 |
| Blue and red numbers respectively indicate booths with two-party majorities for Liberal and Labor. Click for larger image. Map boundaries courtesy of Ben Raue at The Tally Room. |
Barker encompasses South Australia along the Victorian border from Mount Gambier north to the Riverland and its population centres of Renmark, Loxton, Berri and Waikerie, extending westwards to the mouth of the Murray River and the towns of Angaston and Murray Bridge 75 kilometres to the east of Adelaide. It has existed since South Australia was first divided into single-member electorates in 1903, at all times encompassing the state’s south-eastern corner including Mount Gambier, Bordertown and Keith. From there it has generally extended either westwards to the Fleurieu Peninsula and Kangaroo Island or, as at present, northwards to the Riverland. The former territories were lost when Mayo was created with the expansion of parliament in 1984, but recovered from 1993 to 2004 as Mayo was drawn into Adelaide’s outskirts. The Riverland was accommodated by Angas prior to its abolition in 1977, and by Wakefield from 1993 to 2004. Barker’s present dimensions were established when South Australia’s representation was cut from twelve seats to eleven at the 2004 election, causing Barker to take back the Riverland from a radically redrawn Wakefield, while Mayo recovered the Fleurieu Peninsula and Kangaroo Island.
The areas covered by Barker presently and in the past have long been safe for the conservatives, the Riverland last having had Labor representation when Albert Smith held Wakefield for a term after the 1943 landslide. Barker has never been in Labor hands, nor come close to doing so since territory in southern Adelaide was ceded to the new seat of Kingston in 1949. Archie Cameron held the seat for the Country Party from 1934 to 1940, having been effectively granted it after helping facilitate a merger of the state’s conservative forces as the Liberal Country League while serving as the Country Party’s state parliamentary leader. Cameron succeeded Earle Page as federal parliamentary leader in 1939 but was deposed after the election the following year, causing him to quit the party and align himself with the United Australia Party and then the Liberal Party, which has held Barker ever since. He was succeeded in Barker on his retirement in 1956 by Jim Forbes, who was in turn succeeded in 1975 by James Porter.
Porter was defeated for preselection in 1990 by Ian McLachlan, a former high-profile National Farmers Federation president whom some were touting as a future prime minister. He would instead serve only a single term as a cabinet minister, holding the defence portfolio in the first term of the Howard government, before retiring at the 1998 election. McLachlan’s successor was Patrick Secker, who led a generally low-profile parliamentary career before being unseated for preselection before the 2013 election. Despite endorsement from Tony Abbott and moderate factional powerbroker Christopher Pyne, Secker reportedly lost a local ballot to Mount Gambier lawyer Tony Pasin by 164 votes to 78, with a further 40 recorded for Millicent real estate agent and Wattle Range councillor Ben Treloar. Pasin picked up a 3.5% swing at the election and holds the seat with a margin of 16.5%.
lizzie
A balmy 42 at the mo in Perth. Because it has been so mild the sudden heat does not seem so bad. Tomorrow in the 40’s but then 29 and 29 predicted.
deblonay
I note in your post above you refer to several different countries having Socialist parties.
On your reasoning, that means that there must be a thriving Socialist Party in Australia, too.
Just because a number of other countries have a party with a particular name does not (logically) mean that one has to exist in Australia.
You will also note I haven’t said the Greens will cease to exist – after all, we do still have the Australian Democrats, the DLP, and PHON as functioning political parties.
CTar1
[Doesn’t like Yanks.]
I did notice more than a few comments about when the seppos bothered to turn up 😆
Lizzie
Thanks for your concern. It is vey hot. Haven’t quite got to the forecast 44c in Perth yet. About 42 now, but it is early and there is no sign of a sea breeze., there will be reports of higher temps from North and east of the city for sure. I went out to the shop a while ago and it is hot, but it’s not like I am digging ditches
zoomster
Do you have to speak everyone on here in such a condescending manner.
You are not in a classroom now.
We don’t all need a lecture and corrections from you.
It is terribly boring.
Railway” summer timetables
” in Melb
_______________
This chaos will help to sink Napthine as the public suffers in heat and over crowding
…you will also note that I said the Greens might continue to thrive if they readjust – and most Greens parties which flourish overseas have undergone exactly the kind of readjustment I’m thinking about.
Basically, my understanding is that Greens parties who found themselves in power have to decide whether to remain morally pure or to make compromises in order to govern effectively.
This means a split in the party, with those who accept the latter course generally triumphant.
If the Australian Greens remains consistent to the frans of this world, they will diminish in power and influence (and I know fran would be perfectly comfortable with that). If they reject the frans of this world for a more middle stream attitude to power and politics, they will thrive (but the frans of this world will leave them).
“to everyone”
MTBW
use the scroll thingy, then.
poroti
There’s been a string of ‘Angry in Mayfair’ since Suez.
Lady Pamela ‘X’ is the current one. (And not a bad critic of Govt policy).
Or you stop telling everyone the errors of their posts.
Can I ask “who are the Fran’s of this world”.
She is entitled to post her thoughts just like you.
Patronising and arrogant!
MTBW
Do you have to speak everyone on here in such a condescending manner?
You are not in a classroom now.
We don’t need a lecture and corrections from you.
It is terribly boring.
(please note the triffic editing. 😆 )
Zoomster
I have been out all day so could not respond earlier.
UM!!!!!
My point was that MALAYSIA did not sign the deal. That was why the high court said it was illegal under our legislation.
The HC commented that none of the following applied
1. Malaysia had not signed the UN refugees convention
2. There was not legislation in place ion Malaysia to protect refugees
3. Malaysia had not even signed a MOU with Australia guaranteeing basics like non refoulment.
There was a strong implication that if Malaysia had taken the smallest step towards committing to protect the refugees the HC view would have been different.
This is the reason why Manus is legal and Malaysian not. It is to do with Malaysia not us.
dtt
read the article. Malaysia signed the deal.
MTBW:
…
I, for one, value Zoomster’s posts – even when she is pointlessly debating that waste of bandwidth Mod Lib.
I certainly value Zoomster’s contributions a lot more than I have ever valued a post from you, MTBW.
And if you don’t want to be pinged on this, stop posting the holier-than-thou crap such as that quoted above.
jackol
That is fine with me. Your choice!
CTar1
[There’s been a string of ‘Angry in Mayfair’ since Suez.]
Perhaps “Angry in Mayfair” is some obscure part of one of the UK’s legendary civil service departments ? A bit of a sounding board for those of the “right” demographic.
poroti
Donnelly is actually a class traitor. He spent some time teaching in government schools then chose to spit on them at a later period.
His reactionary views have been discredited for years though speaks volumes to where the conservatives think education is meant to be.
One of the blessings of a Federal system is that the States jealously guard their control of education – as Labor has found to its pain – and the influence – other than money, the Feds have, is mainly jaw-bone.
Just as Howard gave money for flagpoles and curates, so Abbott can do little more.
Rudd’s ‘school halls’ will be appreciated for what they were, a one-in-twenty-years bonus for all schools in the country.
Boerwar,
[Whatever happened to our dear old Graeco-Romano heritage?]
I’ll have to wrestle with that before I get back to you.
Asha Leu
The Greens have yet to realize that you can’t run Australia from a BOP in the Senate.
[My point was that MALAYSIA did not sign the deal. That was why the high court said it was illegal under our legislation]
Wrong.
The High Court stated the Immigration Minister did not have the power to do what he had done under Howard for years. In fact the HC found that Howard sending people to Nauru would have faced the same problem of faulty drafting of legislation had a case been bought. The solution was simple, draft proper legislation.
Stop spreading crap.
Thanks, Jackol & ru (and sorry, Jackol, for the ML stuff….)
dtt
the High Court needed Malaysia to have some kind of LEGISLATIVE obligation to uphold refugee rights – so either they needed to sign the UN convention OR they needed to pass their own legislation guaranteeing certain standards OR the Australian laws needed to be changed to by pass that obligation.
Nothing to do with whether or not they had a signed agreement with Australia, which they did.
http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154
poroti
[s some obscure part of one of the UK’s legendary civil service departments ?]
Possibly.
‘Angry’ was checked out once and found to live in Chelsea.
[You can’t transfer someone to a country which is not a party to the 1951 convention.]
Tell Tony Abbott that.
Ruawake,
[I see guytaur is having a Greens day]
He’s on the boulevard of broken dreams.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Soa3gO7tL-
Poroti,
Just seen that you got in before me!
These people did not build
GeekRulz on twitter is providing an excellent montage of historical photos which will help Pyne in structuring the new school curriculum.
The requisite emphasis on sport, religion, art, military history – and of course Tony Abbott’s so far unappreciated role.
https://twitter.com/geeksrulz
Acerbic Conehead
Not with that song 🙂 Excellent choice.
@sprocket_/3428
Pretty much my view of Abbott.
You can’t transfer someone to a country which is not a party to the 1951 convention.
Tell Tony Abbott that
======================================
If they so “No” he will punch the wall next to their head?
Or Have Pyne write them out of the curriculum
I have to say I agree with Boerwar on wtf does Judeo-Christian values mean?
Wikipedia implies that the term “Judeo-Christian” was largely an invention of the American political scene, and is used for a few purposes. In the sense that I think any LNP/Conservative here might use “Judeo-Christian values” it seems to be clearly (and inappropriately) coopted from American culture wars.
Sprocket
I shall treasure that link
The court found processing countries must also provide asylum-seekers with “effective procedures for assessing their need for protection”, and provide protection for certified refugees pending their resettlement or return to their home countries.
“On the facts which the parties had agreed, the court held that Malaysia is not legally bound to provide the access and protections the Migration Act requires for a valid declaration,” the court said in a statement.
Zoomster
Do you mean this article. ie the one where the signed agreement expressly says it is not legally binding. Please can I sell you a used car on this basis. I promise that the car has had all its services but if I lie it is not binding, and nor is the price.
[“Malaysia is not a party to the Refugees Convention or its protocol. The arrangement which the minister signed with the Malaysian Minister for Home Affairs on 25 July, 2011 said expressly that it was not legally binding.
“The parties agreed that Malaysia is not legally bound to, and does not, recognise the status of refugee in its domestic law.”]
Good to see Kev campaigning with his replacement in Griffith.
dtt
So now you’re admitting there was a signed agreement – which was what you were denying, and what I was pointing out.
[Good to see Kev campaigning with his replacement in Griffith.]
Isn’t he building an robot clone army to take over the world?
Zoomster
From my memory of reading the HC decision at least one judge commented on the fact that even the MOU was not binding. For example if the Malaysian government had committed to an MOU which protected the rights of the refugees one at least and possibly more of the HC judges would have treated it as a binding contractual obligation and may have been more willing to deem the agreement legal.
Jackol
[ have to say I agree with Boerwar on wtf does Judeo-Christian values mean?]
I’m not confused on this.
Do the right thing.
WOW !!
Article on the news showed a young lass who was riddled with cancer.
Her parents started to administer cannabis extract. The young kid is now expected to make a full recovery and be cancer free within weeks
daretotread
The HC was stating why the Immigration Act did not allow the Minister to do what he wanted. The fault was in the legislation, it could have easily been drafted properly and no problem would exist.
Except it was a minority Govt.
If Abbott is now sending people to Indonesia, surely he the HC will be able to tell him to stop, if only someone knew about it. (This is why it is all so secret).
WWP,
[Good to see Kev campaigning with his replacement in Griffith.
Isn’t he building an robot clone army to take over the world?]
Isn’t that Tony Abbott you’re thinking of? Didn’t he declare war on somebody or other today?
AC, a cloned army of Abbotts ?
A spine chilling thought
Famous moments in history as portrayed in the Pyne/Liberal History Curriculum
Zoomster
I agree they signed something but I hesitate to call it an agreement, since one party namely Malaysia specifically said in was not binding.
I do not call that an agreement, I call it a warm inner glow or perhaps an expression of hope.
To be more precise what was singed was an agreement from Australia and a vague intent and hope by Malaysia.
Zoomster
I am in email contact with some very nice gentlemen in Nigeria. They have some interesting offers for you which may be to your financial advantage. Shall I send them your details?
AC
[Boerwar,
Whatever happened to our dear old Graeco-Romano heritage?
I’ll have to wrestle with that before I get back to you.]
*laughs*
CTaR1
[Do the right thing]
*laughs* some more.
YB,
[AC, a cloned army of Abbotts ?
A spine chilling thought]
Have no fear. They’d be so much like Angry of Mayfair, they’d give each other (and themselves) uppercuts.
Acerbic Conehead
Posted Saturday, January 11, 2014 at 6:56 pm | Permalink
WWP,
Good to see Kev campaigning with his replacement in Griffith.
Isn’t he building an robot clone army to take over the world?
Isn’t that Tony Abbott you’re thinking of? Didn’t he declare war on somebody or other today?
==========================================
Its Tony’s War against unarmed men, women and children in leaky wooden boats desperate to escape regressive regimes.
Perhaps the best way to deter them would be to have them read a link about Tony Abbott and his war against the low paid, unemployed, disabled and sick in Australia
@zoomster 3393
[Nonsense – in this case, we have a wealth of evidence to strongly suggest that the majority of Greens voters would vote Labor if the Greens didn’t exist.
Greens voters, for example, are less likely than voters for any other party to follow a HTV card – yet consistently, 80% of those who vote Green first, vote Labor second.
In other words, 80% of Green voters would vote Labor first if the Greens didn’t exist.
I’ve heard people handing out Green HTV cards saying to voters, “Voting Greens makes your vote count twice. It gets counted for the Greens, and then it gets counted for Labor.”
It’s not a wild and woolly theory pulled out of a hat. It’s backed by evidence]
Oh, I agree – though with the caveat that if the Greens didn’t exist, there would be another left-leaning party where many would be parking their votes. Perhaps something like a mix of people voting Democrat (whose demise is in part a result of the rise of the Greens), Sex Party (whose inability to get much traction arguably is a result of basically being Greens-lite), some environment based party, and of course Labor.
In terms of preferences, most of the voters being Labor-leaning would probably add up to a similar result – though a mix of different completing left-of-centre parties with different preference deals may mean that preferences don’t go as much in Labor’s favour.
@Zoomster 3407
[…you will also note that I said the Greens might continue to thrive if they readjust – and most Greens parties which flourish overseas have undergone exactly the kind of readjustment I’m thinking about.
Basically, my understanding is that Greens parties who found themselves in power have to decide whether to remain morally pure or to make compromises in order to govern effectively.
This means a split in the party, with those who accept the latter course generally triumphant.
If the Australian Greens remains consistent to the frans of this world, they will diminish in power and influence (and I know fran would be perfectly comfortable with that). If they reject the frans of this world for a more middle stream attitude to power and politics, they will thrive (but the frans of this world will leave them).]
Agree with this too, for the most part. I think the party could do with shifting a bit closer to the centre and becoming a broader church of sorts.
Getting rid of those nutters infecting the NSW branches would be a good start.
dtt
most people, when they’ve made an honest mistake, own up to it.
Not you.