One Nation, the Nationals and Labor: the battle for regional Australia is far from settled

The latest polling shows One Nation remains a powerful challenger, the Nationals have reasons to resist predictions of their demise, and Labor cannot assume a divided opposition means satisfied voters.

One Nation has slipped from the daily headlines at times, but it has certainly not disappeared from the political contest.

Recent polling puts Pauline Hanson’s party ahead of the Coalition nationally on primary support. Yet other findings suggest its advance in regional Australia has lost some momentum, giving both the Nationals and Labor breathing space.

That makes this a useful moment for a political scorecard.

Who is attracting support? Who is holding ground? And who can turn voter dissatisfaction into seats—and eventually into improvements in people’s lives?

The answers are more complicated than a single poll suggests.

What the polling says

Three recent federal surveys illustrate both One Nation’s strength and the uncertainty surrounding the contest.

These are separate surveys covering different periods and using different methods. They should not be read as consecutive steps in a single trend. Nevertheless, all three put One Nation ahead of the combined Liberal–National primary vote.

That is a substantial challenge to the established political order.

It is also only part of the story. Primary votes measure first preferences. Governments are formed by winning electorates after preferences are distributed.

YouGov’s October survey, for example, put Labor and the Coalition level at 50–50 using preference flows from the 2025 election, while its respondent-allocated Labor–One Nation measure favoured Labor 53–47. Those are different calculations, and neither guarantees an election outcome.

One Nation: a substantial force, with conversion still the test

Scorecard: strong support, but an uneven path from polling to parliamentary power.

One Nation’s achievement is that it has become a serious electoral consideration for voters dissatisfied with both major political camps.

Its challenge is to turn that attention into durable local organisations, credible candidates and policies that withstand examination beyond a campaign slogan.

There is also evidence that its regional advance has softened.

DemosAU’s model, based on almost 10,000 respondents surveyed during August and September, recorded rural and regional One Nation support at 34%, down from 41% in its previous model. That remains substantial support, but the decline materially changed its projected electoral prospects.

The political interpretation is that One Nation remains competitive, while some voters are still weighing the alternatives. A surge in attention does not establish permanent allegiance.

For One Nation, the next stage requires answers to practical questions.

How would its proposals affect regional employers? What would they mean for hospitals, agriculture, tourism and businesses struggling to recruit? Which commitments could it deliver from the crossbench, and which require government?

Voters are entitled to express frustration. They are equally entitled to examine what follows their protest.

The Nationals: under pressure, but premature obituaries

Scorecard: vulnerable, with a viable route to recovery.

The Nationals face a particularly direct challenge because One Nation contests their central claim: that they provide the strongest political voice for people outside the capitals.

The party’s own stated priorities include stronger regional economies, secure communities and greater opportunity for regional Australians. The electoral question is whether voters believe its representation has delivered enough of those things.

Long service can build trust. It can also create expectations that become difficult to satisfy.

A community waiting for dependable medical services, safer roads or affordable housing may eventually stop measuring its representative by familiarity and start measuring results.

Nevertheless, the latest modelling provides a reason for the Nationals to resist predictions of extinction. DemosAU put their prospective representation at four to 11 seats, compared with zero to two in its previous model. These are modelled possibilities, not seats already secured.

Their strongest response would be to demonstrate the value of local representation: candidates who know their communities, pursue specific problems and explain what they have achieved.

Simply warning that One Nation cannot deliver may be insufficient. The Nationals must also answer why dissatisfied voters believe they need another option.

Labor: competitive, but facing a warning

Scorecard: electorally competitive, with limited room for complacency.

Labor’s position contains an apparent contradiction.

It can remain competitive after preferences even when its first-preference support is weak. Roy Morgan’s early October survey, for example, put Labor on 26% of the primary vote while estimating it ahead in preference contests against either the Coalition or One Nation.

The strategic danger is mistaking a workable electoral position for broad public satisfaction.

A voter who ultimately preferences Labor may still be unhappy about household costs, housing availability or the condition of local services.

And a divided opposition does not reduce the government’s responsibility to explain its decisions and demonstrate results.

For regional Labor representatives, that means showing how national policies work in places where distances are greater, public transport is limited and essential services may already be stretched.

An announcement in Canberra is the beginning of that explanation. The local outcome is what voters live with.

Country Labor: challenging the Nationals requires its own record

Country Labor belongs in this scorecard because the contest for regional Australia is not simply a fight between the Nationals and One Nation.

Labor has its own regional organisation, candidates and traditions. At the NSW Country Labor conference in February, Anthony Albanese pointed to Labor’s victory in 24 rural and regional federal seats at the previous election. That was the Prime Minister’s account of Labor’s regional performance, and a reminder that the party has a substantial presence beyond metropolitan Australia.

Country Labor’s political role includes challenging the Nationals’ claim to speak for the bush.

But opposition to the Nationals cannot be its entire proposition.

Its credibility depends on whether regional voters see it influencing Labor governments as well as campaigning against conservative opponents.

Can it secure attention for a town whose needs are easily overlooked? Can it explain how a policy designed nationally will accommodate local circumstances? Can it convey uncomfortable regional feedback to its own leadership?

The same standard should apply to all three parties: representation means carrying the community’s concerns into the party room, as well as carrying the party’s message back to the community.

Preferences could decide who survives

The emerging contest makes preferences especially important.

In regional seats where Labor finishes behind the Nationals and One Nation, Labor voters’ subsequent choices may help determine which conservative candidate wins.

DemosAU identified 15 rural and regional electorates in which its model put One Nation ahead on primary votes but behind the Coalition after preferences.

That explains why national popularity and parliamentary representation can produce very different scorecards.

One Nation can attract more first preferences nationally than the Coalition without necessarily winning more seats. The Nationals can remain competitive through concentrated local support and preference flows. Labor can benefit from those contests while still facing serious dissatisfaction of its own.

Party recommendations matter, but voters ultimately decide how to number their ballots.

Regional Australia is more than a political identity

The weakness in much political discussion is the assumption that “regional voters” form a single bloc.

They do not.

A farming district, mining centre, coastal tourism town and growing regional city can have markedly different priorities. Even within one electorate, an employer seeking workers and a renter seeking a home may experience the same economic conditions very differently.

For all three parties, the test is whether their policies recognise those differences.

A migration proposal should be examined against workforce needs as well as population pressures. An energy proposal should explain affordability, reliability and local land impacts. A housing promise should account for builders, infrastructure, workers and the people already waiting for somewhere to live.

These are the questions that turn political positioning into a useful public contest.

The Times View

The scorecard shows One Nation remains a substantial challenger, the Nationals retain a credible defence, and Labor remains competitive while confronting weak first-preference support.

Country Labor has a place in that contest, but it must demonstrate a positive case for regional representation alongside its criticism of the Nationals.

No party should treat the country vote as an inheritance. Nor should voters be expected to confuse a forceful complaint with a workable solution.

Regional Australia does not owe any party its loyalty. Every party owes regional Australia a reason to earn it.