Seat of the week: Lindsay

I’m a day behind schedule with Seat of the Week, owing to the extra work required to give due attention to the seat which matters more than any other. I speak of course of Lindsay, the western Sydney electorate which first emerged as a favoured barometer of national opinion after Labor’s surprise defeat off a double-digit swing in 1996. Its place in electoral folklore was cemented by the 2010 election, when Labor’s apparent obsession with it caused the party’s then national secretary, Karl Bitar, to demand that every proposed policy pass a “Lindsay test”. This was seen to have inspired the shift in prime ministerial rhetoric from Kevin Rudd’s “big Australia” to Julia Gillard’s “sustainable Australia”, and a tougher line on asylum seekers which was signalled in the first days of Gillard’s prime ministership through a photo opportunity with member David Bradbury aboard a warship off Darwin.

Lindsay is based around Penrith 50 kilometres to the west of central Sydney, from which it extends into conservative semi-rural territory to the north (Castlereagh and Llandilo) and south (Mulgoa and Orchard Hills). Labor had a 12.3% notional margin when the seat was created at the 1984 election, and its inaugural member Ross Free held it for margins of around 10% throughout the Hawke-Keating years, having previously been member for Macquarie from 1980. Free was most unpleasantly surprised to find himself turfed out by an 11.9% swing to Liberal candidate Jackie Kelly at the 1996 election, but was able to secure a re-match because Kelly, who had not expected to win, had failed to get her affairs in order before nominating (she was still serving as an RAAF officer, an “office for profit under the Crown”). Voters dragged back to the polls on a technicality rewarded Free with a further 6.8% drop in the primary vote, translating into a further 5.0% swing to the Liberals on two-party preferred.

The combined 16.9% swing to the Liberals meant the electorate’s demographic profile came to be seen as typifying John Howard’s constituency: high numbers of skilled workers on good incomes, low levels of tertiary education and a distinctly less multicultural flavour than suburbs closer to the city. This view was solidified by Kelly’s persistent electoral success despite the area remaining loyal to Labor at state level. The swing to Labor in 1998 was just 0.3% compared with the 1996 election result, producing one of a number of decisive marginal seat outcomes which secured the return of the Howard government from a minority of the two-party vote. This confirmed Kelly’s status as a prime ministerial favourite, helping her win promotion for a time to a junior ministerial position thought by many to have been beyond her competence. Kelly nonetheless continued to perform well electorally, picking up a 2.4% swing in 2001 and nearly holding even in 2004. To John Howard’s dismay, Kelly opted to retire at the 2007 election, at which the seat was further endangered by a redistribution which cut the Liberal margin from 5.3% to 2.9%. Any remaining Liberal hopes, both for Lindsay and the election as a whole, were demolished in the final days of the campaign when the husbands of Kelly and her successor candidate Karen Chijoff were among those caught distributing pamphlets purporting to be from Muslim extremists, in which Labor was praised for its support of the “unjustly” treated Bali bombers.

There followed a resounding 9.7% swing to Labor candidate David Bradbury, a Blake Dawson Waldron lawyer and former Penrith mayor who had run unsuccessfully in 2001 and 2004. There were reports in 2009, denied by Bradbury, that he was not of a mind to run in Lindsay for a fourth time, as he was concerned at the impact of the state government’s unpopularity and hopeful the departure of Roger Price might provide a safer berth for him in Chifley. Labor’s concerns were powerfully reinforced by a devastating 25.7% swing in a by-election for the state seat of Penrith on 19 June 2010, which preceded Kevin Rudd’s demise as Prime Minister by five days. The interruption of the by-election resulted in what seemed an inordinately long delay in the Liberals choosing a candidate, before marketing executive Fiona Scott was finally given the nod less than a week before the election date was announced. In the event the Liberals picked up a swing of 5.2% which only slightly exceeded the 4.8% statewide swing, falling 1.1% short of what was required. The post-election review conducted for the Liberal Party by Peter Reith identified the delay as a failing of the party’s campaign, and recommended the party’s federal executive be given a “last resort” power to ensure the selection of candidates for important seats in good time.

David Bradbury has twice won promotion since his re-election, first to parliamentary secretary to the Treasurer immediately after the election, and then to Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation in March 2012 after Kevin Rudd’s unsuccessful leadership challenge. The latter promotion was achieved at the expense of NSW Right colleague Robert McClelland, who was dumped from the ministry after publicly backing Rudd. Bradbury will again be opposed at the next election by Fiona Scott, who won a March 2012 preselection vote against Hills Shire councillor Robyn Preston by 62 votes to 42. It had been reported the previous September that Tony Abbott had approached Jackie Kelly with a view to making a comeback, but she was unequivocal in professing herself uninterested.

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.

1,296 comments on “Seat of the week: Lindsay”

Comments Page 1 of 26
1 2 … 26

  2. Interesting seat. One of the reasons I believe Gillard can win in what occurred in the seat in 2010. The state electorate of Penrith which is in the boundary of the seat of Lindsay and which was held by Karyn Paluzzano (who had to resign due to corruption charges) had to go to a By Election on 19th June 2010 and saw a 25.7% swing to libs from the 2007 State result. Then there was the federal election in September 2010 which saw a 5.2% swing to libs from 2007 Federal result followed by the 2011 State poll on 26th March which saw a 25.6% swing to libs from 2007 State result.
    My verdict is that why the feds were on the nose the electorate was able to distinguish between State & Federal issues. Will this continue? Who knows

  4. MB

    [This time next week is the beginning of the end fo news ltd/Abbott coalition

    the carbon price has started]

    Cannot see abbott or other loto going to an election, saying they will drop the tax threshold from $18,200 to $6,000,and take away $10.10 a week compensation.

    Abbott said he would introduced tax cuts,but does not appear to know or lies about the tax threshold,and millions will have to go back to putting in a tax return,just cannot see anyone winning on that, then their is the NBN,all seem rabbit proof.

  5. MB and S
    I agree with those sentiments, albeit it may take some weeks for the credibility gap to sink in. According to one Fairfax report, a majority still believe they will be worse off when carbon pricing comes in regardless of the evidence.

    The other factor is that the attempts to sink the government through overcooked ‘scandals’ on Thomson and Slipper look like coming unstuck and possibly doing considerable damage to the coalition. The media in their usual way will just try to quietly move the story on but may be unable to fully.

    The credibility of the coalition will become an issue before the acceptance that this is a competent government delivering reasonable policy. But I think both will occur. It is helping that international bouquets and BISONs keep rolling in – as will the NBN.

  6. Good morning Bludgers brave and true!

    The sun is up.

    The birds are singing.

    Labor is still in government.

    Julia Gillard is still Prime Minister.

    Wayne Swan is the WGT.

    Tony Abbott is the WGD.

    Forget Britannia – the BISONs rule the waves!

    AND GO BLACK CAVIAR – ANOTHER WORLD-BEATING AUSSIE SHEILA.

  8. Good Morning

    Not a good panel on Insiders this morning. Expect no mention of Ashby.
    @ABCNews24: On #Insiders from 9am AEST, Foreign Affairs Minister @bobjcarr + panel @PhillipCoorey, @dwabriz & Gerard Henderson #auspol

  9. Good morning Dawn Patrollers.
    What a lovely piece of work is our Gina!
    http://www.smh.com.au/national/we-were-children-of-a-lesser-dad-20120623-20v9c.html
    Some trouble for Fatty?
    http://smh.drive.com.au/roads-and-traffic/for-whom-the-tag-beeps-20120623-20v9k.html
    The MSM should have a good look at itself for being an unchallenging megaphoned conduit for Abbott’s rubbish.
    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/the-abbott-effect-most-say-pollution-price-too-high-20120623-20uwa.html
    Surely Bob Francis (disgraceful Adelaide shock jock) would be in with a show!
    http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/potential-senators-line-up/story-e6frea6u-1226406390630

  10. BK,

    The media, all struggling to keep their own jobs, will be fighting for a senate position. After all they’re mostly LNP card-carrying shills now.

  11. Thanks for those refs, BK. On the Senate piece, it certainly would be fun if Bob Francis entered the mix!

    My local host, Michael (who you met at the SA PB lunch) does not share my benign view of Birmingham, whom I’d regarded as one of the more reasonable SA Lib senators. I did hasten to add that that view (formed interstate) was formed by comparing with other SA Lib senators and MPs.

    Jamie Brigg’s latest bit alleging political directives on the police regarding Mo Jo’s troublesome behaviour confirm my view.

    Moving back to Warrnambool Monday, but have enjoyed this stay in SA.

  12. Gorgeous Dunny
    Much of the time I share your thoughts on Birmingham – but tit is probably as a result of the comparison to his SA Lib associates.
    Glad you enjoyed your time in SA/

  14. Schnappi said:

    [Cannot see abbott or other loto going to an election, saying they will drop the tax threshold from $18,200 to $6,000,and take away $10.10 a week compensation.]

    There’s the rub. It’s all very well to say you’ll abolish the carbon “tax”. It’s quite another to remove tax relief from the lowest paid and restore the need for them to file tax returns.

    He can argue all he want that they won’t need the relief once the accursed “tax” is lifted, but then the argument demands an analysis of the net effects of carbon pricing and relief — and that is an argument the LNP cannot win because

    a) there’s no supporting data
    b) most prefer to keep benefits and will be sceptical of the trade
    c) even if those that aren’t will have an incentive to say they are on populist grounds

    That means in practice the promise to abolish the price punches a huge hole in the LNP balance sheet.

  15. Fran,

    True. But very few of our wonderful journalists have applied the scrutiny required on Abbott’s populist promises. As a result we have journalists not just parroting but cheerleading Abbott’s stupid stance.

  18. If Abbott can say this in 2009
    “The fact that people don’t really understand what an emissions trading scheme entails is actually its key political benefit. Unlike a tax, which people would instinctively question, it’s easy to accept a trading scheme supported by businesses that see it as a money-making opportunity and environmentalists who assure people that it will help to save the planet. Forget the contested science and the dubious economics, an emissions trading scheme is brilliant, if hardly-honest politics because people have come to think that it’s a cost-less way to avoid climate catastrophe.”
    http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/LatestNews/Speeches/tabid/88/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/7087/A-REALISTS-APPROACH-TO-CLIMATE-CHANGE.aspx

    Or if in 1990 Greg Hunt who co-authored a university thesis entitled A Tax to Make the Polluter Pay can say this
    “A pollution tax is both desirable, and, in some form, is inevitable, even if some of the Liberal constituents do respond negatively, a pollution tax does need to be introduced to properly serve the public interest.This represents the view that most small-L liberals have held for decades”

    All I can say is hypocrisy art though middle name and the name is Tony Abbott

  19. Good Morning Bludgers 🙂

    As far as this whole ‘Carbon Tax’ scare campaign goes I believe the scepticism from the general public will pop like a soap bubble once they start realising that it’s not them who is paying the ‘Carbon Tax’.

    I solidly believe there are a lot of people out there who are expecting it to appear on the bottom of their dockets and electricity bills like the GST did. When it doesn’t, and when no massive price spikes occur, as I pointed to with analysis by Bernard Keane and Glenn Dyer saying that Abbott’s ‘Cobra Strike’ would end up as a tummy tickle, due to global deflationary pressures as much as a minimal effect from the Price on Carbon, then the penny will start dropping.

    Trying to prove something not as obvious as ‘Total GST payable 10%’ will be hard.

  21. I thought Cacky Jelly’s problem in 1996 was that she was still a NZ citizen. Her officer status was only a courtesy (iI think she worked in a desk job at Richmond). Whatever: I guess it’s not that interesting..

    Anyway, I once had a personal assistant who had previously worked at Richmond RAAF and who went back for a reunion in the late 90s. Some of her old colleagues told her “We don’t like John Howard but we are right behind Jackie Kelly as our local member.”. My PA said “Really? She seems like a bit of a dill.”

    “Yep”, came the response, “She is. And the longer she stays in Canberra, the longer she stays away from here and we don’t have to work with her.”

    All a bit mean and bitchy, but what can you say about someone who got involved in that 2007 fake leaflet caper and then, when it went horribly wrong, try to defend it as a “cheer-style stunt”? I know many on here don’t seem to like Uhlmann very much, but I’ll never forget his interview with Kelly when, after a suitable pause, he asked her incredulously “But the Chasers are comedians. How was this supposed to be funny?”

  23. Space Kidette@16,
    Re ‘Kevin Rudd buffs up for battle’. Yawn. Another rehashed play from the old Rudd playbook. He did it before the 2007 election to prove he was fit enough to beat Howard the Walking Man. Does this man not have an original idea in his head?

    Anyway, after he became leader it all went to pot, belly that is. 😀

  25. [ But very few of our wonderful journalists have applied the scrutiny required on Abbott’s populist promises. As a result we have journalists not just parroting but cheerleading Abbott’s stupid stance.]

    True, but the point is that a campaign by Abbott to show that increasing the tax burden on low income earners will benefit them because carbon price-related increases will disappear will make analysis of that trade a key issue, and the ALP will be able to run Abbott’s populist objections to pricing against him, this time in circumstance where journalists will have no option but to report it.

  27. Fran,

    I have to say the journo’s already have the facts at their disposal and have studiously avoided mentioning the flaws in Abbotts promises.

  28. C@tmomma

    [Yawn. Another rehashed play from the old Rudd playbook. He did it before the 2007 election to prove he was fit enough to beat Howard the Walking Man. Does this man not have an original idea in his head?

    Anyway, after he became leader it all went to pot, belly that is.]

    Do you actually believe this crap from journalists you all demean on here every day or is just another excuse to give Rudd a serve.

    Give it a break!

  30. Zoomster …

    In the previous topic on the question of asylum seeking, you sought an apology from me for asserting that you admitted you cared only for political success rather than principle. The remark referred to an assertion of yours earlier in the day about how frustrating it had to be for Greens to have “beautifully crafted” policies that would never be realised and your preference for policies that would be implemented (or wtte). IMO, my interpretation of this assertion as a preference for junking the substance of policy regardless of principle where it was incompatible with political success seems fair.

    However, as I’ve failed on review to find the exact post and thus the exact wording you used, I cannot dismiss the objection that I might have read more than you were claiming into these remarks, and on that basis withdraw my claim and provisionally apologise for uttering it.

  31. Ecuador doesn’t seem quite as keen on Julian as first thought:

    http://www.theage.com.au/national/ecuador-stalls-on-assange-20120623-20vjb.html

    [”We are going to have to discuss with and seek the opinions of other countries,” President Rafael Correa said.

    ”We don’t wish to offend anyone, least of all a country we hold in such deep regard as the United Kingdom.”]

    Sort of suggests Correa respects the UK court sytem a tad more than some posters here!

    [Ecuador’s Deputy Foreign Minister said last Wednesday the country would make a decision within 24 hours. But Mr Correa said: ” Ecuador is a country which defends the right to life. We have to see whether there is a threat to Julian Assange’s life.”]

    But Julian SAID there was – how can anyone question that?

  32. fb

    thank you.

    I will point out that I lost preselection for this seat in 2004 for refusing to back down on a matter of principle. I am also on the public record on several occasions explaining why it’s worth running for Parliament even if there’s no expectation that you will win.

    Thus my very strong objection to the idea that ‘winning at all costs’ is what matters.

  35. fran

    [The remark referred to an assertion of yours earlier in the day about how frustrating it had to be for Greens to have “beautifully crafted” policies that would never be realised and your preference for policies that would be implemented (or wtte). IMO, my interpretation of this assertion as a preference for junking the substance of policy regardless of principle where it was incompatible with political success seems fair.]

    And my interpretation of this is that, in the immediate future, there is very little chance of the Greens being able to implement their policies, however lovely they might be, and thus those of us wanting to make real changes will chose to invest their time and efforts where they might actually achieve something.

    I first made this observation, btw, in relation to the Australian Democrats, after reading through an education policy document prepared by Stott-Despoja, which I have to say was far more detailed and well thought though than anything I’ve seen coming from the Greens.

    The futility of it struck me at the time.

  36. The other curiosity, Zoomster, is that as I pointed out yesterday, even if one really were simply an unprincipled Richardson-style spinmeister with no intrinsic interest in any matter of public policy, it would be possible to craft a response that would absolutely wedge the LNP, or place them between a rock and a hard place (pick your metaphor) on this issue. That the ALP has not done that strikes me as quite odd.

  37. Shows On: “I think it was wrong of the trainers to have told Black Caviar that she was going to address both houses of the U.K. parliament straight after Aung San Suu Kyi.

    Her performance today clearly reflected her bitter disappointment of having been lied to.”

    One of the funniest posts I’ve read anywhere, and you are absolutely right!

  38. fb

    [That the ALP has not done that strikes me as quite odd.]

    Perhaps because their priority in this instance is not to wedge the Coalition but to save lives?

  39. [I think it was wrong of the trainers to have told Black Caviar that she was going to address both houses of the U.K. parliament straight after Aung San Suu Kyi.]

    Well, Black Caviar tweets, you know – I got one from her last night – so I wouldn’t put anything beyond her.

  40. Kim Williams (on Sky) was bang-on with his view that the ABC news effectively just re-badges other organisations news, but I had to laugh when he suggested that NewsLtd breaks news when we all now that most of them are made up.

    Hope his comments re the ABC strike a nerve and we see more effort from the ABC in breaking more real news.

  42. Did anyone see the first report of Black Caviar’s race on the ABC website?

    ‘Another dazzling display”, etc, etc.

    No mention of the margin or the actual race.

    It was clearly pre-written and just posted up without being read first.

    The story is somewhat different now.

  43. and like clockwork on Newspoll weekend the Rudd/Maiden forces are at work again – FFS!

    treasonous and despicable

  45. First welcome here

    Shaboh Posted Sunday, June 24, 2012 at 8:14 am | Permalink

    If Abbott can say this in 2009 “The fact that people don’t really understand what an emissions trading scheme entails is actually its key political benefit. Unlike a tax, which people would instinctively question, it’s easy to accept a

    My say posted,

    This is a good link to pass to mr combets office

  46. Zoomster said:

    [And my interpretation of this is that, in the immediate future, there is very little chance of the Greens being able to implement their policies, however lovely they might be, and thus those of us wanting to make real changes will choose to invest our time and efforts where they might actually achieve something. (minor syntax changes by me: FB)]

    Without reopening the substantive matter, let’s examine that.

    1. I suspect you are right that there is very little chance in the immediate future of the Greens being able to implement our policies.

    Is that a decisive concern though? It depends very much on what you see as the brief of a political party. If you regard the brief of a party as a blank slate, to be filled in by whatever momentarily unified coalition of interests of sufficient size to acquire office want, then yes, it is decisive. On the other hand, if you regard the rationale for a political party as located in devising coherent policies to serve what you regard as “the public interest” then it is not. At some point, if your conception of the public interest is valid, the public will come to accept your proposals and recall that you roposed these things even when they were not widely accepted. You get the advantage of having stood on principle.

    2. I don’t accept your dichotomy between the “lovely” (but implicitly unrealisable on your preferred timeline) and the “real”. Isn’t “real” in this context simply a euphemism for the “lowest common denominator”? What if the “real” is also utterly inadequate or worse, pernicious or misleading or likely to author movements that brings one’s preferred ends and the party advocating them into sharp disrepute? Then the “real” would be neither a lesser harm than nothing, nor a path to the ideal but its opposite, surely?

    3. I don’t reject in principle your claim that one should apply one’s time where one can “achieve something”. I often say that to will the end is to will the means. That’s advocacy of rational goal-focused behaviour. As a teacher, one learns very quickly, for example, that good lessons are those you can implement with the resources available to achive the outcomes specified by curriculum. As noted though, that “something” must be a bona fide aim — one warranted by reference in this case to one’s “political and ethical” ‘curriculum’. If the only thing one can achieve with the material, human and temporal resources available is to declare the possibility of something fundamentally better, then that is all one can do. Doing something that subverts your “curriculum” merely so that you can feel as if you’re doing something is simply self-delusion.

  47. Good morning all.

    [Ecuador doesn’t seem quite as keen on Julian as first thought:]

    What a shame. I was hoping we’d finally be free of the ego-maniac.

  48. Henderson is a nit picking fool,that thinks everything is written in stone and cannot be altered as necessary,and is blatant idiot protector.

  49. MTBW at 28
    Are not the tiniest bit suspicious about how the picture in that article was staged/taken?

  50. [Perhaps because their priority in this instance is not to wedge the Coalition but to save lives?]

    I don’t like using this, but: LOL.

    I’m going to want some impressive, (no, astonishing) evidence to entertain that claim.

Comments Page 1 of 26
1 2 … 26

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *