Seat of the week: Wakefield

Seat of the week visits South Australia one last time to cover Wakefield on the northern fringe of Adelaide, held for Labor since 2007 by Nick Champion.

Red and blue numbers respectively indicate booths with two-party majorities for Labor and Liberal. Click for larger image. Map boundaries courtesy of Ben Raue at The Tally Room.

Wakefield extends from outer northern Adelaide to rural territory as far as Clare 100 kilometres to the north, with overwhelming Labor strength around Elizabeth and Salisbury partly balanced by support for the Liberals in the Clare Valley. It has existed in name since South Australia was first divided into electorates in 1903, but its complexion changed dramatically when its southern neighbour Bonython was abolished when the state’s representation was reduced from 12 seats to 11 in 2004. Previously a conservative rural and outskirts seat encompassing the Murray Valley and Yorke Peninsula, it came to absorb the outer suburban industrial centre of Elizabeth while retaining the satellite town of Gawler, the Clare Valley wine-growing district, and the Gulf St Vincent coast from Two Wells north to Port Wakefield.

Prior to 2004, Wakefield was won by the major conservative party of the day at every election except 1938 and 1943, when it was won by Labor, and 1928, when it was won by the Country Party. The Liberal member from 1983 to 2004 was Neil Andrew, who spent the last six years of his parliamentary career serving as Speaker. Andrew at first considered challenging Patrick Secker for preselection in Barker after the 2004 redistribution turned Wakefield’s 14.7% margin into a notional Labor margin of 1.5%, but instead opted to retire. Wakefield was nonetheless retained for the Liberals at the ensuing election by David Fawcett, who picked up a 2.2% swing off a subdued Labor vote around Elizabeth to unseat Martyn Evans, who had held Bonython for Labor since 1994. Fawcett’s slender margin was demolished by a 7.3% swing in 2007, but he would return to parliament as a Senator after the 2010 election.

Wakefield has since been held for Labor by Nick Champion, a former state party president, Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association official and staffer for state Industrial Relations Minister Michael Wright. The SDA link identifies him with the potentate of the South Australian Right, outgoing Senator Don Farrell. He nonetheless went against Farrell by coming out in support of Kevin Rudd in the days before his unsuccessful February 2012 leadership challenge, resigning as caucus secretary to do so. As with Labor’s other South Australian newcomers from the 2007 election, Champion had no trouble retaining his seat at the 2010 election, a 5.4% swing boosting his margin to 12.0%. However, the seat has since returned to the marginal zone following a redistribution in which it traded an area around Salisbury for Lydoch and Williamstown east of Gawler, reducing the margin to 10.3%, and a 7.1% swing to the Liberals at the 2013 election, which has left it at 3.4%.

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.

2,933 comments on “Seat of the week: Wakefield”

Comments Page 51 of 59
1 … 50 51 52 … 59

  1. Indeed BB. For the first time in about 5 years, I looked at The Australian today. They were ripping Abbott a new one.

    Things must be crook in Tullarook.

    Beautiful to watch.

  3. Gee, posted 5 minutes ago. This Murdoch frenzy might lead to a photoshopped Abbott tomorrow?

    [@mirandadevine: Who said this: “We’re about reducing taxes, not increasing taxes. We are about getting rid of taxes, not imposing new taxes.”]

  4. [ Anyone who suggests including the family home in an asset test deserves to be ridiculed.]

    Such would result in most people in Sydney and Melbourne not getting a pension regardless of their other circumstances.

  6. [@mirandadevine: Who said this: “We’re about reducing taxes, not increasing taxes. We are about getting rid of taxes, not imposing new taxes.”]

    Oh dear. And this coming from a fellow RW Catholic as well.

  7. A hint for the Liberal Party to avoid the shit they are in.

    [Donations of over $12,400 are subject to disclosure under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. This is the reason we require your personal details when making a donation. However, the ALP has a policy of disclosing all donations over $1,000.]

    If you want to keep a donation secret the question is why? Plus what do you expect from this secret donation.

  8. HELLO, has it occurred to some that maybe if the far right are not happy with the speculated budget then it might be good for everyone else?

  10. [HELLO, has it occurred to some that maybe if the far right are not happy with the speculated budget then it might be good for everyone else?]

    Unlikely, in my opinion.

  13. It only took 4 posts to come across LOONS at their best.

    What, now they want your place of residence asset tested?

    Their lunacy and idiocy has no bounds!

  14. [Prime Minister Tony Abbott has moved to clarify he has never held a formal meeting with Australian Water Holdings chief executive Nick Di Girolamo, but he may have met the Liberal Party fund-raiser at party events.]

    Abbott’s “explanation” would provide an interesting test of Queensland’s anti bikie consorting laws. Abbott effectively claims that he would only be consorting with Di Girolamo if there was a formally arranged meeting between the two.

    Perhaps the bikies could also claim that, in the absence of a formally arranged meeting with each other, they were not consorting and therefore not subject to prosecution.

    In the real world, of course, there is one law for motorcycle riders and another for certain prime ministers.

  16. Possum Comitatus ‏@Pollytics 43s

    As ICAC in NSW is smashing politically related corruption – in Qld, the natural home of it, Newman has decided to gut the CMC in committee

  17. Tony’s mates have got it right. Shame him now so that he will drop his plans and maybe he will get a better chance to be re-elected.

  18. [so a Bill Shorten Govt will not raise taxes ?]

    Not for ordinary Australians, if I understand his words correctly.

    Speaking as one of them, I am very happy to see a substantial rise in, for example, taxes on mining profits. Very substantial. 🙂

  20. [sprocket_

    Getting closer at ICAC , TimothyTrumbull, a very assiduous donor of multiple $4,000 amounts to the Liberal Party gave the cheques to Hartcher (yesterday’s evidence) and got his Irish backpacker employes to raise donations, which were given to John Caputo.]

    I hope they weren’t sent door to door telling householders they were soliciting donations for starving children in Africa.

  23. Centre@2519

    You would be surprised at the astronomical amount mining companies actually do pay in company tax and royalties.

    Most voters would be surprised at the eye watering amount the mining companies make selling our dirt – dirt that can only be sold once – and its our dirt not theirs!

  24. Lawyers acting for asylum seekers who say they witnessed the killing of Reza Barati at the Manus Island detention centre in February have launched a High Court action to have them placed in protective custody in Australia.
    The asylum seekers, who are still to be interviewed by Papua New Guinea police investigating Mr Barati’s death, say they have received death threats and fear for their safety while they remain in the centre.
    A writ issued on Wednesday also accuses the Australian and PNG governments of committing crimes against humanity by exposing asylum seekers to arbitrary and indefinite detention in “tortuous, inhuman and degrading conditions”.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/manus-detainees-seek-witness-protection-20140430-zr1vb.html#ixzz30LljENDS

  25. Labor are entitled to hammer Abbott on a broken promise and lie of not to introduce new taxes.

    However, given the fact that Howard cut income taxes substantially at the top end of a mining boom as if it were to last forever creating a budget structural problem, it makes common sense now to reverse those Howard tax cuts to bring the budget on sustainable footing for the future.

    Labor can make political capital out of it, sure, but they should pass it 😎

  27. [HELLO, has it occurred to some that maybe if the far right are not happy with the speculated budget then it might be good for everyone else?]

    No.

    What an absurd suggestion.

  31. Labor can make political capital out of it, sure, but they should pass it

    Yup.

    A reflexive rejection of a winding back of Howard-era tax cuts is just silly. Abbott will wear the blame, and it makes the job of sensibly talking about revenue easier in the future.

  32. Centre@2526

    Dave

    And they pay royalties in compensation. Without them the dirt would be just that – dirt.

    If they don’t like paying a fair amount of tax and royalities on OUR dirt they can just hand back their leases and go.

    The financial market would book build others who would be delighted to have the opportunity to replace them very quickly.

    Tax 101 – If it cannot move tax it, tax it and tax it – see the Norway experience.

    Oh and by the way pushing their weight around in our democracy is yet another reason why they can go AND have the door hit their arses on the way out!

  33. [Well cut welfare payments to the same magnitude and see who screams]

    That’s a completely proposition than your first argument

  34. Lynchpin

    Had Howard utilised all that mining boom revenue wisely and invested in productivity and infrastructure, there would be no need to raise the taxes somewhat back to where Howard cut in the first place.

    I agree with Abbott let’s get the budget back on sustainable footing.

    I think I’m starting to like the Monkey :mrgreen: 😐

  35. Way back on Q&A!

    When I attended Q&A I was vetted on my voting intentions and was allowed to submit one question for ‘consideration’.

    Note that Q&A was meant to apportion their audience according to current polling.

    A while ago I made a complaint as polling had the Coalition reasonably behind, yet, the audience percentage was substantially higher for the Coalition.

    Still waiting!

  36. I see the HSU has referred Cathy Jackson to the slushie RC and Fair Work for misappropriating ~ $225,000. Surely her partner has to stand aside as commissioner?

  37. Centre:

    [However, given the fact that Howard cut income taxes substantially at the top end of a mining boom as if it were to last forever creating a budget structural problem,]

    This point about the structural deficit was made by Doug Cameron on QandA last Monday. It’s correct, but doesn’t lend itself to an easy sound bite.

  38. Centre@2525

    [However, given the fact that Howard cut income taxes substantially at the top end of a mining boom as if it were to last forever creating a budget structural problem, it makes common sense now to reverse those Howard tax cuts to bring the budget on sustainable footing for the future.]

    But this is why a temporary levy makes no sense at all in the long run.

  40. Murdoch continues the attack on Abbott with a long article this afternoon…

    [Prime Minister Tony Abbott faces harsh backlash over controversial ‘deficit levy’

    TONY Abbott is facing an extraordinary backlash over the so-called deficit levy, which has reportedly been locked into the upcoming Federal Budget.

    The Prime Minister’s own party is rebelling against the idea, with backbenchers openly admitting it would constitute a broken promise.

    “Everyone’s just in shock,” a Liberal MP has told the Herald Sun. “It’s both a surprise, and the idea that we’re not going to get pinged for breaking a promise is just ludicrous.”]

    http://www.news.com.au/national/prime-minister-tony-abbott-faces-harsh-backlash-over-controversial-deficit-levy/story-fncynjr2-1226900848150

  41. rua #2528

    No I didn’t write it, but I agree with the essence of it.

    So you say it’s all garbage so I’ll go back to my question at #2494 and ask WHY you think it’s ALL ‘garbage’ ?

  42. “@774melbourne: Mark Dreyfus – “Judged by his standard of conduct that he applied to Julia Gillard, (the PM) has told massive lies to get into Gvt””

  43. Centre, the miners should pay; plus people over about $350k. Companies should pay more tax. Middle class welfare should be cut; and generous super tax breaks for the rich axed.

    That would be a start.

  45. [Surely her partner has to stand aside as commissioner?]

    Ru

    Absolutely

    Wouldn’t that surprise a few few people when they see the connection which surely would be highlighted

  46. Jackol

    You’re obviously not concerned with the state of the budget and would prefer cuts to spending and dumping initiatives such as the NDIS. Good for you!

    Tom H

    I’ll put it nicely – have another go at expressing your argument!

    Dave

    Julia/Swanny were happy with the agreement they reached with the miners.

Comments Page 51 of 59
1 … 50 51 52 … 59

Leave a Reply

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