Key Takeaways
- Long‑time Labor supporter Nico Mathews will vote for One Nation in the Farrer by‑election after Labor decided not to field a candidate.
- Mathews cites disappointment with the major parties, claiming they have eroded benefits for working‑ and middle‑class Australians.
- Former Labor candidate Kieran Drabsch shares the view that Labor’s absence reflects a broader decline of the party in rural and regional areas.
- Academic analyst Jill Sheppard notes that while Labor’s non‑appearance saves resources, it also removes a potential preference flow that could have helped a left‑wing independent.
- The by‑election is seen as a signal of voter dissatisfaction with the major parties, though experts caution against reading too much into a single seat’s outcome.
Background
The Farrer electorate, covering parts of New South Wales along the Murray‑Darling Basin, has historically been a Coalition stronghold. Labor has not held the seat federally for decades, and the party’s last serious challenge came in 2001 when Nico Mathews ran as its candidate and finished third behind Liberal MP Sussan Ley. The seat’s demographic mix—rural farms, regional towns, and a growing peri‑urban fringe—makes it a battleground where both major parties must demonstrate tangible policy delivery to win voter trust.
Nico Mathews’ Decision to Switch Allegiance
Nico Mathews, a lifelong Labor voter whose family tradition of working‑class politics spans generations, announced he will back One Nation in the upcoming by‑election. He expressed disappointment that Labor chose not to nominate a candidate, describing the move as a missed opportunity to engage voters seeking change. After weighing the policy platforms of the remaining parties, Mathews concluded that One Nation’s proposals appeared to have “a better backing” than those offered by the Liberals or Labor.
Reasons for Supporting One Nation
Mathews argued that One Nation’s stance on issues such as immigration control, national sovereignty, and economic protectionism resonates more closely with his perception of what working‑class Australians need. He contended that the major parties have gradually diluted their commitments, taking “a little bit here and a little bit there” from voters while delivering less in return. This perception of erosion drove him to view One Nation as a clearer alternative, despite its controversial reputation in broader political discourse.
Criticism of the Major Parties
Both Mathews and former Labor candidate Kieran Drabsch voiced frustration with the major parties’ performance. Mathews accused Labor, the Liberals, the Nationals, and the Greens of collectively eroding voter benefits over time. Drabsch echoed this sentiment, pointing out that the Liberals had neglected infrastructure investment in Farrer for three decades and failed to address persistent water‑allocation problems in the Murray‑Darling Basin. He described Labor’s decision not to run a candidate as “disappointing but unsurprising,” interpreting it as a symptom of the party’s waning influence in rural and regional Australia.
Historical Context of Labor’s Decline in Rural Areas
Drabsch, who resigned from the ALP in January 2024 after joining in 2010, argued that Labor’s branches in the countryside are “dying” and that younger voters no longer view the party as a legitimate political option. He linked this decline to policy decisions at both state and federal levels, including what he sees as the criminalisation of certain forms of speech and expression. For Drabsch, the by‑election represents an opportunity for voters to send a clear message to the major parties about their neglect of regional concerns.
Academic Perspective on Labor’s Non‑Appearance
Associate Professor Jill Sheppard of the Australian National University noted that it is not uncommon for Labor to forego a candidate in a by‑election where victory seems unlikely, as a way to conserve financial resources, staff time, and volunteer effort. However, she warned that Labor’s absence removes a potential preference stream that could have bolstered an independent candidate such as Michelle Milthorpe. According to Sheppard, had Labor run a candidate, its preferences might have helped push the seat toward a more left‑wing outcome, thereby altering the dynamics of the contest.
Voter Sentiment and Major Parties’ Misreading
Sheppard observed that the major parties are “not reading the room” regarding voter dissatisfaction. The open field created by Labor’s non‑participation, combined with the Liberals and Nationals effectively vacating the space to favor One Nation, has allowed voters to express their frustration more directly. She emphasized that while the Farrer result signals a broader disenchantment with the major parties, it should not be over‑interpreted as a nationwide shift, describing the electorate as “ground zero” for testing changes in the political landscape.
Implications for the By‑Election Outcome
With more than 45,000 early votes already cast, the by‑election is poised to reflect the mood of a constituency that feels abandoned by traditional parties. If One Nation secures a strong showing, it could underscore the potency of protest votes in regions where economic anxieties—particularly around water security, infrastructure, and job stability—are acute. Conversely, a strong performance by the independent or the Coalition might indicate that voters still prefer established options when presented with clear alternatives.
Conclusion
The Farrer by‑election serves as a microcosm of broader tensions within Australian politics: a disenchanted base, a major party’s strategic retreat, and the rise of minor parties seeking to fill the void. Nico Mathews’ shift from Labor to One Nation, Kieran Drabsch’s critique of Labor’s rural decline, and Jill Sheppard’s analytical caution together illustrate how voter sentiment is evolving. Whether this translates into lasting electoral change remains to be seen, but the contest undoubtedly highlights the growing appetite for alternatives amid perceived neglect by the incumbent major parties.