CANBERRA, AUSTRALIA — Australian politics may be entering a new phase, and the Farrer by-election is emerging as a serious test of what comes next. In southern New South Wales, a contest once expected to remain comfortably conservative has become a three-way fight involving the Liberals, One Nation, and an independent. The result matters well beyond one electorate, because it brings together several of the biggest forces reshaping Australian politics: regional anger, cost-of-living stress, the weakening of the major parties, and the rise of alternative political brands.
Early voting has opened in the federal by-election for Farrer, which includes Albury, Griffith and surrounding regional communities. The vacancy was triggered by the resignation of former Liberal leader Susan Ley, and the outcome is expected on Saturday, May 9.
What makes this race unusually significant is not just who may win, but what the campaign says about the state of political loyalty in Australia. A seat that once looked safely Liberal is now being discussed as a genuine contest, with polling suggesting the traditional two-party frame may no longer hold.
Why the Farrer by-election matters nationally
Farrer has become a political case study because it compresses several national trends into a single electorate. Pollster Simon Welsh of RedBridge argues that the contest reflects a wider collapse in major party attachment, particularly on the conservative side, and the growing appeal of both populist and centrist alternatives.
In practical terms, that means the old assumption that regional conservative seats naturally return Liberal members is now under pressure. Voters who are unhappy with the Liberals are no longer limited to one protest option. In Farrer, they can move to One Nation or to an independent, depending on their values and what kind of message they want to send.
The leading contenders are Liberal candidate Razor Batovsky, One Nation’s David Farley, and independent Michelle Milthorpe. Labor has not fielded a candidate, further concentrating attention on how anti-Liberal sentiment may break across the non-major party field.
A late-April poll cited in the discussion showed One Nation narrowly ahead of the independent on primary vote, underscoring just how competitive the contest has become. Welsh’s assessment was that this is best understood as a genuine three-cornered race, though he suggested the most likely final contest could be One Nation versus the independent.
The deeper story: regional communities feel neglected
The strongest theme running through the campaign is not ideology in the abstract, but a profound sense of neglect in regional Australia. Welsh described a broad feeling that services have eroded, support has weakened, and the major parties no longer understand or prioritise communities outside the major cities.
That frustration is not unique to Farrer. But the electorate captures it clearly, especially in larger centres such as Albury and in smaller communities across the region.
One local symbol of that anger is the long-running hospital issue in Albury. The push for a new hospital on a greenfield site has become larger than a single infrastructure debate. It now stands in for a broader complaint: that regional communities are asked to make do while government attention and investment flow elsewhere.
Why voters are restless in seats like Farrer
The mood in the electorate has been shaped by years of cumulative strain. Welsh pointed to a succession of economic and social shocks that have hit regional Australia particularly hard.
- Globalisation weakened secure local employment in many towns.
- The global financial crisis accelerated the loss of major employers.
- Drought and bushfires put further pressure on communities and industries.
- COVID-19 and lockdowns added fresh disruption and uncertainty.
- Rising living costs have intensified household stress.
By his account, these pressures have not simply created ordinary anti-incumbent frustration. They have built a much deeper dissatisfaction with “politics as usual”, especially where local people believe decisions are being made far away by institutions that do not live with the consequences.
That helps explain why alternatives are gaining traction. For some voters, One Nation offers a disruptive protest vote. For others, an independent represents a cleaner break from the major parties without the harder edge of populist politics.
How geography shapes the contest
Farrer is politically diverse in a way that makes the race especially difficult to model. Albury is a major centre with a larger bloc of moderate voters, while towns and communities further west and outside the main centres can be more receptive to populist, anti-establishment appeals.
This split matters. Welsh suggested One Nation’s message may be stronger in smaller rural communities, while the independent’s best path runs through places like Albury, where disaffected moderate Liberal voters are looking for an alternative but may be uneasy about One Nation.
That creates two different electoral maps inside the same seat. One is powered by protest and disruption. The other is powered by tactical voting and an attempt to block a harder right outcome.
The Liberal problem: when a safe seat enters the “kill zone”
One of Welsh’s central arguments was that the Liberal primary vote in seats like Farrer may have fallen into what campaign strategists sometimes call the “kill zone”. In other words, the party’s support may no longer be high enough to guarantee that preference flows will save it.
That is a major shift in a seat with deep Liberal history. Albury holds symbolic significance for the party, having been the city where Robert Menzies drew up the Liberal Party’s constitution in 1944.
Yet historical identity is not necessarily enough to protect a seat if the underlying vote fragments. Once the Liberal primary falls far enough, the contest stops being about whether the seat is safe and starts becoming about who can assemble enough support from preferences and tactical voters to win.
Fuel prices, cost of living and the Trump factor
Cost of living is an obvious force in the by-election, and fuel prices are a particularly potent part of that picture. Welsh argued that the fuel crisis feeds directly into the electorate’s broader economic distress, reinforcing volatility and intensifying the desire to punish established political players.
But the fuel issue is also tied to a more unusual campaign dynamic: Donald Trump.
RedBridge polling discussed in the interview found that 61 per cent of voters blamed President Trump alone for the fuel price crisis, compared with only 14 per cent who blamed the Albanese government. More broadly, around 70 per cent of Australians held an unfavourable view of Trump.
That matters because Pauline Hanson has publicly aligned herself with Trump on some issues, and activist group GetUp has tried to use that connection against One Nation in Farrer through targeted advertising.
Welsh’s view was more nuanced than a simple “Trump hurts One Nation” argument. For some voters, especially in smaller and more conservative communities, Trump-style politics can still be attractive. But for moderate Liberal voters in centres like Albury, the association can be deeply off-putting.
Those voters may already be drifting away from the Liberal Party. If they also see One Nation as too Trumpian, they may land with the independent instead.
Why immigration politics may cut both ways
Immigration remains part of One Nation’s appeal, but Welsh suggested its impact in Farrer is mixed rather than uniform. Some voters are receptive to harder rhetoric on borders and national identity. Others see it as imported political theatre that does not fit comfortably within Australian political culture.
That distinction is important because it shapes who One Nation can grow with and who it may struggle to win over. A broader coalition is possible, but only up to a point if the party becomes too closely associated with American-style politics.
Welsh noted that even among One Nation voters, around 40 per cent held unfavourable views of Trump. That points to a ceiling: protest voters may like disruption, but many still recoil from the sense that Australian interests are being subordinated to someone else’s agenda.
Could moderate Liberals decide the result?
One of the most important questions in the by-election is what moderate Liberal voters do if they no longer want to back their party but also do not want a One Nation victory.
Welsh described this as a tactical voting opportunity for the independent. These voters may move to Michelle Milthorpe not because they agree with every part of her platform, but because they see her as the most viable way to keep One Nation out.
That is why the final result may depend less on headline polling and more on how preferences scatter. In a contest this fragmented, preference discipline cannot be assumed.
Welsh was especially sceptical that Liberal voters would simply follow a how-to-vote card if they were strongly motivated against One Nation. If concern about One Nation is sufficiently strong, many may ignore official recommendations and direct preferences in their own way.
The Coalition’s preference strategy may backfire
A major strategic flashpoint in the campaign is the Coalition’s decision to place One Nation ahead of the independent on preferences. Welsh argued this is a mistake in both the short and long term.
In the immediate contest, it risks pushing moderate Liberal voters away from the party by signalling an alignment they are uncomfortable with. Over time, it also gives One Nation something even more valuable: legitimacy.
That legitimacy matters because One Nation is trying to position itself not as a fringe protest outlet but as a durable force on the Australian right. Every time a major party treats it as a normal coalition partner in preference terms, that process becomes easier.
Welsh’s warning was blunt: the more credible One Nation looks, the easier it becomes for disaffected Liberal voters to leave.
Does One Nation need to win for this to count as a breakthrough?
Not necessarily. Welsh did not describe Farrer as a make-or-break moment for Pauline Hanson’s party. His view was that there will be further opportunities, including future state contests, and that the party is still in a growth and learning phase as it tries to broaden beyond its traditional base.
What matters most may be whether One Nation performs strongly enough to reinforce the sense that it is now a serious lower-house contender. A strong showing, even without victory, could still help the party build momentum into future elections.
That is especially relevant if party strategists want to encourage more conservative realignment on the right. A win would be the strongest possible validation, but a close second in a seat like Farrer could still send a powerful signal.
Would a lower-house win change the conservative side of politics?
Potentially, yes. Welsh avoided direct speculation about individual MPs, but he did acknowledge the significance of lower-house credibility. If One Nation can prove it can win or come very close in a seat like Farrer, it strengthens the argument that it is not merely a Senate vehicle or protest brand.
That could influence how conservative voters, donors and even politicians think about the party’s future. Validation is cumulative. Winning seats, polling strongly, and receiving favourable preference deals all add to a perception of solidity.
For the Liberals, that is dangerous territory. Once a breakaway force starts looking established rather than experimental, reclaiming lost ground becomes much harder.
How much do candidate controversies matter?
The campaign has not been scandal-free. Reports emerged that One Nation candidate David Farley had previously approached Labor about running in 2022 and had donated to Labor in the past. There were also stories involving his social media activity.
Welsh’s assessment was that most of this is unlikely to seriously damage One Nation in Farrer. Many voters never engage with campaign gossip at all, and among One Nation supporters the vote is often cast for the party brand, not the local candidate as an individual.
In his telling, many people backing One Nation are really voting for Pauline Hanson’s political identity. That gives candidates a degree of protection from the sort of “palace intrigue” that can dominate insider political discussion without cutting through more broadly.
He did draw a distinction, however, when it came to issues involving sexual assault. Allegations or associations in that area are more serious and more likely to resonate, including among women in economically stressed households who may otherwise be open to One Nation. In Farrer, the presence of a viable independent may give some of those voters somewhere else to go.
What Climate 200’s spending says about the independent campaign
Michelle Milthorpe’s campaign has attracted attention not only because of its positioning but also because of its resourcing. She reportedly outspent her rivals on social media by a wide margin and received substantial backing linked to Climate 200 at the federal election.
Welsh’s view was that money clearly matters in politics, but only if it is attached to disciplined messaging and effective channels. On that measure, he judged the local independent campaign to have performed well.
He said the messaging had been consistent and on point, which matters as much as raw spending. A campaign can have money and still waste it. The more important question is whether it turns resources into a clear offer for voters.
As for attacks on Climate 200 itself, Welsh suggested they are often less effective than conservative campaigners hope. Many voters do not know or care much about the organisation, and those who do tend already to hold firm views.
Renewable energy versus energy costs
Renewable energy is present in the campaign, but Welsh did not treat it as the decisive issue in itself. Instead, he suggested the broader energy discussion is more influential, especially where it overlaps with fuel costs, household budgets and economic pain.
In a by-election, there is also a credibility problem. Candidates can use energy as a values signal, but they have limited capacity to persuade voters that they alone can deliver a practical fix to national energy prices.
That means energy policy may operate more as a marker of political identity than as a direct vote-shifter. For some, opposition to renewables signals resistance to elite agendas. For others, support for cleaner energy aligns with a more centrist or progressive vision. But in material terms, the everyday pressure of prices may outweigh the finer details of policy design.
Why water is different in regional politics
If renewable energy works partly as a values issue, water is something else entirely. In Farrer, especially outside the larger centres, the Murray-Darling Basin debate carries a much more visceral political charge.
Welsh described water as a “totemic” issue in regional communities. It symbolises not just resource management but the feeling that governments make rules from afar without understanding the local consequences.
That is why the issue resonates so deeply with voters who want disruption. Whether they choose One Nation or an independent, the underlying sentiment is similar: the political class has failed to listen, and water policy is one of the clearest examples.
The campaign has touched on the federal government’s buyback of 450 gigalitres from the Murray-Darling Basin for environmental purposes, with farmers arguing it is hurting profitability. Welsh did not nominate a clear winner between One Nation and the independent on the issue, but he made clear that both are trying to tap into the frustration it represents.
Why campaign stunts may not be enough
The contest has also featured more performative campaign moments, including Nationals leader Matt Canavan camping in a swag on the trail. Welsh was dismissive of the broader impact of such tactics.
His argument was that the “tectonic plates” of the election were already in place. The electorate’s dissatisfaction has been building for years, and symbolic gestures cannot undo decades of service erosion, economic stress and political disappointment.
That language of tectonic movement ran through his broader analysis. The volatility in Farrer is not being created by one ad, one slogan or one stunt. It is the release of pressure that has built up over a long period, and is only now finding credible electoral outlets.
Why Farrer may signal a larger political realignment
For Welsh, the most important lesson of the by-election is not simply whether the Liberals lose a seat or whether One Nation can win one. It is that Australia may be moving away from the unusually stable post-war political order that defined federal politics for decades.
He argued that the old Australia of Labor versus Liberal, and inherited party allegiance across generations, is fading. In its place is a more fluid and volatile system in which voters are much more willing to move between parties, back independents, or support populist challengers.
That would bring Australia closer to patterns already seen in other democracies. Major parties would no longer be able to rely on historical loyalty alone. Every election would become more contingent, more fragmented and more open to realignment.
Farrer, in that sense, is not just a by-election. It is a test of whether those shifts are now advanced enough to break open seats that once seemed politically immovable.
So who is likely to win?
Welsh ultimately resisted making a hard prediction, and for good reason. He repeatedly stressed that seat-level polling in electorates like Farrer is difficult and should be treated cautiously.
His instinct was that the Liberals are the least likely of the three leading contenders, putting their chances somewhere below those of One Nation and the independent. But he also made clear that preference flows, local turnout and tactical voting could still change everything.
That uncertainty is itself part of the story. In a more stable era, analysts would have looked at the seat’s history and made a fairly confident call. In this race, too many variables are in play for that kind of confidence.
Can the independent pile up enough support in Albury? Will One Nation dominate strongly enough in smaller western communities to offset that? Will moderate Liberals break early, or stay put and distribute preferences later? The answers will shape the final count.
Key takeaways
- Farrer is no longer a routine safe-seat contest and has become a genuine three-way by-election.
- Regional neglect is the dominant theme, especially around health, services and long-term economic decline.
- One Nation and the independent are benefiting from Liberal decline, but in different parts of the electorate and for different reasons.
- Fuel prices and cost-of-living pressure matter, with Donald Trump’s role in global tensions unexpectedly becoming part of the local political debate.
- Moderate Liberal voters may be decisive if they shift tactically to the independent to block One Nation.
- The Coalition’s preference strategy could strengthen One Nation by giving it greater legitimacy.
- Water is a uniquely powerful regional issue, especially as a symbol of distant decision-making.
- Farrer may be an early sign of a wider political realignment across Australia.
FAQs
Why is the Farrer by-election getting so much attention?
Because it brings together several major trends in Australian politics at once: the decline of the major parties, the rise of One Nation and independents, cost-of-living anger, and growing frustration in regional communities. It is being treated as a possible indicator of broader political realignment.
Where is Farrer?
Farrer is a federal electorate in southern New South Wales. It includes major centres such as Albury and Griffith, along with a large number of regional and rural communities.
Who are the main candidates in the by-election?
The three candidates seen as serious contenders are Liberal candidate Razor Batovsky, One Nation’s David Farley, and independent Michelle Milthorpe. Labor is not contesting the seat.
What issues are driving voters in Farrer?
The main issues include regional neglect, hospital funding in Albury, water policy in the Murray-Darling Basin, energy and fuel costs, and general cost-of-living stress. The mood is also shaped by years of economic shocks and service erosion.
How does Donald Trump factor into an Australian by-election?
The connection comes through fuel prices, global instability, and Pauline Hanson’s past support for Trump. Polling discussed in the campaign suggested many voters blame Trump for the fuel price crisis, and some moderate voters are uncomfortable with what they see as the Americanisation of Australian politics.
Why are preferences so important in this race?
Because the vote is split across several credible candidates. If no one has a dominant primary vote, the final result will depend on how preferences flow, especially from Liberal voters and smaller candidates.
What is the significance of water in this contest?
In regional electorates like Farrer, water is more than a policy issue. It is tied to farming livelihoods, local identity, and frustration with decisions made by governments seen as distant from the communities affected.
Could Farrer signal a bigger change in Australian politics?
Yes. If a historically safe Liberal seat becomes highly competitive because voters are shifting to both populist and centrist alternatives, it would reinforce the view that Australia is moving away from its long-standing two-party stability.
For readers wanting broader background on the issues shaping this race, the Australian Electoral Commission provides official election information, while the Murray-Darling Basin Authority offers context on water management debates that remain central to many regional communities.
The information in this article has been adapted from mainstream news sources and video reports published on official channels. Watch the full video here Is Australian politics dead as we know it? This expert says one clue reveals it is | THE ISSUE
