Queensland has had long periods of party hegemony interspersed with short cycles of volatility and electoral competition.

I think it is safe to say that the periods where the parties are competitive are short and don't seem to last beyond a party establishing itself as the dominant party of government.

John Wanna writes:

The predominance of stable and well-disciplined partisan majorities supporting the government in a unicameral parliament has meant that few governments have ever been brought down by defeat on the floor of parliament. Motions of no confidence have rarely been put and the Gair Labor government was the only one to be brought down by defeat on a matter of confidence.

This is more a result of there being very few minority governments in the Queensland system.

NSW has two periods of party activity. The first is prior to the 1930s when most governments were minority governments and elections highly competitive. Since the 1930s and the UAP winning the election after Lang's dismissal NSW has seen the increasing party discipline form of government with strong majorities and long electoral success.

The party system as we know it in Australia is Labor's innovation. Prior to Labor's appearance in Australian electoral politics the governments were fluid bodies of coalitions who would often form around a strong leader. Because of the pledge and Labor's discipline to the party's national executive this factional form of organisation was broken.

The Liberals formed in 1904 as a response to Labor and basically out party organised the Protectionists and Ministerialists such that the latter two parties were not electorally competitive.

Rodney Smith writes:

The New South Wales Branch (of labor) is widely regarded as one of the most successful but conservative of Labor's state branches. Labor governed for 58.7 per cent of the period from 1910 to 2000, a proportion only bettered by Tasmania's 60.6 per cent.

Smith argues that the reason for NSW Labor's success has been that it has seen winning elections as its organisational goal. Consequently it has placed itself ideologically to match the wider electorate - both urban and rural.

South Australia has been a very competitive state between Labor and the Liberals.

Other than one period of Liberal Country League dominance for over thirty years, South Australia has seen the frequent switch between governments of differing parties.

Andrew Parkin divides the history of South Australian Government into four periods. The first period is the post-federation period where no party managed to dominate politics. Parkin argues that this represents "a state whose social, political and economic profile was uncertain."

The next one is the Playford Period. The dominant component of this period was government led industrialisation. To complement this policy a Housing Trust was established to help house low cost workers that would fill the factories of the new industrialisation.

After the Playford Period came one of Labor dominance where Liberal Governments were short in length. Don Dunstan was the most public figure of this period and the policies were more focused on cultural and social outcomes - something that had been neglected under Playford's industrialisation and paternalism.

Parkin was writing in 2003 and he labeled the final period the 'period of uncertainty'. This is after the bank collapses under Bannon.

It should also be noted that South Australia produced the base for the Australian Democrats as the various flavours of Liberal parties in the state led to the New Liberals and the Liberal Movement which were the precursor for the Democrats.

Like South Australia, Tasmania has been pretty competitive other than one period of 30+ years of dominance between 1934 and 1969 by the Labor Party.

Aynsley Kellow argues that during Labor's hold on Tasmanian politics between 1934 and 1982 the politics were "distributive rather than redistributive in flavour, what Lowi calls patronage politics." State sponsored development for industrialisation, mineral extraction and hydro-electric power led to electoral success.

The Robson Rotation was introduced into Tasmania in 1980. It appears that this electoral technology may have an impact on incumbency. It could have played a part in reducing Labor's dominance of Tasmanian politics since 1982.

Victoria has been dominated by Liberal and anti-Labor parties for most of its electoral history. It is only in the last twenty years that Labor has become competitive in the state.

The state was sufficiently anti-Labor that there was a competitive electoral market for many non-labor parties such as the Conservative Party, the Reform Party, the Country Party, the UAP, the Electoral Reform Party (which held a minority government for a few days) and the Liberal and Country party. The latter held government for 27 years until the Liberals were able to win government on their own in 1972.

Econamau, Costar and Strangio write:

Labor's historical inability to win elections and form governments has been a major feature of Victorian politics. From 1902, the year when the party's organisation was finalised, to 1982, Labor had only been in government a total of 102 months. Of these brief periods in office Labor had formed a majority government only once.

Arguably the internal party conflicts with Bob Santamaria made Labor uncompetitive - however - they were uncompetitive before the mid-1950s as well. Ultimately it was electorally futile for the Democratic Labor Party as it did not win a single seat in Victorian parliament either. Victoria had adopted single seat districts with preferential voting for the Assembly and Council. At the national government level in the House this voting method has entrenched a party duopoly.