Melbourne – Australia 2013

GRN vs ALP 5.8%

Incumbent MP
Adam Bandt, since 2010.

Map of Melbourne’s 2010 and 2013 boundaries. 2010 boundaries appear as red line, 2013 boundaries appear as white area. Click to enlarge.
Map of Melbourne’s 2010 and 2013 boundaries. 2010 boundaries appear as red line, 2013 boundaries appear as white area. Click to enlarge.

Geography
Central Melbourne. Melbourne covers the Melbourne CBD, as well as the inner city suburbs of North Melbourne, Parkville, Carlton, Docklands, Abbotsford, Fitzroy, Ascot Vale, Kensington, Richmond and East Melbourne. The seat covers all of the City of Melbourne north of the Yarra River, as well as a majority of the City of Yarra and part of Moonee Valley council area.

Redistribution
Melbourne contracted to a smaller area, losing northeastern parts of the seat. Melbourne gained no extra areas, but lost areas north of Park Street around Brunswick and Fitzroy to Wills, and losing the northeastern finger of the City of Yarra to Batman.

History
Melbourne is an original Federation seat, and has been held by the ALP for over one hundred years.

The seat was first won by Malcolm McEacharn, the former Mayor of Melbourne, who joined the Protectionist Party. Although McEacharn had defeated his Labor opponent William Maloney with over 60% of the vote in 1901, the 1903 election saw McEacharn only defeat Maloney by 77 votes, and the result was declared void after allegations that the result was tainted.

Maloney defeated McEacharn at the following by-election in 1904, and the ALP have held Melbourne ever since. Maloney polled over 60% at the 1906 election, and never polled less than 60% as he held the seat right through to 1940. Indeed, Maloney was elected unopposed at two elections. Maloney retired in 1940 but died before the 1940 election. He never held a frontbench role, and holds the record for the longest term of service without serving as a frontbencher.

The seat was won in 1940 by Arthur Calwell. Calwell held the seat for thirty-two years. He served as Minister for Immigration in Ben Chifley’s government from 1945 to 1949. He served as HV Evatt’s Deputy Leader from 1951 until 1960, when he became Leader of the Opposition.

Calwell led the ALP into three federal elections. The ALP was defeated by a slim margin at the 1961 election, but suffered a larger defeat in 1963 and a solid Liberal landslide in 1966. Calwell was replaced as Leader by Gough Whitlam in 1967 and Calwell retired in 1972. At no time did the seat of Melbourne come under any serious danger of being lost.

The seat was won in 1972 by Ted Innes, who held the seat until 1983.

He was succeeded by Gerry Hand, who served as a federal minister from 1987 until his retirement at the 1993 election.

The seat was won in 1993 by Lindsay Tanner. Tanner became a frontbencher following the defeat of the Labor government in 1996, and served on the Labor frontbench right until the election of the Rudd government, and served as Finance Minister in the first term of the Labor government.

The seat of Melbourne had been considered a safe Labor seat for over a century, but at the 2007 election the Greens overtook the Liberals on preferences and came second, and the two-candidate-preferred vote saw the ALP’s margin cut to 4.7%.

In 2010, Tanner retired, and his seat was won by the Greens’ Adam Bandt, who had first run for the seat in 2007.

Candidates

  • Anthony Main
  • Sean Armistead (Liberal)
  • Kate Borland (Independent)
  • Noelle Walker (Family First)
  • Adam Bandt (Greens)
  • Cath Bowtell (Labor)
  • Martin Vrbnjak (Palmer United Party)
  • Michael Bayliss (Stable Population Party)
  • Michael Murphy (Democratic Labour Party)
  • Nyree Walshe (Animal Justice Party)
  • Josh Davidson (Bullet Train For Australia)
  • Joyce Mei Lin Khoo (Rise Up Australia)
  • Royston Wilding (Secular Party)
  • James Mangisi (Sex Party)
  • Frazer Kirkman (Independent)
  • Paul Cummins (Australian Independents)

Assessment
Melbourne is the first seat ever won by the Greens in the House of Representatives at a general election.

In 2010, the Greens achieved a record-high vote, but relied on Liberal preferences to overtake the Labor candidate and win.

The Liberal Party decided to preference Labor ahead of the Greens in the Labor/Greens marginal seats that overlap with Melbourne at the 2010 state election, and this saw no Greens elected despite a collapse in the Labor vote.

In the current circumstances, Bandt is likely to see an increase in his primary vote. He should benefit from the usual ‘sophmore surge’. His campaign is very effective at community organising and he has been prominent in the community. His role in the hung parliament and his role as Deputy Leader of the Greens have increased his profile. While the Greens have gone backwards in some polls, they have not performed badly in comparison to the ALP.

If Bandt had gained Liberal preferences, he would have won comfortably, if not by a huge margin. With Liberal preferences flowing to Labor, it will be more difficult, but it is not inconceivable that the swing to the Greens on primary votes could be enough to overcome this hurdle.

2010 result

Candidate Party Votes % Swing
Cath Bowtell ALP 34,022 38.09 -11.4
Adam Bandt GRN 32,308 36.17 +13.37
Simon Olsen LIB 18,760 21.00 -2.49
Joel Murray SXP 1,633 1.83 +1.83
Georgia Pearson FF 1,389 1.55 +0.55
Penelope Green SEC 613 0.69 +0.69
David Collyer DEM 602 0.67 -0.76

2010 two-candidate-preferred result

Candidate Party Votes % Swing
Adam Bandt GRN 50,059 56.04 +10.75
Cath Bowtell ALP 39,268 43.96 -10.75
Polling places in Melbourne at the 2010 federal election. Central in blue, North-East in green, South-East in red, West in orange. Click to enlarge.
Polling places in Melbourne at the 2010 federal election. Central in blue, North-East in green, South-East in red, West in orange. Click to enlarge.

Booth breakdown
Booths have been divided into four areas. Booths around Ascot Vale and Kensington have been grouped as West. Fitzroy, Carlton and Abbotsford are grouped as North-East. East Melbourne and Richmond are grouped as South-East. Booths close to the Melbourne CBD are grouped as Central.

The Greens won a majority of the vote in three out of four areas, varying from 55.7% in the south-east, to 58.9% in the centre. The Labor candidate won a narrow 50.7% majority in the west.

The Liberal candidate came third, polling between 15.1% in the north-east and 26.3% in the south-east.

Voter group LIB % GRN 2CP % Total votes % of ordinary votes
North-East 15.09 57.93 18,686 34.09
South-East 26.30 55.72 13,768 25.12
West 20.32 49.27 12,107 22.09
Central 22.49 58.90 10,249 18.70
Other votes 24.08 56.58 26,211
Two-candidate-preferred votes in Melbourne at the 2010 federal election.
Two-candidate-preferred votes in Melbourne at the 2010 federal election.
Liberal primary votes in Melbourne at the 2010 federal election.
Liberal primary votes in Melbourne at the 2010 federal election.

108 COMMENTS

  1. How can Bandt have any credibility going on about how evil labor and liberals are for preferencing eachother here when he was elected purely on liberal preferences. He is a hypocrite on the way out

  2. All candidates who don’t gain over 50% 1st pref go to receiving preferences by virtue of our voting system.

    What you seem to be basically saying is that anyone who wasn’t elected by 1st preference is a hypocrite as they received prefs from other candidates to get them over the 50% mark. In most elections that would have been around 75% of those elected (that figure is a guess on my part). You can call Bandt a hypocrite for other reasons but being elected on prefs is just plain normal in our system.

  3. That’s absoloute crap Yappo. I was saying he is a hypocrite to criticise the idea of labor being elected in Melbourne on liberal preferences when he himself was elected on liberal preferences.

  4. Yes fair enough that you did. I should have read what you wrote a few more times as I misunderstood it – perhaps I need to check my eyes! I would agree with you on the hypocrisy front if that is what Bandt is saying.

  7. I’ve been told internal Labor polling puts Bandt’s primary vote at about 42%. I think that won’t be enough and the ALP will pick up this seat.

  10. I think this will help Bandt more than hinder. At the end of the day, 74% of the population voted for a party on the left last election, and I think there’ll be a strong desire to rebel against Tony Abbott.

  11. DB, I’d reckon 42% would be getting close to good enough for Bandt, assuming a fall in Labor’s primary vote.

    If Labor only poll low-mid 30’s in the primary vote, there’d be enough leaked Liberal preferences to get Bandt over the line.

  12. No big surprise in the libs announcement. Bandt’s campaign team would have factored the preference deal into their strategy a very long time ago.

    Agreed Shazzadude, Tony is disliked with a passion in Melbs.

    Nice piece of stencil art on Brunswick St at the moment of Abbott with an evil leprechaun sitting on his shoulder…

  13. MDM, would need a primary vote for the Liberals at probably 26%. I’m not sure that would happen in this seat. Could be line ball.

  14. DB – by my calculations, if we assume that the minors, overall, split preferences 50/50 (not each of them, but on average between them), then Bandt will only need about 6% from Liberal preferences. At 21% Liberal vote, 6% represents about 35% leakage. That’s around the number seen in the Victorian state election, when Liberals put Greens last.

  18. How much Melbourne media is genuinely interested in politics at the moment? A certain northern suburb of that city got a massive front page in the West the other day… I’d hate to see the Age or Herald Sun. I’m guessing they’re all ESSENDON-ESSENDON-ESSENDON-otherstuff-ESSENDON?

  19. BoP – yep. I wouldn’t be surprised if on September 8 the front page is “Collingwood out of finals, Freo march on” (or the like).

  20. What odds that the Green ‘Adam Bandt will win Melbourne’ bravado is all bluster to cover a falling vote and the vote actually goes down in line with national trends?

  22. The Liberal’s decision about preferences has at least focused attention on how the Greens ever got a lower house seat in the first place. A lot of people never understood that Adam Bandt was a creation of the Liberals, he was gifted Melbourne by them. That won’t happen this time… simply because it suits the Liberals. This time… They know they are in a strong enough position to make a positive out of a purely tactical decision.

    Rest assured, the Libs will never be dependent of Greens prefs in the same way Labor is.

    In many respects their mutual interests have coincided throughout the last decade The Greens want to destroy Labor and replace it as the party of the left. The Liberals simply want to destroy Labor. They really should stop sniping at one another. They have too much in common.

  23. The difference, Mandrake, is that the Greens would rather be the left party with Labor as the right party. The Greens generally won’t preference the Liberals because they share a lot more in common with Labor in terms of ideology.

    And the reason why the Liberals are talking big about not preferencing the Greens is because they know that the Greens aren’t going to pick up a seat off their preferences anyway, and they’re going to get Melbourne without Liberal preferences (Greens will have put all of their resources into that one seat to keep it, and sophomore surge will help, too). It’s entirely a PR move by the Liberals, nothing tactical about it – after all, Liberal preferences would only matter in places where the Liberals aren’t in the 2CP, and it’s just Labor vs Greens, in which case either winner is opposition to the Liberals. They preferenced the Greens to mess with Labor in the last election, and now that their preferencing won’t make a difference, they’re refusing to preference the Greens because it lets them sound tough.

  26. Well having just looked at the ReachTEL figures, if Bandt is at 33.5% and Bowtell at 33.8% ( ALP 54-46 2PP) then that is quite a drop from 2010 for the Greens.

    One has to think that there will be a high leakage to the Greens by LIB voters but if that 33.5% is correct it won’t be enough.

  27. Is 54-46 fairly comfortably? In any case, I think that Bandt needs 40% to win here.

    What does this say about the Galaxy poll that the Greens commissioned? Seems increasingly sketchy.

  28. Surprised more noise not been made about this seat.

    Surprised also that the ALP are favourites, but that seems to only be me.

  29. Whether they’re favourites depends on which poll you look at. Some have Labor regaining it strongly, others have the Greens maintaining their hold through a significant swing.

    Specifically, a Galaxy poll (released in early August) had Bandt’s primary vote at 48%, with the Liberals staying at 21% and Labor down to 29% (from 38% in 2010) and little support for other candidates (although “other” support is likely to be bigger now, since the other candidates will be active and thus capture some of the vote). This had Bandt at 66% 2CP based on 2010 preference flows… this was before Abbott’s declaration that he would put Greens last in every seat (which really meant “below Labor”, since in most cases they put One Nation last). On 2013 preference, this poll would see Bandt re-elected, but by a slim margin (based on around 10-20% defection rate).

    A ReachTel poll in mid-August had Greens on 33.5% to Labor’s 33.8%, with Liberals on 22.6%. On this, using 2013 preferences, Labor would win handsomely.

    There is little doubt that one of the two is just plain wrong, and by a huge margin. My instinct is to trust the well-established polling company, Galaxy, over the unproven newcomer, ReachTel, and say that Bandt is probably close to getting 50% primary vote.

  30. It would be nice to get another pollster (I’m looking at you, Newspoll), but even a follow-up Galaxy would suffice.

  31. The Galaxy poll early on was commissioned by the Greens and so prima facile should be viewed with some scepticism I think.

    But when I mentioned favouritism I was talking primarily about the betting markets and general media commentary, both of which are treating Melbourne as a somewhat trivial ALP pickup.

  32. For Bandt to hold on, Greens need to poll around 5 points or more ahead of Labor. Possible assuming a sophmore surge and a general swing away from Labor.

  33. Galaxy asked for votes per candidate Reachtel asked for party. My guess would be that Bandt is attracting Labor votes so Reachtel understates his support but Galaxy probably overstates. it’s like the National MP in South Australia Karlelne Maywald who always polled on election day well above the core national party in her seat.

  34. Apparently the bandt campaign team doorknocked 10,555 houses over the weekend. Add that number to the thousands from previous weeks and this is looking like one incredible campaign effort

  35. I’m sure Rudd did Bowtell a huge favour with his response on the issue of gay marriage overnight. Had been hopeful of a Greens retain here, but think it’s significantly less likely now.

  36. z. Yep, it’s been a huge ground campaign by both Labor and the Greens. I’ve been doorknocked three times (twice by Labor, once by Green). I’ve even seen Sex Party doorknockers up the road.

  37. P6 of The Age today is reporting that a Galaxy poll in Melbourne is point to the Greens securing a 4% increase in their primary vote and circa 40% of Lib preferences. Greens 40%, ALP 30%, Libs 26% resulting in a two party preferred 54/46 in favour of Bandt.

  39. I got a letter from Mr Bandt yesterday claiming that there was a ‘Labor-Liberal preference deal’ to unseat him. The most obvious reading (and no doubt intended inference) was that the deal was in Melbourne, i.e that Bowtell was preferencing the Libs above him, which is of course untrue. It was a rather dishonestly worded letter, though of course legally defensible because Labor is preferencing the Libs above the Nats in the utterly unrelated seat of Mallee.

  41. I saw Cath Bowtell and Anthony Albanese on SKY News today and Cath Bowtell looks a very strong candidate with her own views.

    Her view on the PNG Dentention Centre was completely opposite to Labor’s she came across intelligent and understanding of the electorate.

    Adam Bandt is in for a fight, a great seat to watch come Saturday night. Liberal Preferences will be the key.

  43. I’m tipping Bandt to hold. Rudd’s PNG solution on boat people probably saved him, as the Greens’ vote skyrocketed in Victoria after that. And it’s obvious that Liberal voters in inner Melbourne don’t detest the Greens as much as their leaders do. Mind you, if they really wanted to give their leaders a good comeuppance over putting the Greens last, they’d vote against the Liberals completely. Bandt now looks like a little bloke being bullied by politicial heavies – much like Windsor was when he first stood for New England in 2001. These are my reasons for tipping Bandt to make it back.

  44. Seat polling is fraught with peril, the tiny sample sizes of only 400 respondents means that it doesn’t take much for the those conducting the poll to hit a batch of respondents that favour one party or the other.

    State-wide polling provides a stronger indication of likely results in my opinion. I’m hopeful, given the steady improvement in Greens numbers since the beginning of the campaign, that Adam Bandt will retain the seat.

  45. Antony Green seemed to think Melbourne will be lost to the Greens in a segment he did today. Not an easy seat to read with its atypical demographic, will be an interesting one to watch tomorrow.

  47. In a largely celebratory piece, this was reported by Crikey:

    “The Greens play the game hard — volunteers had earlier donned Liberal blue shirts on the booths and circulated how-to-vote cards to encourage Docklands Tories to buck the Coalition’s official directive to go to Labor first.”

    Think about that… “volunteers” posed as someone they are not and committed what amounts to electoral fraud by distributing false election material.

    Apart from the huge amount of money and party resources that went into getting one lonely, powerless bank bencher in the lower house, the Greens have proved once and for all that they are just another grubby political party.

    Should weI be impressed?

  48. Pull your head in would you? According to your own quote, they piggy backed off the Lib’s branding to get attention of likely Liberal voters, then distributed a card suggesting they change their mind to the Greens.

    That’s a million miles from false impersonation and distribution of fraudulent HTV cards as you claim.

  49. “Pull my head in”? No I won’t, propmike. It Sydney (where I live) the Greens didn’t use those dubious tactics. In their heartland inner city seats, their vote fell in line with the national average decline – 3% or greater.

  50. Coco Bunter: “Think about that… “volunteers” posed as someone they are not and committed what amounts to electoral fraud by distributing false election material.”
    It is generally considered poor form to quote without a ref or a direct link as no one can check the context or veracity. Yes the Greens are just another political party but mostly everything else you have written appears very tenuous.

    It seems to me that you are biasedly reading more into this than what is written. If this asserted ‘conduct amounting to electoral fraud’ had of taken place don’t you think that the ALP would have advised the world that a complaint will be lodged? Esp. given earlier complaints. Where in the para quoted does it say anything about “distributing false election material”?

    Rundle’s piece in Crikey gives a description which gives quite a different light to the one you seem to be spinning out of nothing,
    “The Greens were everywhere. Indeed, they’d peeled off a bunch of people to hand out “blue green” cards, asking Libs to preference Green to keep an independent voice. Greens of old had been pressed into service for this, rung up at 6am and ordered to “dress Liberal”. Several had to be dressed by their partners, like meat puppets. ”
    http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/09/09/rundle-hunting-despair-futile-at-adams-peoples-party/

    Perhaps the reality is;
    1) Some Green helpers were asked to dress conservative to appeal to apparent Liberal voters,
    2) They gave out “blue-green” how to vote cards pleading Libs to pref the Greens before the ALP

    Think about it. The Greens and the ALP have been at each others throats to win this seat. Complaints were previously lodged with the AEC, and not upheld. IF, Greens helpers were wearing official LIb shirts and handing out how to vote cards with LIb branding on it, then WITHOUT A DOUBT the ALP would have jumped on such – also the Libs – , made a big media stink and lodged a complaint with the AEC. A complaint which would quite rightly be upheld.

    Yet none of that has occurred except in some fantasy unless everyone is keeping mum about it. More likely, it didn’t happen in the unsubstantiated manner that you are asserting.

    If there is some evidence of foul play it should have some to light by now.

« Older Comments Newer Comments »

Comments are closed.