http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseStateFirstPrefsByParty-17496-NAT.htm
What would this have equated to if Australia used New Zealand's proportional MMP system?
Firstly, the parties that passed the 5% threshold:
| Party | Votes | Percentage % |
| Australian Labor Party | 3,585,236 | 33.85 |
| Liberal | 3,358,326 | 31.71 |
| Liberal National Party | 923,932 | 8.72 |
| The Greens | 892,117 | 8.42 |
| Palmer United Party | 591,493 | 5.58 |
Secondly, the parties didn't reach 5% but gained at least one electorate seat:
| Party | Seats | Votes | Percentage % |
| The Nationals | 9 | 484,568 | 4.57 |
| Country Liberals (NT) | 1 | 36,603 | 0.35 |
| Katter's Australian Party | 1 | 105,485 | 1.00 |
| Independent | 1 | (Assume negligible) | |
This results in eligible percentages and seats as follows:
| Party | Percentage % | Eligible % | # Seats |
| Australian Labor Party | 33.85 | 35.93 | 54 |
| Liberal | 31.71 | 33.66 | 50 |
| Liberal National Party | 8.72 | 9.26 | 14 |
| The Greens | 8.42 | 8.94 | 13 |
| Palmer United Party | 5.58 | 5.92 | 9 |
| The Nationals | 4.57 | 4.85 | 9 |
| Country Liberals (NT) | 0.35 | 0.37 | 1 |
| Katter's Australian Party | 1 | 1.06 | 1 |
| Independent | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
| Total | 94.2 | 100.00 | 152 |
So the result would have been:
- Liberal/Liberal National/Nationals/Country Liberals is the frontrunner to form a government with 74 seats, but they would need a coalition partner. The only parties that have sufficient numbers are Palmer United and the Greens
- Labor is theoretically still in the running if they could secure the support of 23 seats worth of coalition partners
- The National Party has more seats than they would be allocated purely on vote %, so one of their electorate seats is an "overhang"
- The Independent electorate MP that I've assumed has negligible vote % would be an "overhang" MP, increasing the size of the lower house to 152 total MPs
