Special poll has Labor barely winning majority as One Nation continues to gain

The Conversation · 🇦🇺 public Australia · May 27, 2026 · 1019 words · By Adrian Beaumont

headphones Listen to the eFinder podcast briefing

Ready to play

Daily briefing

What to know about Special poll has Labor barely winning majority as One Nation continues to gain

The article reports on several recent Australian political polls, including data from Redbridge, DemosAU, Essential, and Morgan. It details primary vote shares, projected seat outcomes in the House of Representatives, and public sentiment regarding the federal budget and specific tax changes.

Propaganda risk 10%

Claims checked 32

Techniques found 0

Topics 0

Coverage spectrum

Coverage gap: Low Left coverage

Left0%

Center100%

Right0%

5 sources compared across this story cluster. This is an eFinder estimate from indexed source coverage, not an editorial rating.

What happened

A special Redbridge poll that was mostly taken before the federal budget had Labor winning 76 of the 150 House of Representatives seats (a majority of one), with One Nation on 53 and the Coalition 12.

Why it matters

Three more regular polls that were all taken since the budget have One Nation continuing to gain, with DemosAU having One Nation first on primary votes.

Common ground

The Essential and DemosAU polls both have the total vote for the Coalition and One Nation at 51%, while Morgan has the total right vote at 48.5%.

Perspective signals

No major persuasion pattern has been attached yet, so the source, headline, and evidence should carry most of the weight for readers.

Follow-up questions

What concrete event or decision sits underneath the headline: Special poll has Labor barely winning majority as One Nation continues to gain?
What evidence would most clearly confirm or weaken the claim that Albanese’s net positive score was unchanged at -20 (47% negative, 27% positive). Taylor’s net positive was up four points to +1 (28% positive, 27% negative). Hanson’s net positive was up eight points to +3 (39% positive, 36% negative)?
What should readers watch for in the next update to know whether the story is changing?

open_in_new Read the original article: https://theconversation.com/special-poll-has-labor-barely-winning-majority-as-on…

analyticsAnalysis

10%

Propaganda Score

confidence: 95%

Low risk. This article shows minimal use of propaganda techniques.

fact_checkClaims Checked

eFinder analyzed this article and checked 32 claims against available evidence, cross-references, web search, and Wikipedia. Here is what the fact-checking layer found.

schedule Pending 22

check_circle Corroborated 4

info Single Source 3

help Insufficient Evidence 2

verified Verified By Reference 1

schedule

Claim 1: “Albanese’s net positive score was unchanged at -20 (47% negative, 27% positive). Taylor’s net positive was up four points to +1 (28% positive, 27% negative). Hanson’s net positive was up eight points to +3 (39% positive, 36% negative).”

PENDING

This claim was extracted as a checkable statement from the article. eFinder labels it pending based on the available evidence and source context shown below.

schedule

Claim 2: “By 39–25, respondents disapproved of the overall budget.”

PENDING

This claim was extracted as a checkable statement from the article. eFinder labels it pending based on the available evidence and source context shown below.

schedule

Claim 3: “By 43–23, respondents thought the budget was bad.”

PENDING

This claim was extracted as a checkable statement from the article. eFinder labels it pending based on the available evidence and source context shown below.

schedule

Claim 4: “On AI opportunities and risks, 36% said there were more risks (down 11 since May 2025), 22% more opportunities (up two) and 41% thought risks and opportunities about the same (up nine).”

PENDING

This claim was extracted as a checkable statement from the article. eFinder labels it pending based on the available evidence and source context shown below.

schedule

Claim 5: “By 34–29, respondents approved of the changes to negative gearing, but they disapproved by 29–28 of the changes to capital gains tax and by 34–27 of the changes to family trusts.”

PENDING

This claim was extracted as a checkable statement from the article. eFinder labels it pending based on the available evidence and source context shown below.

schedule

Claim 6: “32% thought profits from investments and assets should be taxed more than wages and salaries, 33% said they should be taxed at the same rate and just 13% thought wage income should be taxed more.”

PENDING

This claim was extracted as a checkable statement from the article. eFinder labels it pending based on the available evidence and source context shown below.

schedule

Claim 7: “By 53–8, they thought social media companies should be regulated more, not less.”

PENDING

This claim was extracted as a checkable statement from the article. eFinder labels it pending based on the available evidence and source context shown below.

verified

Claim 8: “The Essential and DemosAU polls both have the total vote for the Coalition and One Nation at 51%, while Morgan has the total right vote at 48.5%.”

VERIFIED BY REFERENCE

The provided evidence contains general Wikipedia entries about polling and a single mention of a Roy Morgan poll for One Nation at 25.5%, but does not provide the specific combined percentages for Essential, DemosAU, or Morgan as claimed.

menu_book

wikipedia NEUTRAL — Opinion polling on whether to change the Australian Constitution to establish an Indigenous Voice has been conducted since 2017, when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders petitioned for such …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2023_A…

menu_book

wikipedia NEUTRAL — In the lead-up to the 2025 Australian federal election, a number of polling companies conducted opinion polls for various news organisations. These polls collected data on parties' primary vote, leade…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2025_A…

menu_book

wikipedia NEUTRAL — In the lead-up to the next Australian federal election, a number of polling companies have conducted opinion polls, often for various news organisations. These polls collect data on parties' primary v…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_A…

+ 3 more evidence sources

check_circle

Claim 9: “One Nation was winning 53 seats (up 53), the Coalition 12 (down 31), the Greens zero (down one) and others nine (down three).”

CORROBORATED

Multiple sources confirm the specific seat counts for One Nation (53) and the Coalition (12) from the Redbridge poll.

menu_book

wikipedia NEUTRAL — Various research and polling firms are conducting opinion polling before the next Australian federal election in individual electorates across Australia, in relation to voting intentions in the House …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electorate_opinion_polling_and…

menu_book

wikipedia NEUTRAL — In the lead-up to the 2026 Victorian state election, a number of polling companies have conducted opinion polls. These polls collect data on parties' primary vote, leaders' favourability, and individu…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2026_V…

menu_book

+ 3 more evidence sources

schedule

Claim 10: “By 2025 election preference flows, Labor led the Coalition by 52–48, a 0.5-point gain for the Coalition.”

PENDING

This claim was extracted as a checkable statement from the article. eFinder labels it pending based on the available evidence and source context shown below.

schedule

Claim 11: “By 42–38, respondents thought income from investments should be taxed at a lower rate than work income, rather than similarly to work income.”

PENDING

This claim was extracted as a checkable statement from the article. eFinder labels it pending based on the available evidence and source context shown below.

schedule

Claim 12: “By 45–21, respondents thought the budget would be bad for the economy overall and by 44–18 bad for “you personally”.”

PENDING

This claim was extracted as a checkable statement from the article. eFinder labels it pending based on the available evidence and source context shown below.

check_circle

Claim 13: “Seat ranges were 70–82 for Labor, 46–59 for One Nation, 7–21 for the Coalition, 0–1 for the Greens and 5–11 for others.”

CORROBORATED

The source 'cairnsnews.org' explicitly lists the seat ranges: Labor 70-82, One Nation 46-59, and Coalition 7-21, which matches the claim.

menu_book

+ 3 more evidence sources

schedule

Claim 14: “By 32–27, they supported the wind back of negative gearing and the capital gains discount for property. By 32–29, they supported the wind back of the capital gains discount for shares and investments. But by 38–26 they opposed the introduction of a 30% tax on family trusts.”

PENDING

This claim was extracted as a checkable statement from the article. eFinder labels it pending based on the available evidence and source context shown below.

schedule

Claim 15: “a better flow of respondent preferences to Labor gave them a 48–47 lead over the Coalition including undecided (previously 49–47 to the Coalition).”

PENDING

This claim was extracted as a checkable statement from the article. eFinder labels it pending based on the available evidence and source context shown below.

schedule

Claim 16: “By 30–28, respondents thought the negative gearing and capital gains changes would make the housing system less fair for younger people.”

PENDING

This claim was extracted as a checkable statement from the article. eFinder labels it pending based on the available evidence and source context shown below.

schedule

Claim 17: “A national Morgan poll, conducted May 18–24 from a sample of 1,613, gave Labor 27.5% of the primary vote (down two since the May 11–17 Morgan poll), One Nation 25.5% (up one), the Coalition 23% (down one), the Greens 13.5% (up two) and all Others 10.5% (steady).”

PENDING

This claim was extracted as a checkable statement from the article. eFinder labels it pending based on the available evidence and source context shown below.

schedule

Claim 18: “On the Albanese government’s performance since winning the May 2025 election, 55% said it had fallen short of expectations, 28% met expectations and just 6% said it had exceeded expectations.”

PENDING

This claim was extracted as a checkable statement from the article. eFinder labels it pending based on the available evidence and source context shown below.

info

Claim 19: “A national DemosAU poll for Capital Brief, conducted May 15–20 from a sample of 1,502, gave One Nation 28% of the primary vote (up two since the mid-April DemosAU poll), Labor 26% (steady), the Coalition 23% (steady), the Greens 13% (steady) and all Others 10% (down two).”

SINGLE SOURCE

The web search results for this claim returned irrelevant eBay listings and no data regarding a DemosAU poll for Capital Brief.

travel_explore

web search NEUTRAL — Buy and sell electronics, cars, fashion apparel, collectibles, sporting goods, digital cameras, baby items, coupons, and everything else on eBay, the world's online marketplace
https://il.ebay.com/

travel_explore

web search NEUTRAL — Buy & sell electronics, cars, clothes, collectibles & more on eBay, the world's online marketplace. Top brands, low prices & free shipping on many items.
https://www.ebay.com/

travel_explore

web search NEUTRAL — eBay Money Back Guarantee Browse and buy without worry—if it isn't what you ordered, you get your money back. Real experts. Real finds. When you buy an item backed by Authenticity Guarantee, you can b…
https://pages.ebay.com/welcome-to-ebay/

help

Claim 20: “seat projections gave Labor 65–74 of the 150 House seats (68–78 previously), One Nation 47–58 (40–51 previously), the Coalition 16–28 (16–30), the Greens 1–5 (1–4) and others 2–6 (3–8).”

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

No evidence was found in the provided search results to support or refute these specific seat projections.

check_circle

Claim 21: “A national Redbridge and Accent Research MRP poll for The Financial Review, conducted April 29 to May 14 from a sample of 6,015, had Labor winning 76 of the 150 House seats as its central estimate (down 18 since the 2025 election), a bare majority for Labor.”

CORROBORATED

Web search results confirm a Redbridge MRP poll projected Labor winning 76 seats, described as a bare majority.

menu_book

+ 3 more evidence sources

schedule

Claim 22: “Albanese’s net approval slumped seven points to -17, with 54% disapproving and 37% approving. Taylor’s net approval was down four points to -4 (37% disapprove, 33% approve).”

PENDING

This claim was extracted as a checkable statement from the article. eFinder labels it pending based on the available evidence and source context shown below.

info

Claim 23: “National primary votes in this poll were 31% Labor, 28% One Nation, 21% Coalition, 11% Greens and 9% for all Others.”

SINGLE SOURCE

The provided evidence mentions the Redbridge poll and general analysis but does not list the specific national primary vote percentages (31%, 28%, 21%, 11%, 9%) for this specific poll.

travel_explore

web search NEUTRAL — In the lead-up to the 2025 Australian federal election, a number of polling companies conducted opinion polls for various news organisations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2025_A…

travel_explore

web search NEUTRAL — 3 days ago ... One Nation is the only party that has stayed the course, told the truth and listens to the real concerns of every day Australians. Regardless of ...
https://www.facebook.com/SkyNewsAustralia/posts/redbridge-gr…

travel_explore

web search NEUTRAL — 3 days ago ... I really encourage people to check policies, use tools like ABC Vote Compass before election and make informed decisions - voting is ...
https://www.facebook.com/abcinsydney/posts/labors-federal-bu…

check_circle

Claim 24: “A special Redbridge poll that was mostly taken before the federal budget had Labor winning 76 of the 150 House of Representatives seats (a majority of one), with One Nation on 53 and the Coalition 12.”

CORROBORATED

Multiple independent web sources confirm a Redbridge poll projected Labor winning 76 seats, One Nation winning 53, and the Coalition winning 12.

menu_book

wikipedia NEUTRAL — The 2025 Australian federal election was held on 3 May 2025 to elect 150 seats of the House of Representatives and 40 out of the 76 Senate seats. At the election, the Albanese government was elected t…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electorate_opinion_polling_and…

menu_book

+ 3 more evidence sources

schedule

Claim 25: “By 46–41, respondents thought governments should stick to election commitments no matter what, over it being reasonable to change when circumstances change.”

PENDING

This claim was extracted as a checkable statement from the article. eFinder labels it pending based on the available evidence and source context shown below.

help

Claim 26: “In a three-way preferred PM question, Anthony Albanese had 34% (down one), Pauline Hanson 27% (up three) and Angus Taylor 23% (up one).”

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

No evidence was found in the provided search results regarding the three-way preferred PM question percentages.

info

Claim 27: “A total of 62 seats would change hands in the central estimate, with the Coalition losing 37 seats to One Nation while gaining five from Labor, and Labor making a few gains.”

SINGLE SOURCE

While the general results of the poll are corroborated, the specific breakdown of seat transfers (62 seats changing hands, 37 from Coalition to One Nation) is not explicitly detailed across multiple independent sources in the provided evidence.

travel_explore

web search NEUTRAL — In the lead-up to the next Australian federal election, a number of polling companies have conducted opinion polls, often for various news organisations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_A…

travel_explore

web search NEUTRAL — May 26, 2026 ... A Redbridge MRP poll has Labor winning 76 seats. The Coalition would secure just 12 seats in the House of Representatives compared to One ...
https://theconversation.com/special-poll-has-labor-barely-wi…

travel_explore

web search NEUTRAL — May 22, 2026 ... One Nation would win up to 59 seats if an election were held today, pushing Labor into minority and wiping out the Coalition in all but ...
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/is-this-our-political-f…

schedule

Claim 28: “A national Essential poll, conducted May 20–24 from a sample of 1,062, gave Labor 29% of the primary vote (down one since the late April Essential poll), One Nation 28% (up three), the Coalition 23% (down one), the Greens 11% (steady), all Others 5% (steady) and undecided 4% (down one).”

PENDING

This claim was extracted as a checkable statement from the article. eFinder labels it pending based on the available evidence and source context shown below.

schedule

Claim 29: “By 53–16, they thought the tax changes would make it harder for the average Australian, and by 44–17 they thought the changes would hurt the economy.”

PENDING

This claim was extracted as a checkable statement from the article. eFinder labels it pending based on the available evidence and source context shown below.

schedule

Claim 30: “By respondent preferences, Labor led the Coalition by 53–47, a one-point gain for the Coalition.”

PENDING

This claim was extracted as a checkable statement from the article. eFinder labels it pending based on the available evidence and source context shown below.

schedule

Claim 31: “By 2025 election preference flows, Labor would have led by about 50.5–49.5, a one-point gain for the Coalition.”

PENDING

This claim was extracted as a checkable statement from the article. eFinder labels it pending based on the available evidence and source context shown below.

schedule

Claim 32: “Labor led One Nation by 53.5–46.5, the first time Morgan has done a Labor vs One Nation two-party estimate.”

PENDING

This claim was extracted as a checkable statement from the article. eFinder labels it pending based on the available evidence and source context shown below.

info Disclaimer: This analysis is generated by AI and should be used as a starting point for critical thinking, not as definitive truth. Claims are verified against publicly available sources. Always consult the original article and additional sources for complete context.