6:32 – Unfortunately the AEC has not published maps for the final versions. I am relying on the descriptions of the borders to draw them myself – I am confident I have assigned every SA1 correctly, but it’s a bit of a pain to make. It may also be beyond my capacity to accurately do so for the Tasmanian and South Australian redistributions, depending on how much they deviate from the drafts. I will add some maps when they are done, but it probably won’t be until tomorrow.

3:30 – The scale of the changes are significantly less than on the draft boundaries. 9.9% of electors were moved on the draft, and that number is now 6.6%. On the draft boundaries, the new Fenner contained 5.9% of new electors. That number is now zero, with Fenner unchanged. The number for Bean dropped slightly from 9.4% to 9.3%, while Canberra’s changes have dropped significantly from 14.6% to 10.4%.

3:28 – And here are my estimates of the margin. My estimate of the Bean margin has become slightly smaller, falling from 0.6% on the draft to 0.4% on the final version, compared to an actual margin of 0.3% in Bean. These are all pretty loose so overall I’d say the seat is about as competitive as the old boundaries.

3:25 – Apologies for the delay. Here is my estimates of 2PP and primary votes for each electorate.

11:22 – Unfortunately I’ve just realised that the AEC has not yet published the data and maps. While draft proposals are published immediately, maps and data are not published for the final announcement until it is determined and tabled in parliament. I think I will be able to calculate the changes, but it will take a bit longer.

11:08 – The Australian Electoral Commission in the last half hour has announced the final redistribution for the ACT’s three federal electorates. In the next hour I plan to produce estimates of vote shares for the new electorates, but to quickly summarise:

• Despite original plans to make changes to the Canberra-Fenner boundary in both directions, the Fenner border is now left unchanged.
• The redistribution committee had originally proposed to move Norfolk Island and part of the suburb of Duffy from Bean to Canberra, but that has not been adopted, so those areas will remain in Bean.
• Symonston, Hume and the remainder of the Jerrabombera district will be in Canberra.

The council is elected at large, with nine councillors representing the entire council area.

In New South Wales, councils can opt in to using countbacks instead of by-elections to fill vacancies, but that process can only be used for the first eighteen months of the council term. Vacancies can also be left vacant for the final eighteen months of the term. This means that by-elections must be used for the middle year of the four year term, and that’s right where we are.

By-elections aren’t a great way to fill vacancies when multiple members represent a district. All of the voters get a chance to vote again, but only one portion of the district has lost their representative. There can be absolutely no change in the partisan make-up of voting patterns yet you can get a quite different result.

In the case of councils where all councils are elected at large (which otherwise has a lot going for it) the scale of the by-election can be far in excess of the value. Every voter in Kiama will need to vote again to replace 1/9 of the council. When there was a by-election for the City of Campbelltown in 2017, a population roughly the size of a federal electorate needed to vote to replace a single councillor.

Which is why I’m an advocate for using countbacks much more extensively, not just for the first eighteen months of the term. I would use them for all vacancies except for the last six months of the term, for all councils, and candidates should be aware of this process when they nominate.

But Kiama Council’s solution to the problems of by-elections is much worse, and shows a shocking disregard for democracy and representation.

Councillor Mike Cains resigned from council in June 2026, triggering a requirement for the council to hold a by-election.

Kiama Council is in the middle of a budget crisis, with the council needing to close a significant budget deficit with cost and service reductions. I experienced this myself when visiting Kiama on New Years Eve last year to discover that their regular fireworks had been cancelled. With this in mind, and the cost of a full council by-election estimated at $200,000, the council has instead suggested that they simply opt out of filling a vacancy.

The council decided on June 30 to ask the minister to allow the council to operate with just eight councillors for the remainder of the term and thus negate the need for a council by-election. The minister has quickly dismissed this idea as not possible. It is worth emphasising that these councillors were elected in September 2024 for a four year term. Cains resigned about 44% of the way through his term.

I think this is a disturbing reflection of how a lot of local government looks at their role of democratic representation – if councillors are simply a board of directors it makes perfect sense to just leave a seat vacant. But councillors represent different political interests and vacancies should be filled.

$200,000 may seem like a lot, but I think it is a pretty important part of local government. Without democratic representation, local government might as well be fully integrated into local government. For a council like Kiama, which is relatively small and is struggling to demonstrate its ability to financially stand on its own, it would be nice for them to show that they value their connection to their voters.

It also demonstrates the flaw in having councils directly pay for their own elections. Councils struggle with a limited revenue base and an ever-increasing demand for them to use their resources, with state and federal governments in a far more powerful position financially. It is understandable that councils would skimp on proper democratic processes. It would be far superior for the base-level costs of running elections to be covered by the state government outside of council budgets as a guarantee of democratic excellence.

Thankfully Kiama hasn’t succeeded in their push to cancel local democracy, but it is a good reminder of the problems with using local by-elections when a countback would be far superior. There is legislation sitting before the NSW parliament which would change how councillor vacancies are filled. The proposed process is convoluted – instead I would urge a change to simply make countbacks universal where they can be applied.

Labor state minister Paul Papalia today announced his retirement from the Western Australian state parliament after nineteen years in office. He has represented the seat of Secret Harbour since 2025, when the seat replaced his previous seat of Warnbro.

Papalia’s seat of Secret Harbour is at the very southern edge of Perth, and would traditionally have been considered a safe Labor seat. Papalia held the seat by an 11.5% margin in 2025, although this isn’t particularly impressive considering the statewide margin was 7.1%.

This seat is a pretty good option for One Nation. The party polled 8.4% here in the Legislative Assembly and 6.1% in the Legislative Council. This was their eighth-best result in the state, which suggests One Nation would be in a position to perform very strongly here if their statewide polling is high.

It is worth noting that, while One Nation has experienced a surge in polls in Western Australia, it has been more modest than in other states. Only DemosAU has conducted state polls here since the last election, and their last two polls showed One Nation on 17-18%.

I will obviously be following this by-election, but now you can read my guide to this by-election, here.

Tally Room member Quokka asked me to look up the primary vote figures for Katter’s Australian Party, and upon examination I realised that it was more likely that the two-candidate-preferred count in that seat would end up as KAP vs LNP, rather than LNP vs ALP, and that the seat would flip to be notional KAP.

I will explain the logic below, but in short this means that Katter’s Australian Party does not lose a seat in the redistribution, with the abolished seat of Hill being replaced by the seat of Mulgrave, and the Liberal National Party only have a net gain of one seat, not two as previously reported.

Multi-party politics makes the exercise of estimating redistribution margins far more complex. The step that slowed me down the most on Monday afternoon was dealing with seats which take in parts of electorates that had different 2CP pairings (for example, ALP vs LNP in some parts and LNP vs KAP in others). Generally my approach in these cases was to to take the 2CP which applies to the largest part of the new seat, and then calculating preference flows and applying them to the primary votes in the remainder of the seat.

I should point out that redistribution estimates can only deal with the actual votes cast at the previous election (in this case 2024). So I cannot take into account the polling surge for One Nation, nor the LNP’s gain of the Katter’s Australian Party seat of Hinchinbrook at a 2025 by-election.

In the case of Mulgrave, about 74% of voters came from the previous Mulgrave boundaries, with 26% of voters coming from the abolished seat of Hills, particularly in the area around Atherton.

The LNP won Mulgrave by a 2.7% margin in 2024, with Katter’s Australian Party coming third with 16% of the primary vote. Those parts of Mulgrave had a 1.1% LNP margin. Using those preference flows and applying them to the primary votes in the new areas, the LNP end up with a 3.2% margin.

But if you look at the primary votes in the new Mulgrave, you get a more complex picture. This table shows my primary vote estimates for votes coming from the old Mulgrave and the old Hill, and how they add up to the new Mulgrave.

This does give you a sense of the imperfections in combining votes from different seats. Legalise Cannabis and Family First were only on the ballot in one of these seats, and there was a bigger range of independents in Mulgrave. Undoubtedly, the presence of Shane Knuth in Hill would have had an impact on the size of the KAP vote in one seat over the other.

If you look at those final primary votes, it seems likelier that the final 2CP would have ended up as LNP vs KAP, not LNP vs Labor. This is the only seat where a party made the top two on primary votes but I hadn’t included them in my estimated 2CP.

When I used the same method of applying preference flows, but used the Hill 2CP flows, not the Mulgrave 2CP flows, it produced a result of KAP 6.8% vs LNP.

So I will be using this margin in my election guide, which I have started work on and should be done in about a month. That election guide will include my estimate of primary votes for each party in every seat.

It also changes the context of the overall seat count. At the 2024 election, the LNP won 52 seats to Labor’s 36, KAP’s three, and one each for the Greens and an independent. My original estimate saw the LNP gain two seats, with Gaven flipping from Labor to LNP, and the creation of Caboolture, while KAP lost the abolished seat of Hill. Labor had a net loss of one seat, with Gaven flipping to LNP, Toohey abolished and Greenbank created.

But with the reassignment of Mulgrave from LNP to KAP, it leaves KAP stable with three seats (ignoring their loss of Hinchinbrook at a by-election) and reduces the LNP net gains to just one seat.

Admittedly Mulgrave is less safe for KAP than the old Hill. Knuth won in 2024 with a 13.7% margin, and this seat has a 6.8% margin. But he can probably build on his support in the parts of the seat moving over from Mulgrave. It’s also plausible that the One Nation surge will make all of this irrelevant for KAP.

That’s where I will leave this now. I’ve amended Monday’s live blog to show my corrected Mulgrave margin, and I will be using that margin in my soon-to-be-published election guide.

These changes were relatively minor compared to the draft in March 2026. While the map overall makes things a little bit better for the LNP, that effect has not changed in today’s announcement.

Now that the boundaries have been decided, I can start work on my 2028 Queensland election guide, so I’ll be starting on that later this week.

6:40 – Here are my estimates of primary votes.

6:36 – Most margins are very similar to the draft boundaries. Labor’s margin has increased by 1.7% in Woodridge, and dropped by 2.6% in Waterford, but both seats remain very safe on paper.

The LNP needs to lose six seats to lose their majority (compared to the 2024 election). On the old boundaries, a swing of 1.9% would see the LNP lose their majority.

The LNP has picked up two extra seats on both the draft and final boundaries. On the draft boundaries, a 2.9% swing would see the LNP lose enough seats to lose their majority. On the final boundaries, a 2.8% swing would be enough.

A uniform swing of 3.5% is needed for Labor to gain a majority under either set of boundaries (or the 2024 boundaries).

The KAP seat of Hill is abolished, as well as the Labor seat of Toohey. They are replaced by the Labor seat of Greenbank and the LNP seat of Caboolture. In addition, the Labor seat of Gaven was redrawn into an LNP seat. So this produces a net gain of two seats for the LNP, a net loss of one for Labor, and a net loss of one for Katter’s Australian Party.

6:23 – Here are my estimates of margins.

Margin estimates

4:58 – Sorry I’m still working through calculating the 2CP in complex seats where the 2CP in different parts of the seat in 2024 didn’t match. Will need to wait until a bit later this evening.

3:19 – 1.8% of electors have been moved between the draft boundaries published in March and the final boundaries published today.

24 of the new seats have gained voters from another seat. Most of them are relatively small changes.

The biggest changes are on the southern edge of Brisbane. Waterford and Woodridge have each gained about 15-20,000 voters each (mostly from each other), while Ipswich West, Sandgate and Logan have all gained over 3,000 voters.

3:09 – The Commission has listed 17 seats as having a new name, with two other seats abolished and two created. However there are two examples where I think they have identified the wrong seat as being linked. There were three examples on the draft boundaries, but only two on the final version.

• Greenbank is the new seat, not Springfield. The old seat of Jordan has transferred much more substantially to Springfield than Greenbank.
• Toohey was abolished, not Stretton. The new seat of Eight Mile Plains overlaps substantially more with Stretton.

There was an issue with Waterford and Woodridge, but that seems to have been resolved.

If you take the ECQ’s word for which seats are linked, then 14.9% of electors have been moved. This number drops to 14.3% with my corrections. On the draft boundaries, this number was 14.4%. So the number of electors being moved has dropped just very slightly.

2:51 – This map allows you to compare the final boundaries to the old boundaries, but you can also toggle to show the draft boundaries. The changes between the draft and final boundaries look relatively minor at a first glance.

2:35 – I have now found the GeoJSON files, so I will probably go quiet while I put together a digital map and calculate a bunch of figures, but before I do it’s worth mentioning that the commission’s boundaries leave five seats with projected enrolment (as of 2032) more than 10% above the statewide average. These five seats are Caloundra, Coomera, Ipswich West, Morayfield and Redbank. Five seats were also above 10% on the draft, and four of them are the same. The Commission explains this as being due to those areas having very high enrolment growth, making it impossible to draw boundaries that meet both the current and projected quota.

2:20 – You can see maps on this ECQ page. Unfortunately they haven’t published digital boundary files which I’ll need before I can do my calculations.

2:15 – On further examination, this is not correct. Two seats have been restored back to their original names (Coomera and Waterford) and 37 seats have undergone boundary changes.

2:10 – The report has been published, here. It appears on first glance that the Commission has made no further changes beyond the changes in the proposed redistribution.

1:30 – The Electoral Commission of Queensland has reported that it will be publishing the final version of the Queensland state redistribution at some point this afternoon. I will post on here as soon as we have news, and will look to estimate the margins as soon as possible.

In the meantime you can read my analysis of the draft boundaries from March.

Of particular interest is the breakdown of how preferences flowed from each candidate’s voters between the final two candidates: One Nation’s David Farley and independent Michelle Milthorpe.

The AEC has also published the full distribution of preferences, which I haven’t previously written about. This gives us the three-candidate-preferred vote, and thus the flows of preferences from 3CP to 2CP (another method of calculating preference flows).

The AEC doesn’t just publish these figures for the seat overall, but also publishes them at the level of each polling place.

First up, this chart shows how primary votes for each candidate (apart from the top two) split on the two-candidate-preferred count.

It’s worth noting that the Liberal Party polled 12.4% and the Nationals polled just under 10%, but the vote for everyone else was very low. The Greens and Legalise Cannabis each polled about 2.3%.

Greens preferences flowed extremely strongly to Milthorpe, with almost 92% of Greens preferences flowing to Milthorpe. Other minor candidates were not very surprising. Right-wing minor parties generally gave strong preference flows to One Nation while independents and other minor parties favoured Milthorpe.

The Coalition candidates’ voters favoured One Nation, but not overwhelmingly so. Unsurprisingly, Nationals voters were more favourable to One Nation than Liberal voters – 69% as opposed to 59%.

The AEC’s distribution of preferences also provides us with the three-candidate-preferred count, which was:

• Farley (ON) – 44.4%
• Milthorpe (IND) – 34.4%
• Butkowski (LIB) – 21.3%

So the Liberal Party not only failed to make the final count, but they were about 13% away from such a result. If the Liberal Party had made the top two, they would have had a good chance of winning, but they weren’t close.

At this point, the 21.3% of the vote sitting with the Liberal candidate were distributed. Bear in mind that these aren’t solely Liberal primary votes. The Liberal primary vote made up less than 60% of the votes sitting with the Liberal candidate at this point. For what it’s worth, those remaining votes split 62% to One Nation and 38% to independent Milthorpe. This metric is useful because we can calculate it for every single-member election around Australia, whereas preference flows based on primary vote are only published by the AEC and the Queensland commission (and can be calculated independently for NSW state elections).

Coalition preferences absolutely do favour One Nation when they are in a race against an independent who has taken on the centre-left role in this electorate, but not overwhelmingly so. We saw this in South Australia too: in eleven races where the Liberal came third, their preferences flowed 66.6% to One Nation over Labor. In seven cases where One Nation came third, their preferences flowed 68.9% to Liberal over Labor. This could give Labor a slight advantage that adds up across many seats.

Finally, I wanted to do something with the fact that the AEC publishes preference flows by booth. I grouped the booths according to the categories I used in my pre-election guide, except I included pre-poll booths in each geographic area.

This confirms that Michelle Milthorpe did win Albury, but only slightly, with 51.6% of the two-candidate-preferred count. It was Milthorpe’s weak lead in Albury that allowed us to call the result on election night, since she needed a much bigger lead to outweigh large One Nation leads in other areas.

I wondered if there would be an interesting trend in how strongly Coalition preferences flowed to One Nation by area, and there is some interesting evidence. The Coalition preference flow is relatively weaker in Albury and Griffith, the biggest towns, but it’s also relatively weak in the rural booths of the north-east. Some of this would reflect the relative distribution of Liberal and Nationals votes but not entirely – the Nationals did much better in the north-east, but the preference flows were weaker there than in the north-west, which had a stronger Liberal vote.

Overall this is useful new data for understanding how preferences will flow, in a situation where we have very little information.

I’ve put together a full dataset of the 2026 South Australian election, including the list of polling places, candidates and vote totals down to the booth level for both houses. I have also added in three-candidate-preferred figures at the electorate level.

I have also now added the recent Farrer, Stafford and Nepean by-elections and the Tasmanian Legislative Council elections to their respective datasets.

Part of my data repository is public for everyone to access – this generally includes the most recent election for each jurisdiction. In the case of South Australia, I now have every election since 2002. I’ve added 3CP figures all the way back to 2002, and will probably gradually add that for other jurisdictions.

You can see what data is available here, and if you want the paywalled data, you can access it by signing up for $8 or more per month (+GST) via Patreon.

The Victorian Labor government has yet to make a decision on whether it will follow the lead of every other Australian jurisdiction and abolish the group voting ticket system which allows parties to control the preferences of their voters for the Legislative Council, or upper house. They will have to make a call soon, to give the VEC time to implement a new system.

One of the issues that has apparently given some Labor figures pause has been the rise in support for One Nation, and concern that reforming the system would help out the far-right party. There was one report in the Guardian at the end of April, and I have also heard it from other sources.

For this blog post I want to grapple with this question – how might One Nation’s rise be affected by a new electoral system, and how does this affect the urgency of this reform?

When One Nation first emerged in 1998, they were mostly on their own when it came to minor parties of the right. They did not gain preferences from the Coalition, and there wasn’t really anyone else to help them out with preferences. One Nation pulled a full quota in Queensland and won one seat, but they also polled close to 10% in New South Wales, Western Australia and South Australia but missed out. I suspect a system of voter-controlled preferences may have helped them then.

But when One Nation re-emerged in 2016, the landscape had changed. There was now a lot more right-wing minor parties, and they were much more willing to include One Nation in preference arrangements. The Coalition has also become much more comfortable dealing with One Nation, in particular at the 2025 federal election. One Nation no longer stands alone. The pool of minor party votes had grown substantially, on both the left and right, to the point where there is enough votes there to sometimes elect two minor parties in a state at the one Senate election.

And of course, things have changed dramatically since 2025. Recent Victorian state polling gives One Nation average support of 22%. That is well and truly enough to get one MLC elected in a region, and in some of their stronger regions they would be challenging for a second seat. It’s very different to the One Nation of 2022, who polled 2% for the Legislative Council, trailing four other small parties.

The One Nation of today would not benefit from group voting tickets, for the same reason the Greens, Labor and the Coalition don’t benefit. Small parties see benefits in swapping preferences with each other: parties like Labor, the Greens and the Liberal Party are likely to be in competition for that final seat, so don’t have as much to offer. One Nation will now be in that camp: not because there is anything special about them, but because that’s what happens with big parties.

Glenn Druery has always been known to big-note his impact on electoral politics, and recently he’s been running with the line that group voting tickets, and in particular his infuence over minor parties, constrains One Nation. Yet in 2022, preferences from seven of the nine Druery-aligned parties flowed to One Nation’s Rikki-Lee Tyrell in Northern Victoria, helping her win.

And of course, the small parties who benefit from GVTs are not necessarily immune to far-right politics. Preference arrangements of the kind that has made Glenn Druery famous may well help elect other small parties of the far right instead. There is no guarantee they would be any more progressive than One Nation.

So what would likely happen without group voting tickets? It’s very difficult to predict exactly what would happen, with or without reform, because voting trends have shifted so significantly since 2022.

But something we do know is that One Nation will do much better, regardless of upper house reform. If One Nation is polling in the low twenties, it is likely they will be polling close to two quotas in non-metropolitan regions and a quota in most urban regions. Based on current polling, you would expect the Coalition to lose quite a few seats, and Labor would likely go down too, if less dramatically.

Reforming group voting tickets would only have an impact on seats where no party wins a full quota.

Under the Senate electoral system, the candidate who has the lead on the primary vote would have a good chance of winning, with preferences playing a reduced role. In contrast, under group voting tickets a candidate with a very low primary vote has the prospect of catching up. Parties of the left have been known to do slightly better on preferences than those of the right, but the main shift would be making it harder for a leading candidate to lose their lead.

Under a reformed system, I would expect all of the bigger parties to do better without GVTs than with them: Labor, Coalition, One Nation and the Greens.

I understand that there may be concerns about One Nation doing better under a reformed system, but reform isn’t to blame. Voters have changed how they vote, and that will change the results.

It’s a fool’s game to try to design an electoral system because of its impact on one party’s short-term prospects. Because parties change their position, and the impact changes over time.

Until recently, the single-member system used to elect the lower house has kept a party like One Nation out, but it’s not likely to do that anymore. Indeed it’s possible One Nation could end up winning more seats than their share of the vote in the lower house, if their vote climbs any higher. I think it’s better to have a fair voting system, and work it out from there.

Indeed one could argue that systems that damage trust in our democracy are worse. The group voting ticket system encourages behaviour that effectively tries to trick voters into misusing their vote. Indeed, far-right activist Avi Yemeni has recently registered three parties with misleading names like the ‘Free Palestine Party’ and ‘Muslim Votes Matter’, and has said that these parties will direct preferences to One Nation. A system that makes this a legal and indeed logical tactic is doing more damage than any reform could do.

I wouldn’t like to call this result tonight, but I think Labor is close to winning this race. I believe we now have all of the election-day and pre-poll figures, with approximately half the postal votes reporting.

10:39 – Things have ground to a halt, but a little while ago we received primary votes from the Chermside South pre-poll booth. We haven’t got two-candidate-preferred figures from that booth but otherwise we’re done for the night.

Right now it looks like Labor is the favourites to win, but it’s going to be close.

9:21 – In the last hour, the 2CP count has progressed significantly. All but one election day booths, plus one pre-poll booth, have reported preference counts. Labor has taken the lead, with 51.1% of the vote so far.

8:16 – The picture has been improving for Labor as more election day booths have reported preference counts. There are swings to the LNP everywhere, but there’s been a number of booths where that number is less than the margin, such as Stafford Heights and Stafford West. Right now the LNP leads Labor by 120 votes on the 2CP count, but I expect Labor to gain on the LNP position.

7:53 – Newmarket has reported primary votes, and we have a batch of about 3700 postal votes. For quite some time now, my projection has expected the LNP’s primary vote to finish up around 42.5 and Labor around 27.5, but it’s now more like 40-30. This may reflect that more postal votes are yet to come whereas my model assumes they have all reported. The postal votes so far are about half what reported last time.

7:47 – We now have all but one election day booth reporting primary votes (come on, Newmarket), and four of those booths have reported preference counts.

7:38 – Chermside West shows a 9.2% swing to the LNP after preferences. So far three of four election day booths have shown swings big enough for the LNP to win.

7:33 – The 2CP swing in Stafford West is just 4.4%. This has reduced my projected LNP margin but they remain in front.

7:30 – There’s a 2CP swing of 11.8% at Chermside South.

7:22 – Kedron West is the first election day booth to report a 2CP count, and the LNP has won 51.7% of the 2CP there. That’s a swing of 6.1%. Labor holds Stafford by a 5.3% margin. Right now this looks to be a very close result.

7:19 – There are particularly large primary vote swings against Labor in the two Chermside booths that have reported so far.

7:09 – Kedron West has reported and we’re seeing a similar trend of swings against Labor and to the LNP on primary votes. Overall the LNP is up 5.8% and Labor is down 10.4%. I projected that the LNP would have 15.5% lead on the primary vote, which would be hard for Labor to chase down.

7:04 – Right now, after three small special booths and two election-day booths, the LNP is on 38.3% of the primary vote (a 5.5% swing) while Labor is on 31.3%, and the Greens are on 15.6%. Considering the make-up of the remainder of the field, this feels like Labor is leading. But we have no preference counts yet.

7:02 – 8.9% primary vote swing to the LNP in Chermside South.

7:01 – Stafford West is the first substantial booth reporting, and there is a 1.8% primary vote swing to the LNP, and primary vote swings against Labor and particularly the Greens. It has been pointed out that One Nation is not running while quite a few right-wing minor parties are running, so this may not tell us much about who is winning.

6:37 – The Telephone Voting pre-poll is also a small booth (and far from typical) – but it is showing a small swing from Labor to the LNP and a big swing away from the Greens.

6:22 – Just over 100 votes have reported from the Mobile Polling booth. It shows an 8.8% swing against the Greens and a 12.7% swing to the LNP, but it’s very small.

6:00 – Polls have just closed for the state by-election for the Queensland state seat of Stafford. This looks likely to be a classic Labor vs Liberal National Party contest (how old-fashioned). I’ll be posting a few updates as tonight progresses, so please keep checking this page.

6:00 – Polls have just closed in the federal by-election for the NSW seat of Farrer. I won’t be posting here tonight because I’ll be livestreaming via the link below on YouTube! Please join me from 6:30pm with a number of guests.

This work is made possible thanks to the support of my donors on Patreon. Please consider signing up as a Patreon donor for $8 + GST per month. If you do so, you can join tonight’s conversation about Farrer on the Tally Room Discord.