Senator Alex Antic has won the presidency of the South Australian Liberal Party, defeating Upper House leader Nicola Centofanti 119 votes to 73 in an internal ballot that exposed a deep argument over the direction of the state division.

The result gives Antic a senior organisational role inside the party at a time when South Australian Liberals are debating how to respond to lost support, the rise of One Nation and internal disagreement between moderate and conservative factions.

It does not make Antic the leader of the parliamentary party, and it does not give him direct authority to set government or opposition policy. The state president is primarily an organisational position, broadly comparable to the chair of a board. The office oversees party administration, campaign preparations, meetings and parts of the internal machinery that connect members, candidates and the parliamentary team.

That distinction matters because much of the controversy surrounding Antic’s candidacy has focused on whether his victory could shift Liberal policy. Senior party figures have stressed that formal policy remains the responsibility of the parliamentary party.

Antic, however, campaigned on giving rank-and-file members a greater voice in the party’s direction. In material sent to delegates before the ballot, he argued that Liberal members should have a “genuine say” in policy direction and said the party needed stronger action on inflation, housing and energy while responding to voters moving toward One Nation.

His supporters see that approach as an attempt to reconnect the Liberals with voters who believe the party has become too cautious or too distant from its conservative base. His opponents worry that the strategy could deepen internal division and blur the line between Liberal positions and those promoted by One Nation.

The contest against Centofanti reflected more than a simple left-versus-right factional split. Centofanti is herself a conservative figure, but she received support from moderates and other conservatives who wanted to stop an Antic presidency.

That coalition of opponents pointed to Antic’s history of crossing the floor against the Coalition and his willingness to praise or cooperate publicly with One Nation figures. They also raised concerns about how his public positions on issues such as vaccination rules and climate policy might affect the party organisation.

Antic’s supporters reject the argument that those positions make him an electoral liability. They argue that South Australian Liberals have already suffered major losses under more moderate leadership and need a clearer ideological identity to rebuild support.

The broader context is a difficult one for the state party. The Liberals have endured successive electoral setbacks in South Australia, while One Nation has increased its political presence. Internal debate has therefore centred on whether the response should be to move closer to the political centre, strengthen conservative positions or find a way to appeal to both groups without fragmenting the party.

Antic has framed One Nation’s rise as a warning to the Liberal Party rather than a reason to copy every One Nation policy. His argument is that voters who once supported the Liberals have looked elsewhere because they no longer see the party as a reliable vehicle for their values.

That argument is contested inside the party. Critics say moving further toward One Nation on cultural and social issues could alienate other Liberal voters and make it harder to present a broad centre-right coalition.

The tension was visible immediately after the presidency result. One Nation’s South Australian leadership publicly welcomed Antic’s victory and described it as a positive development. That response reinforced concerns among Antic’s Liberal critics about the political relationship between the two parties.

At the same time, senior Liberals sought to contain the idea that the result represented a takeover of the parliamentary party. South Australian Liberal leader Ashton Hurn said the internal party organisation does not bind the parliamentary team to policy motions and indicated that she expected to work with Antic in his new role.

Former federal Liberal leader and foreign minister Alexander Downer made a similar point, arguing that state executives are responsible for administration and fundraising rather than policy. His intervention highlighted the constitutional separation between the party organisation and elected MPs.

That separation does not mean the presidency is irrelevant. Party organisations can influence candidate recruitment, campaign resources, membership rules, internal committees and the processes through which policy ideas move from members toward MPs. A president who prioritises grassroots influence can therefore shape the political environment even without having the final say on parliamentary policy.

One area of particular sensitivity is preselection. The composition of candidate fields can determine the long-term ideological character of a party. Supporters of Antic have been active in recruiting members and building influence within South Australian Liberal branches, while critics have warned that internal membership battles could become more important than rebuilding public support.

Those concerns have previously led some Liberals to discuss whether the federal party might intervene in the South Australian division. The Liberal Party has used federal intervention in other state branches when internal governance problems became severe, but no such takeover has been announced for South Australia.

Hurn has played down the prospect, saying there has been discussion but expressing confidence that problems can be addressed internally. Antic’s election therefore creates a new test of whether the organisational and parliamentary wings can work together despite strong differences.

The result also raises questions about how the party handles members who publicly disagree with Coalition positions. Antic has repeatedly crossed the floor in federal parliament and has taken positions outside the mainstream of his party on several issues.

Crossing the floor is permitted within Liberal Party tradition in a way that is less common in some other parties, but frequent rebellions can create tension when the same MP takes on a senior organisational role.

One recent example involved Antic’s attempt to change rules associated with the federal “No Jab, No Pay” policy, which links some family payments to childhood vaccination requirements. His proposal attracted criticism from Liberal figures who argued it would reopen a settled public-health question.

Antic and his allies present such interventions as evidence of independence and responsiveness to members. Opponents see them as distractions from the issues they believe the party needs to focus on to regain broader support.

The presidency ballot settled who will lead the organisation, but it did not settle that argument.

Centofanti’s 73 votes show that a substantial bloc of delegates preferred an alternative. The 119 votes for Antic also show that his supporters have built a clear majority among the party members who participated in the decision.

How those two camps interact will matter for the day-to-day operation of the party. The president must chair and coordinate an organisation that includes people who actively campaigned against him.

There is also a practical campaign challenge. State party organisations are responsible for fundraising, volunteer mobilisation, candidate support and election logistics. Regardless of ideological disputes, those functions require cooperation between the president, executive, local branches and parliamentary leadership.

For voters, the most important point is that Antic’s new role should not be confused with a change of state opposition leader or a change of government. Ashton Hurn remains the leader of the South Australian Liberal parliamentary team, and the elected MPs retain responsibility for policy decisions in parliament.

For party members, however, the result is more consequential. Antic ran on a promise to strengthen their influence, and his presidency will be judged partly on what that means in practice.

That could involve changes to internal consultation, committee structures, policy conferences or candidate processes. It could also simply mean a more activist organisational presidency that publicly pressures the parliamentary team while stopping short of formal control.

The relationship with One Nation will remain another point of scrutiny. Antic has argued that the Liberal Party needs to win back conservative voters rather than dismiss their concerns. One Nation, for its part, has interpreted his rise as evidence that its political pressure is shifting the debate.

Liberal critics do not accept that conclusion and argue that the party’s identity cannot be defined by its response to a rival party.

The next phase will therefore be less about the ballot itself and more about governance. Antic has won the office. He now has to operate an organisation containing factions with sharply different views about what the victory means.

If the state executive focuses on administration, campaigning and member engagement while the parliamentary team keeps control of policy, the formal division of responsibilities could remain intact. If disputes over policy authority or candidate selection intensify, the presidency could become a more direct source of internal conflict.

For now, the confirmed facts are clear: Antic won 119–73, Centofanti lost the internal contest, the presidency is an organisational role, and senior Liberal figures have publicly stated that parliamentary policy remains with elected MPs. The broader fight over the party’s direction continues, but the ballot has shifted who holds one of the most important positions inside the South Australian Liberal organisation.