Wannon – Australia 2013

LIB 5.7%

Incumbent MP
Dan Tehan, since 2010.

Map of Wannon's 2010 and 2013 boundaries. 2013 boundaries shown as white area, 2010 boundaries shown as red lines. Click to enlarge.
Map of Wannon’s 2010 and 2013 boundaries. 2013 boundaries shown as white area, 2010 boundaries shown as red lines. Click to enlarge.

South-western Victoria. Wannon covers the southwestern corner of Victoria, including Warrnambool, Portland, Ararat and Hamilton. Wannon covers Pyrenees, Ararat, Corangamite, Central Goldfields, Glenelg, Moyne, Southern Grampians and Warrnambool council areas.

Wannon previously covered part of the Northern Grampians council area, which was transferred to Mallee. Wannon gained the Central Goldfields council area from Bendigo. This reduced the Liberal margin from 7.3% to 5.7%.

Wannon is an original federation seat, having been created for the 1901 election. It has mainly been held by the Liberal Party and its predecessors, with the exception of a number of short periods when it was held by the ALP, with the ALP last holding the seat up to the 1955 election.

Wannon was first won in 1901 by Free Trade candidate Samuel Cooke. Cooke was a former minister in the Victorian colonial government, and he held the seat for one term before heading overseas in 1903.

He was succeeded in 1903 by another Free Trader, Arthur Robinson, who was a former colonial/state MP in the Victorian Parliament. Robinson held the seat for one term, losing in 1906. He went on to return to the Victorian Parliament and serve as a state minister.

The ALP’s John McDougall won Wannon off Robinson in 1906, campaigning against Robinson’s anti-union views. McDougall was re-elected in 1910, but lost in 1913, and failed to return to the House of Representatives in other seats at the 1914 election, a 1915 by-election and the 1917 election.

McDougall was replaced in 1913 by Liberal candidate Arthur Rodgers. Rodgers served as a minister in the Hughes government from 1920 to 1922 He held the seat until the 1922 election, when he lost to the ALP’s John McNeill. Rodgers won the seat back in 1925, before again losing to McNeill in 1929. McNeill served as a minister in the Scullin government, before losing the seat yet again in 1931.

The United Australia Party’s Thomas Scholfield won the seat in 1931, and held it until 1940, when he lost to the ALP’s Donald McLeod. McLeod held the seat for most of the next decade, losing it in 1949 to the Liberal Party’s Daniel Mackinnon.

Mackinnon only held the seat for one term, with McLeod regaining the seat in 1951. Mackinnon went on to win the neighbouring seat of Corangamite in a 1953 by-election, and held it until 1966.

At the 1954 election, McLeod was challenged by Liberal candidate Malcolm Fraser. McLeod defeated Fraser with a 17-vote margin.

In 1955, McLeod retired, and Fraser won the seat with a comfortable margin.

Fraser was a right-winger within the Liberal Party, and sat on the backbenches for a decade before joining the ministry in 1966. He served first as Minister for the Army, then Minister for Education and Science, and then Minister for Defence.

In 1971, he resigned from the ministry in protest at John Gorton’s interference in his portfolio, triggering a party room vote which saw a tied vote, and John Gorton was replaced as Prime Minister by William McMahon.

Fraser served as a minister in the McMahon government and on the opposition frontbench in the first term of the Whitlam government. After Billy Snedden’s loss in 1974 Fraser challenged for the leadership. Under Fraser’s leadership, the Liberal Party obstructed Gough Whitlam’s government in the Senate, which eventually led to Whitlam being dismissed by the Governor-General in late 1975, and Fraser became Prime Minister.

Fraser won the 1975, 1977 and 1980 elections, but lost in 1983, and retired from Parliament shortly after.

The 1983 by-election was won by David Hawker, also of the Liberal Party. Hawker served as an opposition whip from 1989 to 1990 and as a frontbencher from 1990 to 1993, and again as a whip until the 1996 election.

Hawker served as a backbencher in the Howard government from 1996 until the 2004 election. Hawker was elected Speaker of the House of Representatives after the 2004 election, and served in the role until the 2007 election.

Hawker retired in 2010, and the seat was won by Dan Tehan.


  • Therese Corbett (Australian Christians)
  • Michael Barling (Labor)
  • Tim Emanuelle (Greens)
  • Chris Johnson (Sex Party)
  • Craig Haberfield (Family First)
  • Dan Tehan (Liberal)
  • Bradley Ian Ferguson (Palmer United Party)

Wannon should be safely retained by the Liberal Party at the upcoming election.

2010 result

Dan TehanLIB38,81346.62-5.94
Judith McNamaraALP24,50229.43-6.74
Lisa OwenGRN5,0166.03-0.95
James PurcellIND4,6525.59+5.59
Katrina RainsfordIND4,0664.88+4.88
Ralph LeuttonIND2,5823.10+3.10
Jahzeel ConcepcionFF1,7952.16-2.13
Allan MarshIND1,0801.30+1.30
Robert O’BrienIND7450.89+0.89

2010 two-candidate-preferred result

Dan TehanLIB47,69757.29-0.18
Judith McNamaraALP35,55442.71+0.18
Polling places in Wannon at the 2010 federal election. Corangamite in red, Glenelg in pink, Moyne in blue, North-East in green, Southern Grampians in yellow, Warrnambool in orange. Click to enlarge.
Polling places in Wannon at the 2010 federal election. Corangamite in red, Glenelg in pink, Moyne in blue, North-East in green, Southern Grampians in yellow, Warrnambool in orange. Click to enlarge.

Booth breakdown
Booths have been divided into six areas. The three local government areas in the north-east of the seat have been grouped together. Polling places in the other five local government areas have been grouped along council boundaries.

The Liberal Party won a majority in five of the areas, varying from 53.7% in Glenelg to 68.4% in Corangamite. The ALP won a 54.7% majority in the north-east.

Voter groupLIB 2PP %Total votes% of ordinary votes
Southern Grampians58.797,92712.83
Other votes58.1824,135
Two-party-preferred votes in Wannon at the 2010 federal election.
Two-party-preferred votes in Wannon at the 2010 federal election.
Two-party-preferred votes in Warrnambool at the 2010 federal election.
Two-party-preferred votes in Warrnambool at the 2010 federal election.


  1. Preference deals have been done,
    interesting to see the differences between the A.L.P and the liberal party’s !

  2. Michael Barling A.L.P candidate says 9200 families in Wannon will lose there school kids Bonus if Dan Tehan gets re-elected ! thats many families that will have to find extra cash to get the kids a good education!

  3. True, Pablo22 but every voter won’t have to pay a carbon tax or whatever they call it if Dan Tehan is elected so it probably cancels itself out……….Don’t think it a big enough factor to influence Wannon…….

  4. I really wish both politicians and their supporters would stop attacking their opponents, and focus more on what they’ll actually do, or what their chosen party will do.

    And to be clear, things like “will stop the carbon tax” does not qualify as something that the Liberals will “actually do” – it’s a negative policy, of ending something, not a positive policy. If the Liberals want to stop the carbon tax (or rather, the ETS – which is NOT a tax, because the government does not actually get the money from it), fine, but that’s a negative policy, I want politicians focusing on positive policies. I blame Labor just as much by the way – it’s just that their focus has been more negative politics rather than negative policy.

  5. Thats just the name of the game that is politics Glen. You have to explain why your policy is good and why you think there’s is bad….. I don’t see anything wrong with examining the alternative and critisising it if it isn’t your policy and you don’t believe it. Stop the carbon tax for example the Liberals would say is assisting in dropping power prices etc giving people more money to spend in the economy. Can’t see that being negative. Even the PM said there was no mandate for it…..

  6. Cyril – I have no problem with scrutiny of the opposition’s policies. I have a problem with attacks – there’s a difference between “Tony Abbott’s pledge not to cut funding to implies that he will be cutting funding in other fields such as , and we worry that this will have a negative impact should he be allowed to implement his plans” and “Tony Abbott is going to cut, cut, and cut, and the people of Australia should be scared of his policies.”

    Or between “Kevin Rudd has a policy of sending boat arrivals to Nauru and PNG, which is both expensive and inhumane and will not significantly impact boat arrival numbers based on ” and “Kevin Rudd wants to weaken your borders with his chaotic PNG “solution” and we’ll be having a flood of boats coming because of it.”

    As for the “stop the carbon tax”, it is a negative policy – it’s a “here’s what government isn’t going to do”. I’m all for having such policies (although I disagree with the specific idea of dropping the ETS, at least until a real alternative is proposed, and Abbott’s plan isn’t an alternative)… but the job of candidates in an election is to sell to people what they ARE going to do for them, not what they’re going to stop doing. The fact that “stop the carbon tax” is one of the central pillars of his election campaign, that he calls the election a “referendum on the carbon tax” (not that he would accept the carbon tax as right for the country if he loses…), is the problem.

  7. Minor correction – I meant “scrutiny of the opponent’s policies”, not opposition’s policies. Although I do have a problem with the media not scrutinising the opposition’s policies, it’s not the point of my comment.

  8. The carbon tax is (hopefully soon, was) a con Glen, sorry to say….. Everyone knows it including the ALP. To get rid of bad policy is not negative but responsible. The ETS had its chance and failed. This whole climate change policy has contributed to 2 opposition leaders and 2 prime ministers falling. Abbott is the only one still standing and about ready to become PM barring a huge change in this campaign. Its pretty clear ‘voter land’ doesn’t like it so to rid it is a good policy. As for the boats well we could argue about them all day but ‘voter land’ clearly doesn’t like them either and Rudd has identified this. I mean I don’t expect too much from goverments, keep us safe, tax us low, provide basic services and keep out of our lives ……..

  9. Cyril, I’m done discussing it with you. You have clearly neither understood my point made in my previous posts about attacks vs scrutiny, nor actually thought about what is going on regarding the “carbon tax”.

    And by the way, the ETS couldn’t possibly have “had its chance and failed”, because even the carbon tax, which wasn’t an ETS, has only been going for a little over a year. And numbers are already showing a slowing of emissions. Now, if you can’t positively contribute, I have no interest in discussing things.

  10. And as usual for partisan hacks, you’ve declared a win just because someone else is done talking. Guess what – it’s not about winning an argument, it’s about thoughtful and considered debating to find the best solution.

    Your attitude is PRECISELY what is wrong with politics.

  11. Stick to the debate Glen or you may be seen as been hypocritical. I just think the whole implementation of climate change taxes is a fraud and to little or no avail…..Thats an idea I and many others hold… Is that allowed or will you get upset about a widely held view. Don`t get so uptight you will burst an artery…..

  12. I’m not sure if you’ve noticed, cyril, but I haven’t been debating the carbon tax issue. I’ve been arguing against the attack of people and parties rather than positively discussing issues and seeking understanding and scrutiny. You haven’t been debating the carbon tax issue, either – you’ve been asserting your opinion that it is a bad thing without really providing any backup justification. The only part I’ve played in that particular argument put forward by you is to poke holes in your reasoning – and I did it only as an aside, because it wasn’t the debate I wanted to have.

    Indeed, when I saw you were posting again about carbon tax rather than addressing my actual point, I only skimmed your comment – I saw a statement that I knew was false based on the very definition of terms, and responded solely to that.

    If you want a debate about specific policies, this isn’t the place for it – at the very least, move it to the general “Day Fourteen” thread (or any equivalent that might pop up over the next day or so). I’m more than happy to debate the carbon tax (or even the general best approach to government) if you’re open to being thoughtful and considerate rather than resorting to attack and rhetoric.

  13. Carbon tax was just one example of policy area Glen which is wide ranging in the electroate. If you can`t attack policy you don`t think is good then the democratic process fails. It isn`t all ring ringa rosie and group hugs out there. Discussion got here with the school kids bonus comment affecting 9000 plus families in wannon and I rightfully stated that carbon tax abolishment will affect everyone……We can disagree and thats great….in some places you can’t……If a few words flying around is the worst thing that happens then so be it.

  14. I’m having trouble figuring out whether you’re ignoring what I actually say, are wilfully ignorant of my point, or honestly don’t understand my point.

  15. Don’t trouble yourself too much Glen. You might forget about Wannon and the issues. Wouldn’t want that to happen…….

  16. School Kids Bonus – what a hoax. The money had to come from somewhere, So lets tax or borrow money and then give it back as a “Bonus”. A proportion of the total cost of the SKB would go to admin costs. Great use of OUR taxes.

    How about a government that just taxes less, and lets us spend our money our way.

  17. Simple, Rockman – the whole point of the Australian government is to improve Australia by essentially working together, with people providing funding based on their capability to help. It’s the counterpoint to capitalism via business, making sure that we have proper balance.

    Or would you suggest that people should only be able to give their children a proper education, proper healthcare, etc, if they make enough money? It’s a nice dream that everyone can just spend their own money, and it work well… but in reality, it simply doesn’t work. Infrastructure (communications, transport, water, and power infrastructure) and essential services (health, education, police, and fire, to name a few) will not be provided in a fair and reasonable way by people spending their own money – you’d end up with roads only going as far as the last wealthy person’s house, poor people having to collect untreated water from rivers to drink, and education being dependent on the parents income, resulting in rich people having better educated children, who then are able to make more money because they have a better education.

    You want to see what happens when you put more of the onus on individuals spending their own money? Look at America, where healthcare is pretty much completely private. They have the “best healthcare in the world”… but it’s only available to people who can afford it. The life expectancy is higher in Australia by more than 3 years. Look at poverty rates – 12.2% in Australia, and 17% in the US. We have lower unemployment, lower infant mortality, and better educational results despite spending less per capita on education – and they don’t have a real public education system.

    Government should make an effort to do things as efficiently as possible. But railing against taxing and spending is just ludicrous.

    cyril – it’s not “discussing the issues for Wannon” if you’re talking about general issues that apply to every seat.

  18. The carbon Tax is a myth , someone please explain to me how this carbon tax relates to cost of living , my energy bill does not have a clear carbon tax element , so if Mr Tehan want to reduce the cost of living how is he going to do this ? It about time he laid claim to some policy not just scaring the communities!

  19. Glen, I agree with you comments. The has to be a point where it stops. Otherwise you would pool all the money and share it out equally.
    The $900 given to everybody to stimulate the economy was not perfect. I know of two pension families that spent the money on new flat screen computer monitors. So I made my 15%, my distributor made his 10%, and the rest went to the Chinese company that made the screens.

    What I am pointing out is that the money the government takes off hard working people is not always spent wisely. Why are they still handing out GFC money?

  20. Rockman – that’s a side-effect of how things are set up. But you’re underestimating how much stayed in the country. You get 15%, the distributor gets 10%, the Government gets 10% through GST (we’re up to 35%), the port it was shipped into gets a cut, the shipping company gets a cut, and customs tariffs have to also be taken into account. I’d expect that upwards of 50% stayed in the country, and there’s no reason to think that a large proportion of people chose to buy imported goods.

    And while some of the money will have gone overseas, some of the other money would have gone to companies who then spend the money to produce more of a product that is to be exported, bringing more money in.

    I don’t know what the official value of the GFC stimulus handouts works out to be, but it’s entirely possible that the impact on the economy was more than 100%, even despite some people buying imported goods.

    The real point to make is that the experts – like the IMF, for instance, or the ratings agencies – praised Labor’s actions, and credit the stimulus for Australia not going into recession.

    The question of the recent money is a completely different question – I don’t know the details of the money, so I can’t be sure. There might be a valid explanation, or it might be an oversight on the part of the government. But it’s not like it’s a huge expense, anyway; we’re talking a few people getting a bit of money. Much ado about nothing, really – it’s getting coverage (beyond a minor article in a single issue of a newspaper) because it plays into a certain media narrative.

  21. Bird of paradox…..you the man. Pretty spot on with this seat. Good swing to Dan the man. I couldn’t see where any swing to labor was coming from.

  22. I think Mick has been Abbotted, sadly! The mood has been that Dan was not the man, but People have voted conservativly, again! So, just another 3 years of nothing for Wannon to add to the last 55! The very small swing to Dan would be an indication of the fact people arent that impressed by him. the Green vote has fallen away, a small vote for Clive, disgruntled Libs?? The national senate vote says it all really!
    Now we have to make sure that all those things that Dan the parachute man promised are fullfilled, anyone want to lay bets on the excuses? Now, to plan to get rid of this totally incompetent State Liberal Govt! Once again, the possibility of having a Labor win in Lowan is about as likely as seeing an elephant in the Grampians! sigh! As far as the national scene is concerned I think 3 years of a Murdoch Govt will be enough for most people!

  23. Can’t let that slide Stafford Hall…… Tehan got just over 4% 2pp swing. The ALP primary vote dropped over 1% while Tehan’s went up just under 4%. I don’t know who “the mood” is but they clearly didn’t vote in the electroate…..They are clear facts…… It is a safe liberal seat with over 10%. If you like close contests you are living in the wrong electroate….

  24. Cyril, I have to admit I havent looked at the figures since Sunday morning. I guess we need to wait till all the votes are counted including postal votes. But yes, a good swing to Dan, but it wont be anything like 10% Cyril. Probably over 6% though, which means even when we get a swing back in 3 years it wont be a win. Wannon will fall to Labor one day, but I’m guessing I will be retired by then! LOL! I like the local radio “hard work paid off for Dan Tehan” LOL! What hard work? He had 6-8 times the budget that Michael had, thats the hard work! What we need to do now is make sure Dan keeps his promisies. What odds on that happening do you think?
    And, once again, the state of the senate is a clear indication that people arent that impressed by the LNP either! Should be an interesting 3 years in the senate!

  25. Oh, one other thing, I couldnt believe the number of people Dan imported to hand out for him! The local Libs dont particularly like him or he would have had plenty of them. People vote Lib here, as they do Nats in Lowan, not because of the policies, but because they cant see any other way. At least locally, Labor pushed a positive message, it was a pleasure to work with Mick Barling, he is a quality candidate & a wonderful person.

  26. And look from what I heard he (Barling) did put in a good effort on the ground and I thought he would pinch some ground in the bool booths especially. …The libs clearly also out budgeted him and that is something labor is going to have to work on in the future as it sounds like this happened in a number of electroates. Tehan will sit with a 10% margin (roughly) on completion of the count. ( 4-6 % swing) The challange for labor will be to get its act together federally and halve that margin in 2016 (or next year if double dis)

  27. I hope we dont have a double dis, waste of money! What I do believe is that by November next year Victorians will be well & truely over the Libs! Stae election to Labor… PLEASE!!

  28. Well that remains to be seen….. They don’t seem to have laid much of a glove on Dennis yet (early days) but I am sure the nutts and bolts will be thrashed out on the Victorian State Election Tally room site in a little over a year from now…..

  29. Only a 1.4% swing from Labor in Wannon. Most of Dan’s votes came from other places. Whilst we were hoping for a good swing away from Dan, sadly Wannon has been caught up in the LNP’s lies & bullshite, so we now have a Murdoch Government for the next 3 years. As we have already seen, not much of anything going to come from the new LNP Govt, certainly nothing for women, climate change, workers or industry.

  30. Yes because those women who get better PPL payments and a better chance of getting a job aren’t benefiting from the new government at all.

    Patronising grubs like you think women just want the right to murder their children in utero and launch vexatious discrimination lawsuits whenever life isn’t smooth sailing for them.

  31. Sorry Stafford hall but can’t let that mirage go by. The AEC ‘declared’ figures show Tehan with a first preference increase of 8% and a 2pp increase of 4.5%. I don’t know where you get 1.4% but that is not the reality……. As for your reasons well its sad you have no respect for the voters of Wannon and insult their intelligence……The people spoke and spoke profoundly…. Labor have to wake up and admit thier failings to be able to present as a viable alternative…..Otherwise they are doomed to opposition for a long time…..

  32. I’m not saying Dan didnt get an 8% swing to him, but If you look at the primary, its 1.4% swing away from Labor. 2PP, yes, looks far worse! Sadly, I dont have a lot of respect for the voters of Wannon, & I wont have until they stand up for themselves. After 55 years of neglect, why would I respect voters who continually vote for nothing? I have a lot of respect for the voters of Indi. At least they have been true to themselves. I’m not sure who AC is, but I hope they have made an appointment with the Doctor by now.

  33. Maybe you start up a voice for Wannon campaign……….I think if there is discontent in the electorate a strong well known independant would be more chance perhaps than the ALP given that Wannon is largely rural. I think looking at AC’s posting time there may have been some light refreshments influencing those comments………

Comments are closed.