East Metropolitan – WA 2017

Incumbent MLCs

  • Alanna Clohesy (Labor), since 2013
  • Donna Faragher (Liberal), since 2005
  • Alyssa Hayden (Liberal), since 2009
  • Helen Morton (Liberal), since 2005
  • Samantha Rowe (Labor), since 2013
  • Amber-Jade Sanderson (Labor), since 2013

Geography

ElectorateMarginElectorateMarginElectorateMargin
Armadale ALP 9.6% Kalamunda LIB 10.0% Mount Lawley LIB 9.0%
Bassendean ALP 5.1% Maylands ALP 2.9% Swan Hills LIB 3.5%
Belmont LIB 1.1% Midland ALP 0.4% Thornlie ALP 1.3%
Darling Range LIB 13.2% Mirrabooka ALP 4.6% West Swan LIB 0.8%
Forrestfield LIB 2.3% Morley LIB 4.7%

The East Metropolitan region covers the eastern third of the Perth metropolitan area.

The Liberal Party holds eight seats, and Labor hold six.

Nine seats (five Liberal, four Labor) are held by margins of less than 5%, making this area the most marginal part of the state.

You can click through to individual seat profiles on the table above or on the map below.

Redistribution
The East Metropolitan region expanded slightly west on its northern and southern fringes.

The seat of Midland has been redrawn into a notional Labor seat, while the seat of Gosnells has been renamed ‘Thornlie’.

History
East Metropolitan was created as a five-member electorate in 1989.

The ALP won three seats and the Liberal Party won two in 1989. This breakdown was the result at four of the five elections from 1989 to 2005. In 1996, the ALP lost their third seat to the Democrats, before regaining the seat in 2001.

In 2008, East Metropolitan gained a sixth seat, which was won by the Liberal Party. The Greens won a seat for the first time off the ALP. The 2008 election was the first time that the Liberal Party won more seats than Labor in the East.

In 2013, Labor regained their third seat at the expense of the Greens, while the Liberal Party held their three seats.

2013 result

GroupVotes%SwingQuotaSeatsRedist %Redist q.
Liberal 142,00446.8+9.13.2759346.83.2743
Labor 115,97938.2-2.92.6755338.22.6762
Greens 24,7568.2-3.50.571108.20.5745
Australian Christians8,1892.7-0.20.188902.70.1866
Shooters and Fishers4,9631.6+1.60.114501.60.1139
Family First3,6551.2-2.00.084301.20.0846
Others3,8821.3-1.10.089601.30.0896

Five out of six seats were decided on primary votes, with the Liberal Party winning three seats and Labor winning the remaining seat.

After the elimination of minor candidates, we return to the story with eight remaining candidates:

  • Sanderson (ALP) – 0.6708
  • Xamon (GRN) – 0.5716
  • Preuss (LIB) – 0.2700
  • Randall (AUC) – 0.2049
  • Georgiou (SFP) – 0.1159
  • Barrett (FFP) – 0.0862
  • Tu (IND) – 0.0388
  • Hoyer (IND) – 0.0381

The elimination of Hoyer favoured the Australian Christians, while Tu’s elimination favoured Family First, just pushing Barrett ahead of Georgiou:

  • Sanderson (ALP) – 0.6788
  • Xamon (GRN) – 0.5764
  • Preuss (LIB) – 0.2728
  • Randall (AUC) – 0.2314
  • Barrett (FFP) – 0.1186
  • Georgiou (SFP) – 0.1181

Shooters and Fishers preferences favoured the Australian Christians, and pushed them ahead of the Liberal candidate:

  • Sanderson (ALP) – 0.6817
  • Xamon (GRN) – 0.5793
  • Randall (AUC) – 0.3356
  • Preuss (LIB) – 0.2779
  • Barrett (FFP) – 0.1215

Family First preferences also pushed up the Christians candidate:

  • Sanderson (ALP) – 0.6857
  • Xamon (GRN) – 0.5819
  • Randall (AUC) – 0.4474
  • Preuss (LIB) – 0.2807

Liberal preferences pushed the Australian Christians ahead of the Greens:

  • Sanderson (ALP) – 0.6969
  • Randall (AUC) – 0.6946
  • Xamon (GRN) – 0.6036

Greens preferences gave a clear win to Labor’s Amber-Jade Sanderson:

  • Sanderson (ALP) – 1.2443
  • Randall (AUC) – 0.7015
  • Xamon (GRN) – 0.0493

Candidates

  • A – Michael Zakrzewski (Daylight Saving Party)
  • B – M Lottering (Independent)
  • C – Kelvin White (Micro Business Party)
  • D – Liberal
    1. Donna Faragher
    2. Alyssa Hayden
    3. Helen Morton
    4. Christopher Tan
    5. Raymond Gianoli
    6. Joanna Collins
  • E – Shawn Dhu (Independent)
  • F – Neil Hamilton (Liberal Democrats)
  • G – John Watt (Fluoride Free WA)
  • H – Simon Geddes (Family First)
  • I – Tim Clifford (Greens)
  • J – Charday Williams (Independent)
  • K – Charles Smith (One Nation)
  • L – Russell Goodrick (Julie Matheson for WA)
  • M – Talia Raphaely (Animal Justice)
  • N – Labor
    1. Alanna Clohesy
    2. Samantha Rowe
    3. Matthew Swinbourn
    4. Thomas French
    5. Reece Wheadon
    6. Lauren Cayoun
  • O – Paul Pitaro (Shooters, Fishers and Farmers)
  • P – Jayme Hewitt (Independent)
  • Q – Jamie Van Burgel (Australian Christians)
  • R – Rob Redfearn (Flux)
  • Ungrouped
    • Roger Cornish (Independent)

Preferences
Preferences have not yet been released.

Assessment
The Labor and Liberal parties each have two safe seats in this region.

It seems unlikely that the left will be able to win four seats – the combined Greens and Labor votes would need to increase by about 10.7% to gain a fourth quota between them.

It is possible that the Liberal Party’s third seat could be vulnerable to One Nation if they poll well.

The Greens will be looking to win back the third left seat from Labor. The gap at the key point between the two parties was less than one tenth of a quota, but if there is a general swing to Labor this might push them further into the lead.

Regional breakdown
The Liberal Party topped the primary vote in the East Metropolitan region, followed by Labor.

The Liberal vote was highest in the outer electorates, peaking in Kalamunda and Darling Range. The Liberal vote was lowest in Bassendean, closer to the city centre.

The Labor vote was higher in the more urban electorates, peaking at 46% in Mirrabooka and Armadale.

The Greens vote do better in a series of seats around Maylands, as well as in Kalamunda.

Results of the 2013 WA upper house election in the East Metropolitan region, by 2017 electorate

13 COMMENTS

  1. Can’t see this changing although the Greens could be a threat for one seat as well as One Nation, but the Greens would be more Likely.
    My Guess would be 3 Libs and 3 Labor

  2. I think there’s a decent chance of a minor party picking up one of these seats. The Liberals are definitely going to see a drop in their primary vote, but I can’t see too much of that going straight to Labor. Despite its name, a decent chunk of East Metropolitan is in semi-rural areas. Its probably also the least affluent of the three metropolitan regions in the Legislative Council. Based on the demographic profile, I would say One Nation are in with a decent shot, and maybe even the Shooters if they can get past One Nation on the primary. Greens seems unlikely.

  3. Important to note, however, that of a lot of the Barnett government’s big infrastructure projects have been in the inner eastern suburbs – new stadium, Gateway WA, and Midland redevelopments are all in East Metro. Whether that will translate to votes is really up to how the run their campaign (and how Labor run theirs).

  4. Post-election every lower house seat in the Region could be represented by Labor (they are at least all within the top 10 target seats) but likely upper house representation is 3 Labor & 3 Liberal. One of great quirks of multiple member electorates.

  5. A fourth left seat (probably Green) is perfectly possible – a 10% swing would be similar to 2001 or 2005, which weren’t massive majorities. Same goes for South Metro. It’s something Labor should be trying for, thanks to the malapportioned upper house. Hell will freeze over before Agricultural region elects less than 4 members from the right, so anything that balances that out helps ALP+Grn closer to a majority. At the very least, it’s one less random preference harvester to rely on.

    Interesting little thought bubble here. I’ve always liked a 4*9 model for the upper house – merge the three non-Perth regions into one, keep the existing Perth ones. (About a quarter of WA’s population lives outside Perth, so it works quite neatly.) If a few randoms snuck in on the GTV lottery, I wonder if they could be convinced to vote for something like that, considering the smaller quota makes it more likely for them to get elected in the future.

  6. While a 4×9 would be a fairer division of the seats on a per-vote basis, I’d have to really consider that all three of the Metro regions have way more in common than any of the regional regions have with each other.

    Possibly you could divide the Agricultural region into two split between M+P and SW, and retain the three Metro regions, and have each with seven reps (so one less MLC than today). That would have to be Roe and Central Wheatbelt into SW and Geraldton and Moore into M+P. Something seems wrong though about a region including the Kimberley and still reaching the Perth Metro area.

    However the net effect (moving three country MLCs to the city, and abolishing a fourth) is not going to happen.

  7. I just ran a scenario that sees the Australian Christians take a seat in this region.

    If they can hold their vote from last time, they might be able to preference-surf all the way, collecting preferences from the Shooters, most of the Druery parties once their nominated recipient (Fluoride Free) goes out, and then One Nation.

    If that combo can put them ahead of the Greens, the Greens preferences will elect Labor’s #3 with a big enough Labor overflow to push the Christians past the Liberals for the final seat.

    The scenario also requires the Liberal vote to be in a sweet spot – high enough for their #3 to be ahead of the Greens when it gets down to 4 candidates for 2 spots, but low enough to be overtaken by the Christians.

  8. With the unexpectedly high swing to the WA Labor Party, which has led to a prediction of the Labor Party winning possibly 41 out of the 59 seats of the lower house of the state parliament, and, with the WA Labor Party and the WA Greens having been given grounds and evidence to challenge in the Court of Disputed Returns, every upper house ballot paper where an above the line vote is cast for Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party, and, depending on whether the WA Labor Party and the WA Greens, so challenge all of those votes in the Court of Disputed Returns, the election results for each upper house region are completely unpredictable.

  9. Because Pauline Hanson personally broke the election rules by giving published assurances that by just marking a one above the line for her party, on the upper house ballot papers, would not be preferencing the Liberal Party ahead of the Labor Party, which caused voters to so vote for her party in both houses, on the basis of that personal assurance, which contradicts the voting tickets for her party for each of the upper house regions.

    It is now a matter for both the Greens Party and the Labor Party, to decide whether they want to challenge the ballot papers so marked, or, whether they want to knowingly allow rival candidates to be elected to the upper house, in contravention of the Electoral Act.

    It is not that they will definitely challenge the election outcome – that is their choice, but, I believe that they could successfully challenge the election outcome for the upper house, on that basis, which could lead to a change to the election outcome for the upper house, which could result in the Labor Party and the Greens party, together, having a majority in the upper house, and, removing some of the other parties from the upper house.

    We will have to wait and see what they do about the contraventions of the Electoral Act by Pauline Hanson.

  10. And, there is the additional aspect of the effect on the early votes, which I believe are yet to be counted, as the assurances given by Pauline Hanson, were given during the early voting period, and, apparently, at least 11% of the votes cast, were cast early, with 20,000 votes apparently being expected to be cast on the Friday that was the day immediately before the polling day.

    So, the early votes are also affected by the published assurances given by Pauline Hanson, that votes cast on the upper house ballot papers, by marking just a one above the line, for her party, would not be preferencing the Liberal Party ahead of the Labor Party.

    So, if the early votes are yet to be counted, and, if they are found to contain upper house ballot papers marked with just a one above the line, then those, of the expected 180,000 early votes expected to have been cast, in addition to upper house ballot papers so marked on the polling day, could have a significant effect on the election outcome, for the upper house, should the Greens and/or Labor Party candidates, choose to challenge those ballot papers in the Court of Disputed Returns.

    And, thus, even moreso, is the election outcome for the upper house, unpredictable, without knowing either what the Greens and Labor parties intend to do about this, or, should they challenge the results in the Court of Disputed Returns, what would be the result of such challenge(s).

    “We live in interesting times”…

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here