At the end of the first week of the three-week early voting period, the Tasmanian Electoral Commission relates that 16,817 votes have already been cast at pre-poll voting centres, more than double the 7,650 from the equivalent stage of last year’s election. There is no further news on the polling front, which doesn’t come as too much of a surprise, unless you count a social media post from RedBridge Group director Kos Samaras saying he “believe(s) there is another in the field (not ours) that has the Liberals in front by a fair chunk”, which would be consistent with the DemosAU poll and inconsistent with YouGov. The indefatigable Kevin Bonham says he is “aware of a third (private) poll which I may say more about that falls somewhere between these two, with a far lower but still quite high independent vote (around 12%) and the Liberals slightly ahead, with both majors in the low 30s”.
The dominant electoral story of the past week is the Liberal Party’s suggestion that it will challenge the eligibility of Jessica Munday, high-profile non-incumbent Labor candidate for Franklin, on the grounds that her seat on the WorkCover Tasmania board constitutes an office of profit under the Crown. This would presumably involve a challenge through the Court of Disputed Returns in the event that she is elected, which if upheld could lead to another candidate being declared elected or a fresh election being held in Franklin. Kevin Bonham notes the obvious recourse of a recount of the existing votes, as occurs when a seat falls vacant, “would be unsatisfactory as this would reward a party that had run an ineligible high-profile candidate”.
A legal opinion prepared for the Liberal Party goes so far as to raise the prospect of “the result of the general election across all electoral divisions being declared void”, which from this bush lawyer’s perspective seems a bit of a stretch – a view that has the concurrence of Kevin Bonham (again). Labor has responded with legal advice from former Solicitor-General Michael O’Farrell endorsing its position that a constitutional amendment from 1944 distinguishes the state provision from its federal equivalent, such that it does not apply to Munday’s case.
UPDATE (6/7): The Sunday Tasmanian today reports on two rounds of recent EMRS polling for the Liberal Party, from samples of 550 each. The more recent, from June 29 to July 1, had the Liberals leading Labor 34.5% to 28.2%, with the Greens on (I gather) 13.9% and independents on 17.8%. An earlier round from June 15 to 17 had the Liberals on 32.3%, Labor on 28.7%, the Greens on 14.0% and independents on 19.2%. The Nationals hardly registered in either. Results from Franklin, which one would hope combine the samples from both polls, are Liberal 39.2%, Labor 23.0%, Greens 16.1% and independents 21.7%, with the Liberals seemingly expecting a result of Liberal three, Labor one, Greens one and David O’Byrne one, with the last seat a race between independent candidate Peter George and a second Labor candidate. The Liberals are “hopeful of picking up a fourth seat in Braddon after seeing the EMRS results and believe they are also a chance of securing a fourth in Bass”.
I think the winner is cricket.
Unfortunately the ABC haven’t split out a chat with Leon Compton, from ABC Hobart, on RN Breakfast yesterday
He basically said the feeling was people were frustrated that they are having to vote again so soon.
It seems like it could backfire against Labor and if there is indeed another poll with the Liberals in front that would confirm it
The amendment is pretty clear, you can’t hold office and a government job at the same time. But Ms Mundy does not yet hold office, and the convention is that she’d resign her government job once elected. Otherwise as has been noted only unemployed or privately employed people can run for government. No police, fire-fighters, teachers, nurses etc could run without becoming unemployed. The Libs didn’t run this line when teacher Kasper Dean a Labor candidate ran only just last year.
But on the polling side, not rosy for Labor. Status quo result likely.
The option of effectively quitting government position for two months to run in an election with the right of reinstatement in the event of not being elected only exists as a convention at the Federal level and, I believe, in some of the other states. However, a Tasmanian government back in the 1940s attempted to enshrine it in legislation.
Kevin Bonham has put up a post in which he cites the relevant section of the Tasmanian Constitution (which, read by itself, would seem to suggest that Munday would be ineligible to take up a seat were she to win one) and the relevant 1944 legislation.
https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2025/07/what-happens-if-ineligible-candidate.html
To this non-lawyer, it all seems rather murky. As I understand it, the Tasmanian Constitution is enshrined in the Constitution Act of 1855, with a series of subsequent amendments that were brought together in the Constitution Act of 1934. I’m not sure about the 1855 Act, but I believe that the 1934 Act is capable of being amended if both houses of the Tasmanian Parliament agree. Which begs the question of why the government didn’t go through this process in 1944 rather than attempting to override what was the clear meaning and intent of the Constitution in a separate piece of legislation.
Is it proper for there to be a piece of legislation that effectively says “ignore the Constitution on this point”? I think this might be the question on which the Libs and their legal advisors might be hanging their collective hat.
However, in the event of a court finding Munday ineligible, this would only conceivably be useful to the Libs if it forced a repeat election in Franklin in a circumstance in which the Libs are only one seat short of being able to form a clearly viable government with right-leaning independents, while Labor has no chance of forming a government without the hated Greens. The Libs could then run with the argument “vote for us in the Franklin rerun, and you’ll get a stable government and no Greens.”
But Australian voters have consistently demonstrated a tendency to become pissed off when forced into a further election due to constitutional issues. So I’m not sure it’s a good tactic from the Libs.
Mostly Interested: “No police, fire-fighters, teachers, nurses etc could run without becoming unemployed.”
No, that’s not right. As per my post above, these sorts of people run all the time for Federal parliament, but they have to resign their jobs before they nominate and, under a longstanding convention, are reinstated with their existing superannuation rights, etc if they are not elected to parliament. Obviously there is some risk of mischief on the part of their bosses, but I’m not aware of any instances of people not being re-employed in recent times.
MB, this’ll he known as the winter election of despair.
MI: “MB, this’ll he known as the winter election of despair.”
——————————————————————————-
Yeah, it’s not looking great for Labor. They haven’t been able to make any sort of case for why it was essential for the Rockliff Government to be deposed after only one year. They aren’t offer many reasons for voters to think they’d be better, except for a scare campaign about privatisation that isn’t proving to be very scary.
To use marketing parlance, what’s Dean Winter’s “value proposition” for Tasmanians? Unfortunately, there isn’t much there.
I do think his TV ads are quite good at raising his personal profile, although I doubt they do all that much for the party as a whole.
Getting ahead of the game but does Winter survive the “winter election of despair” if he doesn’t improve Labor’s seat count?
Amateur hour from Labor with the Jess Munday thing unfortunately. Jess would be a great addition to the parliament down there
“Amateur hour from Labor with the Jess Munday thing unfortunately.”
That seems overly harsh. I think Labor and Munday knew what they were doing, and were acting on the basis of high quality legal advice. Munday would not have wanted to resign her board position because she would be concerned that a Liberal Government might not reappoint her after the election. So she’s going on her legal advice and what the 81 year old legislation says, which is surely a defensible position.
Fair call, at least they sort advice
Not ideal if that advice was wrong
Hard Being Green: “Not ideal if that advice was wrong”
I think in this case it isn’t really about whether the advice is “right” or “wrong.” There can be no arguing that, as it reads, the 1944 Act allows Munday to take up a parliamentary seat, as long as she resigns from her board position prior to her being sworn in. The only potential issue is whether or not this 81 year old act was properly formulated. I still find it odd that the Tasmanian Government at that time didn’t amend the Constitution, but passed this Act. However, a judge might find that this was a perfectly ok way to do it. Only judges and consitutional lawyers would have the slightest idea about these things.
https://www.pollbludger.net/2025/07/03/redbridge-group-55-5-44-5-to-labor-open-thread/comment-page-11/#comment-4563788
Tasmania, the beautiful: …, no to centrists or neo-fascists
Anyone have a case whether to go Green, independent, centrist, national, liberal or otherwise?
Big Labor announcement coming tomorrow.
Built for Tasmania.
Backed by Labor.
Free day one.
Announced tomorrow.
Monopolies, duopolies etc hold Australia back.
I received this from QFA today: “ We’re taking this incident extremely seriously and our focus is on doing all we can to support you. [Reputedly it happened Friday a week ago and you took this long to get an email out …]
Our investigation is ongoing. The system remains secure [Obviously it wasn’t …] and additional security measures have been put in place [Yup, I tried to update my credentials and it would not let me, not that I share much across services] to strengthen system monitoring and protect customer information as part of our response.
A member of our Customer Advocacy team is currently reviewing your feedback [… not holding my breath]. From next week, we anticipate we will be able to update affected customers and clarify the type of personal information that was in the system.
As communicated to customers on Wednesday [the breach seems to have happened between Friday and Monday, so …], our initial investigations show the compromised data may include name, email address, phone number, birth date and Frequent Flyer number. Credit card details, financial information, passport details and Frequent Flyer passwords were not accessed. Your Qantas Points and account remain secure. [Given their lack of social licence overall, I do not have my trust level increased by this, but it is fairly okay PR spin …]
We recognise the uncertainty this may cause. For information about support and latest updates, please visit the official Qantas website, where we have a dedicated support page for customers about the cyber incident.
We are deeply sorry this has occurred and hope to provide further updates next week.” [Let’s see …]
Comments above …, friends have received pretty much equivalent comms.
This is a gr8 opportunity for the nation, outside of extended metro I reckon especially, the fed gov should insist on a separation of Jetstar/ Link/ Alliance/ Qantas …
Furthermore, with the end of Rex, and just Virgin essentially, outside of metro, fares should be capped, and regulator step in on frequency!
Internationally, well last time I checked they were down to below a fifth of marketshare, quelle horreur (which Apple Siri just said was horse up)!
I am in no serious doubt that Munday is eligible, this was a trolling exercise from Eric Abetz and when he theatrically says that the Supreme Court is going to sort it out, my prediction is that if Munday is elected there will not even be a challenge. Since I wrote my piece I’ve had advice from a colleague with extensive legal and state service experience including on the nuances of the Acts Interpretation Act, he says Michael O’Farrell’s opinion is definitely to be preferred here.
Also Munday does not have to resign her board position on election, under the 1944 Act as soon as she’s declared elected it’s vacated automatically.
Rambler, I won’t get out of bed unless there’s a free Tasman bridge for the Derwent announced.
New update to the post:
KB: I’ve no reason to disagree with you.
But I’m still surprised that in Tasmania we have a constitution that can be impinged upon by other acts of parliament to the extent that it can no longer be understood as a stand-alone document. It doesn’t seem to me to be a good system: a constitution should promote the separation of powers a bit more than that.
But, then, Tasmania often surprises me. Sometimes in a good way.
WB at 5.49am
That poll seems more consistent with the current vibe down here. Even staunch Labor people seem down in the dumps about their party’s prosoects.
Of course the Hare-Clark system can throw up surprising results: eg, 2021, which was a relative landslide for the Libs in terms of votes, but this was not reflected in the seat count.
But Labor has good reason to be concerned. We might be seeing another illustration of Australian voters’ tendency to lash out at politicians whom they feel have forced them into an unnecessary election.
The wrecker idiom has come home to roost. It’s fair to say based on the polling this has been and will be for a long time one of the worst political decisions in a very long time. There’s more I could say from an insiders perspective but it wouldn’t be prudent.
MI: “The wrecker idiom has come home to roost. It’s fair to say based on the polling this has been and will be for a long time one of the worst political decisions in a very long time. There’s more I could say from an insiders perspective but it wouldn’t be prudent.”
——————————————————————————-
Well, it doesn’t look like it’s going to turn out to be a good decision. But the Tasmanian ALP has been in a terrible place for a long time now. I’m not at all surprised that they looked at the results of the Federal election down here and thought that this might be their best chance in many years of picking up a swag of seats. So they rolled the dice. I might have done the same thing in their position, so I don’t think I can be too critical.
What they can be justly blamed for is that, from the moment the election was called, they didn’t seem to be at all ready to fight a campaign. Their list of candidates is pretty unimpressive, with David O’Byrne being a better-known figure than just about all of them, possibly bar Dean Winter. Apart from Jessica Munday (who, as I’m sure you know as well as I do, has her friends and her enemies around the place), Labor doesn’t have too many big names running. Brian Mitchell is a name, but he has never been very popular. Luke Martin is a big name among Labor insiders, but not in the broader community, and I’m hearing that his past association with the salmon industry isn’t playing wonderfully well in places like West Hobart.
Meanwhile, the Libs have done very well to get well-liked name candidates Gavin Pearce and Bridget Archer to run for them in the key northern seats. That’d be like Labor getting Lisa Singh to run for them again, which idea I guess might give rise to the analogy of hell freezing over. (Although, if Labor had any sense, they’d do everything that they can to get her to run as the candidate for Clark at the Federal level once Wilkie goes.)
And, as I posted yesterday, because they are in lockstep with the government in relation to the biggest political issue down here, the stadium, Labor lacks a narrative about why the Libs should be kicked out and they should be put in to replace them. It was clear at the start of the campaign that Winter wanted to bring the stadium into it somehow, if only along the lines of “the Libs aren’t handling the process well.” But then – presumably under instructions from the national party leadership – he suddenly fell right into line behind Rockliff: a terrible look for a guy who has just brought down the government.
Anyway, as I said earlier, it’s too soon to be writing post-mortem reports, because the Hare-Clark system can throw up weird results and Labor could end up doing a lot better in terms of seats than the polling suggests. But I wouldn’t be putting money on it.
If I were part of the ALP down here, I’d be very worried that the party increasingly seems to be focused on the interests of the “old Tasmania” of the dwindling unionised workforce plus long-term welfare recipients. I’d be very interested to see a poll of the political preferences of the growing element of the population that has migrated to Tasmania from the mainland. I have met a lot of these people over the years, and the overwhelming majority of them favour the Greens or independents like Peter George, with a smaller element of Lib supporters. Some of them vote Labor federally, but the local Labor party has very little appeal to them, particularly because they perceive it as being anti-environment: an image that Albo seems to have been doing his best to promote.
“… is the Liberal Party’s suggestion that it will challenge the eligibility of Jessica Munday, high-profile non-incumbent Labor candidate for Franklin, on the grounds that her seat on the WorkCover Tasmania board constitutes an office of profit under the Crown.”
Plainly and simply just another sign of Rockliff and the Libs desperation. As is usual, there would not be a hint of shock, horror, if it was a Lib in the same position. I see yet another minority rule no matter who “wins”.
Looking like a potential disaster for Labor who were clearly expecting Rockliff to resign rather than ending up with an election
What a mess
The policy announcement alluded to earlier better be a massive game changer
The big hope is that the Greens and Independents win enough seats to control the narrative after the counting is done
As has been highlighted though, the system can throw up some unusual results so it’s not over yet
2 final points, great news re Jess Munday, hopefully she takes over as leader next term
And
A bit of a reality check for Albo and federal Labor who appear to be trying to run things down there. Never take anything for granted
HBG, Jess doesn’t have the numbers (i asked the other day) and isn’t yet in the parliament. She’ll have to get at least a full term under her belt. The next Labor Premier may not be in the parliament yet, and may have to come from the north.
Fed Labor ‘running’ Tas Labor isn’t the worst thing, they need the resources. Remember as has been pointed out multiple times Tasmania is the size and economic scale of some of the larger LGAs on the mainland, in fact smaller that some.
Thanks Mostly Interested, seems they need a change of direction, a shame if Jess isn’t it but yes a leader from the North makes sense
All outside looking in of course and it’s not over until the counting is done
Ben Raue
Will the Tasmanian election put an end to the island’s parliamentary chaos?
While the electorate will be hoping for a more stable result, it’s again unlikely either major party will be given a majority
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/jul/06/will-the-tasmanian-election-put-an-end-to-the-islands-parliamentary-chaos
Thanks Pegasus
Interesting last paragraph from the article, maybe the opposite will happen given the polling
“There is a history in Tasmania of Labor-Liberal swing voters moving towards whichever major party has the best chance of governing without requiring crossbench support. Those voters have favoured the Liberals in recent elections, but Labor will be hoping to gain them this time.”
A resurgence in the fortunes of the Liberals at this Tasmania election seems somewhat at odds with recent results elsewhere!
Rewarding a government responsible for the ignominy associated with ten years of financial ineptitude, an unaffordable stadium and some ferries unfit for the existing infrastructure would seem to expose some dilemmas for the Liberals.
But apparently not!
goll: “Rewarding a government responsible for the ignominy associated with ten years of financial ineptitude, an unaffordable stadium and some ferries unfit for the existing infrastructure would seem to expose some dilemmas for the Liberals.
But apparently not!”
——————————————————————————–
If Laborites want the Tasmanian electorate to punish the Libs for the “unaffordable stadium,” perhaps they could suggest to their party that it might want to start opposing said stadium. Just a thought.
Labor has done nothing to differentiate itself from he the Liberal Party, especially on the compelling issue of the stadium. It cannot expect to be seen as anything other than the group that sent us back to another early election for no good reason.
The increase in indi polling numbers is heartening. It is, presumably, a swarm of single-issue, anti-stadium campaigners. But I can’t see a bigger cross bench – which seems inevitable under a Hare Clark system – doing anything to bring about greater stability.
IMO there should be a federal intervention into Tasmanian Labor if they fail to get more than 30% of the vote.
If after 11 years of Liberal government they remain an unelectable rump, that’s not acceptable.
@meher baba:
“But I’m still surprised that in Tasmania we have a constitution that can be impinged upon by other acts of parliament to the extent that it can no longer be understood as a stand-alone document”
Not just the state but also the Federal constitutions contain provisions which set something up subject to later legislation by Parliament.
For example section 71 of the Australian Constitution –
“Judicial power and Courts.
The judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, and in such other federal courts as the Parliament creates, and in such other courts as it invests with federal jurisdiction. The High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice, and so many other Justices, not less than two, as the Parliament prescribes.”
This is because constitutions are a mixture of setting down iron rules that future governments cannot break, and just setting up things as an initial position until such time as elected governments choose to change them.
Agreed with whoever said that this was a baffling move by Labor– the political equivalent of a mediocre three-point shooter getting on a hot streak and suddenly jacking one up from 30 feet with 15 seconds on the shot clock. Although at least basketball players know how many points a shot’s worth; based on the delusional narratives about outright majorities we were hearing in the early days, it’s fairly clear that Winter and company thought they could shoot a 10-pointer.
Rather like the federal Libs, ironically, they don’t seem to have developed any narrative– even internally– as to why the voters should prefer them to the current government. Couple that with candidates the public’s had no time to get to know and zero distance between the parties on the stadium, and you’re not really making even a credible outsider’s bid for power.
Absolutely amateur-hour stuff– the federal party would be more than justified in putting them in trusteeship, or whatever the legal equivalent is, for misgovernance.
Honestly, even as a Labor guy, it was pretty clear – Labor was very much the dog chasing the car – there really didn’t seem to be a plan ready.
Opposition 101 is you have to argue why the government needs to go, AND argue why you’ll be better, or at least, less of a risk.
Based on Winter’s performance in the No Confidence debate, and the little I’ve seen … I really cannot see how Labor would instill any confidence in voters who, correctly, think the Liberals have botched things. When Rockliff made the point from the outset of this of Labor forcing this election on an electorate who doesn’t want it, and can’t afford it … I said to a friend “yup, putting this election on Labor’s shoulders is an extremely, extremely smart way to start”.
Lots of discussion about the “anti stadium” vote. There is actually a “pro stadium” group of voters too and even though in the minority are as passionate about the issue. On pro stadium social media Labor are being portrayed as anti-stadium even though they are publicly for it. This is mainly due to the no confidence motion being within a month of a stadium vote in parliament. I believe they are caught in the same wedge as last election. Neither pro or anti stadium people trust them. Interesting too that the biggest resistance to the stadium is in Braddon which will deliver the biggest major party vote, mainly because they hate the Greens more than the stadium.
Arky: “This is because constitutions are a mixture of setting down iron rules that future governments cannot break, and just setting up things as an initial position until such time as elected governments choose to change them.”
——————————————————————————
I am well aware of how that works with the Federal Constitution. But the Constitution (State Employees) Act 1944 didn’t change something that was set up in the Tasmanian Constitution in a way that invited further refinement. It simply says, in effect, “never mind what the Constitution says about not being eligible for election if you hold an office of profit under the Crown, from this day forward it basically doesn’t apply to anyone except judges.”
It just seems to me to be a funny way to deal with the rules for electing people to Parliament who then get to make the law. I would have thought that such rules should be a little more embedded than they appear to be in Tasmania: eg, as they are in the Federal Constitution, where section 44 can only be modified through a referendum.
I think that the Federal Constitution is superior in this respect. I can’t help wondering if there is anything in the Tasmanian Constitution that would prevent, for instance, a government with a majority in both houses from passing a law that prevented people of a particular ethnicity or gender or sexual preference from running in an election. Possibly there isn’t, although it’s possible that common law would prevent this from happening.
(Of course, the likelihood of a Tasmanian government with a majority in both houses in the foreseeable future seems infintessimally small. Indeed, the likelihood of a government with a majority just in the House doesn’t seem very high. But still…)
@meher – section 32 of the Tasmanian Constitution literally begins with
“32. Office of profit
(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided,”
which does rather invite parliament to otherwise expressly provide.
Unlike the Australian Constitution, the state Constitution Acts are just that – Acts of Parliament, and as such State Parliaments can choose to override them without needing a referendum or anything out of the ordinary except where they are “entrenched” within their terms to require a more significant means of amendment. The Tasmanian Constitution is notoriously weak even for a state Constitution, only one part of the whole thing is “entrenched” against being amended by simple Act of Parliament.
Arky. We seem to be in violent agreement. It’s a weak constitution. That’s what I’m saying.
It seems the big Labor announcement today was bulk-billing clinics. No details about how they are going to make them a reality, which I doubt will be easy given the shortage of GPS in some areas.
Still, it’s the sort of policy that might win Labor some votes, so a cautious “well done” from me.
Update 6/7 ?
https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2025/07/what-could-we-really-draw-from-liberal.html What Can We Really Draw From The Liberal EMRS Poll? #politas
Key update
Definitely True 8
Probably True 1
Probably False 1
Definitely False 4
7 false keys needed for the opposition to win the popular vote.
D-Day on the brain. Corrected.
Oh no, the keys have made an appearance here as well…
The only keys that matter in Tassie are the ones opening the doors on new homes, maybe they can build some of them instead of the stadium
Bulk billing clinics are a good thing but they need to be staffed which can be the issue. Hopefully they happen whomever wins
Interesting that Kevin pours a little cold water on the ERMS polling, the Liberals using it to control the narrative? Makes the good call though, if Labor has polling showing them doing better they’d surely put it out there?
Hard Being Greensays:
Monday, July 7, 2025 at 7:33 am
“Oh no, the keys have made an appearance here as well…”
It’s really shows ya how much of an argument the anti-key posters have, when the only valid argument they do have is that they’re subjective, and apart from that, all they effectively do is make snide remarks and abuse me.
7News Tas last night revealed “exclusive” figures obtained from the EMRS polls showed Libs winning 15 or 16 seats, Labor 8-10, Greens 5, Independents/others 4-6.
Curious numbers indeed. Especially the high Liberal seat tally.
Seems totally out of line with Kevin Bonham’s analysis of the raw numbers, exclusively provided to The Mercury newspaper.
The poll might be partisan but there’s no merry story here for Labor when the other polls are brought in.
Just stopped off at Campbell town on my to Burnie. Middle of Lyons, a lot of blue signs, not so many red one. The Examiner has coverage of the Labor doctors clinic but a bigger spread for the Libs tough on youth crime. The letters to the editor focuses on whether people care if we’re going back to an election, no one cares.
MI: there are certainly more Liberal (and Green and Peter George) corflutes in the Kingborough area than Labor, although I’m not sure that’s a particularly good indicator of how things are going. And I’d be even less inclined to worry too much about the letters to the editor page of the Examiner.
However, one certainly gets no sense of a change of government being in the offing. I’m surprised that Labor hasn’t campaigned a little harder on the “time for a change after 11 years” theme, but perhaps they’re worried that many voters would think “we’d probably have given Labor a go next time, but why couldn’t you wait patiently for your turn?”
Re Lee’s post above, there’s nothing in the polling or the “vibe” to suggest that Labor will greatly improve on its 10 seats from 2024, while 16 seats for the Libs seems quite possible. A third seat in Franklin- taking Labor to 11 – is conceivable, but I’m expecting a fierce battle for the last two seats between Meg Brown, Peter George, David O’Byrne and one of Nick Street or Eric Abetz (please god let it be Abetz). To my eyes, Brown is the weakest candidate among that bunch, although she will benefit from Dean Winter presumably getting well over a quota.
PS I’m assuming that two Libs, Woodruff, and Winter and Munday are all shoo-ins. I don’t entirely understand the Munday cult: if she’s so fantastic, then why did her own faction pass over her for the Senate seat vacated by Anne Urquhart in favour of…what’s his name again? But Labor people appear to be convinced she’s a vote-winner. So I’m picking her to be in the top 5 candidates, while the low-profile Brown will have to fight it out until later in the count.
Arange the keys were designed for US Presidential elections not Hare-Clark in Tassie