Seat of the week: Flinders

Presently held for the Liberals by Environment Minister Greg Hunt, the Mornington Peninsula and Phillip Island seat of Flinders was famously lost by Prime Minister Stanley Bruce in 1929, but Labor has only managed to win it on two further occasions since.

Blue and red numbers respectively indicate size of two-party Liberal and Labor polling booth majorities. Click for larger image. Map boundaries courtesy of Ben Raue at The Tally Room.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt’s seat of Flinders encompasses the southern part of Victoria’s Mornington Peninsula, including the mouth of Port Phillip Bay at Portsea, along with the area around Westernport Bay further to the east, including Phillip Island. Its territory along Port Phillip Bay commences at Mount Martha, 60 kilometres to the south of central Melbourne, from which it extends through Dromana, Rosebud and Rye to Sorrento and Portsea, an area popular with retirees. Its other major centres are Somerville in the centre of the Mornington Peninsula and Hastings along the western shore of Westernport Bay. The electorate has existed federation, and has covered almost the entirety of its present area since that time. It originally extended north to Dandenong and east to Drouin, Warragul and Leongatha, before the latter areas were absorbed by the new seat of McMillan when parliament expanded in 1949, and the electorate of Bruce was created to accommodate Melbourne’s south-eastern expansion in 1955.

Flinders has been won by Labor on only three occasions in its history, the most memorable being the defeat of the then Prime Minister, Stanley Bruce, in 1929. Bruce recovered the seat in 1931, and it would next be won by Labor at a by-election in 1952, before returning to the Liberal fold at the next general election in 1954. Phillip Lynch came to the seat in 1966, going on to serve as Treasurer in the first term of the Fraser government, then resigning a month before the December 1977 election over his use of a family trust to minimise tax. Lynch returned to cabinet after the election upon being cleared by an inquiry as Industry and Commerce Minister, the Treasury portfolio remaining with his successor, John Howard. His retirement precipitated a momentous by-election in November 1982, at which Peter Reith retained the seat for the Liberals in the face a surprisingly mild swing of 2.3%. This sealed Bill Hayden’s fate as Labor leader, and he was toppled by Bob Hawke on the day Malcolm Fraser called the 1983 election the following February. It was at that election that Labor won Flinders for the third and so far final time, with Reith losing to Labor’s Robert Chynoweth without having had the opportunity to assume the seat he had won at the by-election.

With the enlargement of parliament at the 1984 election, Chynoweth moved to the slightly safer new seat of Dunkley, and Reith recovered Flinders with a swing of 1.5%. Reith held the seat with fair-to-middling margins until he retired after an eventful five years as a Howard government minister in 2001. He was then succeeded by Greg Hunt, who gained a secure hold on the seat with consecutive swings of 3.9% in 2001 and 3.5% in 2004. Hunt won promotion to parliamentary secretary in January 2007, and then to shadow cabinet in the important climate change and environment portfolio after the 2007 election defeat. He has maintained the environment portfolio ever since, although the climate change portfolio was abolished after the Abbott government came to power. Hunt’s present margin in the seat is 11.9%, following a 2.8% swing in his favour at the 2013 election.

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.

1,285 comments on “Seat of the week: Flinders”

Comments Page 1 of 26
1 2 26
  1. About time someone pointed out the bleeding obvious; the jobs from the 50’s have gone; we have to restructure the economy for the 21st century. Sorry Mt Abbott, but digging up coal is not going to be high on the list.

    [ Bill Shorten
    Labor leader says opposition is not prepared to help gut a scheme which has delivered investment and jobs.

    http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/10/bill-shorten-vows-to-fight-to-save-renewable-energy-target

    ]

  2. MartinB

    I’m beginning to think that people haven’t read what Shorten said – in which case, posters here (not necessarily you) getting all emotional about it and deploring that he’s not doing the right thing are scarcely being sincere.

    [If the fixed-price component is the only real change, and you want to base on that an argument that that makes all the difference about it being not a CT, then, as I said, good luck. I know you’re right and I hope you succeed. I don’t think it’s a very promising position.]

    I only call it a ‘carbon tax’ for the same reason everyone else now does, that it’s become current usage. It doesn’t mean that I accept that it is, or that Shorten accepts that it is.

    We’re going on Shorten’s words. He’s for carbon pricing. He’s not for reintroducing a ‘carbon tax’. He’s obviously aware of the distinction and prepared to go to an election arguing for one but not the other.

    The (quite legitimate) question is whether or not Labor should lock themselves into an ETS at this stage. As I’ve said, if an election were held tomorrow, Labor would plump for an ETS. With two years to go, they’re keeping their options open.

    I’m not playing ‘word games’, unless it’s ‘word games’ to refer to what someone has actually said.

  3. The problem with Sam de Brito piece:

    http://www.smh.com.au/comment/islamophobia-by-another-name-covers-all-religions-20141011-10rhi8.html

    This is not the closing quote:

    [
    The simple fact is a significant proportion of Christan world both here and abroad believe the Bible is the word of a supernatural creator of the universe and to follow “his” words makes them a better person than those of us who do not.
    ]

    As to what he wrote; isn’t Muhammad supposed to be a prophet?

  4. Frednk

    You are correct about the RET and jobs. Here in SA a lot of jobs were created by building wind farms, and most of them in regional areas. Coal fired power stations have very few jobs by comparison. A modern 1 GW power station can be run by a dozen people on the weekend, plus occasional maintenance.

  5. zoomster

    It is my strong view Labor should lock themselves in. Two reasons.

    1) If Labor wants to win the next election they have to convince Australians they made a mistake; your not going to do that by abandoning a platform. That mistake was made after Keating lost. I would have thought a lesson learnt once was enough.

    2) An ETS is the right policy; for many reasons; the least of which there will soon be trade barriers being put up against countries that don’t have one. Nobody will be following Abbott over the cliff; Labor should not be the exception.

    3)If your going to lose an election lose it with a bit of dignity. Rudd took even that away from labor. I would have thought a lesson learnt once was enough.

  6. As an atheist I feel comfortable that we can be tolerant of religions (their brand of crazy is no worse than our brand of crazy) but still free to criticise their nuttier ideas. SO when I hear this nonsense I call it for what it is – a self serving lie:
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/11/muslims-ready-to-sacrifice-everything-for-caliphate-says-ismail-al-wahwah

    Some Islamic religious leaders dream of power just as much as our own George Pell. A Caliphate gives them that power. But they are not good ideas. The golden age of the Islamic world was when it was tolerant and gave rise to scholarship and the Sufis. Once the vicil wars started between various rival caliphates it was on the slide. Today there are modern, successful Islamic states with improving standards of living – e.g. Malaysia or Turkey – but they are invariably secular states.

    Have a good day all, especially those in the LGBT community.

  7. A final comment about an ETS and Labor policy. If Labor is serious about being credible on climate change, it needs to treat an ETS as being as non-negotiable as workers rights.

  8. Socrates the dark ages are not called the dark ages because people thought having religious nutters in control is a good idea.

    We now have a government that believes there is no need for a science minister; a faith based government; and we have al-wahwah. Nutters to the left and nutters to the right.

  9. frednk/Socrates

    and I might be verballing Shorten. He has made some very strong statements on an ETS in the past (hence my confidence that that’s Labor’s present position).

    fred, I’d challenge your reading of what happened after Keating. The talk I heard in the party then was that they were reluctant to change ANY policy (a bit like Abbott after 2010) because Labor had got back into a winning position so quickly.

    If you’re talking about the fact they avoided talking of Keating per se, well, that’s what the polls were telling them at the time (and still tell them). He may have done some great things, and we lefties might think he’s ace, but the wider electorate hated him with a passion (and many of them still do).

    I also don’t see how sticking with carbon pricing is admitting a mistake! If the mistake is abandoning a carbon tax, Labor did that over a year ago (as I’ve also said, why the fuss now? This is exactly the stance Labor took to the last election, and Shorten commited to back in July).

    If there was any backlash for admitting a mistake, it happened a year ago. Shorten not commiting to a ‘carbon tax’ shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.

    Not giving an absolute commitment to an ETS (and who knows, he might come out and give one tomorrow) is simply common sense at this stage in the cycle.

  10. Re the ‘isn’t household solar wonderful! People saving all that money on their power bills!’ meme…

    I do go along with it some extent (and do have solar). However —

    1. The present household solar systems, by and large, still rely on connection to the grid.

    2. The cost of poles and wires and the other various elements needed to keep the grid working (regardless of the type of power delivered at the other end) has to be paid for.

    3. If this cost has been factored into the price of coal fired electricity and coal fired elecricity is not being used, then the cost has to be retrieved somehow.

    4. Thus whilst you may save on the costs of electricity per se, the costs of being connected to the grid will inevitably rise, and will rise more as more people abandon coal fired electricity.

    I will also throw in here that it still takes something like seven years before the solar cells on your roof reach the point where they’ve paid back their carbon debt.

  11. Good Morning

    I watched the presser where Mr Shorten made his comments on carbon pricing. Essentially the same as at the election with Mr Shorten emphasising for Labor Carbon Pricing is Labor policy.

    No weasel words. Just strong commitment.

  12. [I only call it a ‘carbon tax’ for the same reason everyone else now does, that it’s become current usage.]

    My point is that ‘common usage’ does not apply to only the fixed-price component. However much you, I or Fran might deplore it, the *whole package* is now referred to as a CT.

    [The (quite legitimate) question is whether or not Labor should lock themselves into an ETS at this stage. As I’ve said, if an election were held tomorrow, Labor would plump for an ETS. With two years to go, they’re keeping their options open.]

    Fine, whatevs. The policy has been an ETS for ~ 8 years and will be re-formulated in the next 12 months. I very much doubt there will be a revolution in environmental economics (or ALP commitment to mainstream economics) in the next six months. The policy will be some form of ETS.

  13. Would the drop in PUP support be connected to Senator Lambie?
    A lot of voters voted for Mr Palmer and not Pauline Hanson style politics.

    I discount the Palmer support for an ETS as that would have shown in earlier pollls

  14. [
    zoomster
    Posted Sunday, October 12, 2014 at 8:35 am | Permalink
    ….
    If you’re talking about the fact they avoided talking of Keating per se, well, that’s what the polls were telling them at the time (and still tell them). He may have done some great things, and we lefties might think he’s ace, but the wider electorate hated him with a passion (and many of them still do).
    ]

    I would not describe Keating as a lefty; he re-structured an economy. Not a conservative thing for sure; but not a lefty thing either ; dry economic rationalism.

    After the loss no-one said; yes it was painful, but it had to be done. Australia is where it was today (Abbott may yet succeed in vandalizing the lot; so I won’t use “is”) because of what Keating did. There was a lot of pain; the protected industry employed a lot of people; contained a lot of skill. The re-structuring destroyed a lot of lives; the lives of people that had voted Labor all their life; Howard may of picked up their votes; but their way of life was never going to return; China was making sure of that.

    DO you really think Labor got their votes back faster by ignoring what was done; and not explaining why it was required.

    Australia failing to recognize that it is Labor that are the rational economic managers and the Liberals the economic vandals is in large part due to Labor not arguing for and rationalizing Keating’s work.

    The Labor party has suffered self inflicted long term pain because political operatives are ruled by the poles.

  15. [If the mistake is abandoning a carbon tax, Labor did that over a year ago (as I’ve also said, why the fuss now? This is exactly the stance Labor took to the last election, and Shorten commited to back in July).]

    It is not ‘popular perception’ that the ALP abandoned a CT a year ago. That was a form of words used by Rudd (and others) to try to solve the problem.

  16. We have already seen a trade barrier enacted due to carbon emissions. China tariff.

    This is possible because Abbott abandoned carbon pricing. No international pressure to come to Australia’s aid on a trade barrier

  17. [I will also throw in here that it still takes something like seven years before the solar cells on your roof reach the point where they’ve paid back their carbon debt.]

    That figure’s about 10 years out of date. The energy payback time for modern solar cells is about 2-3 years.

  18. zoomster

    All your points are correct. I can add some more.

    The grid required has to be stronger and more robust because unlike coal re-newables comes and go. In Vitoria for example; the grid is designed to take power from the Latrobe valley and deliver it to the loads. The grid of the future will have to be able to take distributed generation with the supply coming from multiple points; different points at different times. It is a much more difficult problem. It is one of the reasons why re-newables create jobs.

    In my view coal fired stations will become less important(it is after all the aim of the policy); and the grid more so with pumped storage becoming a real solution to energy storage.

    We have to start paying for grid access; if energy storage comes along that is cheaper; then it is another ball game.

  19. MartinB

    so if the popular perception didn’t change a year ago, why would anything that Shorten says now do anything?

    Labor’s policy on carbon pricing is the same it was a year ago. Therefore any angsting about it is out of date.

  20. I have been having a think about the Burqa thing and have a question for you all:

    Do you think Australian’s should be able to wear whatever they want in Parliament?

  21. There are enough left of centres on Insiders…..having one of the four from the right of centre isn’t that unfair is it?

  22. ET

    😆 Carlton is left of centre. Middleton and Probyn are centre right. They have to be or would not have their jobs.

    Henderson is not centre anything.

  23. [Mike Carlton will have some free time. Insiders should ask him as a guest instead of repeat Henderson.]

    What a great idea. Some fresh variety of panelists all round wouldn’t go astray either IMO.

  24. This is starting to look serious.

    Kim Jong-Un’s Absence Leaves North Korean Government Officials No One To Agree With

    NEWS IN BRIEF • North Korea • World • World Leaders • News • ISSUE 50•40 • Oct 10, 2014

    PYONGYANG—Explaining that the highest levels of government were currently in a state of disarray, international affairs experts confirmed Friday that the continuing absence of Kim Jong-un had left top-ranking North Korean officials with nobody to agree with.

    “North Korea’s Supreme People’s Assembly and National Defence Commission have effectively been brought to a standstill, as government figures have had no one to heartily concur with, repeat verbatim, and then congratulate for their careful thought and insight,” said Henry Lawrence of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, who noted that North Korea’s political, economic, and military structures are built around a regimented system of repeating the words “Yes, certainly” and respectful nodding.

    “As long as Kim continues to face health problems, this agreement vacuum at the top of the North Korean power structure could grow even more acute.

    It’s hard to see how this country can move forward much longer without someone whose views top bureaucrats can vigorously assent to while bowing.” Lawrence noted, however, that Kim’s absence over the past 37 days had afforded officials some much-needed time to catch up on a backlog of executions.

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/kim-jonguns-absence-leaves-north-korean-government,37156/

    Actually, when you think about it…

  25. ET

    No that fails on security measures. Wearing it is an incitement to violence. Buka’s do not have the effect of inciting violence

  26. ET

    Bias/left right is in the eye of the beholder. I have no problem with inviting extreme RW like Henderson provided it is balances with equal representation from the opposite extreme.

    Now we know that 10-15% of the electorate vote green or further left, with a further 5% with similar views still voting ALP. So 10-15% on the far left scale.

    We know that 5% vote extreme right FF or DLP with a further 5-10% in the LNP (Abbott, Andrews etc). So 10-15% with views like Henderson.

    We know that there is 10% or so mavericks who support odd balls like Katter, Palmer etc.

    That leaves 60-70% of moderate righties/lefties. Of this group about 25% are normally Labor voters and about 30% normally coalition, with 15% who do not know.

    So if we break representation in to groups of 10 we might expect that a Henderson type might appear once every three weeks balanced by a “green commentator (or far left labor) also once every three/four weeks.

    The middle ground mush can fill the balance but should be balanced with a liberal moderate opposing an ALP moderate most of the time.

  27. MartinB

    [That figure’s about 10 years out of date. The energy payback time for modern solar cells is about 2-3 years.]

    That’s probably about right, but this is probably a good point to remind people that the embedded energy payback time in thermal coal and gas plants tends to flatter them. This is because they can send out energy in practice for 8000+ hours per year. This simply reflects the fact that such plants are not harvesters of an energy source as converters of a stores of chemical energy that have been in preparation for 300 million years or so.

    The solar panel with the inverter both harvests the energy source ‘on the fly’ i.e. in real time and converts it into a useable form. The fossil thermal plant’s energy payback accounting takes no account of the temporal lag between us and the carboniferous era nor does it even include the energy inputs to the processes used in harvesting these chemical stores. Depending on where the fossil hydrocarbons are sourced these might be modest or quite substantial. Here in Australia, we have tended to build such plants close to good FHC sources, but even there, not all extractive processes are equally simple. Gas tends to be more energy-intensive to extract and transport than coal.

    So in relative terms if one bears these matters in mind, the energy payback on solar panels compares very well with thermal FHC.

  28. It is not ‘popular perception’ that the ALP abandoned a CT a year ago. That was a form of words used by Rudd (and others) to try to solve the problem.

    Yup. Kevin Rudd is no longer leader. One of the advantages of changing leaders is that you can drop silly commitments. Kevin Rudd made the wrong call in pledging to “axe the tax” by bringing the ETS forward by one year. He played into the Coalition’s hands; he echoed the Coalition’s talking points.

    Bill Shorten should have stated the achievements of the carbon tax at every opportunity (reduced carbon pollution by 17 million tonnes over two years and that figure would have been higher had industry expected the tax to be permanent; negligible impact on consumer prices; no loss of jobs). Now he makes it impossible to take credit for this achievement. It’s a self-inflicted wound, just like the removal of Kevin Rudd made it impossible for Labor to take credit for averting a recession and building a vast amount of useful facilities for schools at a cost-effective price).

    If you decide everything on a tactical level you restrict your strategic effectiveness. The last Labor leader who understood this was Paul Keating. For almost 20 years now federal Labor has not had a leader with first rate strategic nous and communication skills.

  29. There’s a good video too…

    Report: Many Companies Now Offering Women Permanent, Unpaid Maternity Leave

    NEWS WITH VIDEO • Jobs • Gender • Women • Parents • Healthcare • News • Business • ISSUE 50•40 • Oct 9, 2014

    WASHINGTON—As part of a nationwide effort to accommodate women in the workplace, many U.S. companies are now offering female employees permanent, unpaid maternity leave, according to a Pew Research Center survey released Thursday.

    “We understand that women face numerous challenges when it comes to balancing work and family life, which is why our company allows every female employee to take an indefinite, fully uncompensated maternity leave,” said David Koerper of EasyPay Payroll Processors, one of thousands of businesses around the nation guaranteeing women the right to leave their job at any point during their pregnancy, stay home with their child for as long as they need to after the baby is born, and then never return.

    “Women should know that when they decide to have children, we will be proactive about offering them an unlimited number of days at home to care for their kids while earning zero percent of their pay. That is our promise.”

    In a further accommodation for women, Koerper added that prospective employees who may at some point consider starting families have the option of not applying for a job in the first place.

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-many-companies-now-offering-women-permanent,37139/

  30. The point of having shows like Insiders isn’t to have panelists who are left or right or whatever, but that they can comment intelligently and with insight about matters being discussed. It’s shouldn’t be about whether they are partisan cheersquads for any particular political viewpoint.

  31. Everything@48

    ….so why the talk about getting rid of commentators like Gerard Henderson then?

    Because the studio is not large enough to accommodate the number of lefties you need to achieve “balance”

Comments Page 1 of 26
1 2 26

Leave a Reply

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