Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Clune, Honorary Associate, Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

While counting continues nationally, the federal election result is definitive: a pro-Labor landslide and an opposition leader voted out.

But beyond the headline results, how did Australians in the key seats in each state vote, and how did it shape the outcome?

Here, six experts break down what happened in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia.

New South Wales

Swing to Labor: 3.4%

David Clune, honorary associate, government and international relations, University of Sydney

The election results showed, in NSW as with the rest of Australia, a stronger than predicted swing to the government, returning it with a solid majority.

Not only did Labor hold all its NSW marginals, many with increased margins, but it appears to have gained from the Liberals the seats of Banks and Hughes in suburban Sydney. Labor’s Jerome Laxale has retained Bennelong which was notionally Liberal after the redistribution.

The Liberals appear likely to lose Bradfield to Teal Nicolette Boele and former National Andrew Gee seems likely to retain Calare in the central west as an independent.

The three sitting Teals were all easily re-elected and right wing independent Dai Le held Fowler.

At the time of writing, Labor has won 28 seats in NSW to the Coalition’s 12, a gain of three, with four independents so far and the probability of two more.

The ALP two-party preferred vote in NSW was 54.8%, a swing towards it of 3.4%.

Labor’s primary vote was 35.0% to the Coalition’s 31.8%, a swing against the latter of 4.7%.

Albanese staged a Houdini-like escape from what seemed to be, in 2024, a steady decline in his prospects. Although only an average campaigner in 2022, he ran an almost flawless campaign three years later. The prime minister had a consistent, resonant message about Labor’s record, appealing policies for the future, and projected an image of stability in government.

Given the bite of the cost of living, particularly in Western Sydney, the government should have been vulnerable. Instead, Albanese transformed this into a strength by persuading voters he was best placed to deal with the crisis.

Queensland

Swing to Labor: 3.9%

Paul Williams, associate professor of politics and journalism, Griffith University

I long argued Queensland would be inconsequential as to who would win the keys to The Lodge at this election.

I was partly right. If Labor, as projected, wins 93 of the 150 House of Representatives seats, the six Queensland Labor appears to have seized from the Liberal-National Party (LNP) are but a small fraction of the government’s national haul. Even with no Labor gains in Queensland, Albanese could still have governed with a comfortable majority.

But I was also partly wrong. The fact there were primary swings of up to five percentage points away from the LNP across Queensland (even in very safe seats like Maranoa), and the fact Labor appears to have captured two seats (Brisbane and Griffith) from the Greens, suggests the state has behaved very differently from expectations and, for the first time in more than a decade, become one of real consequence.

Labor now looks to hold 13 of the state’s 30 seats, the LNP 15, the Greens one, and Bob Katter returned in Kennedy for the KAP. Few would be surprised that Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (PHON) and Clive Palmer’s Trumpet of Patriots failed to win any House seats, although PHON’s Malcolm Roberts is likely to be returned to the Senate.

Nor is it unexpected that Dickson, held by the LNP by a tiny 1.7% margin, should have been in play this election. But that fact Dickson was lost by an opposition leader – the first such occurrence at federal level – is astonishing.

So, too, are the LNP losses in the outer-suburban “battler” seats of Forde and Petrie (held by the LNP since 2010 and 2013 respectively) that embraced former Liberal PM Scott Morrison, even when he was at his nadir.

The additional reality of an LNP losing such contrasting seats as Leichhardt in far north Queensland and Bonner in middle Brisbane suburbia now points to a deep existential crisis for conservatives even in their Queensland heartland.

In the Northern Territory, Labor’s Marion Scrymgour has retained the seat of Lingiari and strengthened her position, with a 6.6% swing in her favour.

So, what happened? How did Queensland, like the rest of Australia, defy electoral gravity? Was it that angry Queenslanders, stinging from a cost-of-living crisis, had already vented their wrath on a state Labor government six months ago? Or did the state finally warm to an Albanese it now concluded was a more competent economic manager? Or did Queensland, like every other state, reject a hard-right Peter Dutton – offering little in meaningful policy amid a ramshackle campaign – as out of touch with a moderate, centrist Australia?

After defeats at local and state elections in 2024, Labor is back in Queensland.

South Australia

Swing to Labor: 5.1%

Rob Manwaring, associate professor of politics and public policy, Flinders University

On first glance, South Australia did not seem to be at the centre of the Albanese government’s landslide win. Of the ten electoral seats in the state, only one changed hands – the seat of Sturt which Labor’s Claire Clutterham won from the Liberals’ James Stevens. Yet, this was a massive win for Labor, with a 57–43 two-party preferred vote.

This is a seismic result and exemplifies all of the Coalition’s electoral problems. Sturt was a classic Liberal blue ribbon seat which the Liberals had held since 1972. The Teal candidate in Sturt, Dr Verity Cooper, might well be disappointed not to have scored a higher primary vote than her 7.2%.

Elsewhere, Labor handsomely improved its position in the hitherto marginal seat of Boothby. A 8% swing to Louise Miller-Frost saw the Liberals’ Nicolle Flint easily routed.

To confirm the Liberal misery in the state, the Centre Alliance’s Rebekha Sharkie consolidated her place in Mayo. The scale of Labor’s performance also brought into scrutiny the Liberal regional seat of Grey, where long-standing member Rowan Ramsay retired. The Liberals will retain it despite a swing against them.

Overall, this is now a solidly Labor state, and the party holds a remarkable seven of the ten seats. Those with long memories, will know seats like Kingston and Adelaide, traditionally bellweather, are now solidly safe Labor seats.

The Liberals’ loss of Sturt confirms the party now has only two seats in the state, and no representation at all in the major cities around the country. It might well be a long road back for the centre-right.

Tasmania

Swing to Labor: 8.1%

Robert Hortle, deputy director of the Tasmanian Policy Exchange, University of Tasmania

If the Liberal Party’s ranks were thinned out on the mainland, in Tasmania they have been clear-felled. The state elected four Labor candidates out of five, and notably, all women.

In Braddon, Labor’s Anne Urquhart overturned the 8.3% margin enjoyed by retiring Liberal MP Gavin Pearce. It looks like the swing to Labor will be around 15%, with Urquhart’s pro-salmon farming and pro-jobs position resonating in the traditionally conservative electorate.

A swing of around 10% to Labor in Bass was more than enough for first-time candidate Jess Teesdale to defeat Liberal MP Bridget Archer. Labor’s messaging that “a vote for Archer is a vote for Dutton” successfully neutralised Archer’s personal popularity in the electorate and reputation for standing up to her party.

Lyons was Tasmania’s most marginal seat after the 2022 election. That’s no longer the case, with Rebeca White, former state Labor leader, securing a swing of around 10%. White’s popularity as a state MP transferred smoothly to the federal level – Labor’s primary vote in the seat looks to have jumped by more than 14%.

So why was the swing to Labor in these Tasmanian seats so much greater than on the mainland? Astute candidate selection played a role – in particular, White and Urquhart were well-known in their communities.

It is also possible the ongoing travails of the state Liberal government played a part. Northern Tasmanians are strongly opposed to the controversial AFL stadium in Hobart, and the ongoing Spirit of Tasmania ferry fiasco has involved prominent mismanagement of port upgrades in Devonport in the state’s north-west. State politics isn’t usually considered to have a big impact on federal elections, but these issues may have been high profile – and long running – enough to make a difference.

The southern seat of Franklin was a focal point for a lot of drama during the campaign. In the end, Julie Collins, Tasmania’s only cabinet minister, received a bit of a scare. She slightly increased her primary vote, but the ABC currently projects her overall margin will be cut in half. Anti-salmon farming independent Peter George achieved the second highest primary vote, but wasn’t close enough to Collins for preferences to get him over the line.

As expected, independent Andrew Wilkie won the Hobart seat of Clark for a sixth time, with a margin of just over 20%. He increased his primary vote, but it looks like Labor will shave a tiny amount off his margin.

Victoria

Swing to Labor: 1.8%

Zareh Ghazarian, senior lecturer in politics, school of social sciences, Monash University

The Liberal Party’s fortunes in Victoria went from bad in 2022 to much worse in 2025.

The ALP’s primary vote increased by about 1% while the Liberal Party’s primary vote fell by about 2.5%. While the percentages are smaller than in other states, this performance had a significant affect on the representation of the parties in Victoria.

The Liberal Party lost Deakin in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Held by Michael Sukkar since 2013, the seat has been marginal for several elections. The primary vote swing against the Liberal Party was 4.2%. In a two-party preferred outcome, Deakin now appears to be a relatively safe seat for Labor.

The Liberal Party primary vote also went backwards in Kooyong which was held by independent Monique Ryan. High profile Liberal candidate Amelia Hamer could not reclaim the seat which had previously been held by then-Treasurer Josh Frydenberg.

Goldstein, the other inner metropolitan seat won by an independent at the last election, looks to be a closer contest with the Liberal Party’s Tim Wilson experiencing a rise in the primary vote but it may not be enough to defeat incumbent Zoe Daniel.

Compounding the problems for the Liberal Party was that it could not make any inroads in other key seats across the eastern suburbs in Melbourne. This was where the party needed to win seats if it was to be competitive in forming government. In Aston, the seat the party lost at a byelection in 2023, the Liberal Party’s primary vote fell by 5%. The party’s primary vote also went back in Chisholm and McEwen.

In short, this was a disastrous result for the Liberal Party in the state of Victoria.

Western Australia

Swing to Labor: 1.2%

Narelle Miragliotta, associate professor in politics, Murdoch University

WA didn’t disappoint for Labor. Although the two-party swing was more muted than in other parts of the country, it came off the back of a more much stronger electoral position entering this contest. On a two-party preferred basis, Labor gained 56.2% of the vote.

Labor has retained the nine lower house seats it won in 2022, and it has also managed to make decent, even if not spectacular, gains in the party’s share of the primary vote in Tangney (+4.9%), Hasluck (+5.93), Swan (+3.5%), and Perth (+4.7%).

One of the unexpected wins for Labor was the former Liberal held seat of Moore. Labor won the seat on the back of +0.9% increase in the party’s primary vote. Assisting Labor’s electoral fortunes was a former Liberal incumbent who ran as an independent, and whose vote accounts for much of the -10.4% swing against the Liberal candidate.

But it wasn’t all good news for Labor, going backwards on primary votes in Fremantle (-4.48%) Brand (-5.96%) and Pearce (-0.01%).

The Liberals’ performance affirms just how much trouble the party in the West. The Liberals recorded a swing of -5.66% in their primary vote, winning only 28.5% of the first preference vote.

In addition to the loss of Moore, the party failed to win back the once-prized seat of Curtin, despite a heavy investment of resources into the contest. The Liberals also have a fight to retain the seat of Forrest, where is registered a -13.4% swing in its primary vote. The Liberals are, however, expected to win it.

There were very few bright spots for the Liberals. The Liberals did achieve an increase in their two-party preferred vote in O’Connor (+6.3%) and Canning (+3.8%). And at last check, the Liberals are still in the hunt for the new seat of Bullwinkel.

In the senate, the swing against the Liberals on primary votes was even more pronounced (-7.36%) although the party are on track to elect two senators. The Greens senate primary vote held up, enjoying a very slight increase (+0.74%) and comfortably returning a senator. Although recording a -0.04% swing, Labor has two senators confirmed and the possibility of the election of a third.

Paul Williams is a research associate with the T.J. Ryan Foundation.

David Clune, Narelle Miragliotta, Rob Manwaring, Robert Hortle, and Zareh Ghazarian do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. State of the states: 6 experts on how the election unfolded across the country – https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-states-6-experts-on-how-the-election-unfolded-across-the-country-255508