In Melbourne as elsewhere, the November 24 election produced a pattern of strong swings in outer suburbs and weak ones nearer the city, which cut across the partisan divide. The swing against veteran Liberal moderate Petro Georgiou in blue-ribbon Kooyong was just 0.05 per cent, while Peter Costello faced a similarly mild 1.7 per cent shift in neighbouring Higgins. This pattern carried over to the conservative dead zone of Melbourne, which swung only 1.1 per cent in Labor-versus-Liberal terms. However, the real story here was Greens candidate Adam Bandt’s success in edging out the Liberal candidate to take second place. The Greens’ primary vote was up 3.8 per cent to 22.8 per cent, 0.7 per cent behind the Liberals. This gap was bridged after distribution of minor party preferences, with Bandt leading the Liberal candidate 21,996 (25.1 per cent) to 21,405 (24.4 per cent) at the second last exclusion. Liberal preferences then took Bandt to within 4.7 per cent of victory, producing the first ever Labor versus Greens two-party result in a federal seat at a general election. This is the first time Melbourne has met the AEC’s definition of a marginal seat (6 per cent or less) since 1904.
Beyond the swing-resistant inner core of Melbourne, Kooyong and Higgins lay a band of seats separating it from the volatile outer suburbs. Batman followed the broader pattern of mild swings of around 4 per cent in inner suburban Northcote, and heavier ones of 6 per cent to 7 per cent at Preston and Reservoir further to the north. The Greens’ vote was up 3.2 per cent to 17.2 per cent, a potentially bridgeable 3.4 per cent behind the Liberals. Jagajaga, Chisholm and Menzies produced near identical swings of 4.6 per cent to 4.7 per cent, respectively staying safe for Labor’s Jenny Macklin and Anna Burke and the Liberals’ Kevin Andrews. On the bayside, Melbourne Ports produced a relatively gentle 3.4 per cent swing which was nonetheless the biggest movement in the electorate since 1993, while its safe Liberal neighbour Goldstein swung 4.0 per cent.
The two biggest swings were in the Melbourne area were in the outer suburban suburbs of Calwell in the north and Holt in the south-east. Calwell topped the table at 11.1 per cent, with swings topping 15 per cent at Craigieburn on the outermost urban fringe. The 10.1 per cent swing in Holt was most pronounced in the south, peaking with a mighty 17.5 per cent swing at the electorate’s largest booth of Narre Warren South. Swings in the north were in the range of 5 per cent to 9 per cent. In what might be regarded as the defining booth result of the election, a 10.96 per cent swing to Labor was recorded at Kath and Kim’s home of Fountain Gate.
Labor added some fat to a number of margins in traditionally safe south-eastern seats that were cut uncomfortably fine in 2004. After previous member Ann Corcoran suffered an unexpectedly close shave in 2004, newcomer Mark Dreyfus boosted the Labor margin from 1.5 per cent to 7.7 per cent in Isaacs, which produced heavier swings in the inland suburbs of Keysborough and Carrum Downs than along the coast. Immediately to the north, Simon Crean increased his margin from 7.4 per cent to 13.0 per cent in Hotham, with particularly strong swings recorded in Springvale. In Bruce the swing to Labor was an evenly distributed 4.8 per cent, increasing Alan Griffin’s margin to 8.3 per cent.
Liberal seats in the eastern suburbs mostly followed the trend of their Labor-held neighbours. Only in the case of Deakin was the swing enough for a seat to change hands, Labor winning the seat for only the second time since its creation in 1937. Their candidate Mike Symon picked up 5.7 per cent on the primary vote and 6.4 per cent on two-party preferred to prevail with a margin of 1.4 per cent, ending the 11-year parliamentary career of Liberal member Phil Barresi. Labor achieved an identical swing further afield in McEwen, which was famously 12 votes short of what was needed to unseat Fran Bailey. The swing peaked at South Morang (10.6 per cent) and Wallan Wallan (9.1 per cent), but there was no clearly discernible pattern to its distribution. Labor’s other disappointment was a 5.3 per cent swing in La Trobe that fell 0.5 per cent short of delivering them the seat. The Dandenong Ranges formed a rough dividing line between suburbs on the city side where the swing was in the order of what Labor required, and the hill suburbs and surrounding small towns where it fell just short at around 4 per cent.
On safer ground for the Liberals, Bruce Billson’s seat of Dunkley returned to the marginal zone with a swing of 4.2 per cent that was felt more heavily in Frankston than Mornington and Mount Eliza. In outer suburban and semi-rural Casey, Tony Smith suffered a 5.4 per cent swing that was higher in suburban Croydon and Kilsyth than in the satellite towns of Monbulk and Woori Yallock. It is interesting to note a particularly sharp 8.1 per cent swing in Aston, which memorably gave the Liberals a bigger margin in 2004 than Kooyong. Any thoughts that this might have marked a long-term realignment can now be laid to rest, as the respective margins are now 5.0 per cent and 9.5 per cent.
Labor’s safe seats in the west and north of Melbourne produced remarkably consistent swings of between 5.5 per cent to 6.7 per cent, excepting the aforementioned Calwell. Wills followed the pattern of neighbouring Batman in producing smaller swings of around 4 per cent at Brunswick at the southern end nearer the city, increasing to around 7 per cent at Glenroy in the north. Bill Shorten’s candidacy appeared not to make much difference one way or the other in Maribyrnong, which swung to Labor by a locally typical 5.8 per cent which was evenly distributed through the electorate. There was similarly consistency in the swings in Gellibrand (6.5 per cent), Gorton (6.3 per cent) and Lalor (6.7 per cent).
739 comments on “Post-match report: Melbourne”
Make that “Liberal Party” (and I thought I’d spell checked…)
Stewart J, I wasn’t thinking of you, in fact after reading my post again it was probably too harsh in it’s assessment of anyone posting on this site. Your defence of your party and your beliefs are admirable.
On the hospital issue which was done to death a while ago, surely the issue is equitable provision of service. The extra burden placed on the people of Phillip Island does not seem to be too onerous to me, when viewed in context over the whole country.
Admittedly, the current banks problem is not a result of a deregulated market and it is a result of the credit crunch in US but a deregulated market does not help the situation. By having a bank owned by government it at least provides some kind of competitive hold on banks to be overly greedy and that is my point. For Wayne Swan to cry wolf is just silly, instead of doing this he should do something meaningful. Trying to show crocodile tears means nothing and it is just hot air. Take your business elsewhere god forbid to those people to do so and then realise that the other bank is doing the same and raising rates.
The question about how do people raise the money… well if they can’t then they do not have a hospital. Put simply Phillip Island may not have a hospital because their isn’t the population for it or if they had one (government) the adequate trained personnel to be able to work within. Yes it is a question of governance and money and need, maybe in time Phillip Island should have a hospital but when is the answer regarding population and perhaps ensuring that more development does not occur on such a pristine part of Victoria.
Hey Scaper… Testing my Morse Code. Never typed it out before.
… -.- .- .–. . .-.
… -.-. .- .–. . .-.
… -.-. .- .–. .-.
ooo -o-o o- o–o o o-o
marky marky @ 703
But effectively CommBank and Westpac are doing what you believe a public CBA could have been used for and it hasn’t stopped the NAB and ANZ from increasing their rates.
Nor, AFAIK, did any government use the old CBA to do what you suggest.
Perhaps, but that’s politics. You have to pretend to do something even when there is nothing useful you can do.
Such as? Capping interest rates, perhaps? Well this was hardly a roaring success when Treasure Howard did it in the 1980s. In fact it was a disaster. Sure, those with a mortgage saved a few dollars, but everyone else got slugged with higher rates on personal and business loans and credit cards while those trying to get a mortgage had a better chance of winning the lottery than getting money from a bank.
The only way to limit bank greed is competition and in the mortgage market there is already plenty of that.
BTW-do you have super, marky marky? If so your fund almost certainly has a substantial investment in bank shares and derives a significant amount of its income from them.
Whilst it does not effect a great number of people relatively speaking, the AMP also put up their standard variable home loan rate by 0.12% yesterday. They are the first of the non-major mainstream (non-conforming lenders have been raising rates for some months now) banks/lenders to do so. Others will certainly follow suit. I dont think under the circumstances, there is any point in taking advantage of the “competition” in the mortgage market by going through the cost and hassle of refinancing to another lender (unless there is significant benefit) until the dust settles and we can see who has done what with their rates. Far better to go back to your current lender and advise your “intention” to refinance which will often lead to a renegotiation of your existing rate. (and I am a finance broker, so I am certainly doing myself no favours in suggesting this).
The more I look at the summary count sheet for teh Senate published by the AEC the more I hate it. I recall Antony Green stating previously that the way in which the AEC presents its count summary is not the best. This is an understatement and yes he was right.
The count sheet seriously lacks detail and provides misleading data. The value displayed as the number of “votes” being transferred is in fact the aggregated value of the votes that are transferred as a result of a candidates surplus or exclusion. The AEC’s count sheet does not show the number of ballot papers transferred or the value of each segment of votes involved in the transfer of votes allocated in distribution of a candidates exclusion from the count.
The AEC also appears to be trying to avoid publication of the detailed below the line preference data files. Now that the data-entry process has come to an end there is no reason or justification why copies of the below-the-line data files should not be made available and published on their web site.
Access to the detailed data files becomes more and more important as we begin to adopt electronic means of counting the ballot.
Overall I would have to say that the AEC has done a better job then the Victorian Electoral commission but I would have to admit that the summary count sheet provided by the VEC is better then that published by the AEC.
no doubt in my mind you are a economic rationalist. That is the difference between us. And yes i have super but i am not a fan of it. Why should we be privately funding peoples’ retirements and creating a divide between working people on the amounts of their retirements related to income levels. Absurd. Although at least super has given working people the chance to have money in retirement. I don’t doubt that. Best to have government owned pension funds providing support instead of cash cows for wealthy bankers and fund managers to look after. And financial advisors to take commissions from and in many instances take peoples’ saved earnings.
So competition curbs wealth in the banking sector, are you for real? Yep look at the profits the banks are earning, and the millions their executives are walking away with each year. These rises were not needed, when the banks are walking away each year with billion dollar profits, downright stealing.
If we didn’t stop the larger banks from taking each other over their would be no competition. Competition has done little to curb wealth they are all doing very well for themselves.
And for Wayne Swan, to me deregulation should be curbed and as a government we need to go back to having a governmentally run bank- simple. Will not do it public ownership is evil. Public ownership is the only thing that curbs excessive wealth and ensures that debt spending can be done on the cheap. But of course its best to continue to have a society of have nots and haves.
My school’s election to determine our school captain’s is ran better than the Victorian elections. This year we will invite the VEC to our school to watch our children count, resditribute and confirm elected positions. They may take notes.
Armed with new ideas I certainly hope they will improve by November’s local government elections. The VEC may need a crew of UN watchdogs!
Deano. No dispute from me on that one. Hoverer I must admit the VEC summary count sheet is superior to the AEC count sheet which really sucks (Big time). If you do a computer count I hope you will publish the data files 🙂
It took 3 months and an FOI application to get teh detailed results of the Victorian Election. I wonder how long it will take to secure a copy of the detailed preference data from the AEC. I am told that Senate count falls under the provisions of the Victorian Civil Appeals Tribunal in that it is a State initiated election.
The Australian Electoral Commission has just published a revised Distribution of Preferences summary report.
However the Commission has to Date failed to publish the detailed preference data files recording each Below-the-line ballot paper’s preferences.
This file should be readily available and published on line. The Victorian Electoral Commission reluctantly provided this information 3 the after the election and only after teh requirement to submit an FOI application and a request for a review of their initial failure to provide a copy of the data files.
Somehow I get the impression that the Australian Electoral Commission is deliberately seeking to avoid publication of this information. Maybe they are not acting in good faith, maybe there is a misunderstanding as to what has been requested.
Sadly Senate Watch , everyone has deserted to the politics of the USA!
Bring on the ACT elections as soon as possible!
Brenton I understand this fact.
I have received another reply form the Australian Electoral Commission who appear to be deliberately seeking to avoid publication and disclosure of the detailed electronic below-the-line preference data file.
Correspondence by Mr Tim Glanville, Deputy State Manager, Victoria
Australian Electoral Commission has indicated that the AEC wanted to send a hard copy of the information requested. LOL . The size of the data file for the State of Victoria would be approximately two Mb in size less if compressed.
To print out a hard copy is absurd and irresponsible on behalf of the Australian Electoral Commission (How many tress would that take?)
I get the impression that the AEC is deliberately seeking avoidance and disclosure and the question must be asked why?
The data file should be published on the AEC web site and available to the public as a down load.
Anyone interested on seeking a copy of the electronic data file should write to the Australian Electoral Commission Direct email: SNIP: Sorry, I don’t allow email addresses here – PB.
Brenton, I have not deserted. Certainly I am interested in PollyMerica. But what can we do?
As William suggests, vain hope of keeping it together. And I am listening to, as I write, to What the Papers say. Lots of interesting goings on.
Guess the most William and bludgers can hope for is the resumption of Parliament.
Then we can get stuck in. Should Kev disappoint.
I was obliged in the last few days to read the Latham Diaries. A friend who gave this unwanted book to me required a response. It is most interesting. Putting aside Mark’s clear bitterness, the anecdotes are telling. But what is the truth?
Senate Watch, there are usually only three possible explanations for these things. They are (a) the CIA, (b) the Jews or (c) aliens. Let us know when you figure out which one is responsible in this case.
Or maybe they are just overworked?
Adam??? Your comment does not make any sense and appears to be alienist. sorry … It has nothing to do with them being overworked. The effort they spend avoiding the publication of data is far greater then the 5 mins it would take to publish it. Try another excuse. How about they are just technocrats and do not want information released. god forbid if the public become more aware of the flies in the system They might wake up to the fact that we are wasting 100’s of millions of dollars in maintaining multiple electoral commissions who see their Mai job as avoiding disclosure and release of details of the elections results. The City of Melbourne spent over $60,000 trying to avoid publication of the Council’s detailed election results. Find another excuse to justify the indefensible.
Adam if you read my above post you would have known that the SEC proposed printing out in hard copy the information I had requested. where is the efficiency in that? Let alone the cost of in terms of paper time and ink. So much for their concern about the environment. All it takes is 5 mins attach and email… The data is sitting there. Less work then posting to your web site. Certainly much less time then printing a hard copy. LOL LOL
It has taken them ten emails and a lot of effort in doing nothing other then avoidance. We will proceed with an FOI application which is IMHO an abuse of process on behalf of the election commission. The VEC took over 3 months to provide a copy of their data files (dated December 12, 2006). The printing of a hard copy as proposed by the AEC is ridiculous to say the least, and will consume more resources and time then emailing an electronic copy. OI can not hear the Greens complaining about the loss of tress and impact on the environment. I live in the 21st century email is my preferred means of communication. I guess the federal parliamentary electoral committee is more interested in junkets travelling overseas then addressing the problems of inefficiency and the conduct of elections.
“The printing of a hard copy as proposed by the AEC is ridiculous to say the least, and will consume more resources and time then emailing an electronic copy. OI can not hear the Greens complaining about the loss of tress and impact on the environment.”, says SenateWatch
Well, I don’t see any reason for them to provide this information at all. That should solve any problems.
“We will proceed with an FOI application”
Who is “we”? Or do you refer to yourself in plural these days?
And sean why do you think that?
I can asure you they will provide it. It is a public document and the AEC is ot a private club.
A number of Senators, Candidates and other have also requested copies of the preference data file. The Greens have not yet responded. So much to their commitment to open ad transparent elections. In 2000 David Risstrom, Then Melbourne City Councillor, gave evidence in support of the publication of the BTL data files. Now there is a regime change and it Seans that the Greens are no longer advocates for honest open and transparent elections and the full disclosure of election results. Obviously the Greens want to avoid closer independet analysis of the election results and the fact that the system delivered the Greens an addition 2,700 “bonus” votes disproportionally to their support. Fact is the system can work against them as much as it can work for them. It all depends where in the count the distribution takes place.
I have calculated the difference between House and Senate votes state by state and nationally. Below is the national table:
House Senate Difference
ALP 43.4 40.3 – 3.1
Coalition 42.2 39.9 – 2.3
Greens 7.8 9 +1.2
Family First 2 1.6 – .4
Others 4.6 9.2 +4.6
The ALP loss was from .8 in WA and NT to 10 in the ACT. The Coalition loss was from .8 in Tasmania to 7.7 in SA, and it gained from l.2 in WA to 1.0 in the ACT. The Greens gained from .4 in WA to 8.3 in the ACT, and they lost .5 in SA. Family First lost from 0.1 in Queensland to 1.2 in SA. Others gained from .5 in WA to 16.2 in SA, and they lost .8 in Tasmania. The overall loss by the two major parties in each jurisdiction was: NSW 3.2, Victoria 4.6, Queensland 8.8 (Pauline Hanson), WA 0.6, SA 15.3 (Nick Xenophon), Tasmania 3.5, ACT 9, NT 1.8, giving a total for Australia of 5.4. Tasmania was the only jurisdiction in which the major party House vote was less than 84 per cent, while the NT is the only jurisdiction in which the major party Senate exceeded 84 per cent.
As a general rule, a very small percentage of people votes differently in the two Houses, but a much higher percentage will do so with a high–profile Senate candidate, and even the small percentage that does so routinely is sufficient to change the results.
I have also calculated the number of double dissolution quotas based on the 2007 Senate figures, in the order ALP/Coalition/Greens/Other. I have made no attempt to allocate surpluses or preferences and the total s are thus less than 12 for each state.
Australia (including ACT and NT) 30/31/5/2, with 8 unknown but calculable by someone with a properly set Senate calculator.
“The Greens have not yet responded. So much to their commitment to open ad transparent elections. In 2000 David Risstrom, Then Melbourne City Councillor, gave evidence in support of the publication of the BTL data files. Now there is a regime change and it Seans that the Greens are no longer advocates for honest open and transparent elections and the full disclosure of election results. Obviously the Greens want to avoid closer independet analysis of the election results and the fact that the system delivered the Greens an addition 2,700 “bonus” votes disproportionally to their support.”
You and David must be really good friends! Seeing you gave him your preferences in the City Council election you lost and constantly criticise the Greens for not giving him #1 on the Senate ticket (even though di Natale actually got more votes than he did in ’04).
And what is this “2,700 ‘bonus’ votes” that you talk of? Sounds ridiculous to me!
“…the Greens are no longer advocates for honest open and transparent elections”. They are, but there’s nothing to criticise in this election (except your need for the “publication of the BTL data files”), which mean very little to the ordinary citizen or politician or even pollbludger! And you don’t see the ALP – your party – doing anything about it. Yet you would never criticise them!
I agree it is rediclus. you obviously do not know what your talking about…
Your lying when you claim I do not do anything about policies my party has not addressed. Try again.
My criticism of the Greens is the BS contradictions in their policies.. I disagree with them. My support for Risstrom was the right one. David was an a honest and worthy candidate. I also supported Lyn Alison. She got my vote after the ALP for what it was worth. Never got to her though…
You still have not provided an answer to my question.. Why should the BTL preference data not be published? You do believe i open and transparent government and elections I trust? Risstrom understands the issue you obviously do not.
Try calculating the surplus transfer from the Liberal Party number three based on the ticket votes only. Tell us what you get. Then do a hypotheitical change one nation to preference the Liberal before the ALP and tell me the result. You can assume that BLT votes form minor patriotes flow either all to the Greens or the same as theticket vote of the group they came from.
The ALP is very much aware of this issue and hopefully they will address it. After all the reform to the Upperhouse did not come about because of the Greens. That I am 100% sure of.
lets see who well informed you are as to how the system works…
Above message was aimed at Sean. Chris you might like to also do the hypothetical calculation of the transfer value..
That would be a too time-consuming and complex for me.
Its not that difficult. I am still waiting to hear Sean’s rational for not publishing the BTL preference data. What does he want hidden and why would he/the Greens not support this data being made public. perhaps he would prefer that the Electoral Commission just announce the winning list of candidates and the Commission not be held accountable.
Cris It is simple really.. look at the last two counts. When Family First is distributed add to it the ticket vote from One Nation (This is the hypothetical I am using to demonstrate the seriousness of the flaw in the system that Sean does not understand or tries to avoid people knowing.)
The Hypothetical would result i Labor falling just below quota and would require the Liberal 3rd candidate Surplus to be distributed.
Under the rules adopted by the ARC the surplus is divided equally by the number of ballot papers allocated to the Liberal no 3 candidate. This is where the distortion 2700+ “Bonus votes” come from. The system adds value to the Liberal Ticket vote which has over 1.2 billion ballot papers worth a fraction of their original value. The votes that come from Family First are full value and represent over 26% of the Liberal Surplus. Under the SEC rules they are transferred at less then 10% of the surplus disproportionally to their original value.
This “bonus” votes flows on to the Greens and elected the Green candidate not on Merrit but on the inbuilt distortion in the system.
If you apply the same results based on the value of the voet (Not the number of ballot papres) the ALP rightly is elected on Family First Preference flow.
Litte wonder why the Greens want to avoid this issue… Now you know
I agree it is rediclus. you obviously do not know what your talking about…
Your lying when you claim I do not do anything about policies my party has not addressed. Try again.
“My criticism of the Greens is the BS contradictions in their policies..”
Give me one contradiction, with appropriate evidence (i.e. another source, not your own conspiracy theaory) to back it up.
“I disagree with them (the Greens)”
Really, I never would’ve guessed. What is your real problem with them? If it’s purely contradictory policies, then what is the Labor party?
“You still have not provided an answer to my question.. Why should the BTL preference data not be published? You do believe i open and transparent government and elections I trust? Risstrom understands the issue you obviously do not.”
Why would Joe Average care the least about BTL preference data? And where, pray tell, has David Risstrom spoken out about it (give me a source, not your own ramblings)
“The ALP is very much aware of this issue and hopefully they will address it.”
In other words: their yet to address it. Or, even more clearly: Labor are doing nothing about it. But forget that; criticise the Greens!
“After all the reform to the Upperhouse did not come about because of the Greens. That I am 100% sure of.”
You’re right. The Greens never campaigned for Upper House reform… BS!
“lets see who well informed you are as to how the system works…”
Well, I have a good enough idea of how you work: harrassing the AEC, lying about the Greens, championing Labor and your friend Risstrom.
I would have to write a book. The Greens were not around when the policy of reform was in Victoria was beig debated. I recall having meetings with HOOP and other conservations organisations BUT not the Greens.
I note and laugh that you still have not answered the substantive question Why you think the Below-the-line preference data should not be published?
Avoiding the question are you?
PS David Risstrom gave evidence in the Victorian Civil Appeals Tribunal So much as for your knowledge of this issue. Try again, or try asking him first before you sell him out.
“Why you think the Below-the-line preference data should not be published?”
Said this before a million times: Why would Joe Average care the least about BTL preference data?
“you sell him (Risstrom) out.”
I did not ‘sell him out’, only pointed out the fact that he got a lower vote in ’04 than di Natale got in ’07. So, I would suggest, di Natale was a better candidate.
Sean I diassage with your assessment and your logic you presented as to Why the BTL preference data should not be published is stupid to say the least. if you apply that argument then you would provide no information on any topic. This most ceartainly is not a valid argument to refuse to publish the detailed elections results. If you do not want them that is your decision. Others do and are interested.
re The Green vote in Victoria I suggest you do more analysis of the vote try looking at the 4PP of both elections discounting the general percentage swing away from the liberals and you will see the Greens did no better. 2004 the swing was to against the Liberals in 2007 it was and the Greens still failed, thank god, to get elected. Your will need 5% more votes if you are to to rely to the corrupt Bonus Votes and preferences. Did you d the exercise in calculating the distortion in the vote. I suggest you learn more about how the system works, the maybe you can produce a more credible argument. Perhaps you should take a look at the BTL preference data as it will help you understand how the votes are distributed. LOL
Senate Watch , who gives a toss!
“The Green vote in Victoria I suggest you do more analysis of the vote try looking at the 4PP of both elections discounting the general percentage swing away from the liberals… Did you d the exercise in calculating the distortion in the vote. I suggest you learn more about how the system works, the maybe you can produce a more credible argument. Perhaps you should take a look at the BTL preference data as it will help you understand how the votes are distributed.”
In other words: if you twist the statistics enough you can make it look like the Greens lost votes in the ’07 election. Well, that is false. They gained votes, and improved their position from the ’04 election (when Risstrom was running).
“if you apply that argument then you would provide no information on any topic”
If you applied my lgic you would only provide information which was to the concern of the everyday citizen, not people bent on harrassing the AEC ever since the day they lost a council election.
Comments are closed.