Seat of the week: Franklin

The eastern and outer southern Hobart seat of Franklin has been in the Labor fold for two decades, but the party is said to have grave fears for the seat amid a statewide collapse in support.

As one of Tasmania’s constitutionally mandated five House of Representatives seats, Franklin has a lower than normal enrolment (72,500 compared with a national average of about 96,000) and has existed without interruption since the state was first divided into electorates in 1903. With Denison accommodating central Hobart and the suburbs on the western bank of the Derwent River, Franklin covers the eastern bank suburbs and areas immediately south of Hobart, starting from the outskirts township of Kingston, together with the unpopulated southern part of the World Heritage area in Tasmania’s south-west.

Labor first won Franklin at a by-election held two months after the election of Jim Scullin’s government in 1929, before losing it again amid the party’s debacle of 1931. It subsequently changed hands in 1934, 1946, 1969 and 1975, before remaining in the Liberal fold throughout the Fraser years and the first 10 years of the Hawke-Keating government. Labor finally won the seat when colourful Liberal member Bruce Goodluck retired at the 1993 election, which together a strong statewide shift to Labor delivered a 9.5% swing to their candidate Harry Quick. Quick maintained the seat with only mild swings either way at subsequent elections, although there were occasional suggestions he might be brought undone by internal party machinations. When his preselection appeared in danger ahead of the 2004 election, he was able to see off the threat partly by indicating that he might run as an independent.

After choosing his own time of departure at the 2007 election, Quick sought to keep the seat out of factional hands by promoting his staffer Roger Joseph as his successor. This was thwarted when a deal assigned Franklin to Kevin Harkins, state secretary of the Left faction Electrical Trades Union, and Bass to the Right-backed Steve Reissig. Objecting that Harkins was a “right thuggish bastard” who would lose the seat, Quick declared he would vote for the Greens. His attacks drew blood as newly anointed Labor leader Kevin Rudd sought to distance the party from unsavoury union associations, with Harkins carrying baggage from the 2003 Cole royal commission into the building and construction industry. Harkins’ position ultimately became untenable in July 2007 when the Australian Building and Construction Commission brought charges against him over an illegal strike. When he won preselection for the Senate ahead of the 2010 election, he was again rolled by the intervention of Kevin Rudd.

With Harkins gone and the election looming, the preselection was referred to the party’s national executive, which maintained the factional balance in choosing the Left’s Julie Collins, state party secretary and a strongly performing though unsuccessful candidate at the March 2006 state election. The loss of Quick’s personal vote combined with the manner of his departure resulted in Collins suffering a 3.1% swing to the Liberals, one of only four swings to the Coalition at that election. Coming off a suppressed base, she went on to enjoy a 6.8% swing at the 2010 election, the selection highest recorded by a Labor candidate. Collins was made a parliamentary secretary after the election, winning further promotion to the outer ministry in December 2011 as Community Services Minister.

The Liberals have preselected Bernadette Black, a Kingborough councillor who according to the Mercury “has made a name for herself as a spokesman for teenage mums after having her first child aged 16”. Black won preselection ahead of another Kingborough councillor, Nic Street.

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.

1,174 comments on “Seat of the week: Franklin”

Comments Page 2 of 24
1 2 3 … 24

  1. @vexnews: Crean denies acting alone on grassy knoll – insists Rudd knew all about spill #auspol http://t.co/udsR61IePe

    I believe Mr Crean here. His press conferences on the day were heartfelt and would not have happened without some reason to move him to action.

  3. He didn’t nominate Mark. Mealy mouthed nonsense?

    You did not answer the question. How could he have taken over without support?

    I’m going to nail you to this one.

  4. [ … former Fairfax editor, Michael Gawenda, says this week’s reporting highlights the problem of reporting the views of anonymous sources.

    “I’ve no doubt within caucus there are people who have obviously been talking about the leadership and the media have dutifully been reporting that talk,” Gawenda says.

    “But it is anonymous, they never put their name to it, and journalists grant them that right too easily. The goal of journalism should always be to get people to be accountable.”]

    Hallelujah brother!

  5. citizen@35

    What to make of this?

    Kevin Rudd text message shows he tried to block Simon Crean’s move to spill, as he offers to tour Labor’s Queensland battleground electorates with Julia Gillard in a sign of solidarity


    Read more: http://www.couriermail.com.au/national-news/queensland/kevin-rudd-text-message-shows-he-tried-to-block-simon-creans-move-to-spill-as-he-offers-to-labors-queensland-battleground-electorates-with-julia-gillard-in-a-sign-of-solidarity/story-fndo4ckr-1226603843645#ixzz2OJ9vEU9L

    My understanding is that Rudd wanted the polls to drop further for Labor before he made his move. He probably planned to use that as an excuse to dump his “no challenge” promise “for the good of the party etc etc”.

    I think this is why the unexpectedly good newspoll the previous week delayed the whole schedule by a week.

    I still have some respect for Crean, who appears to have finally realized that Rudd’s strategy was fataly flawed, and that the resulting damage to Labor would have soon become irreversible.

    I think this is why he acted when he did. And I think he was right to do so, at obvious personal cost to himself.

    If Gillard feels inclined to throw an olive branch to anyone who supported Rudd, I hope it is Crean.

  11. “@SabraLane: BCarr: Mr Rodwell is now in the company of Philippines authorities, our Dep Ambassador + an ADF rep + will be moved to a safe location.”

  15. Radguy –

    Whatever else the media got wrong about the last couple of weeks, and they did get a lot wrong, there is absolutely no doubt that there was a concerted move to reinstall Rudd, and that Rudd himself was enabling it all – they certainly weren’t “rogue Rudd supporters”.

    The chatter and the destabilizing were all real, they just weren’t based on any real caucus numbers for change.

    Rudd and his forces were moving – they screwed up on the counting and execution, but they were moving. To argue that Rudd wasn’t “challenging” is pure word games designed to mislead.

    I’d also suggest that issuing ultimatums for responses is not a good look.

  17. This is absolutely spot on:

    [Rudd’s spinelessness is now obvious to those who keened for his return, those who embarrassed themselves by leaking and conniving in his favour when he wouldn’t put himself out for them. The spate of resignations is the implosion of the dream that Rudd was bigger than he is, or was. It has revealed a number of things about important people at a crucial time.

    Chris Bowen once said that he would smash the business model of people-smugglers. The business model he has smashed most successfully was by resigning, those of the also-not-illegal models of Chris Uhlmann, Peter Hartcher, and all the other journalists who bet their professional lives on the attitude that if you can’t say something nice about the Prime Minister, come and talk to me.

    No press gallery journalist had more than forty separate members of caucus come to them and say they were backing Rudd, nor anything like that number. They all claim there really was a groundswell, they all claim caucus dissent was real, but in reality it was just the same old whingers – Fitzgibbon, Kim Carr, Bowen, Husic and the rest – getting more and more carried away with themselves. Every press gallery journalist who made any claim to an authoritative check of the numbers has been deliberately and repeatedly untruthful. Rudd never had the numbers at any point since 2010 and any journalist who said otherwise deserves to be sacked. They simply believed what the old fabulists told them, passing it forward rather than pushing back. ]

    And:

    [Gillard is freer than she has been at any stage of her Prime Ministership, less able to blame others for her failures but in a position where fewer are committed to her failure than at any time in half-a-dozen years. This would be a triumph for any other leader; the grudging admissions that she’s tough (particularly, it must be said, from female journalists) is a start in changing the Narrative.]
    http://andrewelder.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/a-thousand-deaths.html

  18. Righto Jackol, answer my question of what mechanism Rudd was supposed to use to take back the leadership that would not have breached his word?

  19. radguy

    If Rudd was true to his word, he should not have been asking for advice on whether he should run. He should not have had people in his rooms discussing the issue. He should have come out immediately after Crean’s presser and said nothing was happening. There should not have been a second’s delay in that.

    I’ve been in similar situations (on a much smaller scale, of course — in fact, it’s fair to say I’m facing a similar situation at the moment). There is no discussion of the options, because the second the question is raised, you emphatically say “No”.

    Rudd didn’t do this. He flirted. That’s why so many of his followers have had to fall on their swords and join him on the backbench.

    If he had told them ‘no’ consistently and firmly, we wouldn’t have had over a year of destabilisation, and they’d still be Ministers.

  20. Dear PM @JuliaGillard you should take up Mr. Rudd’s offer of joint campaign in QLD. Tony Abbott MUST be defeated @SwannyDPM @CraigEmersonMP

  21. Radguy@66

    Yep, player one doing a great job there of convincing non-Gillardists to support Gillard.

    Do you really think there is still a contest here?

    For goodness sake, move on. That’s done. This is a time for healing.

    If you are not a Labor supporter, then feel free to continue sniping – but don’t expect anyone to pay any attention to your leadershit nonsense any more.

  23. radguy

    there is none. Either Rudd should not have given his word to start with, or he should have kept it.

    The only other possible scenario would be Gillard resigning and not recontesting the leadership.

  24. Jackol…

    ” Rudd and his forces were moving – they screwed up on the counting and execution, but they were moving. To argue that Rudd wasn’t “challenging” is pure word games designed to mislead.”

    Correct …and Radguy’s denial of that glaring reality says much about his level of delusion & belief in a person who deserves all ALP members/supporters disgust for his treachery…

    I’ll be fighting as hard as I can for a return of an ALP Govt ….but RUDD and his followers (including Simon Crean …what an inept political operative he’s turned out to be!!) has made it very, very difficult …shame on them …SHAME!!!

    Thank dog we’ve still got Abbott in our corner … 😉

  27. radguy

    Its over. Rudd as leader is history. You can go picking the pockets of political corpses of whom is to blame all you like.

    It does not change fact. Its PMJG or Abbott to be Prime Minister at the election.

  28. Zoom – So any member of caucus is now prevented from gauging numbers for being drafted in a challenge?

    This argument was never made prior to now.

    Maybe you should have pointed out that you perceived his word to be contradictory a long time ago, rather than the moment you faced a difficult question?

  31. Logic – Being requested by your colleagues to lead is not the same as putting your hand up for a leadership ballot.

    Try as you may, there is no logic to argue against this.

  32. radguy

    [So any member of caucus is now prevented from gauging numbers for being drafted in a challenge?]

    Yes. That’s what being drafted means.

    Rudd tried to pretend he wasn’t counting numbers by getting others to do it for him and by not making the phone calls himself.

    If he wasn’t prepared to stand by his promise, he shouldn’t have made it. If he thought he was justified breaking it because circumstances had changed, he should have said so.

    Those supporters of his who fell on their swords have been far more honest about what was going on than Rudd has been – and they haven’t been very honest, anyway.

    If you’d prefer Rudd is a liar whose word can’t be trusted and that that justifies his behaviour, that’s fine by me.

  35. Rudd was counting …. – he admitted as much in his news conference when he recounted asking his supporters on Thursday morning …. “Do I have a significant majority in the Caucus?” answer: No. “Do I have a majority in the Caucus” answer: No”

    Does anyone think for a moment, if the answer to either of those questions was a Yes, he still wouldn’t have challenged? Of course he would.

  36. Zoomster…

    “If Rudd was true to his word, he should not have been asking for advice on whether he should run. He should not have had people in his rooms discussing the issue. He should have come out immediately after Crean’s presser and said nothing was happening. There should not have been a second’s delay in that.”

    Spot on ….Rudd’s campaign of destabilisation came to a head at that point …he knew his challenge was doomed …he had a chance to put a stop to the madness & perhaps save a couple of his loyal but misguided followers…

    He didn’t do that & instead left his supporters high and dry…

    Those supporters may publicly still support Rudd’s actions …but privately they must surely be wondering why they were taken in by such a gutless pretender….

  37. @johnallsopp: in any given situation, there are two choices. To learn, or to be right. One of these is interesting.

    @vexnews: Kevin Rudd would never leak but if he did, here’s one of his text messages to Simon Crean on leadership #auspol http://t.co/FgEUT4LSmZ

  38. Radguy

    I’m a member of the party. I’m also someone who has stood (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) for preselections. In other words, I’ve been involved in exactly the kind of manouevering (on a smaller scale) that has been going on now.

    On occasion, I have said that I wouldn’t challenge for a position. When I have said that, I’ve invariably been approached by others, saying that they’ve done the numbers and I should challenge for the good of the party.

    And the answer has immediately been not only ‘no’ but it’s been accompanied by genuine anger that people who say they’re my supporters should put me in that position.

    Deciding not to put your hand up for something you really want to do is hard. To be tempted to reconsider that decision is – or should be – absolutely gut wrenching.

    But for someone who values their word, the decision should be easy and no discussions should be entered into.

  39. Radguy

    Citizen, they cater to different demographics and they print what their audience want to read.

    …

    Actually, they quite obviously don’t. They’re losing readership.

  41. “@Schnappi5: All those #LNP who wanted Rudd instead of Gillard, can #NowBeHonest and say whether they want #Abbott or #Turnbull”

  42. [But for someone who values their word, the decision should be easy and no discussions should be entered into.]

    You mean like Gillard saying she was not challenging Rudd?

    Oops, sorry, I think I misunderstood :devil:

  43. Being drafted requires the original position to be vacant.

    A challenge can only be defined as having put a hand for a leadership ballot.

    I have seen it all now, “chicken Kev” because he was accused of chickening out of challenging, ie: HE DID NOT CHALLENGE.

    Being drafted would require the position vacated. That’s how a same person would read the situation.

    Now you lot are contradicting a dominant line of attack that has been used against Rudd.

    Tied up in knots, trying arguments of selective convenience, black is white, ra, ra, ra.

    So unconvincing as arguments to support Gillard and her backers.

  44. [confessions
    Posted Saturday, March 23, 2013 at 9:35 am | PERMALINK
    That sound you can hear is the sound of #Ruddmentum screeching to a halt.]

    Or is the the ALP vote Swan Diving?

  48. radguy

    Chicken Kev was the News Limited headline.

    No matter how you twist and turn Mr Rudd in his comments made clear he was counting the numbers. In the ALP that means you want to challenge. If you do not you do not count the numbers.

    As simple as that.

  49. The reality and frighteningly so, in the right-wing camp w/regards Murdoch/Abbott..is that neither can stand the other. Murdoch, with that scornful contempt that wealthy, powerful people have for the lick-spittles that hang around their table despises Abbott for the position of political power he is on the brink of achieving –through Rupert’s work!….Abbott despises and hates Murdoch for the fact that he HAS TO CRAWL to the mogul’s table and beg for the profile to power…Both live under the illusion they will eventually control the other…Murdoch is wrong….History shows us the path Abbott has already mapped out on media control.
    On the positive side, The new cabinet Gillard picks will demonstrate her direction..I believe she is giving more consideration to this selection that to ANY other topic on her plate at this moment.
    I would consider the PM. would have to have about as much intense and focused intellect as could EVER be accrued in that position in this situation and will select wisely and accordingly with little or no interference.
    When one obtains a certain age and experience, quality in product or person has a distinct “fullness” and balance to it….stupidity shines out for all to see!….We see it most visibly in the opp’n front benches!

  50. Anyway, radguy, Rudd has now said he never under any circumstances will lead the Labor party again (not even if the position is vacant), so let’s take him at his word on that.

    You either get behind the Labor party or you don’t.

    If you still believe that Ruddstoration is possible, then you obviously think your man is a bigger liar than I do.

Comments Page 2 of 24
1 2 3 … 24

Leave a Reply

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