Why the Liberals lost so badly in South Australia to Labor — and One Nation

Why were the Liberals in South Australia so completely destroyed by Labor and also by One Nation? Dr. Victoria Fielding argues that a shocking generational change is underway.

ON TIME publicationLiberal Party wins five seats in parliament South Australian elections Labor won by a landslide 34 out of 47. PHON received three votes and will likely receive four votes; He is 77 votes ahead of the Liberals in the last questionable seat, Nurugga, as the final votes are counted. So why were the Liberals, who came to power at the previous election just four years ago, so thoroughly demolished not only by Labor but also by One Nation?

This election result demonstrates a seismic shift in South Australian politics, reflecting the generational shift taking place across the country.

Many commentators identify this change as a reflection of dissatisfaction with the major parties, or that many now use the phrase “one party”. The charge is that majors are inherently bad, that the two-party system does not serve people’s interests, and that ultimately Labor and Liberals are exactly the same.

This “one-party” charge is leveled at Labor from the left (the Greens), the center (the Teals and other centre-right independents) and the right (One Nation). Although they all have their own versions, they share the aim of channeling any dissatisfaction voters feel with the Liberals towards Labor.

However, the theory of mass dissatisfaction with both “majors” does not coincide with the facts. As ABC’s election analyst Antony Green noted, South Australian Labor’s primary vote of 37.7% was down 2.3% from 2022 and was 7.5% less than the 45.2% Labor received in 2006. But in 2026, there were more than ten candidates on many ballots, with an explosion of smaller parties and independents. If there was a large left protest vote among progressive voters, it would be the Greens who would benefit. But the Greens only gained 1 percent in votes.

So the outcome was about the Liberal Party, not a reaction against some theoretical “one party”. And the Liberals’ mess has nothing to do with bad messaging, a lack of policy or four leadership changes in four years. It’s much more serious than that because it’s structural.

What the “one party” description and the accusation that “Labour and the Liberals are the same” conceal is that despite the many changes in Australian politics, what has never changed is that the two major parties are not the same because they have opposing ideologies.

These opposing ideologies are the basis for how Labor and the Liberals do politics, develop policy and ultimately govern. As the political arm of the labor movement, the Labor Party exists to further equality of opportunity, wealth and social outcomes. The Liberal Party, on the other hand, as the political arm of corporate interests, opposes equality and rather supports wealth inequality. Some far-right Liberals also promote social inequality, including gender, cultural and religious inequality; but this is mostly aimed at creating divisions to seize power and then rule for the economic interests of the elites.

These are not minor differences between the major parties, they are fundamental.

So what happened in this seismic shift? The Liberal Party traditionally came to power with two basic strategies. First, they claimed to be better economic managers and stronger on national security. Secondly, they also ran rabid fear campaigns against Labor reforms, underpinned by the idea that Labor was bad for the economy and that only the Liberals could protect jobs and economic growth.

This strategy worked for the Liberals until the emergence. For a variety of reasons, including the Global Financial Crisis and the Labor government’s superior management of the crisis; Occupy Movement; Opening up the information landscape, beyond the mainstream media, to give a voice to people struggling against the hegemony of neoliberal assumptions, such as the false notion that wealth flows downwards – people are starting to wake up to the fact that the Liberal Party does not represent their interests, but actually only the interests of the mega-rich.

For the first time in the 2025 election, Labor was perceived by a majority of voters as: Better economic managers than liberals. This wasn’t just a big moment for Australia’s major parties. This marked the death of the idea that those who rule on behalf of the wealthy make everyone else better off. It heralded a mass understanding that policies aimed at equity (health and disability financing, access to education, workers’ rights, women’s rights, environmental protection, infrastructure spending) and reforms once seen as wasteful budget items (recall Abbott’s debt and deficit disaster) would actually make us all better off.

These problems are not just about cracks in the Liberal front. This awakening that equality was good for the economy was the death knell for the Liberal Party. All he left them with was strategy number two; scare campaigns With decades of experience running scare campaigns, often based on disinformation and misrepresentation, the Liberals ran the mother of all scare campaigns, the “No” campaign against the Indigenous Voice in Parliament.

The success of the “No” campaign encouraged the Liberals’ far-right wing, who believed they could win government this way. But what they misunderstood was that this campaign did not attract voters to the Liberal Party. All they did was promote and promote social inequality by normalizing hatred, divisiveness, racism, and disinformation. This did not win the Liberals any elections because people still accepted that the Liberals were not serving their economic interests, even if they were serving their interests of social inequality.

But the “No” campaign’s normalization of hatred as a political strategy presented One Nation as a viable alternative to the Liberals for right-wing voters driven by a desire for social inequality.

Now we finally get to the outcome of the SA election. Labor, led by popular premier Peter Malinauskas, kept its share of the Adelaide metropolitan vote steady. receiving 45.2% of first preferences. Liberals won just 16.2%.

The 18.2 per cent vote against the Liberals in metropolitan Adelaide went almost entirely to One Nation, which received 18.4 per cent of the metro vote. In regional areas the Liberals had a 13.8% lead against them, while Labor lost 3.3% and One Nation won 21.5%. All four seats One Nation stands to win are in South Australia’s outer territory.

As voters turned away from the Liberal Party, realizing that the Liberals were not serving their interests, many, especially in inner-metropolitan Adelaide, came to Labor. These voters join Labor ideologically because they recognize that equality, tolerance, respect and inclusion, including in multicultural communities, are good for society.

But former Liberal voters who had no interest in equality went to One Nation. These voters didn’t go to Labor because they hated Labor. They hate Labor because Labor promotes equality, tolerance, diversity and inclusion, which offends their desire for social inequality.

Former Liberal-now One Nation voters are determined to use their votes to promote inequality, particularly for non-white Australians, and have embraced One Nation’s demonization of immigrants. This explains one in four South Australians who voted for One Nation. They suffer from economic inequality, which increases their desire to feel socially privileged, especially based on race.

Of course, One Nation does not serve the economic interests of working people. as good friend of billionaire Gina RinehartIt’s little surprise that Pauline Hanson says she wants to work with the Liberals and National Party to oppose Labour. That’s the whole point of One Nation.

One might wonder: Will One Nation voters realize this?

Dr Victoria Fielding is an Independent Australian columnist. You can follow him on Threads @drvicfielding or Bluesky @drvicfielding.bsky.social.

Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.