Post-match report: South Australia

Welcome to episode two in the slower-than-anticipated Post-Match Report round-up of federal electorate results, which today brings us to South Australia.

Of the three seats that were highly marginal for the Liberals going into the election, Kingston emerged with the smallest Labor margin following a relatively subdued 4.5 per cent swing. The swing was reasonably consistent throughout the electorate, though slightly heavier at Morphett Vale and the Liberal-voting suburbs to the north than along the coast. Makin produced the third biggest swing in the state, perhaps boosted by the retirement of sitting member Trish Draper, with the 0.9 per cent margin obliterated by an evenly distributed 8.6 per cent shift to Labor. In Wakefield the swing was 7.3 per cent, which was markedly lower than in the small towns in the north of the electorate than in the low-income outer Adelaide centres of Elizabeth and Salisbury.

Only at four of Boothby‘s 42 booths did Nicole Cornes achieve a swing greater than the 5.4 per cent needed to win the seat. All were in strong Liberal areas, including the coast around Brighton and the Adelaide Hills suburb of Flagstaff Hill. Labor’s worst results came in the area closest to the city, with swings to the Liberals recorded at Mitcham, Myrtle Bank, Kingswood and Hawthorn West. The Greens’ vote picked up 3.1 per cent, perhaps benefiting from embarrassment surrounding Cornes’s performance. In Sturt the Labor candidate Mia Handshin picked up a close-but-no-cigar swing of 5.9 per cent that was concentrated in the heavily mortgaged northern end of the electorate, with swings near or above 10 per cent at Dernancourt, Gilles Plains and Windsor Gardens. Pyne now sits on an uncomfortable margin of 0.9 per cent.

The 7.2 per cent swing in Adelaide was slightly higher than the state average of 6.8 per cent, and was driven in remarkable degree by the stronger Labor areas to the north and north-west of the city. The swings in many of these booths cracked double figures, whereas the strong Liberal booths to the north-east and south-east of the city mostly came in at well under half that. Labor’s Hindmarsh MP Steve Georganas also had a much more relaxing election night this time around after prevailing by 108 votes in 2004, picking up a 5.0 per cent swing that was fairly evenly distributed throughout the electorate.

Labor’s biggest swing in South Australia was wasted in the safe Liberal rural seat of Barker, where Liberal member Patrick Secker went to preferences for the first time since 1998 after his primary vote fell from 53.2 per cent to 46.8 per cent. Labor was up 8.6 per cent on the primary vote and 10.4 per cent on two-party preferred. Swings were larger in the bigger centres than the small rural booths: all five Mount Gambier booths produced above average swings, peaking at a remarkable 21.4 per cent at Mount Gambier North. Talk of a swing in Grey big enough to endanger the Liberals was partly borne out by double-digit swings in the seat’s traditional Labor centres of Whyalla, Port August and Port Lincoln. Swings were much more gentle in the many smaller rural and remote booths, dampening the overall shift down to an insufficient but still severe 9.4 per cent.

Alexander Downer’s seat of Mayo followed the statewide trend in swinging to Labor by 6.5 per cent. Particularly heavy swings were recorded at the southern coastal towns of Victor Harbor and Goolwa. Nine years after coming within an ace of winning the seat, the Australian Democrats can now manage only 1.5 per cent. The Greens did well to increase 3.4 per cent to 11.0 per cent, partly assisted by the donkey vote. Another good seat for the Greens was Port Adelaide, where they picked up 3.3 per cent and boosted Labor from a 3.7 per cent increase on the primary vote to 6.8 per cent on two-party preferred. Remarkably, all but one of the 10 booths in Paralowie, Salisbury and Parafield to the east of Port Wakefield Road produced a double digit swing, a trend which carried over into neighbouring Makin. Swings in booths further west varied around the 4 per cent mark.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

557 comments on “Post-match report: South Australia”

Comments Page 2 of 12
1 2 3 … 12

  2. incompetence is one thing, diogenes, but andrews was pure evil. i wonder if he’s on a waiting list for ear-pinning-back surgery. i’d like to perform it.

  3. Asanque, I received a copy of the judgment through my work contacts. The Federal Court generally has them available online fairly quickly though

  4. passthe popcorn – well said 🙂
    .
    methinx Labor in Opposition, had to be soooooo careful with such cases.
    .
    Damned if they did, damned if they didn’t. Also, the Opposition is always information-poor, so its that much more difficult for them to ‘get their facts straight’. Ditto with the NT Intervention. All the paranoid rabid frothing-at-the-mouth we’ll all-be-rooned voters who support tough-on-terrorism (amongst other things) would have seen such an Opposition position as weak or communist or something along those lines. Then doubly damned by the loyal Laborites, to end up in a Lose-Lose position.
    .
    Andrews pure evil? Don’t think he was alone on that particular front-bench lineup. My personal Evil One was Brough, that was both *personal* and *political*. That man’s welfare policies on the disabled hurt my family Big-Time, and seeing him go down on election night was poetic justice!
    .

  5. And more from the judgment

    “131 In the Minister’s Statement of Reasons (at [2]), under the heading “CHARACTER TEST”, he indicated the following matters as supportive of his reasonable suspicion of the relevant association:
    (i) Dr Sabeel Ahmed and Dr Kafeel Ahmed are suspected of involvement in the London incident and the Glasgow bombings.
    (ii) Dr Haneef has advised the AFP that he is the second cousin of the Ahmeds.
    (iii) Since leaving the United Kingdom Dr Haneef and Dr Sabeel Ahmed have been in correspondence via on-line chat rooms. The most recent correspondence, on 26 June 2007, concerned the birth of Dr Haneef’s daughter.

    132 None of these elements, individually or together, is capable of supporting a reasonable suspicion that Dr Haneef knew of, was sympathetic to, supported, or was involved in any way in criminal conduct undertaken by the Ahmeds.

    The Minister said nothing in his Statement of Reasons to indicate that he had turned his mind to those questions.”

  6. Regarding Haneef, either you are a true progressive, and therefore should have been shouting from the rooftops about the injustice afforded Haneef regardless of the consequences, or you are a phony progressive.

    All you progressives: prepare to be completely underwhelmed by the Rudd Government.

    And why would anyone celebrate the release of David Hicks short of his family? Are you happy he will be out and among us? I can fully understand the argument that his case was not dealt with speedily (caused in part by legal proceedings on his behalf), but he went to fight with the enemies of freedom before 9-11. I hope he is never allowed to leave the country again, and only because he is Australian and therefore it is our responsibility to protect the rest of the world from him.

  7. We hear so many times that politicians have “the best interests of the country at heart” and “believe in public service” etc.

    How do you then reconcile how “evil” politicians like Andrews and Brough can get away with tackling problems they are entrusted to carry out in such a manner that lead to them being called “evil”.

    Is our parliamentary system and it’s check and balances so out of kilter when Liberals’ are in power and so well oiled and accountable when Labor is in power to explain this political behaviour.

    ThE Haneef judgement as quoted above sure makes you wonder in disbelief how the checks and balances could be so ineffective.

    Or are our observations just so much hubris to make us feel good after 11 years of frustration and exasperation.

  8. 54 Rain-Brough was my personal favourite too. Lots of bloggers seemed to quite like him and some even objected when I used the epithet “Jackboots” to describe him. An insider told me his staffers detested him and he was completely unable to take advice on anything. But I’m not sure about the disability policies. My daughter has multiple disabilities and we didn’t notice much change.

  9. William,

    Any chance you could set up an alternative “Vent your spleen” type forum on this site? This is getting more like Palmer’s Ozpolitics every day, with each thread degenerating into partisan sounding-off after the first couple of posts. I’m not saying they should be booted off the site completely, I’m just hoping they can be accomodated somewhere else so the rest of us don’t have to read through pages of “Howard was evil/no he wasn’t/yes he was” in the hope of finding a post on topic…..

    Or is it possible to set up a couple of ‘Open’ threads and let these guys do their worst, on the condition that every other thread stays on topic?

    Thanks.

  10. “123 Much of what the Solicitor-General said regarding the object of “risk management” may be accepted. Nonetheless, it is significant that the Parliament did not simply entrust the Minister with an unfettered power to refuse or cancel visas, as it might have done. Rather, it established a scheme whereby a person who had been judged to fail the character test could be given the opportunity to have the decision revoked. The expression “passes the character test” in s 501C(4) must be given meaningful content.”

    “135 Importantly, whether or not there were materials upon which reasonable suspicion of association properly construed could be found, it is clear that the Minister did not apply the proper test.”

  11. And finally…

    “The Issues Paper directed the Minister to Ministerial Direction 21. Paragraph 1.5 of that direction, which is set out earlier in these reasons, proposed a wide view of “association” as encompassing:
    … a very wide range of relationships including having an “alliance” or a “link” or “connection” with a person, a group or an organised body that is involved in criminal activities.

    This test, especially in encompassing “links” or connections” without any need to show sympathy, support for, or involvement in, criminal activity runs far too wide. It is a misconstruction of the statutory criterion. Having regard to its place in the Issues Paper and the way in which the Minister appears to have approached his decision, the proper inference is that he applied the wide and therefore incorrect test. In so doing, on the basis of the principles enunciated by this Court in Lobo 132 FCR 93, he fell into jurisdictional error.”

  12. RE Evil Ministers –
    agreed on Andrews and Brough. But would like to add Ruddock, Reith (gone but not forgotten), Downer, Vanstone, Abbott and the leader of the pack – John Winston himself. And pretty much any of them in fact with the possible exception of Petro Georgio.
    Never, in the history of our nation has a greater collection of morally bankrupt individuals had such influence for so long.
    asd the days roll by and Rudd ls imaikng both symbolic and actual moves to turn the tide I am truly relieved.
    (apart from Pulp Mill, but he has plenty of opprtunities to take an out on that too).

  14. 62

    Yes, and good riddance to the endless hagiography that accompanied JWH. Now let the revision begin, with this from Michael Duffy (no lefty this one!):

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/howard-played-the-conservative-movement/2007/12/20/1197740461213.html

    The last bit cuts to the chase:

    Howard attended conservative and liberal functions and told those there how important they were. His attendance was most useful for fund-raising, but in the longer term I suspect he played the conservative movement for suckers. He wanted power and he got it.

    They wanted policy reform, but on the whole they were disappointed.

  15. [‘In a unanimous judgment, the Full Court has concluded that the “association” to which s 501(6)(b) of the Migration Act refers is one involving some sympathy with, or support for, or involvement in, the criminal conduct of the person, group or organisation with whom the visa holder is said to have associated. The association must be such as to have some bearing upon the person’s character.

    The Court has therefore dismissed the Minister’s appeal, with costs.’]

    Was anyone at all surprised by this?
    Andrews should pay the costs out of his own pocket for his incompetence.

  16. And finally some justice is seen to be done.
    May it long continue, with the appropiate sentences handed down to those who believed they were above the law.

  19. Now that would seem to be a jolly good way to p*ss a lot of goodwill up against the wall. Message to Kevin…we’ve all had enough of realpolitik getting in way of justice. Leave this decision alone.

  20. Diogenes: “…after I finished watching “Hostel” (BTW the movie proves if it looks too good to be true, it probably is)….
    .
    MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA – not sure what the link between ‘Hostel” ( I or II) would have with health services, but sure does tickle my funny bone 🙂
    .
    As for Brough and disability (amongst other welfare policies), in my son’s case, it all started when he went onto full adult Disability Pension, and started to live independently away-from-home. Brough’s Dept then felt if he could live independently as an adult, then obviously the previous 5 years of Disabled Child’s Carer’s Allowance that I had been receiving was an error, and they hit me with a back-dated Centrelink debt of several thousand dollars. Along with if he can live independently as a young adult, he can bloody well work, and hence, ergo, he’s not disabled. They also advised state health/welfare etc services, that he wasn’t eligible for pensioner discounts or community health services, while his case was being “reviewed”.
    .
    This set off 12 months of legal battles, with his TDRs being constantly “reviewed”, being switched onto NewStart without warning, (and then breached because he didn’t show up for work-for-the-dole tests etc), having his electricity cut-off etc. Myself being visited by federal social workers on having my son return to live at home, instead of community supported independent living.
    .
    During that time, I saw many lawyers, including a public solicitor specialising in welfare cases, who apologised for being late for our first appointment. She had just been given another 12 cases of intellectually disabled and brain damaged trauma victims having been breached by Centrelink with their disability pensions withdrawn after similar “reviews”.
    .
    I also spoke to my local federal MP who had been advised of many similar cases, and that this was gearing up for a federal cut-back on disability pension cut-offs. Disability pensions were cut by $10/week, (along with cutting other conditions on eligibility, such as the ability to do 15 hours a week of voluntary work), to be cut from a certain date, in 04 I think (not long after they got control of the Senate). Those already on disability pensions at the time of the “Welfare Reform package”, like my son, were being ‘reviewed’ in order to get them off the pension.
    .
    Coupled with this, were major cuts to state SPPs for disability services, such as housing, state-govt pensioner entitlements (bus passes, gas/electricity discounts etc) residential care accommodation – eg those housed in nursing homes, and ‘half-way’ houses/hostels etc for psychiatric cases etc – and Brough wanted them out.
    .
    In my own case, after nearly 12 mths of hell, in desperate frustration, I sent an e-mail to all TV networks current affairs shows, cc’d to my local federal MP, a few Opposition front-benchers, and Brough as Minister.
    .
    Within an hour I received a call from Centrelink with a “lets make a deal” attitude, 30 minutes later, my son’s case was closed. Funny that, huh?
    .

  21. Rain,
    you story is a bloody disgrace. I really hope that a change in culture will permeate throughout the welfare beaurocracy so that it does what is intended – supports people who need it, rather than making their lives hell.
    I have my own story regarding Child Support Agency (won’t bore you with the details) but I’m taking my case to the Social security tribunal as a last ditch effort to challenge them .

  22. #68. Indeed. I get the feeling the Rudd government is going to dissapoint many on the left. It’ll become more of a case of the lesser of 2 evils. Already there are many signs that Garret’s ‘once we get in we’ll change it all’ comment will not come to pass. They are genuinely centralist or slightly right of center. Certainly to the right on economic issues.

  23. All 150 Seats in the HoR have now been declared. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that mean that the results now tallied are final?

    If so, then Labor has ended up with a total of 52.56 of the 2PP vote. Quite disappointing if you compare this result with the runs of polls they’ve been having all year. Still, a win is a win and therefore, obviously, a good result for them.

    The Greens have done what I always thought they would, increase their primary vote to 7.79% This is still less than what they average at State elections. Nonetheless, Bob Brown should be chuffed.

  24. FG @ 48

    That single paragraph demonstrates how great the need was to be rid of Howard. A leader that will trade the basic tenants of a just society for political gain is taking the country on a steep downward slope.

    I suspect (hope) there is a reserve of good intensions within the Liberal party. With the puppet master gone they may start to show themselves. Previously they were too timid and giddy with power to question Howard’s direction.

    The glimmer of light from the campaign came when a Liberal insider blew the whistle on Lindsay leaflet. That makes at least one person with a conscience.

  25. Pseph, Melbourne was originally a Labor vs Lib battle, but became a Labor vs Greens after the Greens got ahead of the Libs after minor party prefs were distributed. The AEC still hasn’t re-done a 2PP count for Melbourne, which will boost Labor’s overall 2PP to 52.7%.

  26. Any explanation for the increase in the Nationals primary vote in SA? and QLD and WA for that matter.

    I know the numbers are tiny, but I’m still interested as to why

  27. Pseph @ 73

    52.56% against the backdrop of nearly a year of 55 to 60 polls does seem disappointing. But I think this was an election won “against the run of play”.

    The coalition shamelessly used all public resources it could bend to its will. The economy is having it best run since Jesus played half back for Jerusalem. The ALP had to win a mass of seats, so the govt could burn a dozen seats and make a very targeted defense (something Keating could not do). After 11 years of using power as a means to raise funds, and starving their own state branches, the Libs heavily outspend the ALP.

    Rudd, weaving throw a minefield of wedges, had to overcome all these obstacles.

    On that basis the ALP should not have got close. But Howard’s was deaf on climate change. He turned needed industrial relation reforms into a political dagger and maybe, just maybe, the Australian people thought “we’re better people than Howard supposes”.

    I’m certainly not disappointed 🙂

  29. Another interesting statistic now that the Reps votes are all counted.

    It is often claimed that the Green preferences help the ALP get elected in many seats. This may be true.

    However, there is one seat where we can rightly claim that the Greens got the Liberal party elected.

    In particular, the Liberals won but if enough of the Green voters had preferenced the ALP then the ALP would have won (regardless of how the other minor party preferences went).

    There is only one such seat.

    Any guesses?

  30. 76 [Any explanation for the increase in the Nationals primary vote in SA? and QLD and WA for that matter.

    I know the numbers are tiny, but I’m still interested as to why]

    Squiggle are you thinking Leichardt, Dawson or Flynn? The Newspoll out yesterday on Queensland trends had the Nats primary vote on 9% so I would’t get too excited about National party prospects at this stage.

  32. Dr Good, Is it McEwen?

    The numbers are so tight that even a very minor switch changes the result. ANd presumably the green preferences included at least 12 that went to Liberal.

  33. Work to Rule

    That is true but an ALP win in McEwen would have still needed preferences from other minor parties.

    So that is not the seat I was describing. There is one seat where Greens could have given a win to the ALP (but didn’t) even if all the other minor party voters preferenced the Liberals.

  34. Anna Bligh says Haneef can work in Queensland.

    QUEENSLAND Premier Anna Bligh says she would welcome former terror suspect Mohamed Haneef back to work in the State’s health system.

    The full bench of the Federal Court, sitting in Melbourne, dismissed an appeal lodged by federal government lawyers against a judge’s decision to reinstate Dr Haneef’s visa.

    Dr Haneef had been working at Gold Coast Hospital before his July 2 arrest by Australian Federal Police.

    Ms Bligh said she was pleased to learn of the court’s decision.

    “The decision by the courts today in relation to Dr Haneef’s visa adds … weight to concerns that all may not have been as it should have been in the dealings the Commonwealth Government had with Dr Haneef,” she said.

    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22959109-29277,00.html

  35. I know this is off the topic of the thread, but I doubt there will be another place to ask it.

    I don’t wish to in any way minimize the tragedy of his death, but can anyone explain how Williams came to be a councilor? Rea was elected in 2004, and I can find no reference to there having been a by-election for the seat. Was Williams elected unopposed, or is there some BCC rule where party’s can replace councilors if it is close enough to the next election?

  36. Ok. I have to leave now so I had better answer my quiz question.

    The one seat where Green preferencing decisions are “totally” responsible for
    a Liberal win is the seat of Swan. If all (or enough) Green voters had preferenced the ALP above Libs then the ALP would have won even if all the other voters had preferenced the Libs.

  37. So what do people think is the way forward for the Libs. I would guess they need to focus on winning some state elections – but even out in the wide west that seems to be a stretch.

    One basic problem facing the Libs is a lack of talent (doubly so at state level) and a lack of a career structure for staff and future candidates. The ALP has a network of state governments, unions, industry funds, the public service and the ABC (wink) to nurture talent and provide a career structure.

    In business there are plenty of talented Liberal orientated folk, but most would pale at the thought of moving into politics. It means a pay cut, harder work, public scrutiny and public criticism.

  38. Dr Good, I think you’re talking about Swan, where the ALP and Green vote combined is over 50%. However, this is a bit deceiving, since the Greens have top spot on the ballot, but the Donkey vote flows down to the Liberals, so some of those votes were never going to get to the ALP once the ballot was drawn.

  40. Re Mr Squiggle at # 76…

    With respect to QLD, the National Party were able to run candidates in the (previously) Liberal Party held seats of Leichardt (3302 votes) and Forde (9550 votes), due to the retirement of the Liberal Party members in those seats. I suggest that that the overall National party vote may have gone up because they contested more seats than they did last time.

    Also in the Division of Wide Bay a Liberal candidate got 20.87% in 2004, but there was no Liberal candidate in 2007 and the National Party vote went up by 20.76% there. This was however offset somewhat in Flynn where there was a low 2.46% (notional) Liberal vote in 2004 but a ‘swing’ to the Liberal party of 12.32% and a swing away from the Nationals of 13.34% in 2007.

    Cheers.

  41. 87- I read this British quote. “We are a party whose sole purpose through the centuries has been to win and retain political power.” Malcolm Rifkind, Conservative Foreign Secretary, 1996.
    That really sums up the Libs in Australia too. I don’t think they stand for anything except getting re-elected.

  42. Re Stephen L at # 85…

    You hit the nail on the head in your last sentence… the late Mr Robbie Williams was selected to fill the Holland Park Ward vacancy, there was no by-election.

  44. Tony Abbot makes me laugh. If the Libs were to hang on to just one seat in this great nation of ours it would be his. I so enjoy his his public utterances such as his latest:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/21/2125254.htm

    The heading for this article is: Rudd ‘a control freak’

    which is better than the one that should apply to any comment from the Mad Monk. That heading should read:

    Abbot ‘an out of control freak’

  46. Lord D @ 75: Does this mean that the current 2PP vote is for the only electorates where there was a straight Labor v Lib/Nat contest for the final two? This means that New England and Kennedy have also been excluded from the mix.

  47. I clicked on to that earlier link to “Bolter’s” site and was amazed at this.

    {Andrew Bolt – Friday, December 21, 07 (06:25 am)
    EVERY week I get emails from readers asking me how on earth I do this job, filling endless pages with columns as wise as they are brilliant. ]

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

    Don’t you just love the continual, “modest” tone he includes in his writing.

  48. Diaogenes,

    Yes, trying to work out what they stand for (other than being in power) is the challenge for the Libs. In Victoria they are almost invisible on any issue where they might have an advantage.

    I doubt that Rudd will make life any easier. His tactic of minimising any difference in areas where the Libs are perceived to have an advantage looks like continuing. This leaves them to make ground on hard right topics like unfair dismisals or “away from home” topics like climate change, health and indigenous affairs.

    I think the issue crying out for a party to champion is being prepared to borrow for nation building infrastructure. The ALP won’t go there (except by stealth) because its their weak suit, and the Libs have spent much of there existence arguing against it. Maybe a minor party will come out of the shadows in the next decade.

  49. Haneef is now free to work in Australia. Another of the Howard Government legacies goes down the gurgler. Looks like Andrews was the only reason for Haneef not being treated fairly.

    Federal Immigration Minister Chris Evans will not move to cancel Indian doctor Mohammed Haneef’s work visa.

    The full bench of the Federal Court in Melbourne today dismissed an appeal by the former immigration minister Kevin Andrews against reinstating Dr Haneef’s visa.

    Mr Andrews revoked Dr Haneef’s visa in July, despite a terrorism related charge against the Brisbane doctor being dropped.

    Senator Evans says Dr Haneef is free to return to work in Australia under his current 457 Visa, which is valid until 2010.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/21/2125622.htm?section=justin

  50. I’m glad Rudd won but am disappointed
    that on election night with 77% of the vote counted Labor had 53.41% of the 2PP
    now with 94% of the vote counted its down almost 1% to 52.56%

    However the size of the swings in SA in all seats listed by William proves Labor did not win the election on climate, hospitals & the education revolution etc
    This ‘Labor won’ nonsense was put up by many Pseph’s % Newspapers

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 2 of 12
1 2 3 … 12