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 3 of 12
1 2 3 4 … 12

  2. 97 Scorpio, last I saw of the Bolter he was holidaying in Italy for months during the year and now he is having a break until Australia Day. Nice work if you can get it.

  3. 101 Work To Rule: Oh god, that is mind-bogglingly pathetic. Still, more or less what you’d expect from a useless chairwarmer like Andrews.

  4. 101 Not only can he not come to terms with being in opposition but Andrews aways had difficulty in coming to terms with the law. I have never seen a Minister so comprehensively rolled by the courts so often.

  5. Even with all of Andrews stuff ups I think the ALP, at best, came out will a scoreless draw on the Haneef affair.

    But in power the ALP can turn it into a win if the gormless ex-minister keep himself in the firing line. Andrew would be well “advised” to stop talking now.

    Do the legal folk here have a view on how strong a case Haneef would have for damages?

  6. Re the National Party vote, as far as SA goes the increase was because they ran 2 candidates in this election as compared to only one in ’04.
    They decreased their votes slightly in Barker both in absolute numbers and percentage and their candidate in Grey scored very poorly when you consider it was a 2 way competition for one of the constituent state seats between the Nats and the Libs in ’06 state election.
    Basically a very poor result overall for the Nats in SA.
    Dunno about the other states.

  7. A claim can always be had
    It is easier being a defendant as Haneef was to win this case

    Alot harder to be on the other side & prove a case against a government especially with the terror subject

    Also a claim may guarantee a Government appeal of the decision

  9. I imagine if Haneef sues Andrews for defamation that the taxpayer will pay for Andrews legal costs and any payout. Can Andrews be directed by Rudd to apologise (and shut up) or lose the financial support of the taxpayer?

  11. What if it could be demonstrated that Andrews was not acting in good faith and acted incompetently against advice (not that I’m saying that was the case)?

  12. The last para is the understatement of 2007. From ABC news

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

    He says the former immigration minister’s calls for the Rudd Government to take the matter to the High Court will not be pursued.

    “Kevin Andrews is not the one to be giving me advice about such matters, his record’s not great,” he said.

  13. The Court held that the minister completely misunderstood the legislation, applied the character test wrongly, and took upon himself powers that parliament never intended him to have. I guess that could be construed as not acting in good faith (if his motives were political – this is not covered in the judgment) and as acting incompetently – as a lawyer Andrews had a shockingly poor understanding of the law. Nonetheless Diogenes, Rudd could not order him to do anything and certainly could not threaten him with financial penalty. Ministers, acting in their portfolio responsibilities are entitled to be represented by the Crown when matters come to litigation.

  14. I hear so much sh..t on Nicole Cornes. I believe she was the best ALP candidate in SA. Yes she was ‘hung out to dry’ in the sense that she was badly advised at all times by the ALP right-wing mafia, and particularly at the start. But I applaud the decision to run a cleanskin in a seat where the hacks have not come within cooee of winning in two or three generations. She made mistakes, sure, but she worked extremely hard, learnt a lot, was brave under pressure and deservedly received the loudest applause of any of the candidates at the ALP’s SA campaign launch.

  15. Diogenes Says:

    What if it could be demonstrated that Andrews was not acting in good faith and acted incompetently against advice (not that I’m saying that was the case)?

    I believe there is also a strong case that the pope is Catholic but I’m not saying that was the case too.

  16. Pseph @ 96, the AEC has provided a Labor vs Lib/Nat 2PP count for New England and Kennedy, the seats won by independents. Go to the AEC VTR web site, and click on the division names and you’ll see a 2PP count below the 2CP count. Because the Greens got ahead of the Libs very late in the Melbourne count, there is no 2PP count for Melbourne yet, and won’t be until the AEC resumes operations in the new year. Currently, the AEC has 2PP counts for 149 of the 150 seats.

  17. Also, the 53.4% on election night actually went down to 52.9% in the 148 of the 150 seats where there was, at that stage, a 2PP count. The 2PP then went down to 52.7% when New England and Kennedy were added, and has now gone down further, as Melbourne has temporarily been taken off the 2PP list. When Melbourne is added back, the 2PP will go back to 52.7%.

  18. Work to Rule- Actually the pope does not have to be a Catholic and there are some who it debated were not. One was argued to have been a woman (Pope Joan).
    “A pope is chosen by majority vote in the College of Cardinals, the member of which were themselves appointed by the previous pope(s). To win election, a person must get at least two-thirds of the votes cast. Cardinals stand just below the pope in terms of power and authority in the church hierarchy. Candidates do not have to be from the College of Cardinals or even a Catholic — technically, anyone at all can be chosen. However, candidates have almost always been a cardinal or bishop, especially in modern history.”

  19. Phil @ 114
    “I believe she was the best ALP candidate in SA”
    Well I can guess you may want to support Nicole, I have no problem with that but I don’t think the quote above does justice to some of the other candidates who did a great job despite having to push shit uphill.
    Check out, for example, the performance of Karen Lock in the ultra safe Liberal seat of Barker, look at the area of land she had to cover, from the SE of the state to the Riverland and imagine the travelling involved. Note that the level of support she received, both financial and personal was far less than Nicole got. OK different horses for different courses but ultimately Karen as a newby faced with a hostile press [Alan Scott territory for example] scored a 10% plus swing and should be judged a resounding success. Its not necessary to overpraise Nicole at the expense of others in an attempt to defend her.
    And karen lock is not the only example of one who did well.

  20. Cornes worked hard and learned a lot quickly, and her preformance improved greatly later in the campaign. By that stage, however, the damage was done. In any case, the premise of her winning a seat like Boothby was that the middle class was going to swing heavily to Labor, and that didn’t happen in SA or anywhere else, as we have discussed here already and as William’s comments on the booth-level swings confirms. So she would not have won no matter how well she had campaigned.

    In terms of results Tony Zappia seems to deserve the title of best SA candidate. He absolutely thrashed Bob Day, a high-profile candidate with buckets of money to spend. Karen Lock in Barker, as noted, also did well. I’d be prepared to bet Patrick Secker will get booted before the next election. Maybe Minchin will feel like a change of scenery?

  21. Adam- Thank you and St Kevin for the rain in Adelaide. 25mm today!! My wife fertilised the garden yesterday based on your prediction of rain after a Labor win. We don’t need Turnbull’s ion rain-maker after all.

  22. The rain is great, no doubt.
    but earthquakes in NZ, massive hail storms, tornadoes and melting of the ice-cap…
    this could be Armageddon as the Libs warned, if Kevin of the Heavens took the reigns.

  23. No Jen….the Lord has smiled upon the good people of Oz and removed the pestilence called the Coalition from the land. As a sign of His divine favour he has sent Kevin to reign over us and has blessed the land with refreshing rain. New Zealand, however hath no Kevin and hath displeased the Lord by being…well…New Zealanders.

  24. The election writs were returned to the Governor General today.

    COUNTING in the 2007 election is over and the result has officially been declared.

    With the contentious Victorian seat of McEwen finally going to Fran Bailey for the Liberals, vote counting has ended almost four weeks after the November 24 poll.

    The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) today returned the writs to Governor-General Michael Jeffery, allowing Parliament to resume next year.

    The issuing of the writ, a document commanding the AEC to hold an election, triggers the election process.

    On the return of the writ, the AEC endorses each MP elected for each division to the governor-general.

    For the Senate, the AEC returns the writ to the state governor for each state and the governor-general for the territories.

    The seat of McEwen was the final seat to be declared after Ms Bailey forced a recount when the initial results saw the Liberal incumbent losing to Labor’s Rob Mitchell by six votes.

    Following the recount, the AEC determined Ms Bailey won by 12 votes.

    At the close of counting today, Labor won 83 seats in the House of Representatives, the Liberals 55, the Nationals 10 and two independents retained their seats.

    The new Senate, to apply from July next year, will include 37 Coalition, 32 Labor, five Greens, one Family First and one independent senator.

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22960294-12377,00.html

  28. From Work To Rule’s link in 101

    In that case, Justice Emmett found that neither a person’s knowledge of an associate’s criminality or guilty participation was necessary for a person to fail the character test.

    Huh???? Don’t know whether Justice Emmett said that, or if its just Andrew’s crazy/self serving interpretation, but either way, what does it say about a law and/or the bloke administering it that you can be judged as being of bad character simply because, without your knowledge, someone else does something that may – and AFAIK none of Haneef’s relatives have yet been found guilty of anything – be illegal.

    What a f#@*@#$ Alice-in-Wonderland society the Howardista fruitloops imposed on us!!! And imagine where we’d be headed if they’d be returned to power!

  31. 124
    steve Says:
    The election writs were returned to the Governor General today.

    COUNTING in the 2007 election is over and the result has officially been declared.

    [snip]

    At the close of counting today, Labor won 83 seats in the House of Representatives, the Liberals 55, the Nationals 10 and two independents retained their seats.

    Good enough for me. I get a gold star.

    http://pbpredict.googlepages.com/home

    Well done JJ; mad cow; Mark; Matt; Pancho; seajay; Daniel B; and Chris C.

    Also credit to anyone who called it in the range 81-85.

  35. Poll Bludgers and poll lovers.

    If you want to see and understand the full effect and distortion in the way the AEC calculates the Senate Surplus Transfer Value. Try this realistic based on the Victorian Senate vote. What if One Nation and the Shooters Party preference the Liberal Party before the ALP and before the Greens…

    1. Using Antony Greens calculator record the percentage allocated to each group as displayed on the AEC web site
    http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateStateFirstPrefsByVoteType-13745-VIC.htm

    2. Zero out One Nation and the Shooters Party (This will get the Greens supporters all excited)

    3. Add the value of One nation and the Shooters Party to the value of Family First (This will simulate the hypothetical preference swap)

    Now calculate the result.

    The Greens are elected as a result of the inbuilt distortional in the distribution of preferences

    Family First represents 31.4% of the Liberal Party’s Ryan Vote and as such should also represent 31.4% of the Ryan surplus. But under the AEC rules and the system used Family First’s vote is devalued to just 7.6% of the surplus. Whilst the Liberal ticket vote increases in value and represents 88.6% as opposed to 68.6% .

    This delivers an unfair advantage to the Greens of around the equivalent of 10,000 votes. Under a truly proportional system the ALP would have elected a third candidate.

    Clearly the system used by the AEC is seriously in need of review. It is outdated designed to facilitate a manual counting system. We now have at our disposal computers to help us calculate the results of the election.

    The system Must be updated to reflect the one vote one value principle.

    I have decided to all this system the Wright System named after the late Jack Wright

    * One Transaction per Candidate (All votes distributed simultaneously on exclusion – no segmentation)
    * Surplus Transfer Value to be based on the value of the vote and not the number of ballot papers
    * Remainders to remain with the vote
    * If Optional preferential is to be adopted then consideration should be given to adopting a reiterative counting process where the count is restarted on every exclusion
    * use of the Droop Quota remains (total vote divided by (the number of positions + 1) +1

    Pure simple and proportional the Wright System.

    Those of us that value a fair truly proportional system will support the above those that don’t (Green voters will want to continue to operate the outdated distorted system currently used by the AEC/Australian Senate)

    * Life Member Proportional Representation Society of Australia

  37. #114 Phil Robins Said on December 21st, 2007 at 6:36 pm

    I hear so much sh..t on Nicole Cornes. I believe she was the best ALP candidate in SA. Yes she was ‘hung out to dry’ in the sense that she was badly advised at all times by the ALP right-wing mafia, and particularly at the start. But I applaud the decision to run a cleanskin in a seat where the hacks have not come within cooee of winning in two or three generations. She made mistakes, sure, but she worked extremely hard, learnt a lot, was brave under pressure and deservedly received the loudest applause of any of the candidates at the ALP’s SA campaign launch.

    I agree 100%.

  38. The result noted by William in Wakefield – big swings in working class areas and low swing in rural areas also had something to do with the big pork barreling promises of the Liberals with various country road promises in these areas. It is interesting to compare this with Barker and Grey which had around 10% swings concentrated in the bigger regional towns. Swings in Elizabeth and Salisbury was also something of a back to usual vote – the ALP candidate last time – Martin Evans was seen as past his use-by date and out of touch with people in what should have been strong Labor areas. Evans at one stage had resigned from ALP and won the State seat of Elizabeth as a Labor independent. Quite a few Labor voters took revenge when a close result beckoned in 2004.

  39. I shared the same view as Phil Robins when Cornes was announced as the candidate. I no longer do.

    The logic behind standing an atypical candidate like Cornes was that she was someone who could boost the Labor swing in a seat that was difficult, but nonetheless possible, for Labor to attain. However, the available evidence – a miserable swing of 2.4% – suggests the reverse was true. Not only did she fail to amplify the swing, she actually dampened it.

    A hack from central casting would have done better.

  40. Goodness, Kevin. And all of those who urged him on, to better and greater.

    Water, Water!

    Sure, we want rain, but!

    I only want my fair share.

    Talk about inexperience. Get it right!

    Waving not Drowning.

    In Adelaide.

  41. senate watch/melbcity

    you’re persistence is perhaps admirable, but the facts speak for themselves.
    At this election Richard Dinatale polled over 10% of the primary vot
    e and did not get elected.
    In 2004 Stephen Fielding polled 1.8% and won a senate seat.
    It is a nonsense to say that the Greens are advantaged.
    So, I suggest you do as the rest of us have to and Get Over It, sweetheart.

  43. Senate Watch 135 says:
    “The system Must be updated to reflect the one vote one value principle.”

    One vote one value – and you’re discussing the Senate!
    When you start to argue the application of this fundamental to the Senate as a whole I’ll start to listen.

  44. Diogenes (111)

    I agree with your coments on Andrews. In fact, I have been dissappointed with Chris Evan’s weak responses so far. He is not a lawyer by training and I don’t think he appreciates how fundamentally Haneef’s rights have been trampled on. I hope he is not relying on the departmental lawyer’s advice, since some of them are part of the problem.

    (And thanks for your reply on health. It made me think that returning teh private health insurance subsidy to public hospitals would be a good idea, but I take your point that a lot more than that is needed. I think you can get good executive managers for less than you suggest, but obviously those in the system now are not capable.)

  45. Congratulations to the National Party for winning one senate seat in NSW and one in Qld. A great result for all the billions of dollars wasted in propping up this archaic party through years of porkbarrelling by Howard and Costello.

  47. Senate surpluses. Contrary to Senate Watch/Melb City (135 et al multiple noise) I would have thought the Senate surplus fractions are fair and set up for computer analysis. The system SWMC thinks is fair was the system for manual counting where each time a candidate was elected a pile of votes equal to a quota was packed up and put aside. The result was that when a surplus was distributed for say a third candidate of a major party it was unfairly weighted to the minor party votes which were collected just prior to the candidate being eliminated.

    The current computer system appears to work out the a surplus fraction on the assumption that all the votes of the party and added minor party are lumped together and then a fraction is calculated. That rates equally all the votes from the relevant party and all collected preferences. Such a system was much more difficult with manual counting but a breeze with computers. Systems like the SA Upper House which still have the older manual oriented system should be changed to be like the Senate.

  48. re 147
    can the way the vote is counted using the same data… give different results in tight contests?
    if yes would not this be a case for disputed returns?

  49. Jen @ 142….Well….the truth is….before becoming a lawyer…I actually was a “Rev”. My left-wing, socially progressive and inclusive views weren’t well received in the church I belonged to (churches, sadly, are more about exclusion than inclusion), so I departed, worked in the community sector among the homeless and addicted and eventually studied law. So now you know.

  50. 146 [How do the Liberals and Nats divided up their public funding from Senate joint tickets?]

    It will be like everything else with the coalition, the Liberals would grab the bread and the Nats would be grateful for the crumbs.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 3 of 12
1 2 3 4 … 12