal vs Labor: Morphett

Messy seats: 

Hammond (Liberal - exclusion order issue, Liberals currently trailing to One Nation)

Finniss (Liberal - Unclear if Nicholson makes 3CP or whether she defeats Liberal or One Nation if so)

Heysen (Liberal - Labor narrowly leads Greens for making 3CP, winner competes with Liberals for seat)

Kavel (IND - Schultz needs to make final two to win but could potentially be pushed to third behind Labor and One Nation)

Ngadjuri  (Liberal - unclear which of Liberal or One Nation is third, the other probably winning)

In doubt (not necessarily complete list)

Light (Labor) vs One Nation

South Australia 2026: Final Polls Still Have Liberals Third

Average of final week polls ALP 37.1% Liberal 17.6 One Nation 23.3 Greens 11.2 others 10.8

If polls are accurate, Labor wins election easily making several seat gains, with Liberals and One Nation probably winning a few seats each.  Independents could win a few to several seats.

The 2026 SA election has been a weird one for polls.  There's been a very decent amount for a state election, but there were four polls tightly clustered around the start of the formal campaign, Morgan a little later, then nothing til the final days.  Also while the early polls had quite a range of figures, the last-week polls by Fox&Hedgehog, YouGov and DemosAU came out with almost identical primaries.  All have Labor on 37-38%, Liberals 17-19%, and One Nation 21-23%.  Newspoll stood out a bit more with a 40 for Labor and a miserable 16 for the Liberals.  

In my previous article I outlined a way of using the 2022 Legislative Council results to roughly look at where the Liberals and One Nation might make the final two if the polling is accurate, and assuming a swing that is two-thirds proportional and one-third uniform.  I have a few more observations on this model based on the vote share average at the head of this post.  

Legislative Council 2026: Huon

HUON (IND vs ALP 2.55%)

This is my first guide for the Tasmanian Legislative Council for this year.  An assessment of Legislative Council voting patterns has been updated and a guide to Rosevears has also finally appeared.

I expect to be doing live coverage of the Legislative Council elections on this site on election night, scheduled for Saturday May 2.  However, updates to this page in the lead-up will probably be less frequent than normal. 

The current numbers in the Council are three Liberal, three Labor, one Green and eight independents, with the independents ranging fairly evenly across the political spectrum.  Labor gives up one vote on the floor and in the committee stages because it holds the Presidency.  As the major parties frequently vote together, the Government has not had an especially difficult time of it in the upper chamber lately, most notably getting the hugely controversial Macquarie Point stadium through 9 votes to 5.  But that is not to say the Liberals get everything their own way, for instance having their legislation to wind up greyhound racing referred to an inquiry.

This year sees just two Legislative Council contests, being the first defence for independent Dean Harriss in Huon and likewise for Liberal Jo Palmer in Rosevears.  

Seat Profile

Huon (see map) includes the Huon Valley, the D'Entrecasteaux Channel, Bruny Island, part of Blackmans Bay and Huntingfield. In recent decades occupants have usually been conservative and have often had Liberal Party connections.  Past incumbents have included the Hodgman brothers Michael (Former Premier Will's father) and Peter, who won it as independents in their late 20s before going on to bigger things as Liberals.   Paul Harriss, whose LegCo career was bookended by Liberal runs, held the seat as a conservative independent for three terms from 1996, in which time nobody came close to beating him.  (Indeed in 2002 there was speculation Labor's Fran Bladel could unseat him at the height of the Jim Bacon years, but he was barely even taken to preferences.)  When Harriss senior switched to the Lower House in 2014, Peter Hodgman tried to win his old seat back for the party, and was blown away on preferences by then Huon Valley mayor Robert Armstrong.  Armstrong was a very conservative independent whose voting behaviour almost never gave the Liberal Party any cause for concern.  In 2020 Armstrong in turn was heavily defeated by Bastian Seidel (Labor), the first time Labor had won the seat since the 1940s.  However Seidel quit after less than two years (see background in 2022 edition) and Labor failed to retain Huon at the by-election, with Paul Harriss's son Dean Harriss winning the seat at his second attempt.

Huon is one of the greener Legislative Council electorates, but at the 2025 state and federal elections many of its voters switched from the big-G Greens to high profile anti-fish-farm tealish independent Peter George.  George was easily elected as an MP for Franklin in the 2025 state election.  His state election group topped the poll in its own right at traditional Greens Channel area booths of Cygnet, Woodbridge and Middleton, and the combined George group/Greens vote for the state election exceeded the vote for any other party in two thirds of the booths in Huon (the exceptions being mainly in the Huon Valley).  Overall with a rough adjustment for non-booth votes I estimate 2025 state election voting in Huon at Liberal 34.9% George group 20.9% Labor 19.7% Greens 15.1% David O'Byrne 8.4%.  In booth voting at the federal election, Labor only beat George 53.2-46.8 two-candidate preferred within Huon (while thumping the Liberals who have long given up on federal Franklin).  

Elections in Huon often see "favourite son" voting with strong local concentrations of support for candidates near where they live (the 2014 contest had a lot of this especially).

Incumbent

Dean Harriss (Facebook) is seeking a second term after filling the four-year remainder of Seidel's term.  Prior to politics Harriss was a Huonville builder and project manager and third generation A-grade cricketer.  In the last two years' voting patterns reviews I've assessed Harriss's voting pattern as centre-right on a spectrum running from Cassy O'Connor and Meg Webb to the Liberals (noting that this still placed him to the left of the ALP).  In the past four years he has voted with Labor 49% of the time and the Liberals 62% of the time, and most often votes with other conservative-leaning INDs such as Tania Rattray.  While generally joining the major parties in supporting resources industries, he also often seems to have a lot in common with the other independents generally.  Harriss is to my knowledge the only current Tasmanian state politician with Indigenous heritage.

Political disagreements aside, Harriss has not been involved in any personal controversies I am aware of in his term in the Council so far.  A notable event involving Harriss was his discovery of a large typo in the Government's interim supply bill tabled prior to the calling of the 2025 election, which required the figures to be amended - this even though Harriss had no familiarity with budget-speak prior to politics.  

Harriss, with Bec Thomas, was one of the two key independents whose votes the government needed at least one of to pass the stadium without complications.  Here Harriss's position has been a subject of a lot of commentary.  While wanting to see the AFL team which depended on the stadium go ahead, Harriss raised concerns about aspects of the approval and design process and the state of budget repair and obtained various commitments albeit not all he had asked for (his letter and the government's response were tabled and can be read here.)  (See stadium section below.)  

Challengers (5)

(Note: candidates may contact me once only to request a change to the link their name goes to, or additional links which will be added, or not, at my discretion and subject to my time.  I don't want to receive long emails or lobbying.  I will be mostly offline during mid to late April.  No other changes will be made on request except to correct clear factual errors, and I reserve the right not to correct errors caused by a candidate failing to keep their linkedin up to date. Any differences in the length of different candidate sections reflect differences in amount of available/(in my view) interesting material; candidate sections tend to be longer when candidates have past electoral form.) 

Challengers are listed in order of the timing of the first readily accessible announcement I could find.  All Huon candidates are believed to live in the electorate unless stated otherwise.  

Clare Glade-Wright (Facebook, candidacy announcement, linkedin)  is an independent candidate and the current Deputy Mayor of Kingborough.  She was elected as a Kingborough Councillor in a 2021 by-election and then led on primaries in the Deputy race in 2022 with 21.4% in a field of six, winning easily after preferences.  Glade-Wright ran for Franklin in the 2024 state election polling 1126 votes (1.6%).  Glade-Wright is a former ecotourism operator.  She is often associated with the community independents/teal movement and is endorsed by the Voices for Franklin group (not to be confused with Voices for Tasmania which was prominent in the 2024 election, though Michael Roberts who was the leader of it is her campaign agent).  More significantly I suspect, she is also endorsed by Peter George.  

Abby McKibben (Facebook, candidacy announcement, instgram, linkedin) is the endorsed Labor candidate. McKibben is the Manager of Communications, Engagement and Marketing at the Hobart City Council and is also co-owner and director of a pepper berry farm at Geeveston.  She has previously worked in marketing at Huon Acquaculture and in IT and business in Hong Kong.  McKibben's only previous political tilt known to me was a run for Huon Council in 2009 where she fairly narrowly missed out, polling 5% and finishing sixth in a race for five seats.

Michael Rowan (Facebook) is an independent candidate. He is a retired acadamic whose Doctor of Philosophy actually was in philosophy ("Hume, probability and induction" - very sound material here) and is now a frequent commentator for the Mercury, Tasmanian Times etc on education and also climate change and environmental issues.  In 2024 Rowan was prominent in debate about Tasmania's dire secondary education retention rates, appearing in panels with Saul Eslake and Lisa Denny.  He has an interest in the application of philosophy to environmental problems and a separate website on this subject. Rowan ran for Kingborough Council in 2022 polling 2%.  

Paul Gibson (Facebook) is the endorsed Greens candidate. Gibson is a Greens councillor on Huon Valley Council, who was the third candidate elected in 2018 with 7.3% of the vote, then again third elected in 2022 with 11% (I didn't say "re-elected" because the two Greens councillors actually resigned their seats in the leadup to the 2022 election in protest over the council's handling of the extremely controversial appointment of a now-departed General Manager).  Gibson also ran for Mayor in 2022 finishing second to Sally Doyle 44.3-55.7.  Gibson is an architect and builder and is also the partner of Greens' Leader Rosalie Woodruff.  

Tyler Petersen (Facebook, Instagram, linkedin) is an independent candidate.  He is currently Operations Manager at Rotor-Lift and has worked in hospitality and pubs in Tasmania and originally the USA.  He also at one stage part-owned Phat Fish Bar, a Salamanca seafood restaurant.  As far as I'm aware he has no prior political form.  His campaign material generally comes across to me as soft-left and services-focused and as likely to fit in with several of the other independents in the parliament; for instance he has networked with the electorally invincible Murchison MLC Ruth Forrest on Marinus Link.  

Not Running

The Liberal Party has shown no interest in contesting this seat, and ultimately didn't nominate. The Liberals generally only run against incumbents who annoy them a lot and it seems they would rather leave the seat to Harriss and focus on Rosevears after a somewhat embarrassing fourth place finish in 2022.  Eric Abetz in parliament recently referred to Harriss as 'the excellent local member for Huon' or similar.

Issues

Issues noted on the campaign trail will be listed here.  This list is not comprehensive or in order and issues may be added over time.  The presence of an item on the list does not necessarily mean it will sway votes, only that it is being talked about.  

1. The Stadium:  Although the contentious Macquarie Point stadium has been approved, it will continue to be talked about in particular from the perspective of inevitable cost blowouts.  Harriss and Thomas obtained commitments for their votes in favour, but will the commitments be honoured in full and how can they be enforced now that the stadium is on and nobody will want to kill it off?  Glade-Wright, who was at an early stage supportive of the stadium, posted in September that she'd changed her mind and now thought the stadium was "not sensible".  Labor voted for the stadium and the Greens voted against it.  The stadium is not a particularly big issue in Huon (part of Franklin which is overall the electorate where it gets closest to an even mix of support and opposition) but we won't get away from it on the campaign trail anyway.  

2. Rural Health: Rural health was the keystone issue of Labor's huge win in this seat in 2020 but the question is can they do it again or was it a one-off Tassie Labor case of doctor power (see Macarthur, Robertson, Bega etc).  Rural health along with childcare were highlighted by McKibben in her opening announcements.  Petersen has suggested that government interventions while welcome have suffered from being top-down.

3. Fisheries: Just to have something to talk about other than salmon all the time it's worth noting here that the entire coastline of Huon is affected by the recent ban on catching sand flathead due to overfishing. (Harriss criticised the government's original announcement of a review and said it needed to be more thorough). But salmon will also be on the menu as Huon was ground zero for Peter George's federal and state election campaigns on the issue.  The salmon industry's usage of the antibiotic florfenicol has recently been in the news, with the permit to use this antibiotic recently revoked.  The salmon issue particularly pits Glade-Wright and Gibson (as candidates raising environmental concerns about the industry, Rowan also expressed concerns in answer to a questioner on his site) against Harriss who has also criticised the government for breaching pre-election commitments to the industry.  Interestingly, McKibben has actually worked in the industry.

4. The Budget: Tasmania is in what is known technically as deep budgetary doo-dah as the state's debt continues to rise.  Outside of the stadium (which is opposed in the name of budget restraint mostly but not exclusively by people who never liked it anyway) I haven't seen a lot of debate about it in the context of Huon but with the Budget coming I expect there will be plenty.

5. Cost of living:  For years the staple of election campaigns everywhere (though I wouldn't expect the LegCo to have that much impact on it), this was starting to recede but there's nothing like $2.40 a litre for petrol to return it to number 1 on the doors.  

More issues may be added.  

Campaign

Campaign style issues and incidents may be noted here.  

1. Polarised Politics?  I evaluated the voting pattern at the 2025 Tasmanian state election as showing an increase in polarisation.  Votes moved from Labor to the Liberals, but on the other hand the non-major vote moved more to candidates with a stronger political identity than in 2024.  So it was interesting to see McKibben say that voters are actually sick of polarisation and want to hear more about services.  I doubt this line will do Harriss that much damage (he does tend to support controversial industries but then again so do Labor) but what do voters tossing up between Labor and anti-fishfarm candidates make of this?

2. Corflute Reports: Over Easter I spent time in parts of Huon travelling up and down the highway through Huonville to the far south.  The most corflutes were seen for, in order, Harriss, McKibben closely followed by Glade-Wright, then Gibson.  Good numbers of the first three at least and plenty of Glade-Wright in areas not near Kingborough.  

Prospects

Recontesting Legislative Council incumbents have an extremely high success rate.  In the last two cycles recontesting incumbents have won 19 times (mostly very easily) and lost just 3.  However, Huon in 2020 was the last case where a recontesting incumbent lost, Labor nearly won again in Huon 2022 (and usually does well in the south), and the support for green politics in the area is very high, so this defence is of some interest.  When incumbents do lose the reasons look obvious in retrospect, but because this doesn't happen often it is really hard to see it coming in advance.  (I predicted only one of these three losses, Rumney 2017).  

It seems highly likely that Harriss will make the final two, and indeed if there is no Liberal candidate in a field full of at least nominally left options I would expect him to be ahead, perhaps a lot ahead, on primaries.  Assuming that's the case the question then is what the gap is and is there a strong enough preference flow to anyone else.  In 2022 there wasn't; Labor were unable to fully erase a 12.5% three-candidate gap to Harriss on Greens preferences with only 64% reaching their candidate - the advantage for Harriss of being an independent.   I think that Harriss vs either McKibben (who seems like a stronger than average local Labor candidate) or Gibson would be the most commonly expected final two here, but we will see if that's correct.  It could be that Glade-Wright would actually be a harder opponent if she makes the final two since then the independent advantage for Harriss is lost and preferences from the Greens will flow heavily to her (Labor's I am not so sure about).  

There is a geographic oddness in that all of Harriss, Gibson and McKibben have their highest profile in the Huon Valley so we could see Glade-Wright poll well in the Kingborough booths, and it will be interesting to see where the massive anti-salmon vote along the Channel goes between Glade-Wright and the Greens; how much of the state George result is repeatable with a medium-profile candidate?  The problem for all challenger indies is that Harriss will suck up a lot of the independent-for-an-independent's-sake vote in this electorate, and I also think he's done far more than Armstrong did to avoid the dreaded "closet Liberal" tag.  

There is a fair chance the order of exclusion in this seat will not be clear on the night.  I should also note that there have been cases in the past where incumbents (including Harriss snr) retained Huon easily despite perceptions they were in for a tough fight,

At least two of the challenging campaign teams are saying they are encountering very low name recognition for the incumbent on the doors and that on that basis they think that they have a chance.  We shall see.

Nightcliff By-Election (This May Be A Very Short Thread)

Just a quick thread on the Nightcliff by-election (NT) caused by the resignation of the Greens' Kat Macnamara. NT elections don't have many booths and at present we're waiting for the big prepoll which is most of the count, with Suki Dorras-Walker (Grn) leading Ed Smelt (ALP) by 22 votes 2CP 536-514 on the 2CP votes counted so far., with a small number counted only to primary  The big EVC could put this one to bed once it reports on primaries and 2CP... or it could be on we go.  

8:05 The primaries from the big prepoll are in and Dorras-Walker 1220 leads Smelt 1051 Paudel (CLP)  738 Scott (IND) 629.  With almost 1000 votes from Paudel and Scott to add, if the flow so far continues Labor will move to a substantial lead.

9:30 Long wait for the bomb to drop ... (apparently the count is done but has not been posted yet)

10:40 Finally up and subject to checking if the votes so far counted it appears that Labor have won as Smelt is 141 ahead after preferences.  Margins over 100 in general stick in the NT.

Sunday: If Labor's lead holds this will be another relatively rare case of a major party beating a non-major from behind on preferences. But this particular scenario (Labor beats Greens on Coalition preferences) is becoming more common.

Monday: A check count has increased Smelt's lead to 158 and confirmed that he will win. A very welcome urban gain for NT Labor after being reduced to four bush MPs in 2024.

Tasmania Redistribution: Draft Scraps The Franklin Divide

 

The much-awaited proposal redistribution of Tasmania's federal (and by normal standards, state) electoral boundaries has been published.  I discussed the challenges facing the Redistribution Committee in my piece Clark Must Expand, But Where?  In the draft proposal, the winner is "south".

The Committee (note, it is not correct to refer to the Committee as "the AEC" as two members are AEC and two are not) has proposed one of the more radical options that was considered in the process.  Somewhat against my expectations based on the large movement of electors, they've decided that the further creep of Clark into Kingston, cutting parts further south off from their urban centre, really was unsustainable and it is now time to bite the bullet.  They have recommended the southern boundaries of Clark, Lyons and Franklin as proposed by former Clarence Mayor Doug Chipman (there was a similar proposal by current Clarence Councillor James Walker).  Clark becomes Hobart City, Kingborough and the Huon Valley, Franklin becomes Clarence, Brighton, Sorell and the lower and central east coast and Lyons becomes, well, whatever that is.  In the north they've gone for the orthodox approach of Blackstone Heights and Prospect Vale into Bass, so I don't think anybody got their exact suggestion in full.  

Why Did One Nation Win 11 Seats In Queensland 1998 But None In 1998 Federal?

The One Nation party (which I am on the verge of restyling Wuss Nation after its sobbing about its poor supporters being traumatised by filling out ballot papers) has been attacking compulsory preferential voting in the leadup to the South Australian election.

Linked into this I came across a narrative from Pauline Hanson which I thought deserved detailed examination.  Interviewed on Sky (and yet again, where else) Hanson told the tale of how in 1998 her party won eleven seats from scratch in the 1998 Queensland election and noted that it was optional preferential voting.  Then she moved on to the 1998 federal election where although her party won over a million votes, all the other parties recommended preferences against One Nation and they didn't win any seats.  Famously she lost Blair where the major parties cross-recommended against her.  

She doesn't in this excerpt mention what became of those eleven Queensland seats.  Every single one of those MPs quit the party or the parliament by the end of the 1998-2001 term, though One Nation did retain two of those seats and win a third with different candidates.    But my interest here is, is there really any causal link between the current OPV/CPV debate and what happened in those two elections?  Or are the explanations different?  A warning that this article is very numbery and has been graded Wonk Factor 4/5.

Tall Cories: Bernardi's Bunkum About Preferences

I was going to leave a comment about this until the next SA roundup but I feel that Cory Bernardi's nonsense about compulsory preferential voting should be dealt with a little faster than that.  Normally writing a whole article about what may well have just been a two-word misspeak might be considered mountain/molehill territory.  However Bernardi's statement has been reported uncritically by at least one media source, circulated by the party, and strangest by far, given a free pass on social media by some people who have brains.  

One Nation have also claimed off the back of Bernardi's comments that "we will make preference deals a thing of the past by giving voters the choice to distribute their preferences or not. "  But in fact optional preferencing doesn't do that.  It reduces the rate of deals as some parties choose not to recommend preferences, but many parties do still recommend preferences (which is what people often mean when they say "preference deals") and may negotiate about these decisions (actual deals).  There were several accusations about "preference deals" in the 2023 NSW state election.  

EMRS: What Happens When You Take A Mess And Then Throw In One Nation?

EMRS Lib 29 (-5) ALP 23 (-2) Green 15 (-2) IND 15 (-4) ON 14 (new) others 4 (-1)

Seat estimate off this poll if election "held now" Lib 10-13 ALP 9-10 Grn 5 ON 4 IND 4-5 SFF 0-1

EMRS have released basic details of the first Tasmanian voting intention poll to include One Nation in the readout (I will add a link to the full report when it is up).  One Nation are in the process of registering for state elections but are not registered yet.  This follows a federal poll for the state they released on Friday.  

The addition of One Nation has immediately seen them record a substantial 14%, but this is well below the 24% they recorded in the Tasmanian federal poll, with the Liberal vote in particular holding up much better.  One Nation's gains have come from across the board, but especially from a government that was already down on its election result in the previous poll, meaning that when this poll is compared with the election, most of the 14 points is at the expense of the Government which is down 11.  Labor and the Greens are not so far off their state marker, Independents may in effect be down somewhat given that Tasmanian state polls offering a generic "independent" option tend to overestimate election support for independents by about 4 points.

South Australia 2026: What Can The Right Still Win?

Polling for SA election is very lopsided with right very fragmented

Estimate if Newspoll is correct: approx 1 Liberal and 3 One Nation seats

Off YouGov: approx 4 Liberal and 1-2 One Nation seats

Polling may moderate by election day

------------------------------------------------------------

I've been hoping for enough material to start substantial coverage of the South Australian election and it's finally arrived with polls by Newspoll and YouGov.  Prior to that there had been a string of extremely lopsided polls last year, and a Fox&Hedgehog poll in a similar vein early last week.  The YouGov poll pretty much replicates Fox&Hedgehog's finding that the conservative side is split in two with the Liberals bleeding greatly to One Nation while Labor enjoys a massive lead.  The Newspoll is even worse for the Liberals and could (if it happened) even wipe them out completely.  My estimate is that on average for the Newspoll voting intentions the Liberals would win one seat and One Nation about three, and for the YouGov poll that the Liberals might manage three or four and One Nation just one or two; it's possible there will be about as many (or more) independents as right-party MPs.  However there is a lot still to unfold with where One Nation support goes during the campaign and whether the Liberals can improve.  

What is suggested by the polls so far really aint supposed to happen.  The Malinauskas government is only at the end of its first term, but it is federally dragged, and not even by a first term federal government at that.  John Bannon in 1985 was the last State Premier to get a seat share swing at all in that circumstance.  But these are incredible times in polling and Peter Malinauskas is very popular (with a +40 Newspoll netsat).  At the same time we have what looks like a severe disruption if not a realignment on the right nationally and the SA Libs are a disaster zone.   One has to roll one's eyes repeatedly at news that "Liberal strategists" are hoping for a sympathy vote they don't deserve and trying to argue that a viable opposition is needed.  That worked so well for the similarly hapless outfit that was reduced to two seats in WA 2021.  

Farrer By-Election 2026

Farrer (Lib vs IND 6.2%, Lib vs ALP 12.9%)
By-Election 9 May
Cause of by-election resignation of Sussan Ley (Lib)

The rolling of Sussan Ley as leader of a floundering Liberal Party has led to a fascinating by-election for her seat of Farrer.  This guide will be updated from time to time with any polling news and with items of interest re candidates etc.  I will be providing live coverage on the night of May 9.

Farrer

Much of the electoral history of Farrer has been told in Antony Green's post here.  It has had just four MPs since 1949, three Liberals and a National.  Until very recently it had only ever been of the slightest interest when vacant.  Tim Fischer easily won the seat for the Nationals at the 1984 general election.  On his retirement in 2001 Sussan Ley gained it for the Liberals by 206 votes after preferences, the result being so close only because Labor ran and recommended preferences to the Nationals.

The seat has never been 2PP-competitive, only sneaking into technical 2PP-marginal territory by a handful of votes in 1972.  It saw its first serious independent attempt when Albury Mayor Kevin Mack ran against Ley in 2019.  This attempt was so hyped that betting agencies gave Mack a roughly even chance of winning but Ley won very easily, clearing 50% on primaries with a 60.9% 2CP.  

Until the 2025 election Ley had the longest active streak of wins on first preferences in the parliament (seven) but the challenge from Voices of Farrer and Climate200 endorsed Michelle Milthorpe severely dented Ley's primary vote and Ley finished up with only a 6.2% margin after preferences.  However, Farrer remained one of the most conservative seats in the country, ranking 11th on Coalition House of Reps 2PP down from 8th in 2022.  Some might think its 2PP being near the top of the list was down to Ley's personal vote but this is actually not true at all; on above the line Senate 2PP Farrer was in fact the Coalition's fourth best seat nationwide. 

Who's in the mix?

There are five four possibly competitive forces in Farrer.  Comments re candidates will be added when known but this is not intended as a candidate guide. 

* Liberals.  Will contest.  Justin Clancy (MP for Albury (Lib 16.3%)) was reported as a possible Liberal contender (setting up a scenario where he and Helen Dalton might both resign their state seats to run) but isn't running.  The candidate is Raissa Butkowski, a 

* Nationals.  Will contest.  The Nationals candidate is Brad Robertson, a former military commander.

* One Nation.  Will contest. Sooner than they might have liked, One Nation faces a potential get off the pot moment.  If their national polling is still as high as at present following the change in Liberal leadership then they would be expected to poll strongly in this by-election and failure to do so would damage their momentum and raise some questions about their standing in the polls. The One Nation candidate is David Farley, a prominent agricultural businessman.  As is common with One Nation candidates he already has a problematic past comment that has resurfaced - but this one is also attracting more endorsements than most.  Oh, more trouble - he claims it was an accident.  (Three times?)

* Milthorpe (IND).  Will contest. Michelle Milthorpe immediately announced she would run for Farrer again.  

Also-rans 

Interesting by-elections often attract large fields of uncompetitive micro-party and obscure independent candidates, some of whom are often paper candidates from nowhere near the electorate.  

* The Greens' candidate is Richard Hendrie. 

* Family First (v 2) immediately announced they would re-run Rebecca Scriven who polled 2.15% in 2025. I have not been able to verify from her S44 declaration whether Scriven is eligible for election or not - though she plausibly could be - as this apparently depends on her year of birth.

* Gerard Rennick People First announced they were running, to the vivid interest of nobody; they came last with 2.02% in 2025.  Their candidate, James Bonniefin, as best I can tell has never lived in the electorate.

* Sustainable Australia is running Lucas James Ellis.

* Gary Pappin is an independent and a councillor on Murray River Council.  He has experience in mining, farming and water resource management.  Pappin is a Mutthi Mutthi man who has had a significant role in management of the Mungo National Park and the Willandra Lakes Region World Heritage Area.  Pappin doesn't seem to be any kind of easily classifiable independent, I would probably have put him under group 5 (others) in my federal election article.

* Legalise Cannabis are running Aimee Lee Pearson.  It appears she is ineligible for election as her S44 checklist says that she has applied to renounce New Zealand citizenship but has not received the renunciation yet.  

* Roger Woodward is a serial independent candidate with a pretty random collection of policies who has also run in Cook and Berowra.  He does not live in the electorate (in fact he lives in Hornsby in Berowra).  

* The Shooters Fishers and Farmers candidate is Peter Sinclair.

Not Contesting

* Dalton (IND) Helen Dalton is the state MP for the district of Murray, which is the western end of Farrer.  She won the seat in 2019 as an endorsed Shooters, Fishers and Farmers candidate but running a largely independent-style campaign.  She quit said party in 2022 over water issues, and was returned as an independent in 2023 with an outright majority in a field of ten candidates.  Dalton was already canvassing a possible run for Farrer in 2028.  She would have to resign her state seat to contest.  On Mar 6 Dalton confirmed she would not contest.  

* Labor:  I did not believe Labor could have be competitive if they ran and I could not see much reason for them to risk embarrassment by doing so, so I was not surprised they decided not to bother.  Independents will miss that portion of their Labor preferences that comes from how to vote cards, but it is also possible in such a crowded field that an ALP run could have squeezed out independents and stopped them winning.

* Jordi Queiruga (IND): Announced running, has notified me he has withdrawn, website taken down.

* The unregistered Riverina State Party (which supports a new state covering the Victorian/NSW border areas) expressed interest in running but this may have been contingent on its registration being approved in time, which didn't happen.  The party submitted a list of 1646 putative members to the AEC in late October 2025 but has not been advertised yet.  The advertising phase followed by AEC assessment takes more than a month and party registration froze once the writ was issued for the by-election.  (I've heard they may have passed AEC checking prior to advertising.)

Prospects

This section will be edited where needed to update it.  As of 15 March we have a messy four-way battle where it is not obvious who the final two will be.    The AEC will have a challenging task in picking which candidate pair to use for the notional two-candidate count on the night (they may go with Liberal vs Milthorpe just because those were the final two last time, though there has been one poll suggesting One Nation could make the final two.)

Farrer is a relatively strong seat for One Nation, but not super strong.  Their Reps primary of just an average 6.6% is misleading because it would have been affected by Milthorpe and the relatively large field.  In the Senate, One Nation polled 9.96% in Farrer, compared to a NSW total of 6.06%.  If their national polling swing is real and flows through to Farrer they should be looking at a primary of at very least high 20s and probably much more (because One Nation tend to get inflated swings in strong areas) - but it's not that simple.

At the 2025 election, minor right preferences did not assist Ley vs Milthorpe, with One Nation, Family First and GRPF breaking only slightly to her and Trumpet of Patriots and Shooters Fishers and Farmers preferences breaking to Milthorpe.  This suggests a lot of the voters in Farrer while anti-Labor aren't wildly pro-Coalition either and are looking for any alternative ahead of the majors (something we also saw with strong ON flows to independents in the 2022 SA election).  I'd expect on that basis that any independents that run and One Nation are to a more than obvious degree fishing in the same pond.  Perhaps this will make it hard for One Nation to get a really high primary - but it is also a problem for the independent.  

It is possible that Milthorpe could get a large enough primary from many of the seat's non-conservative voters to lead on primaries, with the question then being how strong are the flows between the conservative parties and in what order they are knocked out.  Butkowski seems a good choice by the Liberals to attempt to cover off against Milthorpe.  

Dalton would have been a dangerous opponent on preferences had she run and made the final two, but with a splintered vote and having to sit between Milthorpe and One Nation it could have been hard for her to do so.

The South Australian election showed generally not very good performances by rural/regional independents, with One Nation polling fully as well as their polling implied.  

All kinds of modelling and calculations may be entered into as to what might occur here but in a rural electorate and with this being a by-election and not a general, I suspect a lot of it will be about candidate quality and the outcome could therefore be quite different from any modelling attempt.  

Polls etc

Single-seat polling is unreliable.

An Australia Institute seat poll (presumably a uComms poll) was reported on 9 Mar taken sometime between 5 and 9 Mar with "One Nation topped the count at 28.6 per cent of the total, followed by independent Ms Milthorpe (23.3 per cent), the Liberal Party (19.1 per cent), Labor (not running - 9 per cent), undecided voters (8.6 per cent) and the Greens (3.9 per cent), and the remaining 2.3 per cent favoured another party or candidate."  The news.com.au report omitted a feeble 5.2% for the Nationals.  While the media report said 64.1% of the non-One Nation voters would not consider voting for them at all ... which doesn't necessarily mean they won't preference them.  After reallocating Labor and undecided thanks to the full poll report (with a few minor design issues not helping) I estimate the primaries at One Nation 31.4 Milthorpe 29.4 Liberal 21.7 National 7.4 Green 5.4 other 2.7 (an underestimate as other was excluded from the undecided voter follow-up), unaccounted for 1.8.  Note that Milthorpe's support could be overestimated by her being named, so there's actually a good chance here that the final two would be One Nation vs Liberal, making it possible the Liberals could retain on Milthorpe and Greens preferences.  As with many uComms polls the 18-34 age group is curiously conservative looking in this poll.  A question in the form "who do you least want to win" gets One Nation 37.1 Milthorpe 29.5 Liberal 22.2 National 11.2.   

In non-poll news:

A projection tweeted by the 6 News @auspoll6 Twitter account (with One Nation very narrowly winning) was incorrectly claimed to be a poll by some accounts despite being explicitly labelled as a projection based off Newspoll and as not being a by-election prediction.  The tweet has now been deleted following criticism, including from Pyxis who conduct Newspoll.  What was not stated in the tweet was that the projection (with One Nation narrowly beating Liberal) was not even a uniform swing projection off Newspoll but was a projection of what would happen in Farrer if a general election was held now based on various (as far as I'm aware) unpublished assumptions about how the primary votes found by Newspoll would be reflected in particular seats.  There is a danger even if someone grasps that such a model is a projection of them thinking that there is one particular way to project a seat off a national poll, or even that projecting a seat off a national poll is any kind of reliable exercise.  

Other projections such as MRP outputs are of limited value too.  MRP outputs are meant to be collectively indicative of groups of seat types, and not reliable for a single seat at the best of times.  But also they are not designed for by-elections.  For a by-election what we want to see is seat-specific polling, preferably neutrally commissioned, transparent and certainly without any "aided vote" preambles.

Betting

Amusingly, seat betting has been seen.  Seat betting is not reliably predictive.  As of 16 Feb an early offering was NAT 2.00 Ind 2.99 ON 4.50 Lib 4.75 ALP 34 Greens 67.  

23 Feb: Ind 2.50 Nat 2.60 ON 3.50 Lib 7 ALP 51 Greens 101

5 Mar: Ind 1.91 Nat 3.40 ON 4.33 Lib 7 ALP 51 Greens 101

As of 13 Mar the above odds hadn't moved, a different site had Ind 1.65 ON 2.75 Nat 4.50 Lib 8.00.  On 15 Mar Ind was out to 1.75 and Nat in to 3.75 on that one.  

16 Mar: Second market now at Ind 1.90 ON 2.40 Nat 3.75 Lib 9.00. 

18 Mar: Both markets similar now: Ind 2 ON 2.60 Nat 5.10 Lib 8.00 vs Ind 1.85 ON 2.5 Nat 5.50 Lib 9.00 

24 Mar: 1.95/2.39/6.40/8.50 vs 1.80/2.30/7.50/8.00

8 April: One is offline, the second is 1.75/1.95/9/13, so the market increasingly sees this as a Milthorpe vs One Nation race.

More will be added through the campaign.