Senate – Queensland – Australia 2022

Incumbent Senators

Term due to expire 2022 Term due to expire 2025
Matt Canavan (Liberal National) Nita Green (Labor)
Anthony Chisholm (Labor) Susan McDonald (Liberal National)
Pauline Hanson (One Nation) Gerard Rennick (Liberal National)
James McGrath (Liberal National) Malcolm Roberts (One Nation)
Amanda Stoker (Liberal National) Paul Scarr (Liberal National)
Murray Watt (Labor) Larissa Waters (Greens)

For the vast majority of the time since proportional representation was introduced, Queensland has had a majority of Senators from right-wing parties such as the Liberals, Nationals, DLP and One Nation. Indeed, the ALP maintained a consistent number of senators for most of this period, holding four Queensland senators continuously from 1951 to 1984. They held a fifth seat from the 1984 election until 1990, when they fell back to four seats. They gained a fifth again in 2007.

From 1951 until the 1964 election, Queensland had four ALP senators, four Liberal senators and two Country Party senators. The 1964 election saw the Liberals lose a seat to the Democratic Labor Party candidate (and ex-Premier) Vince Gair. They won a second seat in 1967, which resulted in the Liberals, Country Party and DLP each holding two senate seats in Queensland, alongside four ALP senators. The 1970 election maintained the status quo.

The 1974 double dissolution saw the DLP lose both their seats, with the Liberal and Country parties each winning a third seat. The Queensland delegation remained steady at four ALP and three for each of the coalition parties until 1980, when the National Country Party lost one of their three seats to the Democrats. The 1980 election was the first time that the Coalition parties ran separate Senate tickets in Queensland, after running jointly for the previous thirty years. The 1983 double dissolution saw the Nationals win back a third seat at the expense of the Liberals, who by this point in time had begun to run on separate tickets. Throughout the 1980s the Nationals held more Senate seats in Queensland than the Liberals.

The 1984 election saw an enlargement in the Senate, with the ALP winning a fifth Senate seat for the first time and the Nationals electing a fourth senator. This balance of five ALP, four Nationals, two Liberals and a Democrat was maintained at the 1987 double dissolution election.

The 1990 election saw the Liberals overtake the Nationals. After the 1987 double dissolution the Senate had decided that two ALP, two Liberal and two National senators would have six-year terms, despite the fact that the Liberals had won half the number of seats of either other party. This gave them a boost in 1990, as they won two seats to the Nationals one, while not having any incumbents up for election. In practice this meant that the Liberals won two seats, one off the ALP and the other off the Nationals. The ALP was reduced back to four seats, and the Coalition again gained a majority of Queensland senate seats.

The 1993 election saw the Democrats win a second Queensland seat, at the expense of the Nationals. This produced a result of four each for the ALP and Liberal Party and two each for the Nationals and Democrats.

The 1993 election result was maintained in 1996, but in 1998 the Nationals lost one of their two seats to One Nation. In 2001 there were again no changes, and in 2004 the Nationals and Liberals each gained a seat, with One Nation losing their seat and one of the two Democrats being defeated. The 2007 election saw the defeat of the last remaining Democrat, producing an overall result of five senators each for the Labor and Liberal parties and two Nationals senators.

In 2010, the LNP went in to the election with four incumbent senators, and retained three of those seats. Labor maintained their two seats, and the Greens’ Larissa Waters won the first ever Greens Senate seat in Queensland.

In 2013, the LNP retained their three sitting senators, while Labor lost one of their three seats to Glenn Lazarus, running for the Palmer United Party.

At the 2016 double dissolution election, Labor retained their four seats and the Greens retained their one seat. Lazarus was defeated, running on his own independent ticket, and the LNP lost their sixth seat, with both seats going to One Nation’s Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts.

Roberts was removed from his seat in 2017 due to his possession of British citizenship when he was elected in 2016. He was replaced by third One Nation candidate Fraser Anning. He fell out with One Nation immediately and served out his term as an independent and as a member of a party he founded.

At the 2019 election, the Liberal National Party retained their two seats and gained a third (for a total of six) while Labor retained only one seat (for a total of three). The Greens retained their seat and Malcolm Roberts regained his seat from Fraser Anning.

2019 result

Group Votes % Swing Quota
Liberal National 1,128,730 38.9 +3.6 2.7231
Labor 654,774 22.6 -3.8 1.5797
One Nation 297,994 10.3 +1.1 0.7189
Greens 288,320 9.9 +3.1 0.6956
United Australia Party 102,230 3.5 +3.5 0.2466
Help End Marijuana Prohibition 50,828 1.8 +1.8 0.1226
Katter’s Australian Party 51,407 1.8 0.0 0.1240
Animal Justice 38,624 1.3 +0.1 0.0932
Conservative National Party 37,184 1.3 +1.3 0.0897
Australian Conservatives 29,096 1.0 +1.0 0.0702
Democratic Labour 28,811 1.0 +0.4 0.0695
Shooters, Fishers and Farmers 29,329 1.0 -0.1 0.0708
Liberal Democrats 24,000 0.8 -2.0 0.0579
Rise Up Australia 22,529 0.8 +0.6 0.0544
Hetty Johnston independent group 18,341 0.6 +0.6 0.0442
Others 99,267 3.4

Preference flows
Three seats were won on primary votes: two for the LNP and one for Labor.

Let’s look at the final ten candidates competing for the last three seats, including three incumbent senators and two former members of parliament:

  • Gerard Rennick (LNP) – 0.7936 quotas
  • Malcolm Roberts (ON) – 0.7889
  • Larissa Waters (GRN) – 0.7771
  • Chris Ketter (ALP) – 0.6331
  • Clive Palmer (UAP) – 0.2808
  • John Jiggens (HEMP) – 0.1726
  • Joy Marriott (KAP) – 0.1659
  • Karagh-Mae Kelly (AJP) – 0.1351
  • Jeff Hodges (SFF) – 0.1121
  • Fraser Anning (CNP) – 0.1099

Anning’s preferences pushed Roberts into the lead.

  • Roberts (ON) – 0.8318
  • Rennick (LNP) – 0.8114
  • Waters (GRN) – 0.7807
  • Ketter (ALP) – 0.6376
  • Palmer (UAP) – 0.2916
  • Marriott (KAP) – 0.1775
  • Jiggens (HEMP) – 0.1770
  • Kelly (AJP) – 0.1380
  • Hodges (SFF) – 0.1198

Shooters preferences flowed most strongly to the KAP, and also One Nation and the LNP.

  • Roberts (ON) – 0.8526
  • Rennick (LNP) – 0.8229
  • Waters (GRN) – 0.7857
  • Ketter (ALP) – 0.6457
  • Palmer (UAP) – 0.2980
  • Marriott (KAP) – 0.2020
  • Jiggens (HEMP) – 0.1979
  • Kelly (AJP) – 0.1459

Animal Justice preferences favoured the Greens and HEMP, pushing HEMP out of last place and pushing the Greens ahead of the LNP.

  • Roberts (ON) – 0.8656
  • Waters (GRN) – 0.8377
  • Rennick (LNP) – 0.8354
  • Ketter (ALP) – 0.6605
  • Palmer (UAP) – 0.3043
  • Jiggens (HEMP) – 0.2224
  • Marriott (KAP) – 0.2053

KAP preferences flowed most strongly to One Nation, but also pushed the LNP back ahead of the Greens:

  • Roberts (ON) – 0.9359
  • Rennick (LNP) – 0.8752
  • Waters (GRN) – 0.8473
  • Ketter (ALP) – 0.6826
  • Palmer (UAP) – 0.3282
  • Jiggens (HEMP) – 0.2385

HEMP preferences favoured the Greens:

  • Roberts (ON) – 0.9698
  • Waters (GRN) – 0.9117
  • Rennick (LNP) – 0.8974
  • Ketter (ALP) – 0.7162
  • Palmer (UAP) – 0.3425

Palmer’s preferences elected Roberts and brought the LNP close to the fifth seat:

  • Roberts (ON) – 1.1276
  • Rennick (LNP) – 0.9902
  • Waters (GRN) – 0.9376
  • Ketter (ALP) – 0.7430

Roberts’ surplus elected Rennick, leaving the final contest as:

  • Waters (GRN) – 0.9579
  • Ketter (ALP) – 0.7681


The Queensland senators up for election in 2022 are skewed to the right – the LNP and One Nation hold four seats while Labor holds just two. The left only managed two seats in 2019, but if there is any swing to Labor they should be in a position to win two seats along with one Green.

If this takes place, it means that there is one less seat for the right, and the last seat is likely to be a fierce contest between the LNP’s Amanda Stoker and Pauline Hanson, with Clive Palmer and Campbell Newman as dark horses. Hanson would be a favourite in current circumstances, since it looks likely that the LNP primary vote will be hit hard.

Become a Patron!


  1. Yeah you’re probably right just looking again at quota based on my rough ballpark of expected primary votes, I expect LNP to end up with ~2.3 – 2.4 of a quota and ALP to have ~1.7 – 1.8.

    I also get the sense that UAP are going to be a bit of a dud up in Queensland. 1. Yes the electorate are probably sick of him. He’s been contesting elections for close to 10 years now without growing voters. 2. Queensland Nickel controversy still riles up North Queensland punters. 3. Border closures were more popular in Queensland during the pandemic than some give credit for and he was agitating on the national stage to rip them down.

    But I wouldn’t rule out him doing better than ONP in Victoria where his brand seems to be appealing more to the covid rebels (both won’t make much of an impact in Victoria anyway).

  2. It’s hard to estimate the UAP vote. With his short, punctuation-optional text-message level billboard slogans he’s going after “low information voters” who traditional polling tend to miss, or at least have done in the past. As a crowd, UAP voters I’ve met seem to think they’re an enormous hidden majority – probably an effect of echo-chamber effect, combined with Palmer’s tactic of repeating it over and over again hoping someone will believe it. 4-5% of the population is what I’m guessing, a bit less if ON are going ok.

    But I would suggest Palmer and Kelly don’t have the “cult leader” effect that e.g. Trump does, which also means their preferences could spray all over the place. There would be some irony in the freedom crowd following central instructions on how to preference anyway…

  3. I suggest that the “short, punctuation-optional text-message level billboard slogans” are so abundant and ubiquitous, many being erected for well-over a year, that they are about as interesting to people as the trees that they pass on the way to work. I do not believe that they are even consciously acknowledged any more by low-information voters. I believe most punters just tune out upon seeing them.

    There is a factor of timing that plays in how impactful a billboard might be. The first few times it is seen really makes an impact until diminishing rewards starts kicking in. The first is usually the most impactful but operates on a sensory level and most brain power is used to decipher the billboard. Subsequent viewings once familiarity of the message is established, invokes a more of a thoughtful impact – “This makes me feel X”, “I should look that up when I get home”, “How does it relate to me?”. I recognise that they have been seasonally changing the messaging on the billboards, but if they were rolled out closer to the election, they would be more top of mind on election day instead of just part of the foliage. The medium is almost the message with this form of blunt instrument.

    My personal belief is that low-information voters don’t predominantly vote for these micro-parties, but usually instead opt for the status-quo OR if they are personally doing it really tough, the most high-profile alternative (the opposition). You see these voters generally in the marginal electorates.

    I also think that there is a bit of a Dunning-Kruger effect associated with the micro-parties. Engagement with these parties including the issues that animate them require slightly more attention and information – more than the completely uninterested and/or clueless punter. You see that ONP attracts an engagement-rate on their social media that dwarfs the major parties. Their supporters are more engaged with politics than low-information voters but generally via shallow information/disinformation mediums: social media posts, memes, news-headlines (rather than the story) etc. These voters are generally found in low socioeconomic regions that are most disaffected by major politics.

    As you progress further along the Dunning-Kruger scale, into the valley of despair you get higher-educated voters that are engaged via denser information mediums: news-articles, news programs (including news digest and variety shows). Some of these voters have enough of an understanding of at least one of the political brands (including policies) to develop a partisan lens. This might have them cheerleading for one of the majors. Less partisan medium-information voters consciously consider policy differences to determine their vote. You see a lot of these voters in the major capitals but they are very broadly distributed throughout the country. This group would be more likely to turn to a Green or a ‘teal-independent’ if disillusioned.

    And then finally you get the long-tail of deeply politically-engaged and informed voters – the least abundant of voters. These voters are highly educated and/or highly invested in politics (ie. volunteers). They consume dense and/or participatory information mediums: local community/party meetings, news & politics podcasts, political essays and literature, websites like these. The political leanings of this group usually comes down to the individual circumstances which incited them to become so invested in politics.

  4. SEQ Observer – if LNP is on 2.8 quotas, and PHON is on 1.2 quotas, at the point the AEC starts eliminating candidates then it is the second PHON who will be eliminated and have their preferences flow

  5. SEQ Observer:

    Assuming anything like normal Qld ATL/BTL behaviour, PHON can’t get two seats without a primary vote that’s well over a quota.

    If PHON starts on about 0.75q and gets up to 1.2 quotas (on what is presumably either LDP or UAP elimination), then PHON’s other candidates have long since been eliminated too. That 1.2q is sitting entirely with Pauline Hanson, re-elects her, and then distributes/exhausts. Probably mostly to Amanda Stoker’s benefit!

  6. @ SEQ Observer

    You seem to be a cluey fella, so I have a question for you. I am going to vote below the line, but just preference 12 people to make it a valid vote.

    Would my vote be more effective if I give my higher preference to the person in the group who is on the cusp of getting the required quota (i.e. 3d in the group list), rather than the person who on the top of the group list?

    I ask this as my 12 preferences will be distributed over about 5 parties and just want to maximise the impact of these 12 preferences.

    Thank you.

  7. For the major parties starting at 2 or 3 will make your 12 go further – after all their ‘1’ is a shoo in. Then after that go for ‘1’ as the minor parties ‘2’ will be eliminated before it is ever counted . Stick to 5 parties so you don’t hit some nuts.

  8. I’d go more than 12 just to ensure it doesn’t exhaust. Unless your 12 are all real contenders.

    I used to do below the line every number until the rule change. I’d suggest about 24-30 below the line.

  9. What’s interesting here is how much Hanson improves the quota compared to Roberts. If it does surpass the quota before preferences are distributed then the over quota should end up back on Stoker. If it’s a decent amount over quota and you add that to the Lib Dems, Palmer etc maybe they still get there for the third seat.

    A tough ask though!

  10. LNP Insider – the question is where it comes from, I suppose. One Nation were over quota on 4PP last time but only elected in the late phase of the count. I suppose I could see some LNP-PHON marginals going PHON>LNP this time, having gone LNP>PHON last time; that could be good for a few percent.
    Fraser Anning and the Shooters aren’t contesting this time and KAP barely are, which lets about a third of a quota loose and I’d expect Hanson to get about half of that based on last-election prefs. That doesn’t necessarily change the outcome though, it just improves PHON’s primary.

  11. Labor is dead in QLD if the new poll from YouGov MRP is anything to go by. Only having them picking up the seat of Brisbane and going backwards in several other seats. Not gaining Longman.

    Chisholm or Watt would be in danger of losing and Labor would only have 1 senator elected after this election if Labor is on less than 29% and doesn’t get strong flows.

    The poll has them on 29% but if they do any worse than this, which is entirely possible given the MOE or underestimation in the coalition vote could mean we could get a dire outcome for Labor.

    3 LNP which means unfortunately Stroker would be reelected unless 2 right-wing parties can win seats. Perhaps both Hanson and possibly a Palmer or Newman?

    The way I see it is in this order

    LNP (1st elected)
    Labor (2nd elected)
    LNP (3rd elected)
    Greens (4th elected)
    One Nation (5th elected)
    LNP or Newman/Palmer (6th elected)

    If the ALP do better and manage to get a 2nd seat then it should be the 6th or 5th seat if they do much better than expected.

    If Albo does win with a majority and does do this poorly in QLD his position is untenable and should resign in favour of Jim Chalmers, and this is coming from someone who voted Labor. He simply isn’t liked up here and isn’t cutting through.

  12. A lot of those calls like Ryan and Longman are lineball, so it’s not quite *that* dire (I think the Greens are more likely to win Ryan than Labor) but it does line up with most of the rest of the polling suggesting that the desperate pandering to fossil fuel enthusiasts hasn’t been enormously successful

    I’d be more worried about Greens making quota than the ALP with the numbers from that poll. I’ve never seen a bigger Greens presence in Brisbane ever but I’ve got no idea what’s happening outside the city. Could be that the bleed in the regions is enough to lose it for them. It doesn’t really matter, Greens will hold the balance in the Senate either way, but I gotta admit it would be hilarious if they missed out on quota with 12-13% of 1st preferences. Anyway I’m going to be optimistic and project that both will just scrape in for a 2-2-1-1 Senate result.

    Albo’s not gonna resign after just winning the election lol

  13. There is no way on earth Albo will resign after winning a majority. What a ridiculous statement. If anything it will just convince Labor that they can ignore Queensland outside of Brisbane and still win the election.

    Chalmers should be the next Labor leader after Albo though, if they want to give themselves a better chance in Queensland at future elections. Rudd proved that Queenslanders will vote for a local as PM.

  14. Wilson / FL
    Any more ridiculous than the suggestion that Scott Morrison would land one of Political History’s greatest accumulator bets, & then promptly resign? This suggestion is being promoted by Zali Steggall, amoung others.

  15. Great comments so far. @Daniel, interesting that you say Labor is dead in the water in Qld. It’s not what’s being observed at the pre polls. There’s a definite swing on in Qld and after the election wash up I think the 2pp will be closer to the 51/49 which translates to roughly an 7% swing back to the centre. Here’s the kicker, even at an 5% swing I don’t see it translating in seats that matter. Net result only increasing their margins in already held seats.

    I can see Dickson and Longman as LNP retains, Lilley ALP retain with safe margin (Lobo is a no show) at the pre polls.

    Brisbane’s gone for LNP. I’m keen to take the juicy odds on the Greens but I believe statistically the ALP will take the coveted 2nd place and get elected on Green preferences. The unknown is Petrie. LNP should win this contest but geez plenty of Labor HTV cards are being dispersed.

    As for the senate, pretty confident you can lock in 2 LNP, 2 ALP, 1 Green and 1 PHON.

  16. Yes, almost certainly 2-2-1-1.

    Re Albo resigning – having a rough trot in one state isn’t grounds for resignation if you did well enough in the rest of the states to get a majority…

    Queensland is only one state of six!

  17. Phil what do you think the counter-hypothetical is? Zali Steggall demands Albo’s resignation because… he didn’t get enough votes in a state she doesn’t live in? I don’t like piling on Daniel but it’s a ridiculous notion.

  18. In response to Daniel – it doesn’t matter if Labor don’t do that well in some states. In many western democracies there are always places where a winning party will do poorly in (eg Canada has Alberta as a weak province for left of centre parties like Trudeau’s Liberal Party).

    I feel Queensland is like Western Australia in having clear distinction between the state and federal levels (Federally being quite conservative in nature but at state level has a strong local feel with voters supporting the party that will provide best service delivery)

  19. All the polling I’ve seen suggests that Qld is going back to 2-2-1-1 in the Senate. This doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll pick up any seats – there are some quite large margins up here nowadays – but the polls have consistently been showing:

    * One Nation’s vote holding up
    * The Greens’ vote holding up
    * A solid swing away from the LNP, about 5%
    * A corresponding swing towards Labor

    That all adds up to Labor #2 and LNP #3 swapping fortunes. If you have a go at running 2019 numbers except the LNP are 0.35q worse and Labor is 0.35q better”, this results in ALP #2 electing fourth, PHON fifth, Greens sixth and LNP #3 coming unlucky seventh, even with the benefit of PHON excess.

    The Greens don’t necessarily have to make quota to win; they didn’t last time. If they’re above 0.9 quotas and the exhaust rate is somewhere around 0.2 quotas, as it was last time, then they can only really miss out if each of the other big three come in at pretty much bang on integer quotas / even higher partial quotas at the final-four stage of the count. Indeed if the Greens can hold level at 0.95q, that scenario is only possible if the exhaust rate drops.

  20. @Daniel

    Your comment is ridiculous Albo resigning but its also ignoring history. Bob Hawke never started winning half or more of the seats in Queensland until his third election in 1987.

    I’ve read Queensland regional seats have been hard for Labor because the margins are so big. It doesn’t mean though their not making inroads into those margins which makes think Labor will win a second senate seat.

  21. The ABCs Antony Green believes four seats are very likely – 2 LNP, 1 Labor, 1 ON, with at least one of the two remaining seats going to the broader left. No real surprises there.

    University of Queensland academic Glen Kefford believes it will be 2 LNP, 2 Labor, 1 Greens and ON edging out the LNP for the last seat.

  22. I am going out on a limb here, but from what I am hearing from those in the know in Queensland, and checking preferences deals, I think there will be a surprise result here.
    For a start, the ALP could improve their primary vote a little and still be stranded on 1 seat and almost a quota for a second, and that is what I think will happen.
    With the Melbourne Cup field of conservative alternatives, and a drop in the LNP vote, I am confident that the split will remain, and end up thus:
    ALP 1, LNP 2, Green 1, PHON 1, LDP 1. Yup, Campbell Newman in the Senate.

  23. @Bash

    I think its out of the question both Pauline Hanson and Campbell Newman get elected. Its either one or the other and I think it will be Hanson. There is just not enough of that hard Right anti-vaxers vote going around to secure both of them. Particularly also with Clive Palmer also in the mix.

  24. All hell appears to have broken out in the Conspiracy theorists camp tonight . Steve Dixon complaining to AEC , AFP, calling for AEC Commissioner to be sacked because he does not like the design of the Ballot Paper. He does not like the fact that his unnamed group is not labelled Independent. Claims bein made that if you vote above the line for Dixon’s group your vote will be counted as informal. Further complaints that the group are not labelled as independent. Claiming matter is so serious that QUeensland Senate election and possibly other states will have to be reconducted.


    The lack of marking of non-party groups` ATL boxes is the legislation at work, not the AEC making decisions. It is an unfair legislative provision, no doubt about it. However, getting a rerun out of it would require persuading the High Court that it was unfair enough to not be within the meaning of election, as using in the Constitution to the extent that it altered the result. The time for court cases about the legislation was before the election, when no reruns would have been needed.

  26. A fantastic night in Queensland for the Greens and an absolute vindication of both Adam Bandt’s leadership and the grassroots oriented, progressive, left-wing campaign of the Queensland Greens themselves. While there were gains for Labor in regional Queensland it clearly wasn’t enough to translate into any seats, and you can very well imagine that a resurgent LNP would claw it all back anyway. In other words, the ‘small-target’, mealy-mouthed, pandering strategy Labor took trying to win back their jilted lovers in coal country was pretty much a fizzer.

    Another result largely overlooked is the surprising success of the Legalize Cannabis party. I did not see them actually campaigning in Brisbane anywhere, so you can explain this one of two ways: either lots of people just didn’t GAF about the choices on offer, or legalisation is actually a pretty popular policy, as it is throughout Western Europe and the Americas. The Greens actually officially adopted cannabis legalisation in their party platform, but de-emphasised it in their campaign. I thought that was likely a mistake, I didn’t imagine it would be by this much. It tells me that this is absolutely an issue they should be taking to the state election in 2024.

    I see the Greens gains last night as a more or less permanent re-alignment in Brisbane. We could be looking at a minority Labor government, yes, but it’s also suddenly looking very promising for the city council that’s been completely dominated by the LNP, and which Qld Labor have basically ignored as a campaign target.

  27. Furtive, with the strong Green result in the seat of Brisbane – does that bode well for either Labor or Greens to claim Clayfield state district (which overlaps with the eastern side of Brisbane federal seat).

    I presume it also strengthens Greens or Labor bid to win or at least trim the Liberal margins in some local council wards (namely Central and Hamilton)

  28. I will also note that Labor has even less representation in Queensland after losing a seat to the Greens and not gaining any seats from the LNP. Chisholm winning again will be a relief for the ALP who were worried a repeat of 2019 was possible in the senate.

    LNP are on par for 2010 and 2016 for 21 seats in our state. They are still in high-watermark territory and Labor needs to do plenty of rebuilding to win back traditional marginal seats in the state such as my seat of Petrie which has just lost it’s bellwether status.

  29. Long term that vote is a real worry for Labor, at a bad election they will never get a second senator up based on what we’ve seen here.

    As formthe last seat. Media is all Cannabis vs Hanson but is there still a path for someone else to leapfrog up?

    I also wonder as postals and senate prepolls get counted whether the quotas change a big and maybe strengthen the two major parties?

  30. Sorry I didn’t reply to this before before Yoh. The main reason Clayfield didn’t flip last time was because the Greens campaign there collapsed after the candidate was accused of misconduct. Labor basically ignored it up until then assuming that the Greens would win. Who knows what will happen in 2+ years obviously but all things being equal, you’d expect it to fall in 2024, one way or another.

    As for BCC there are tons of paths to victory for an ALP/Greens coalition without having to go through Hamilton. The Greens would naturally target Central, Coorparoo, Paddington, Pullenvale and Walter Taylor, Labor could take Calamvale, Marchant, Northgate and so on; you could see both ALP and GRN in the hunt in Enoggera, Holland Park, The Gap etc. The problem is that while the Greens are used to running scrappy campaigns on shoestring budgets for milestone targets, Labor haven’t been all that interested in city council as a prize worth winning, and prefer to stockpile their ammunition for the state election. I’d guess they’d be even less interested at the prospect of a Greens-led council with them in the minority, which wouldn’t be out of the question.

  31. Furtive Lawngnome, did Labor really assume the Greens would win Clayfield? That seems a little odd considering the Greens were a full 13.6% behind Labor’s primary vote in 2017 and the Clayfield-Ascot-Hendra area is quite clearly the big conservative stronghold in the area covered by the seat of Brisbane.

  32. Wilson maybe I’m presuming too much, but the Greens considered it a 2nd tier target seat, a possible if not probable win. The Greens campaigned extensively there figuring on a swing from both Labor and Liberals. Then the John Meyer scandal broke and it all fell apart. Labor showed very little interest at any point in the election.

    Those suburbs you mentioned have been historically conservative but many other suburbs nearby have become much more competitive in recent years. Even Clayfield isn’t the overwhelming conservative stronghold it used to be, it’s not far off being a 50-50 split, at least in terms of Liberal vs Labor. Check the AEC tally room for booth counts after the Div of Brisbane is done counting. I think you’ll find places like Gordon Park and Lutwyche, and certainly Windsor will be quite strong for the Greens, and they won’t be doing too badly in Clayfield and Hamilton.

  33. Furtive Lawngnome, the suburbs from Lutwyche westwards have always been competitive for Labor (and the Greens I guess) but this is the first election we’ve started to see any shift in Clayfield. Hendra and Ascot remain overwhelmingly supportive of the LNP. Certainly at the next election a swing might be on, but it does seem a bit much for anyone, least of all Labor, to assume the Greens would win Clayfield. I wonder if Labor ignored it because they assumed the LNP would win, rather than the Greens.

    In any case, I hope Clayfield continues its rebalancing and the council and state contests are very comeptitive in 2024.

  34. I know the LNP getting third was written off when they had 2.18 quotas with 32% of the vote. But with 69% counted they are now on 2.47 and only just behind Hanson and we’ll in front of Legalise Cannabis.

    Hanson probably holds on thanks to minor right preferences but keep an eye on it.

  35. I suspect Hanson will scrape through with UAP and LDP preferences. Malcolm Roberts won’t be so lucky next election but he may get in if the LNP chase middle ground and right wing Queensland voters feel alienated.

  36. Not sure why you think this can go ”Either way” Ben (I saw your commentary on the guardian) Antony Green thinks Hanson is likely to get over on the preference flows from the other minors. One Nation is on 0.50 of a quota last time I checked. UAP, and Legalise Weed, Lib Dems and other parties who got a fraction of a percent of the vote should get her over the line. I see no way Stoker gets above the line unless the LNP’s senate primary vote improves (Which would depend on how many votes remain to count if any at all?)

  37. Regardless of the end result support for Hanson has plunged. Finally Queenslanders have seen her for what she is.

  38. And you don’t think Stoker is worse Andrew? The amount of bullcrap she talked on the ABC 2020 QLD state election night makes me ask how on earth she got preselected.

  39. LDP didn’t man many booths at all and I would not be surprised at all if their preferences favour the LNP.

    When talking to scrutineers on lower house seats a substantial amount of Palmer prefences seemed to go to the LNP over Hanson as well.

    Legalise Cannabis preferences will spray everywhere.

    Australian Values has 0.04 and will all flow to the LNP.

    I can see a path of LDP and Values preferences giving the LNP a buffer and the Palmer preferences not being enough to get Hanson back over the line.

    I thinknita like a 20% chance but its certainly a possibility.

    Cannabis I certainly don’t believe will flow to Hanson, they will mainly exhaust

  40. Looking at the senate results on the ABC, it looks like there’ll be 2 LNP, 2 ALP, 1 GRN & most likely Pauline Hanson (if not a 3rd LNP senator). This will depend on minor party preferences.

    One Nation’s vote has gone backwards at this election and the last state election, but Hanson managed to get 7.3% of votes. Hanson is 68 and she may be the last One Nation senator, unless there’s a double dissolution. Having name recognition on the ballot paper helped her a lot. Malcolm Roberts may not be lucky next time. He scored a huge swing in 2019, mainly in coal mining regions.

    The (most likely) new Greens senator is from Gladstone. Interestingly, Gladstone has one of the busiest coal ports in the world. She is the first Greens senator who isn’t from a capital city. She may help shake off the stereotype that the Greens are inner-city elitists who don’t care about regional Australia.

  41. @Votante Bob Brown, Christine Milne and Richard Di Natale all lived in rural parts of their states and Peter Whish Wilson is from Northern Tasmania. Allman-Payne is not the first non capital city Green senator But yes it is surprising to have a Green from Gladstone. 2022 is the first election where Greens didn’t lose their deposit in Flynn.

  42. Well, the final distribution has been done now and produced the “expected” 2-2-1-1 split.

    I’ve done a four-ticket-preferred analysis of the ballot papers.

    Greens 17.2% (+3.87%)
    Labor 27.53% (+2.36%)
    Liberal National 38.72% (-4.43%)
    One Nation 13.92% (-2.07%)
    None 2.64% (-0.28%)

    We can see that works out to about 3.1q for the Left and about 3.7q for the Right. Last time the Left was below 3, hence the lopsided result.

    Using Andrew Conway’s counter [1], we can also simulate a double dissolution. And we see a quite extraordinary result: 5 LNP, 3 Labor, 2 Greens, 1 Hanson and 1 Legalise Cannabis. (Palmer comes 13th; losing to LNP #5 by a modest margin).


  43. I’m not exactly the first person to make this observation but my god, the UAP campaign has to be about the worst in history in terms of money splurged vs outcome.

    Thanks for doing that btw Alex, those tables are complete nerd gibberish to me

  44. Clive Palmer, despite the huge splurge and the name recognition, came 6th, behind Legalise Cannabis, who came 5th.

    I just looked on the ABC’s Senate HTV guide and apart from the Greens and Reason, nobody gave their preferences to Legalise Cannabis. Even the left-leaning (eg. Socialists, Animal Justice, Democrats), libertarians (LDP) and medical freedom parties overlooked or underestimated Legalise Cannabis. I wonder if some of the left-wing parties wish they had preferenced them in order to prevent Hanson or Stoker getting in. Labor probably wouldn’t preference them because it would scare away socially conservative and older voters.

    @John. Got it. She’ll be the first regional Queensland Greens MP.

  45. Fusion’s HTV presumably wasn’t up on ABC (because it was finalised quite late), but it had Cannabis at #5.

  46. A few months ago, Gerard Rennick lost preselection for the third spot on the LNP Senate ticket to Stuart Fraser, the party Treasurer by 131 votes to 128. A report from The Australian today suggests that Rennick is intending to sue to overturn the vote, on the basis that multiple ineligible votes were cast and Peter Dutton was wrongly denied a proxy vote. Probably a while yet to the election but this will be fascinating to watch if the legal case goes ahead.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here