Yesterday, the Nationals announced that they would not be renewing the coalition with the Liberal Party following the 2025 federal election. This is unlikely to be a permanent break, but rather the parties taking some time apart to re-assess their positions after a devastating election defeat.
The nature of these political parties is quite peculiar. Sometimes, the Coalition can best be analysed as a single entity – in contrast to Labor, who run in every seat across the country, no Coalition party runs everywhere. In other ways, they are two parties. That is more relevant to how they operate in Parliament (which, with no immediate federal election, is the most relevant to the current moment). And in other ways the Coalition consists of four parties, with singular parties existing in Queensland and the Northern Territory, with their members sitting with one of the two parties in Canberra. I analysed this peculiarity in detail in 2022.
As the parties now re-assess their position following the recent election, this peculiar relationship seems relevant, because both parties find themselves out of government, and quite a long way out of government. But only one of the two parties bears almost all of the burden of getting back into government.
Sometimes you will see people try to analyse the relative performance of the Liberal and National parties by looking at how well their “vote held up”, or how many seats each party has won.
But the problem with this sort of comparative analysis is that the parties rarely if ever contest seats against each other. Putting aside the Nationals parties in South Australia and Western Australia, which were effectively not a part of the Coalition, the parties only ran against each other in the seat of Bendigo.
The Nationals performed impressively in Bendigo, but that’s just one seat. Everywhere else on the east coast, voters just had one of the two parties to choose from. Indeed in Queensland, they appeared on the ballot as a single party, even though now those successful LNP candidates now have parted ways as either Liberals or Nationals.
While the Coalition as a whole has a vote that goes up or down in electoral competition with other political forces (be they Labor, the Greens, teals, One Nation or anyone else), and gains or loses seats, the relative strength of these two parties is entirely down to the shape of their coalition agreement, which in almost all cases biases the status quo: Liberal seats stay Liberal, and Nationals seats stay National.
The only exceptions are the rare cases where an open seat is challenged by the other party, which has seen seats like Farrer and Nicholls change hands. A defection in the NSW state seat of Port Macquarie also saw that seat move from Nationals to Liberal. The seat was then vacated earlier this year, leading to a fierce by-election contest won by the Liberal.
It seems to be even more difficult for a Queensland seat to move between the two parties after the Liberal National Party merger of 2008. Ian Macfarlane was a Liberal MP representing the seat of Groom, which mostly covers the city of Toowoomba in Queensland. In 2015, he was dropped from the ministry following the election of Malcolm Turnbull as Liberal leader and subsequently prime minister. Later that year, he announced his intention to sit as a National from then on. He had support from local LNP members, but the LNP state executive blocked the move. He ended up retiring at the 2016 election, and Groom remains a Liberal seat.
So the electoral success of the two separate parties is entirely dependent on how they perform in contests against other opponents: Labor, the Greens and independents.
What is particularly peculiar about the most recent iteration of the Coalition is that the Nationals has become a party that exists almost entirely in safe seats.
There are 91 seats where the Coalition was the runner-up on the two-candidate-preferred vote (likely to drop to 90 when the count finishes in Blaxland). The Nationals only made the 2CP in four of those seats – Calare, Bendigo and Richmond, as well as the presumed-National in Lingiari (although Jacinta Price’s defection makes me question that classification). The Nationals were the primary Coalition party in Hunter, where they came third to One Nation, but every other non-classic seat won by a non-Coalition party was one where the Liberals ran.
The former-and-presumably-future Coalition needs to win 33 seats to win the next election. The 33 most marginal seats where the Liberals or Nationals came second in 2025 include just two seats primarily contested by the Nationals: Bendigo and Calare.
While the Nationals could theoretically contest more of these seats, they wouldn’t be a contender in many. Just ten of those seats lie outside of a metropolitan area. This is another reminder that the path for the Coalition to regain power comes from through the cities, a task the Nationals cannot help with.
So almost every seat contested by the Nationals is already held by the Nationals, even after the Coalition suffered such heavy losses in 2025. The Nationals also hold safer seats now: the average Liberal margin is 5.5%, and the average Nationals margin is 11.9%. Of the 18 Liberal or Nationals seats held on margins of 6% or less, just one (Cowper) is a Nationals seat.
As a consequence of the Liberal Party’s domination of marginal seats, the Nationals are now largely immune to electoral fortunes, good or bad. The Nationals now hold exactly the same number of House seats as they did at the peak of the Coalition in 2013. Over that same time, the Liberal Party has lost 47 seats. The Nationals made up 1/6 of their numbers in 2013, but now have over one third.
This wasn’t always the case. Back in 2007, the Labor government won a number of former Nationals seats including Page, Dawson, Capricornia and the newly-created notional Nationals seat of Flynn. They had also won Richmond off the Nationals in 2004. So The Coalition’s defeat in 2007 hit both the Liberals and Nationals about equally, as a proportion of their strength. And they largely recovered proportionally in 2010 and 2013. But since 2013, the strength of the Liberal Party in cities has collapsed while in regional areas Liberal and Nationals MPs have become relatively safer.
The Nationals also had lost a number of rural seats to independents in the 2007-2013 period, but seats like New England and Lyne are now safe Nationals seats while the independent challenge is strongest in the cities or in regional Liberal seats.
Does this reflect the Nationals just being better at their jobs? I think the evidence is weak. In states where both the Liberals and Nationals had seats where they were in the 2CP (NSW, VIC, QLD and NT), swings in rural classic seats were a bit bigger in the Liberal seats (2.8% to Labor) compared to Nationals seats (1.1% to Labor). The Nationals on paper actually had a swing towards them in provincial seats, but if you exclude their big swing in Bendigo the two parties had almost identical 2.1% swings against them everywhere else.
Such an analysis is basically impossible, because we are not comparing like with like. The Nationals just run in places where Labor is less of a presence.
Now we have the Liberal and National parties separating. For now the space where this coalition breakdown will play out is in the parliamentary arena. It will give them a chance to consider their policy direction, and how it might differ, and eventually how they can make those possibly different directions work together.
The Liberal Party’s path back to government is almost entirely urban. This will be challenging enough with a party room consisting of very few urban MPs, but made even harder with the addition of the Nationals.
The Nationals are in a funny position now. They are in one sense now even more influential in terms of setting the direction of the parties of the once-and-future coalition, particularly considering the numbers of rural Liberals and the divided state of that party room. But that is unlikely to put them on track to returning to government. The Nationals’ influence over a government is entirely dependent on the Liberals finding more seats in the cities.
For now, the coalition’s breakdown is going to play out in the parliament. If it can’t be resolved before the next election, we may see the parties contest more seats against each other. That would also be fascinating, but it may not go the way the Nationals hope. There are numerous seats on the north coast of New South Wales which remain legacy Nationals seats, but now contain large populations of retirees from the capital cities who may be used to voting Liberal. The Liberal Party has already broken through in the state seat of Port Macquarie, and there have been Liberal breakthroughs on local councils in Tweed and Mid-Coast.
I saw a comment earlier today that said the Nationals would be well served by having a relationship with the Liberals more like the relationship the Greens have with Labor. They may not really enjoy such a relationship: it would give the Nationals a lot more freedom to express disagreement, but the electoral system does not do well for smaller parties. The Nationals have been able to keep these seats to themselves. I don’t think the Liberals would sweep them away if there was open competition, but I think it would be tougher on the smaller party. I also don’t see how such a relationship is possible as long as the parties are merged in Queensland, their strongest state.
My assumption at the moment is the parties will find a way to patch up their differences before 2028, but perhaps with such a large gap between their current position and a return to government, the parties may decide to take their chances on a more open electoral contest next time around.
The nats have not lost a seating almost 20 years.
A few things should be cleared up here:
* Polling shows that the majority of Nationals voters (even in Maranoa) support net zero, and given polling also shows that Nationals voters also mostly support same-sex marriage now I’d say even in Maranoa most support it given in 2017 the No vote there was only 56%
* Polling also shows that even among Nationals voters Trump is unpopular, though in preferred President contests most are undecided; also gun laws tend to be respected in the regions now
* Page is not a swing seat anymore, in fact without Lismore and the hippie towns around it, it would be safer than Cowper but not quite as safe as Lyne (especially without the Maitland outskirts) or New England
* The Nationals still represent agricultural interests, which is why they get voted in, but rural areas aren’t as rich as urban areas which is why the coal industry had the Nationals’ support (so rural families could keep the lights on), but now that nuclear is achievable they’re backing that instead
This is why a Nationals-One Nation hybrid conservative party wouldn’t ever win a lower house seat. Yes One Nation does well in specific areas but not well enough to win a seat. To win a seat you need at least half of the TPP, and if the average electorate has 100,000 people they’d need more than 50,000 votes on TPP, which the small booths combined don’t have.
However as Nimalan said in European countries and New Zealand there aren’t as many remote areas. This is because European countries like the UK are small, as is New Zealand, while Australia is big (similar to the US or Canada).
Here’s an example: I asked ChatGPT to name a random rural town in Australia and the UK. For Australia it gave Winton in Queensland while for the UK it gave Hawes in West Yorkshire. The nearest city of over 100,000 to Winton is Townsville, which is 598.4km away. The nearest to Hawes is Middlesbrough, which is 89.8km (55.8mi) away. So in the UK there is often a city of over 100,000 under 100km away, whereas in Australia there often isn’t.
This is probably a key factor for why there are less Māori-majority areas in New Zealand than Indigenous-majority areas in Australia as well as a factor for why Māori are less disadvantaged than Indigenous Australians.
It would not surprise me if even a majority of One Nation voters either support or are indifferent to SSM.
yeah i agree ONP voters tend to be irreligious so i dont think they care as much about SSM and Pauline Hanson does not campaign on cracking down on pornography etc which Family First does.
There are currently 93 government mps 28 opposition mps and 27 members of the crossbench. With 2 seats to be decided. So theoretically the crossbench could be larger then the opposition.
@Nicholas you’re probably right to be honest. Even Republican voters do these days.
Family First on the other hand still cracks down on same-sex marriage and even porn. Their leader criticised Sam Kerr and her fiancée Kristie Mewis for having a son. It takes a serious nutcase to say something like that in 2025 in public about one of Australia’s most famous people when it’s really none of his business what people do.
I’m personally of the view that people can make their own decisions when it comes to their own personal lives and preferences without government interference. Is porn addiction a problem? Of course, but so’s alcohol addiction and gambling addiction, yet no one’s saying ban them.
Interestingly, some European countries have sepeate Agrarian parties especially the Nordic countries where they are named the Centre Parties. The Nordic countries are less densley populated have a harsh climate so Agarian parties are often needed which are different to main Centre right party such as Moderate Party in Sweden or National Coalition Party in Finland etc.
@John Calare? The Nats won it in 2022, but not in 2025. Does that not count as losing a seat?
Well technically no since the sitting mp defected. The simply it then became an in d held seat and they were not the incumbent I did think of that BTW. But no it’s no a loss since they didn’t lose the seat
@Real Talk I think what John meant is they haven’t lost a seat to Labor in 18 years. The Nationals also lost O’Connor to the Liberals in 2013 (though it was a WA Nats seat and it switched Coalition parties).
But it is worth noting that Nationals seats are not only safe or very safe for the Nationals without any Labor threat, they don’t swing. Even in a landslide they wouldn’t win them. In contrast city seats do swing and in landslides safe city seats can flip or become marginal unlike safe rural seats.
@Nimalan in Scandinavian countries they have alliances between different parties but they aren’t like the Coalition. However in these alliances because of the threat of the extreme right parties to democracy many countries have a cordon sanitaire with them meaning they refuse to cooperate with them.
In Sweden after the 2022 election there was the standard Red-Greens alliance on the centre-left and left-wing (the Social Democrats, the Left Party and the Greens) and the new Tidö Agreement (named after Tidö Castle where the agreement was negotiated) on the centre-right and right-wing (the Sweden Democrats, the Moderates, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals). Until 2019 the Moderates, Christian Democrats and Liberals were part of the Alliance for Sweden which doesn’t exist anymore. In 2022 the Social Democrats got the most votes and seats, followed by the Sweden Democrats, but the result was a hung parliament, so the Tidö Agreement took place between the right-leaning parties. Even though the Moderates had the third-highest seat total, their leader Ulf Kristersson became Prime Minister because the Sweden Democrats are too right-wing.
I don’t see Australia ever having a situation like that to be honest. Again we have two major parties and many minor parties and the minor parties barely win lower house seats.
Contemplating the (highly, highly unlikely) prospect that maybe the Libs and Nats could go to the next election still out of coalition, and somehow still win a combined majority of seats.
Probably everyone would assume that we’d see a replay of 1922-1923, with the Nats making exorbitant demands, and the Libs being willing to agree to just about anything to gain power.
But what if instead the Libs went in with a ‘take it or leave it’ attitude, offering no concessions whatsover, and daring the Nats to keep a Labor minority government in power if they don’t like it?
It probably won’t happen, but I’d be getting the popcorn if it did.
@Real Talk Longman has a strong One Nation base, unlikely as it seems. It used to have a mix of older blue-collar Labor voters, a few of the very right LNP voters and a chunk of voters from minor parties who put One Nation second. Plus quite a substantial vote out of the Bribie Island booths.
@john @Yoh An My numbers say 30.501 as of February, but it will mostly keep going due to interstate migration. My thought on any new seat are that it will be a Sunshine Coast seat. Assuming Blair gets pulled back closer to Ipswich and loses everything north of Esk, there are two ways the redistribution could go. The first is to base the new electorates on Caloundra, Maroochydore and Noosa and head west for each of them. The second way is to create a coastal seat that stops at the Bruce Highway (so you have Caloundra to Maroochydore, then a hinterland seat based on Nambour that takes almost all of the northern part of Blair, then a Noosa to Rainbow Bay and out to Gympie seat.
But I haven’t worked out the numbers yet and there are some massive housing developments that are coming online including the area south of Aura so it’s not worthwhile looking at the numbers just yet. However Queensland went from 3,507,525 on the roll as at 30 April 2022 to 3,743,919 as at 30 April 2025, or 236,394 net new voters from election to election. Total Australian roll growth over the same period was 884,859, so Queensland account for 26.7% of the total growth.
@Mark and Caboolture was even held by one nation in 1998
Tribalisation is happening in Australia, as in other top-tier countries. Barring an external event, recession, or major scandal, Labor will be in government for at least the next six years—that is nine total, if my maths is correct. So we are looking at 2031. By then, 1/3 of the electorate will have died off since 2019, and urbanisation will be that much more pronounced. If the Liberals hope to win government, they will have to meet the Australian electorate where they are. That may include taking off from the Nats and swinging back some urban and ex-urban seats. We are getting close to the point where the crossbench is as large as the National seat count. That tells you something. It looks like the Libs are done in Bradfield. That means the party room will have 18 seats + whoever from QLD agrees to sit with them. That is a sorry state of affairs in a 150-seat parliament. Albo doesn’t seem the type to overreach but the pendulum will eventually swing back but when? When am I on pension? I am 44.
One Nation peaked at 16% in Longman in the 2018 by-election, and failed to break 10% in this year’s poll. That’s far from an election-winning position. Labor does better than that in Maranoa but nobody is predicting the fall of Littleproud.
@real talk what are basing thus offering. The aec bases it on published figures and that what I did off the latest September numbers and got 30.39. Dec ber numbers will be out in June and il do another reassessment
Also it’s not based on electoral roll numbers it’s based off population
I do wish people would stop using SSM as a shorthand for culture war issues. SSM has 2 ingredients the others don’t – a near 25 year program to normalise through intermediate steps and a consciousness that SSM didn’t affect anyone else. This isn’t the same as a lot of the ‘culture war’ issues today which are deliberately pushed through parliament on the quiet so we don’t have any public debate.
I’m curious about the dynamic of what happens next? Is the CLP still a member of the coalition now that Price sits wth Liberals? Are another party are the LNP strong enough to form the opposition in its won right? Would ed O’Brien then be leader of the opposition? The Speaker is going to have todo some thinking & consulting
After finally getting some sleep after celebrating the Europa League win, I’m back. And it appears I’ve missed a bit:
@Mark Yore, Longman is a white working-class seat. Historically it would’ve been considered a typical Labor seat.
@Real Talk, I don’t think anyone suggested One Nation could ever win Longman. I even said they’d never win any single member federal or state seat.
@MLV, while it’s very unlikely that Trump will do it, many of his allies are still anti-SSM and want it banned again like abortion was.
@ mlv
Regardless of if you agree with SSM or not it could have been a wedge issue so the right could have you used in the past to try and win religious conservatives from Labor in a seat like Calwell or Blaxland. having that said I respect your views and if there is another culture war issue that you are concerned about feel free to contact give an example
@Mark Yore I don’t think it’s unlikely that One Nation does well in Longman. As @Nether Portal said, it’s a very working class seat with low cultural diversity. There are also a lot of less wealthy retirees and older folk on Bribie Island, hence the decent One Nation vote from those booths.
@NP, One Nation did win single member State Seat in Queeensland as recently as 2020 in the seat of Mirani and had once even gotten above 50% (albeit narrowly) of the primary vote in seat of Tablelands in 2006.
Nobody has suggested Longman would go to the ONP. I was only using that electorate (with its “strong base”) to demonstrate that even a hypothetical Groom/Maranoa carveoff wouldn’t be an automatic One Nation seat, as implied on the previous page.
@Marh Stephen Andrew’s personal vote won Mirani in 2020. The One Nation vote dropped off in every other seat in Queensland. One Nation hasn’t been a realistic chance of winning any state seat since 2017, and any federal HoR seat since Hunter 2019.
Agree AA, Stephen Andrew whilst being a One Nation member was seen to be more of an independent. He didn’t feature One Nation branding on many of his campaign materials and was reluctant to support many aspects of One Nation policy.
In Hunter, One Nation got 16% of the pv and entered the 2CP. The candidate has a strong local profile from running twice before. I think that is One Nation’s best result, after preferences, this election.
once parliament expands and hunter retracts further into just lake macquarie One nation could conceivably win the seat based on singleton and muswellbrook and those surrounding area
@roger CLP members can choose which party they sit with much like the LNP. The senator from the NT can choose which party but usually the nats get lingiari and the libs get solomon
When did the Nats last run a separate Senate ticket in NSW? I know it’s 2004 for QLD and 1990 for VIC.
@Nimalan, I am not sure if you are deliberately misunderstanding what I said or I was just a bit confusing in my statement. I thought it was pretty clear. SSM is a bad example for a lot of the current hot button culture war issues because SSM was a 25 year process. Starting in the early 90’s there was a push via intermediate steps, first partners rights (wills, hospital visits etc), get that accepted then civil partnerships, get that accepted then SSM. Compare that to The Voice, which was sprung on the population after the 2022 election to put into the constitution a body that had already failed 20 years previously. Or that we have in the last two years given our popular Eurovision vote to Israel despite the broad anti Israel views of our establishment media.
What I am saying is that just because there is broad acceptance of SSM, that should not mean we assume that all these other hot button ‘culture war issues’, most of which are driven by the left btw, are popular or that opposing them will be unpopular.
Just to clarify, I don’t think any party on either side should go all in on culture war issues, but certainly for parties on the right when issues pop up taking the more conservative position and making the case for that position is likely to be popular if not a vote winner.
@ MLV,
Honestly, i am not delibrately misunderstanding what you said. I geninuely want you to speak freely and want to listen. I hear you that people have become more accepting of Sexual Orientation more generally and it has been a long journey so in that case i hear you loud and clear. The point i was trying to make is that Sexual Orientation could have been a wedge issue in the past for example if it was not for the War on Terror era maybe some some social conservatives may have say in the 2000s used that as a wedge to win Muslims votes for example.
Regarding the Voice, whilist i do agree that i feel Albo railroaded the issue making it an election commitment without securing bipartisanship first was his biggest mistake. However, the concept of the voice originated in 2017 from the Uluru statement so was not something created by Labor party. Regardless of what you think about the Voice i dont think Albo should have automatically assumed the Libs will accept it in opposition something that they opposed in government so it best he could have said he is willing to put it to a referendum provided that there is broad accepetance first.
Regarding Israel-Palestine conflict i hear you that it has become a culture war and i remember someone saying never has a foreign conflict divided Austalians since the Vietnam war (which Australia participated in). Regarding that conflict i dont think it will be solved anytime soon nor do i have a solution so i think even if there is a ceasefiren violence can erupt again in another 5 years. I think this conflict will outlive the climate wars and most “culture wars”
Thanks for the two examples of the Voice and Israel-Palestine. If there are any other current hot button culture war issues please feel free to share examples from your perspective. i will listen and be respectful i promise.
I’m a bit puzzled by @MLV’s comment too but I think they may be making a point we actually mostly agree on.
I am a bit sceptical of @Nether Portal’s argument that an alliance between the Nationals and One Nation wouldn’t work. And what I was alluding to regarding SSM is that clearly opposition to SSM is not at all a litmus test for the type of conservatism associated with One Nation.
@ Nicholas
Nether portal is right in the type of Conservatism associated with Family First is different. For example in 2004 Federal election they preferenced Coalition ahead of Labor in most seats with a few exceptions. They preferenced Labor ahead of Warren Entsch as he came out in support of SSM and in the seat of Brisbane they preferenced Labor as the Liberal candiadate Ingrid Tall was a Lesbian.
Just on the QLD redistribution talk from a while back, I have no idea if this would work with the numbers, but a seat based on Gladstone and Rockhampton without as much rural area might be winnable for Labor. Anyone who’s looked at numbers in more detail know if that could work?
And on ON’s chances, they’d need a substantial upswing in their vote to win any seat, even with an increased parliament. A ON-Nat alliance could work ideologically, I think ON’s brand of politics is probably quite similar to what the nats would like to be without the libs, but they’d need to merge, because a coalition wouldn’t work as they target much of the same voter base, and it’s hard to see Pauline Hanson ok to be subsumed into something bigger than her. I suppose ON could move to targeting the outer suburbs, but they’d need to do much better to win, which seems unlikely after so long trying.
@Nimalan
Yes, and I suspect that’s what @MLV is getting at. And my point is that an alliance between the Nationals and One Nation could work, precisely because the conservatism of One Nation is not the conservatism of Family First.
(I just Googled Ingrid Tall – it looks like nowadays her medical procedures might be what cause a fuss were she to try for politics again!)
@Clarinet of Communists:
On PV, sure, but the problem is they’re 85 miles apart and if, say, Gladstone was perceived to be getting more outta the pork barrel than Rocky, which is likely, since Gladstone is still growing while Rocky has been slowly dying since 1962, then Labor allegiances in Rocky would fly out the window for at least one Election and the LNP would win.
My point is actually more that a lot of people are saying ‘the Nationals shouldn’t go right wing on culture war issues, look at SSM’, but I think SSM is a really poor example, and that culture war issues tend towards favouring the right. Even when they don’t the publics view of the issues is often far more nuanced than the left wing position which tends to day towards all or nothing.
I think the Nats should remain a stand alone party for a while, and actually gauge whether they have broader support with or away from the coalition. Same for the Libs TBH. I saw an essay recently suggesting centre right parties were struggling because their traditional coalition of farmers, small business, professionals and religious conservatives doesn’t work anymore, and this falls right across the coalition.
I agree completely @Clarinet of Communists – ideologically, a coalition of One Nation and the Nationals would work. But in practice, I think they would have to merge, as One Nation and The Nationals have big overlaps in their target demographics. And if Pauline didn’t want to join forces with Palmer, there’s no way she’d merge with the nats.
I found the answer to my question about the last time the Country Party ran a separate Senate ticket in NSW.
1934.
I guess too long ago to give us any indication of how they’d do now!
It’s a case of when the Libs do well the nats do well when the liberals tank the nats go down with them.
@MLV thanks for clarifying. I do agree the Voice was more immediately pushed without any details which was a big problem especially given nobody will read the entire Uluṟu Statement (isn’t it several pages long?). But I think that LGBT issues are still unfortunately being made culture war issues in countries like the US.
As for why I don’t think a Nationals-One Nation coalition would work, quite simply Nationals voters aren’t that socially conservative. The Nationals also support free trade while One Nation supports economic nationalism. All they’d have in common is perhaps restricting immigration.
I’d be surprised if 1 in 100 National Party voters support Free Trade, since imports must have a chilling effect on primary production.
Looks like Littleproud is running the Kattercon of Divestiture Powers, which will never happen, while the obvious solution, tying primary industry prices at first point of sale to wages in secondary and tertiary industry, can never be mentioned.
The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a one-page document comprising approximately 440 words.
Confusion regarding the length of the Uluru Statement stems from documents released under Freedom of Information (FOI) laws, which included the one-page statement followed by 25 pages of background information, such as minutes from regional dialogues and explanatory materials. These additional pages provide context but are not part of the Uluru Statement itself.
Speaking of One Nation, here is the complete list of booths that voted One Nation this time (source: the AEC website and The Guardian’s booth map):
NSW:
* Hunter: 27.2% (+13.2%)
* Parkes: Cumborah (41.4%, +30.3%)
* Parkes: Eubalong West (32.9%, +25.2%)
Queensland:
* Wright: Hatton Vale (25.8%, +1.7%)
* Wright: Kooralbyn (26.6%, +9.9%)
Victoria:
* Gippsland: Yallourn North (33.0%, +14.7%)
WA:
* O’Connor: Coolgardie (29.6%, +15.4%)
Notes:
* In the seat of Maranoa, the LNP and One Nation were tied, both on 36 votes.
* In the seat of Riverina, they missed out on Wallendbeen by one vote (the Nats got 21, One Nation got 20).
In Hunter, four polling places voted One Nation on TCP against Labor:
* Elderslie: 54.8%
* Glendon: 60.9%
* Jerrys Plains: 62.5%
* Milbrodale: 57.4%
Interestingly the famously Nationals booth of Pokolbin near Cessnock narrowly went to Labor on TCP (52.7%) despite the Nationals getting 41.8% of the primary vote there (though One Nation only got 8.4% of the primary vote there).
Nether Portal is right that the National Party is pro-free trade as Australia is an exporter of primary products especially Agricultural products so it would be stupid for the Nats or Libs to advocate trump style Trade Wars which ONP will support.