July 2026

The Record of Late-Term Succession Premiers

Multi-term periods of party government in Australia have usually come to be associated with the leader that brought the party to office. We often call these periods of government eras.

The less common type of era is multi-term governments with the same Prime Minister or Premier from first election to defeat. In this category we have the Fraser era (Fed 1975-83), the Howard era (Fed 1996-2007) and the Kennett era (Victoria 1992-1999).

One term government don’t qualify for eras so there is no Steven Marshall era (SA 2018-22) or Campbell Newman era (QLD 2012-15).

Some eras become associated with more than one leader, such as the Hawke-Keating era (Fed 1983-1996). Some of the long periods of post-war party government, such as Labor in NSW and Tasmania, or several times in Queensland, never attract the name of a single Premier.

The Menzies era (1949-1972) is different simply because of how long Menzies served as Prime Minister. He was succeeded by three Prime Ministers of diminishing stature before the Coalition lost office two elections after his retirement.

The current leadership ructions in the Victorian Labor Party ahead of a likely defeat in November fits the long-term pattern of Australian elections. Parties that come to power under one Premier who wins re-election at least once, is often succeeded by a new Premier, sometimes several, who lead the party to defeat.

The current period of Labor government in Victoria will be remembered by history as the Andrews era, whoever leads the party to probable defeat in November. Daniel Andrews led Labor to office in 2014 and won landslide re-elections in 2018 and 2022 before resigning two years ago. His indelible mark remains on the current government.

If Jacinta Allan is deposed this week, it will be one of the latest in term change of leader before an election. Julia Gillard became leader on 24 June 2010 and called an election for 21 August, 58 days. When Kevin Rudd returned as Prime Minister on 27 June 2013, he lost the election called for 7 September which was 72 days. These two changes took place in the first and second term of a government and are not relevant for comparison with longer term governments.

Among short term state Premiers, Russell Cooper became National Premier of Queensland 73 days before losing the 1989 election. Eric Willis became NSW Premier on 23 Januay 1976 and called an election for 1 May, a little over three months in office at the end of 11 years of Coalition government. Steven Miles took over as Queensland Premier a little over 10 months before an election was due.

SA Premier Rob Kerin took over as SA Premier after John Olsen resigned and just five months before losing the March 2002 election. Des Corcoran could have been in office longer after taking over from Don Dunstan but called a snap election for September 1979, just seven months into office. Eva Lawler became NT Chief Minister in 2024 eight months before an election and lost.

If Ben Carroll or someone else takes over before the election, it will be a rare case of three Premiers in a single term or Parliament. It happened in Queensland 1986-1989) with Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Mike Ahern and Russell Cooper, and NSW 1973-76 with Bob Askin, Tom Lewis and Eric Willis. There another in NSW 2007-2011 (Morris Iemma, Nathan Rees, Kristina Keneally) and the Northern Territory 2020-2024 (Michael Gunner, Natasha Fyles, Eva Lawler). All four of these government were defeated.

(Someone pointed out another three leader term. Northern Territory 1983-87 with Chief Ministers Paul Everingham, Ian Tuxworth and Steve Hatton.)

Let me me walk down memory lane and look at the record of ‘era’ governments and how they so often come to an inglorious end under a new leader.Read More »The Record of Late-Term Succession Premiers

2026 Victorian Election Pendulum

(Update – Three days after this post was published, Jacinta Allan was replaced as Premier by Ben Carroll. The post has been left as originally published.)

Victoria’s state election on 28 November will see voters pass judgment on Premier Jacinta Allen’s unpopular government and 12 years of Labor rule.

Most recent Victorian opinion polls reveal a three-way split of support between Labor, the Coalition and One Nation. Several have reported One Nation with the highest primary vote.

These are extra-ordinary polls in a state where two-party politics has traditionally been strongest and One Nation’s electoral support weakest.

One Nation’s poll ratings are also remarkable given the party has no state leader, no announced state policies, one upper house member and just one lower house candidate.

Were it not for other results this year, I would dismiss One Nation’s ratings as unlikely to hold until November, especially if it doesn’t hurry up and announce a leader.

But polls proved right in predicting One Nation would outpoll the Liberal Party at the South Australian election. The party polled well at the Nepean state by-election in May, and a week later matched expectations by easily winning the Farrer federal by-election.

If current polls prove correct, the result in November will have greater consequences for the course of national politics than any state election in my lifetime.

Australia’s two-sided party system has been around for more than a century. The two major parties have always clustered left and right of the centre. Smaller parties have come and gone, the most significant until now being the Greens who have staked out a significant base to the left of Labor.

Other prominent minor parties, like the DLP and Australian Democrats, lasted two decades and never built a base that could transmit loyalties to another generation. In retrospect, both were parties of transition, pathways for voters to change major party loyalty.

Until now, no new political entrant has threatened the foundations on which Australia’s two-party system is built. But the surge in One Nation support suggests the Coalition is in danger of being supplanted as Labor’s major opponent.

Is the Coalition about to fade away and be replaced by One Nation? Or will the Coalition and One Nation grow closer together and a new type of coalition emerge on the right?

It may sound odd to predict problems for the federal Coalition when it is a deeply unpopular Labor state government facing defeat in Victoria.

But if the Liberal-National Coalition cannot capitalise on Labor’s woes by winning majority government in Victoria, if it is forced into some governing arrangement with One Nation in a state where the party has previously barely rated, then there are consequences across the country.

It raises serious question about the Coalition’s future in states where One Nation has a stronger base. First cab off the rank will be the NSW election next March where optional preferential voting will magnify splits between the Coalition and One Nation.

Under optional preferential voting, parties can’t rely on voters to complete preference sequences. Especially if NSW Labor fills the airwaves with “Just Vote 1” messages. Many Coalition and One Nation voters will exhaust preferences and help deliver a comfortable majority to the Minns Labor government.

One Nation capturing the balance of power in Victoria will force some form of governing arrangement on the Liberal Party and (whatever remains of) the National Party. For the first time One Nation would have a say on who governs a state and how.

To date One Nation has been a powerless crossbench upper house party that chucks metaphorical rocks at government. It will need to learn new ways to behave if the election result draws it closer to the levers of government. Chucking rocks becomes a dangerous pastime from inside the glasshouse of government.

Plus One Nation has a terrible record of keeping its elected members within the party. If instability were to strike while One Nation filled a starring or support role in Victorian government, every failing of the party would be highlighted across the nation by its political opponents.

I’ve seen the pressure of governing splinter third parties before. At the 1996 New Zealand election, a similar populist party to One Nation, Winston Peters’ New Zealand First, won the balance of power. After weeks of negotiation, the party joined with National to form government. Over the next three years New Zealand First splintered, popular slogans mugged by the reality of governing. Its more sensible members were lured away by its coalition partner, the less sensible ostracised.

If the polls prove right, converting a three-way split of primary votes into seats in parliament has a range of possible outcomes. Some could produce a majority Coalition government. If not a majority, the question will be how far short of majority the Coalition finishes and whether a government supported by One Nation is possible.Read More »2026 Victorian Election Pendulum

The Impact on Senate Election Results of Abolishing GVTs – the Lessons for Victoria

Over the next week I will publish several posts looking at the abolition of Group Voting Tickets (GVTs) in Victoria and the implications this has for the state’s Legislative Council election in November.

Work I’ve undertaken in the past, about Senate elections both before and after the abolition of GVTs, produces clear conclusions.

Abolishing GVTs will increase the importance of first preference votes and diminish the value of preference transfers. Abolishing GVTs advantages parties that campaign for votes and disadvantages those that rely on deals and transfers to be elected.

Abolishing GVTs also ends the ability of parties to conspire and use GVTs to block the election of high polling parties. It also stops parties using GVTs to elect low-polling parties that few voters have heard of into important upper house balance of power seats.

The key aim of abolishing GVTs is to end party control over between-party preferences and leave it to voters to make the decision. With 95% of votes tied up in party tickets, too many elections had been decided by opaque preferences deals that voters had little knowledge of. A new form of above-the-line (ATL) voting was created allowing voters to show preferences for parties rather than candidates. Voters still had the option to vote below-the-line (BTL) for individual candidates of any party.

In other states this has been implemented with full optional preferential voting. A voter must indicate a first preference for a formal vote, but further preferences were optional. At elections conducted under the new rules, only a third of ATL ballot papers have preferences beyond ‘1’ and exhausted preferences have come to play a part in deciding who wins the final seats. (See my previous post that covered experience with the change in NSW.)

By contrast, the Senate instructions after the abolition of GVTs has been to mark at least six preferences, though a savings provision allows any first preference vote to remain formal. Under these instructions, around 95% of ballot papers are completed above the line (ATL) with between-party preferences. Given the exhaustion rate of preferences for minor party votes, there hasn’t been much difference between the role of preferences in the two ballot marking systems.

Abolishing GVTs makes it nearly impossible to win from a low vote AND from behind on preferences. Abolishing GVTs does not prevent a party winning from a low vote, nor prevent a trailing candidate from winning on preferences, though it does make it harder. But is becomes extremely difficult to do both at the same time.

A party winning from a low vote is possible without GVTs if there is an even split of vote between remaining parties. The United Australia Party’s Ralph Babet won a Victorian Senate seat in 2022 from only 0.28 quotas (4.0%). This was because there were five parties between 0.20 and 0.28 quotas competing for one seat. Without GVTs, preference flows were relatively weak and Babet maintained his lead to win the final seat. Preferences were not responsible for his victory.

And coming from behind is possible. In NSW at the 2025 Federal election, strong preference flows from the Coalition and small right-wing parties allowed One Nation on 0.42 quotas (6.1%) to pass Labor’s third candidate on 0.63 quotas (9.1%).

Without GVTs, the classic 2013 Victorian Senate case of Ricky Muir (Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party) on 0.5% defeating Helen Kroger (Liberal) on 11.6% would be impossible. Muir’s election was the equivalent of a lower house candidate on 1.7% defeating a candidate with 40%.

As One Nation showed in 2025, is is possible for a candidate with two-thirds of another candidate’s vote to come from behind and win on preference transfers. Voters still have their say on preferences, but without GVTs, results can’t be engineered. Muir’s case of winning from behind with only one-23rd of the winning candidate’s vote is absolutely impossible without GVTs.

And to date, every jurisdiction except except Victoria has understood this inherent problem with GVTs and abolished them. Next week it appears Victoria will be the last to join the club.

Based on One Nation’s two come from behind Senate victories in 2025, I think around 0.4 quotas is the minimum a party needs for victory, 6.5% translated into Victorian Legislative Council numbers. That’s unless you get a case like Ralph Babet’s where a seat remains to be filled and all remaining parties have a low vote.

Looking at how many parties have been elected from trailing positions, the difference produced by the abolition of GVTs for Senate elections is clear.

At the 2013 half-Senate election, the last to use GVTs, 9 of the 36 state Senate positions were won by trailing candidates. At three half-Senate elections since the abolition of GVTs, only 2 of 108 state Senate seats have been won by trailing candidates.

And both of those trailing wins were aided by Senate instructions to mark 6 preferences. Trailing wins may be even harder under instructions for ‘1’ with further preferences optional.
Read More »The Impact on Senate Election Results of Abolishing GVTs – the Lessons for Victoria

FED2026 Redistributions – South Australian Boundaries Finalised

The South Australian redistribution of electoral boundaries has been finalised this morning. The Commission has abandoned a swap of suburbs between Kingston and Mayo, as well as the transfer of an area from Spence to O’Donoghue (formerly Grey). This means that Kingston and O’Donoghue retain their former boundaries without change.

The Draft boundaries released in March produced only minor changes to the boundaries used at the last three federal elections. Those changes have now been reduced with the Spence to O’Donoghue change reversed and the proposed suburbs swap between Mayo and Kingston abandoned.

South Australia was reduced from 11 to 10 House of Representatives seats by the 2017 redistribution. The current redistribution retains 10 seats and was triggered by the rule requiring boundaries to be re-drawn every seven years. The reason for periodic re-draws is to account for differing patterns of population growth, to bring all electorates back within permitted variation from quota.

Barker pushes closer to Adelaide and gains 3,365 voters around Woodchester from Mayo. Grey has been re-named O’Donoghue but proposed boundary changes abandoned. Population growth in the Adelaide Hills has seen Mayo shed voters to Barker and around 6,275 to Boothby. Adelaide’s outer north has also been growing rapidly and Spence has lost 14,043 voters in Brahma Lodge and Salisbury to Makin. Proposed changes to Kingston have been abandoned and Adelaide, Hindmarsh and Sturt retain their unchanged status from the draft phase.

The table below has been now re-calculated for the final boundaries.

South Australia Federal Redistribution – Summary of New Margins
District Old Boundaries New Boundaries Shift
Adelaide ALP 19.1% ALP 19.1% unchanged boundaries
Barker LIB 13.0% LIB 12.7% 0.3 to Labor
Boothby ALP 11.1% ALP 11.1% no change
Hindmarsh ALP 16.3% ALP 16.3% unchanged boundaries
Kingston ALP 20.7% ALP 20.7% unchanged boundaries
Makin ALP 14.7% ALP 15.3% 0.6 to Labor
Mayo (2-Party) ALP 5.0% ALP 4.8% 0.2 to Liberal
Mayo (IND v ALP) IND 14.9% IND 15.5% 0.6 to Independent
O’Donoghue (formerly Grey) LIB 4.6% LIB 4.6% unchanged boundaries
Spence ALP 15.3% ALP 15.2% 0.1 to Liberal
Sturt ALP 6.6% ALP 6.6% unchanged boundaries

Read More »FED2026 Redistributions – South Australian Boundaries Finalised

FED2026 Redistributions – Tasmanian Boundaries Finalised

The new electoral boundaries for Tasmania have been released today.

Reading through the proposed changes, the major changes to Clark, Franklin and Lyons in southern Tasmania have been agreed to. But there are changes in the north with Break O’Day council being moved into Bass.

There is also a proposed name change which has triggered the calling of a new round of comments specifically about changing the name of Franklin to Tongerlongter. As the proposal explains the name –

Following its deliberations, the augmented Electoral Commission proposes renaming the electorate of Franklin in honour of Tongerlongeter (c. 1790-1837), a Poredareme man of the Oyster Bay nation and a prominent Aboriginal leader whose Country encompassed much of south-east Tasmania, including areas within the reconfigured electorate boundaries. The name ‘Franklin’ is proposed to be retired.

Earlier I tweeted that the draft boundaries had been abandoned. That was confusion on my part by opening the wrong map and thinking that was the reason for calling a new round of submissions. It is rare for redistributions to engage in this extra consultation step. It appears the consultation is over the name change alone so the boundaries appear to be otherwise final.

The draft boundaries released earlier this year produced massive changes to the electorates of Clark, Franklin and Lyons. You can read more details in my post on the draft boundaries.

The table below summarises the two-party preferred margins between Labor and Liberal in the five divisions. I’ll go into more detail on the Independent positions in Clark and Franklin inside the post.

Tasmania Federal Redistribution – Summary of 2-Party Preferred Margin Changes
District Old Boundaries New Boundaries Shift
Bass ALP 8.0% ALP 8.3% 0.3 to ALP
Braddon ALP 7.2% ALP 7.2% Unchanged
Clark ALP 20.9% ALP 20.2% 0.7 to LIB
Franklin ALP 19.4% ALP 18.7% 0.7 to LIB
Lyons ALP 11.6% ALP 12.7% 0.9 to ALP

Read More »FED2026 Redistributions – Tasmanian Boundaries Finalised

Reports that Victoria is set to Abolish Group Voting Tickets

(Update Wednesday 29 July: – Legislation has been introduced today and will be debated and passed by the Assembly this afternoon. The legislation abolishes group voting tickets and adopts a similar method of ATL voting to the Senate. Voters are required to mark 5 ATL preferences and there is a savings provision so that any vote with at least a valid first preference vote remains formal. There is no change to the Victorian method of BTL voting where voters are required to complete preferences for five candidates.)

Two weeks ago I published a post highlighting that if Victoria wanted to abolish group voting tickets (GVTs) for the 2026 Legislative Council election, legislation had to be passed at the next sitting of parliament in the last week of July.

As I outlined in the post (you can find it at this link), abolishing GVTs would bring Victoria in line with the Commonwealth, New South Wales, South Australian and Western Australian parliaments. It would also implement a recommendation made twice in the last four years by the Victorian parliament’s Electoral Matters Committee.

Both The Age and Herald-Sun reported over the weekend that GVTs will be abolished and voters allowed to indicate their own preferences with an above-the-line (ATL) vote. What the reports don’t make clear is whether Victoria will adopt fully optional preferential voting as used in NSW, SA and WA. The alternative would be to copy the Senate model where ballot paper instructions are to complete a minimum number of ATL preferences. The Senate model still allows any vote with a valid ATL first preference to remain formal in line with ballot paper instructions for the GVT system.

The number of members to be elected per region may lean the Victorian decision in favour of the Senate system.

NSW, SA and WA elect their Legislative Councils using a state-wide electorate. NSW elects 21 members, South Australia 11, and Western Australia 37. A single ‘1’ vote in these systems is enough to produce a very proportional result. Over six elections since the NSW system was reformed, only twice have preferences altered the party elected as the 21st member. Two SA elections elections have seen preferences play no part in the result, while the first WA election after reform saw preferences change only one of the 37 members elected.

The complication in Victoria is members are not elected state-wide. The Legislative Council consists of five members elected from each of eight regions. The quota for election is a high 16.7%. A high quota makes it much harder to match the number of members elected by party in each region to the proportion of votes by party.

As with the Senate, where six members are elected per state, there may be an argument to encourage more ATL preferences to ensure the members elected reflect first preference votes and the preference intent of voters for excluded parties.

The Senate rule to mark at least six preferences encourages voters to complete preferences. At the 2025 Victorian Senate election, 83.4% of voters marked six preferences. Only 1.9% of voters marked a single first preference, a vote that remains formal under Senate voting rules.

Contrast this with lower preferencing rates at interstate Legislative Council experience where only a third of ballot papers have preferences. If fully optional preferential voting were adopted, then clearly there would be fewer preferences playing a part in determining the final seats in each region. It is a matter of opinion whether this is a good or bad outcome.

Fully optional preferences would work without difficulty if Victoria were electing 40 MLCs from a state-wide electorate. But Victoria can’t switch to state-wide election without a referendum, so the five members by eight regions model will be used in 2026.

In this post I’ll first summarise why the GVT system is so wrong using past election results. I’ll also look at evidence from NSW elections about how the Senate’s minimum preference numbers rule has caused more voters to complete further preferences at Legislative Council elections.Read More »Reports that Victoria is set to Abolish Group Voting Tickets

FED26 Redistributions – Final Boundaries Released for A.C.T.

The final boundaries for the ACT have been released. Maps and numbers of voters transferred have not been released, but I have managed to estimate new margins using data published with the draft boundaries.

In short, nothing much changes. The table below summarise the margins for the ACT’s three electorates.

ACT Federal Redistribution (Final) – Summary of Margin Changes
District Contest Old Boundaries New Boundaries Shift
Bean 2-Party ALP 19.3% ALP 19.4% 0.1 to ALP
Canberra 2-Party ALP 26.4% ALP 26.4% No change
Fenner 2-Party ALP 22.1% ALP 22.1% No change
Bean ALP v IND ALP 0.3% ALP 0.2% 0.1 to IND
Canberra ALP v GRN ALP 19.5% ALP 19.5% No change

There’s more details on each electorate inside the post.
Read More »FED26 Redistributions – Final Boundaries Released for A.C.T.