Farrer By-election: A Seismic Shift or Protest Vote? - May 2026

One Nation’s convincing victory in last weekend’s Farrer by-election delivered the party it’s first victory in a House of Representatives seat in its 29-year history. Only the future will determine if this is a one-off or a sign of things to come, but for now the result demonstrates how economic structure, demographic change and political behaviour are now tightly interwoven across regional Australia.

This was not a narrow or accidental upset. One Nation secured over 57% of the two-candidate-preferred vote, driven by a dramatic surge in primary vote support from 6.6% in 2025 to 39.5%. This makes Farrer technically a safe One Nation seat.

At the same time, the Liberal Party’s primary vote collapsed from over 43% to roughly 12% (+10% for the National Party). These are not marginal shifts; they reflect a wholesale realignment.

This was the first election in Australia’s history where no major party ended up in the Two Party Preferred (TPP) vote breakdown. Independent Michelle Milthorpe came in second with 28.4% of the primary vote and 42.5% TPP after preferences were distributed.

Over the coming two years rural and regional MPs will be nervous and commentators will be busy monitoring opinion polls, performing vox pops and reading the tea leaves to try to determine if the Farrer result was a by-election protest or a portent of a structural shift in Australian politics away from the traditional two-party system in line with the recent election of a variety of “Teal” Independents.

The Geography of Discontent

The Farrer result aligns closely with the underlying socio-economic structure of the electorate. Farrer is a large, predominantly rural division spanning more than 126,000 square kilometres, encompassing dispersed agricultural communities and small towns across southern NSW. According to Census data, it has:

• A median age of 42, higher than both NSW (39) and the national average (38)

• A comparatively modest median weekly household income of $1,390.

These figures indicate an electorate that is older, less affluent, and more economically exposed to structural change.

Across Australia more broadly, demographic data shows that a disproportionate share of older Australians live outside major cities, with 34% of people aged 65+ residing in rural and regional areas. This ageing trend is particularly pronounced in inland regions, where population decline, natural decrease, and limited inward migration are well-documented structural features.

At the macro level, population growth is also uneven:

• Capital cities grew by 1.8% in 2024–25

• Regional Australia grew by just 1.1%

This slower growth is not just a number - it reflects weaker labour market dynamism, lower investment attraction, and reduced service provision. These conditions shape political sentiment.

Albury: A Counterfactual Within the Same Seat

Crucially, Farrer is not homogeneous. The result must be understood through internal contrasts — particularly between smaller towns and regional hubs like Albury.

Albury represents a fundamentally different economic model:

• Population ~59,500 (2025 estimate)

• 1.3% annual population growth (2018–23)

• Gross Regional Product of ~$5.02 billion

• Unemployment around 4.4%

Its economy is also structurally diversified:

• Over 50% of output linked to sectors like health care, real estate and services

• Major employment in healthcare, construction, and education

This is the profile of a modern regional service economy, with stronger institutional bases (hospital, university, logistics networks) and resilience to shocks affecting agriculture or small business alone.

The political consequence is predictable: areas with economic growth, job diversity and population inflow tend to produce different voting behaviours to communities experiencing stagnation or decline.

In the by-election this contrast was reflected in a sharp difference in voting patterns. Voters in Albury gave 40% primary vote to Independent Michelle Milthorpe vs 26.7% to One Nation. In comparison, this switched in the rest of the electorate with non-Albury voters giving 43.5% to One Nation and 25% to Milthorpe.

Economic Structure as Political Driver

The deeper story in Farrer is not simply “cost of living pressure” — although that featured heavily in the campaign — but the interaction between economic structure and perceived opportunity. Research consistently shows:

• Regional Australia has slower population growth and weaker migration inflows compared to cities

• Smaller inland towns face ageing populations and service withdrawal risks

While the income story is more nuanced, the lived experience in many agricultural and small-town communities is shaped less by raw income and more by:

• Limited job diversification

• Reduced access to services (health, education, infrastructure)

• Perceptions of long-term decline

The Farrer campaign itself amplified these concerns, particularly around:

• Healthcare funding

• Water policy impacts

• Cost pressures on irrigators

These are highly localised issues that do not resonate strongly in metropolitan electorates but are central to regional political identity.

A Political Realignment

It is tempting to frame this result as a protest. The data suggests something more significant. One Nation did not merely win preferences — it dominated the primary vote, reaching nearly 40%. That level of support indicates: 

• A consolidation of disaffected conservative voters

• A transfer of loyalty from the Coalition, not just a temporary swing

This is particularly important given that the Coalition has held Farrer continuously since its formation in 1949. The drop from ~43% primary vote to ~22% (combined) represents not just a temporary dissatisfaction but structural erosion of its voter base. To put this in perspective, over all elections in Farrer from 1949-2025, the average combined primary vote result for Coalition candidates was over 57%.

The unknown issue here is how much of that drop is specific to a by-election not electing the next government (Labor didn’t even run a candidate), therefore giving voters a chance to make a tactical protest vote. Only the next general election will provide clarity on that question.

Implications: A Dividing Australia

The result underscores a broader and increasingly visible pattern:

1. Intra-regional divides matter as much as metro vs regional - Albury’s economic trajectory contrasts sharply with smaller communities in the same electorate. Political behaviour reflects this divergence.

2. Demographics are political destiny - older, slower-growing, less economically diversified communities are more likely to shift toward non-major party alternatives.

3. Economic perception matters more than absolute performance - even where regional incomes are competitive in some areas, perceptions of stagnation, decline, or exclusion from growth are powerful drivers of voting behaviour.

Bottom Line

Farrer is not an anomaly — it is a signal. The economy remains the central organising force of political behaviour, but it is not just about growth or inflation; it is about who benefits from economic change, and who feels left behind.

For the Coalition, the threat in regional Australia is now existential, given evidence of large-scale voter transfer.

For Labor, the lesson is equally clear: economic management must extend beyond macro indicators to visible, place-based outcomes in regional communities.

For One Nation, a new question now surfaces – will they remain a protest against the traditional two-party system or seize this opportunity and present themselves as a legitimate political (and dare I say, policy) alternative? History is not on Pauline Hanson’s side as previous victories have often been quickly followed by in-fighting and defection, however Farrer has certainly shown that history alone can not be relied upon when attempting to divine the future in Australian politics.

Ultimately, Farrer demonstrates that electoral outcomes are increasingly shaped not by ideology alone, but by geography, demography and the uneven distribution of economic opportunity. This shift will continue to benefit minor parties and locally-minded independents compared to the nation-wide approach to policy and campaigning taken by the major parties.

For further analysis of this result or broader questions on Australian politics please contact Josh on info@biharyadvisory.com.au

Outcome of the 2026 South Australian State Election - March 2026

‍Overview ‍

South Australia’s 2026 state election delivered a historic landslide re‑election for the Labor Government under Premier Peter Malinauskas, while the result was defined by a significant realignment on the conservative side. 

‍Primary vote shifts (2026 vs 2022)

‍Latest counts indicate the following first‑preference results (approximate figures as votes are still being counted:‍

• Labor: 38% of the primary vote, a small decline of 2 percentage points from 2022. 

• Liberal Party: 19%, sharp decline from 35% in 2022. 

• One Nation: 21%, surging by 19 points from a low 2–3% in 2022.  ‍ ‍

The result marks the first time in SA electoral history that the Liberals fell to third place on the primary vote behind One Nation.  ‍ ‍

Rise of One Nation ‍

One Nation’s dramatic surge—its strongest showing in nearly 30 years—reflects a consolidation of conservative and anti‑establishment sentiment, particularly in regional and outer‑suburban electorates. Although unlikely to secure many lower‑house seats due to preference flows, its influence on the political narrative and the realignment of the right‑wing vote is substantial. 

‍Decline of the Liberal Party‍ ‍

The Liberals experienced an historic collapse, projected to secure only four lower‑house seats—its worst result since federation. Losses occurred across both metropolitan and regional strongholds, driven by voter drift to Labor in urban areas and to One Nation in the regions. Of note, some Liberal candidates placed fourth or fifth in multiple seats, including in traditional Liberal strongholds, and their vote fragmented due to independents and conservative competitors and a perception of leadership instability and weak policy differentiation with Labor. The Liberals are unlikely to function as an effective opposition in the short term, increasing the policy influence of crossbench and minor parties.‍ ‍

Key health policy priorities of the re‑elected Labor Government‍ ‍

While the election narrative centred on cost‑of‑living and economic stability, Premier Peter Malinauskas reaffirmed an ongoing commitment (as opposed to new campaign promises) to Labor’s health system capacity and access agenda, with improved performance and investment core pillars of his renewed mandate. Specifically:‍ ‍

• Healthcare workforce expansion – continuing recruitment drives for doctors, nurses and allied health including financial incentives for GPs relocating to SA.‍ ‍

• Hospital infrastructure upgrades – maintaining investment programs initiated in the first term including expansion of transition care capacity (250 beds).

• Strengthening emergency care capacity – ongoing reforms targeting ambulance ramping and ED wait times.

• ‍Preventive health & community care – emphasis on chronic disease prevention, mental health, and early‑intervention services.

• Strengthening regional access via Patient Assistance Transport Scheme reforms.‍ ‍

Federal implications ‍

• The scale of Labor’s victory strengthens the political authority of a state premier aligned with the Federal Government, creating smoother intergovernmental cooperation on national health policy.

• One Nation’s rise—largely driven by cost‑of‑living and healthcare accessibility grievances—may increase federal scrutiny on health equity, regional service gaps, and medicine availability.‍ ‍

• Stronger state–federal alignment may accelerate coordinated initiatives in digital health, real‑time prescribing, and integrated care trials.

• State hospital investment supports increased demand forecasting for hospital-based therapies, biologics, and specialty treatments.

• Political pressure on affordability—with cost‑of‑living a dominant electoral theme—may intensify federal efforts to control medicine prices and expedite generic/biosimilar market entry.

• Rise of populist sentiment (via One Nation) adds new pressure on health system responsiveness, with potential calls for local manufacturing incentives or supply-chain sovereignty initiatives and added scepticism of large/global institutions (including pharma).

• Weakening of Liberal brand may influence federal policy positioning, particularly on healthcare funding and PBS settings.

‍Implications for stakeholder engagement ‍

Pharmaceutical companies should prepare for:‍ ‍

• Increased emphasis on value for money, health system savings and patient outcomes in negotiations.

• Heightened appreciation of regional access challenges as a political issue.

• Opportunities to partner on preventive health, chronic disease management, and workforce‑supporting technologies.

• A more complex right‑wing landscape, requiring refreshed engagement strategies beyond the traditional Liberal opposition.

• Increased importance of parliamentary engagement beyond major parties, including crossbench and minor parties.‍ ‍

Bottom line‍ ‍

The 2026 SA Election signals a stable Labor Government but a volatile political landscape, with a weakened traditional opposition and a rising populist force. For the pharmaceutical sector, this increases the importance of multi-party engagement, access-driven messaging, and alignment with public health system priorities.‍‍ ‍

This briefing note was prepared by Bihary Advisory for clients and key stakeholders. Election data was correct at 10am on Monday 23 March 2026. ‍ ‍

Want to find out more? Email info@biharyadvisory.com.au ‍