Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zareh Ghazarian, Associate Professor in Politics and International Relations, School of Social Sciences, Monash University
One Nation’s performance in the South Australian election has been rightly identified as a significant moment in Australian politics. Since the end of the second world war, the Labor and the coalition between the Liberal and National parties have dominated national and state parliaments.
Last weekend’s result indicates the major political forces, especially the Coalition, have a lot of work to do to convince voters to support them in forthcoming electoral contests.
But while Australian electoral appetites and political conditions have changed, there’s no doubt the parties have too.
Minor party success: a long time coming
There have been signs Australians have been tempted to support non-major parties over recent decades. In the Senate, the emergence of the Australian Democrats in the aftermath of the Whitlam dismissal signalled that the domination of the major parties was under threat. Since then, parties including the Australian Greens, One Nation and the Jacqui Lambie Network have held seats in the chamber.
While their victories have been aided by the voting system used in the Senate, the voting patterns of Australians has been clear. In 1993, 86.5% of Australians voted for a major party in the Senate. In 2025 it was just 64.8%.
The number of Australians voting for a non-major party candidate has also been growing in the House of Representatives, a chamber in which minor parties have traditionally found it very difficult to win representation.
In 1993, the vote for non-major party candidates was just 10.8%, but in 2025 it was 33.6%. This was the first time the non-major party vote was higher than the first preference vote for the Coalition.
These results show Australians have been growing more comfortable in voting for a minor party that has advanced specific issues, and that have often been ignored by Labor and the Coalition. The idea that major parties will continue to enjoy the support of “rusted on” voters appears shaky.
One Nation as a viable alternative?
The core policy focus of One Nation has remained steady since it emerged in 1997. It is sceptical about the benefits of globalisation and immigration, and has consistently pursued what it has seen as straightforward responses to policy challenges.
In One Nation’s first iteration, these messages resonated with communities, especially after the impact of the recession and economic rationalist settings of successive governments in the 1990s.
In its first contest, One Nation won about 23% of the primary vote in the 1998 Queensland state election, ending up with 11 seats in the parliament. Its progress in national politics was halted when the major parties deprived One Nation of preferences. The party also experienced internal instability and looked like a spent force throughout the early 2000s.
During this time the Coalition was also looking like a powerful and cohesive entity. While the Howard government was defeated in 2007, the coalition parties remained competitive until they returned to power in 2013. Since then, the Liberal Party has experienced leadership changes and struggles over major policy matters including climate change.
In the 21st century, One Nation hasn’t fallen into traps that can unsettle parties. The party hasn’t appeared confused about its policy focus, nor has it demonstrated leadership turmoil at a national level. The party looks to be steady and focused on key policy debates.
This has contrasted with the Coalition. At the national level, the partnership has ended and restarted twice in the past year. Additionally, ongoing debates about the Liberal Party’s policy direction has continued to fuel internal instability across the states. The chasm between Liberals who favour more socially progressive policies and those who wish to steer the party further to the right of politics continues to be apparent.
The Liberal Party in trouble
Within this context, voters who decided to support a right-of-centre party in South Australia were comfortable voting for One Nation.
The outcome of the election doesn’t seem to be the result of voters raging against established parties.
Labor, which had been in government for one term, would have expected to lose some support. Its primary vote in the lower house of 37.7% was just 2.3% lower than what it achieved four years ago. Its primary vote in the upper house actually rose by 0.3% to 37.3%.
In contrast, the Liberal Party’s primary vote fell by almost 17%, to just 19% in the lower house. The move away from the Liberal Party appeared to go almost entirely to One Nation, which enjoyed a lift in its primary vote of almost 20% to 22.1%. A similar outcome can be seen in the upper house as the Liberal vote fell by 17%, while One Nation’s vote went up by almost 20% to 23.9%.
It should also be noted that One Nation remains in the box seat to win seats in the upper and lower houses thanks to the Liberal Party’s preferences.
Those with longer memories will recall we’ve been here before. One Nation’s initial success in Australian politics was short-lived. This time, however, the party appears to be in a much more secure position. Organisationally, it appears robust and its electoral support seems to be on an upward trajectory.
The next contest for One Nation will be the byelection in federal seat of Farrer. The biggest test for the resurgent party will be in November when Victorians go to the polls.
As long as the Liberal Party continues to demonstrate policy uncertainty and internal instability, One Nation will be there to capture the support of right-of-centre voters in Australia.
– ref. One Nation surge 2.0: this time there are structural issues at play – https://theconversation.com/one-nation-surge-2-0-this-time-there-are-structural-issues-at-play-279088
Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/25/one-nation-surge-2-0-this-time-there-are-structural-issues-at-play-279088/