A by-election in Australian politics has recently delivered a result that has surprised many observers. On 9 May, the electorate of Farrer in southern New South Wales went to the polls, where One Nation candidate David Farley secured victory with 57.4% of the two-candidate-preferred vote, or 14,643 votes, ahead of independent candidate Michelle Milthorpe. This result made him the first non–Coalition-affiliated member ever elected in the seat since its creation in 1949, and also marked One Nation’s first-ever seat in the House of Representatives.
Farrer has long been regarded as a safe Liberal stronghold. For the past 25 years, the seat was held by former Liberal leader Sussan Ley. Yet in this by-election, the Liberal Party not only lost the seat, but also fell to third place in first-preference votes and was excluded from the final count altogether. This is more than an isolated electoral defeat. It signals a warning: the long-standing political order built around Australia’s two major parties is beginning to fracture, while One Nation is shifting from a fringe protest movement into a political force capable of challenging established conservative power. This development may reshape Australia’s political landscape in the years ahead.
One Nation: No Longer Just a “Rural Party”?
The result in Farrer is broadly consistent with One Nation’s traditional base. The electorate is a rural seat, shaped by agriculture and mining, where issues such as agricultural development, water allocation, and regional economic survival have long been central concerns. One Nation’s core support has historically come from similar rural communities.
In many of these areas, social networks tend to be relatively homogenous, with limited direct engagement with migrant or multicultural communities. As a result, some voters may be more receptive to simplified and forceful political messaging around anti-immigration sentiment, opposition to globalisation, protection of local industries, and resistance to “big government”.
However, recent by-elections suggest that One Nation’s support base may no longer be confined to rural Australia. It is increasingly extending into outer suburban areas. The Nepean by-election on 2 May offers a clear example. Although Nepean is not a rural seat, it is also not inner-city, but rather an outer metropolitan community. In that contest, while Liberal candidate Anthony Marsh managed to retain the seat, the party’s primary vote fell by nearly 10%, and One Nation secured close to 25% of the vote.
This suggests that One Nation’s appeal is expanding beyond its traditional rural strongholds into outer suburban electorates. From this perspective, Farrer may not be an isolated case, but part of a broader pattern that could emerge in similar outer metropolitan seats.
Erosion of the Two-Party Base
Recent by-elections and polling trends indicate that Australia’s two major parties are experiencing a gradual but significant decline in political dominance.
The Liberal Party lost a long-held seat in Farrer and also faced a clear drop in primary vote support in Nepean. In the 2024 Werribee by-election, Labor narrowly held the seat with less than a 1% margin in the two-party-preferred vote, while its primary vote dropped by around 17%. Meanwhile, the February 2026 Newspoll showed One Nation’s national support at approximately 27%, compared with Labor at 33%, and well ahead of the Liberal–National Coalition at around 18%.
These figures reflect a broader pattern of voter fragmentation and declining loyalty to the traditional two-party system. Importantly, a vote for One Nation does not necessarily indicate full agreement with its more extreme positions. In many cases, it reflects dissatisfaction with the political establishment and a lack of trust in mainstream political narratives.
At the same time, Australia’s trust in government remains at historically low levels. Rising living costs, increasing rental pressure, and limited policy responses have contributed to growing frustration among voters. In this environment, major parties often avoid contentious issues due to electoral risk. This cautiousness can leave voters feeling that political language is overly vague or disconnected from lived reality.
As a result, when politicians—such as those from One Nation—speak in more direct and forceful terms, even when controversial, they can still attract support from segments of the electorate seeking clearer and more decisive positions.
Major Parties’ Irresponsibility
Beyond electoral outcomes, a more fundamental question concerns the strategic choices of the major parties.
In both the Farrer and Nepean by-elections, Labor chose not to field candidates. While this may reflect a calculation that victory was unlikely, it raises a broader issue: democratic participation is not solely about winning. Elections are also opportunities for engagement, representation, and maintaining long-term trust with communities.
When parties consistently withdraw from contesting certain seats, they risk weakening their connection with voters who may already feel disengaged. Over time, this absence can contribute to further political alienation and indirectly strengthen alternative parties.
On the other hand, the Liberal Party’s approach to One Nation also reflects strategic uncertainty. As both occupy the right of the political spectrum, the Liberals have often avoided directly confronting One Nation, fearing it could further alienate conservative voters. However, this hesitation has left the party struggling to clearly define its own position, while failing to prevent voter drift toward One Nation.
For many conservative voters, the Liberal Party increasingly appears politically unclear. When a party appears unwilling to firmly defend or articulate its own ideological position, voter trust naturally erodes.
Meanwhile, Labor, despite its public commitment to multiculturalism, has at times adopted cautious positions on immigration-related issues in order to avoid losing support in marginal seats. This balancing act can also contribute to perceptions of inconsistency or lack of clarity.
Even with One Nation’s rise, a significant portion of Australian voters remain opposed to its more extreme positions. The key question, therefore, is whether the major parties still have the capacity—and willingness—to reconnect with disillusioned voters and offer a credible political alternative. If they continue relying on outdated political messaging while avoiding difficult debates, they may face increasing electoral consequences, particularly in upcoming state elections in November.
A Changing Political Landscape
As public trust in the major parties continues to decline, voters are increasingly open to alternative political voices. One Nation’s rise may be only the beginning of this broader shift.
The Farrer result is also notable for another reason: the Liberal Party did not make it to the final count, which instead came down to One Nation and an independent candidate. This indicates that independents are also gaining traction and may play a more significant role in future elections.
Australia’s two-party system is therefore facing structural pressure. The issue is not only that the major parties are underperforming, but also that they appear to lack fresh political imagination. Faced with housing pressures, cost-of-living challenges, migration debates, infrastructure strain, and generational uncertainty, both parties often rely on familiar language and established frameworks without offering a compelling new direction.
As a result, voters are no longer confined to choosing between Labor and the Liberals. Increasingly, attention is shifting toward new faces and alternative voices.
Some voters turn to One Nation because it directly expresses their dissatisfaction with the status quo. Others do so not out of full ideological agreement, but out of frustration with mainstream politics. The key question moving forward is not whether Australia will swing sharply to the right, but whether a new political force can emerge that bridges the gap between distrust of the major parties and rejection of political extremism.
Such a force may not come from traditional party structures. Instead, it may require leaders capable of articulating a new narrative for Australia—one that addresses economic pressure and social change, without resorting to the exclusion of migrant communities or minority groups.
The Next Phase of Australia’s Political Language
Migration has long been a politically charged issue in Australia. As parties continue to highlight the economic and social pressures associated with immigration—particularly through the framing advanced by One Nation—the concept of “multiculturalism” has, for some voters, lost part of its persuasive power.
While this does not reflect a broader rejection of immigration within Australian society, it does suggest that prolonged reliance on established political language may reduce public engagement and interest in these debates.
The next stage of Australia’s political language may therefore not lie in repeating existing value statements, but in constructing a more responsive public narrative. Rather than focusing solely on “multiculturalism” as a slogan, there may be a need for a framework that emphasises mutual understanding, real-world interaction, and shared participation. Rebuilding trust between communities and institutions will likely matter more than reinforcing ideological divides.
From this perspective, current political turbulence may not be entirely negative. It may instead represent a turning point. Australia’s political future may already be entering a new phase. For voters, the key challenge is not blind loyalty to any one party, but a renewed commitment to critical thinking, scrutiny, and participation. As citizens move beyond passive acceptance of established political structures and begin actively seeking alternatives, Australian politics may be entering a new era.