Save Search

Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Victorian Election 1999



Download WordDownload Word

image

Information and Research Services

Research Paper

No. 19 1999-2000

Victorian Election 1999

Scott Bennett , Politics and Public Administration Group

Gerard Newman, Statistics Group

11 April 2000

Contents

Symbols and Abbreviations

Victoria—Some History

Victoria Goes to the Polls, 1999

The Standing of the Kennett Government

The Labor Challenge

The Campaign Battle

The Outcome—Legislative Assembly

The Outcome—Legislative Council

Electorates of interest

Brighton

Frankston East

Geelong

Gippsland East

Gippsland West

Gisborne

Mildura

Mitcham

Niddrie

Swan Hill

Warrnambool

The Frankston East Supplementary Election

A New Government

The Verdict

Government Performance

A Radical Conservative Government

The Premier and Governmental Style

Services

The Urban-Rural Divide

The impact of preferential voting

A Protest Vote?

The Election that Would not Die

End of the Coalition

The Kennett Resignation and the Burwood By-election

The Resignation of Pat McNamara

The State of the Parties

The Labor Party

The Liberal Party

The National Party

Three-cornered Contests

Conclusion

A matter of timing?

Implications?

Endnotes

Table 1 Legislative Assembly, State Summary

Table 2a Legislative Assembly: District Summary

Table 2b Legislative Assembly: District Summary

Table 3 Legislative Assembly: District Details

Table 4 Legislative Assembly: Two Party Preferred Vote

Table 5 Legislative Assembly: Electoral Pendulum

Table 6 Legislative Council, State Summary

Table 7 Legislative Council, Composition After 1999 Election

Table 8 Legislative Council: Province Summary

Table 9 Legislative Council, Province Details

Table 10 Legislative Council: Two Party Preferred Vote

Table 11 Legislative Council: Electoral Pendulum

Table 12 Legislative Assembly By-elections 1996 to 1999

Table 13 Legislative Council By-elections 1996 to 1999

Table 14 Legislative Assembly Elections 1950-1999

Symbols and Abbreviations

ACS

Abolish Child Support

AD

Australian Democrats

AG

Australian Greens

ALP

Australian Labor Party

ARP

Australian Reform Party

CDP

Christian Democratic Party

DLP

Democratic Labor Party

HP

Hope Party

IND

Independent

LP

Liberal Party

NLP

Natural Law Party

NP

National Party

PHON

Pauline Hanson's One Nation

SP

Shooters Party

*

sitting member

#

party holding seat

 

Introduction

The 1999 Victorian election was one of the most remarkable State elections of the last 50 years. It removed the apparently impregnable Liberal-National Coalition Government, it produced the retirement of two of the three party leaders, and it pitchforked into office a party that was remarkably unprepared—a number of its new ministers were sworn into executive office before being sworn in as parliamentarians. It was also an election that was unusually prolonged.

This paper gives a brief assessment of the major parties prior to polling day. It concludes that there were signs of the Kennett Government being in some danger but that these were largely ignored by the media. They, and many politicians, seemed to be influenced by particular opinion polls that suggested the Coalition Government was certain of victory. One intriguing aspect of the election result was the question of whether this was due to a protest vote against the Kennett team. The results of the election are described as are particular seats of more than usual interest. Major factors in the outcome are analysed, with the conclusion that it was a shift of votes in rural and regional electorates that was largely responsible for the narrow Labor victory. This was a reminder of the important impact that the rural-urban divide has long had upon our politics. Finally, the paper takes the story well past polling day to the Frankston supplementary election, the Burwood by- election, the end of the Coalition Government and the resignation of the National Party leader. Victorian election 1999 was later described as the election that would not end.

 

Victoria—Some History

Prior to the mid-1950s Victorian politics was the most unsettled in the country. This was brought about largely by a distribution of electorates which heavily favoured ru ral areas but produced a party balance in Parliament that made it very difficult for any party to gain a parliamentary majority. A chronically unstable parliamentary situation was made more uncertain by the presence of a strong Country Party, which was able to govern as a minority government on occasion, sometimes with the support of the ALP. The Country Party had generally poor relations with the main non-Labor party, making coalitions generally unwelcome. Coalitions were in fact barred for a time by the Liberal Party.(1) All of this was combined with the presence of the electorally-weakest of all Labor branches. The first Labor Government to last more than four months did not emerge until May 1927 and the first majority Labor Government came to power only in December 1952.

In May 1955 Victorian politics stabilised with the election of a majority Liberal and Country Party(2) Government led by Henry Bolte. Aided by a redistribution that greatly benefited the Liberals while seriously weakening the Country Party, Bolte won six e lections from 1955 to 1970. Apart from his final victory in 1970, when Labor won 4.7 per cent more of the vote than the Government, Sir Henry (he was knighted in 1966) was rarely put under any real pressure from the Labor Opposition which suffered a great deal of infighting and unrest.(3) The period of stable Liberal government continued under Dick Hamer, with victories in three elections during the 1970s. Hamer was replaced by Lindsay Thompson in 1981.

Government changed hands in 1982 when a reformed and newly-disciplined Labor Party took office from Thompson. John Cain led his party to its first majority victory since that of his father nearly thirty years before, forming only the second majority Labor Victorian government since the party's creation. The stability of the Liberals was now replaced by that of Labor which won elections in 1982, 1985 and 1988. Cain's successor, Joan Kirner, was defeated in the election of 1992, when 'the unprecedented sequence of financial crises sent the government's popular appeal into freefall'.(4)

By the time the Kennett Government came to power, the old animosities between the Liberal and National Parties had been put aside and a coalition formed, due largely to the fact that a one-vote-one-value redistribution appeared to make it difficult for the Liberal Party to win enough seats to govern on its own—something that was not borne out in the event. Winning office in 1992 with a very healthy combined first preference vote, the Kennett-McNamara team showed little sign of losing popular support in the following election. Polls suggested that the Government had maintained its support due to its strong leadership, its restoration of confidence in the Victorian economy and the continuing 'Guilty Party' stigma attached to the Labor Party. Indeed, the Coalition's 1996 election tactic was basically one of reinforcing in voters' minds the perception that Labor was responsible for any economic problems being suffered by the State. Kennett and his team therefore continued the stability that had been a mark of Victorian politics since the advent

of Henry Bolte's first government and which had seen just the two changes of government in over forty years.(5) Most observers expected this stability to be maintained whenever Premier Kennett ch ose to call the 1999 election.

Victoria Goes to the Polls, 1999

On 24 August, Kennett announced that the 1999 Victorian election would be held on the 18 September. The election was for 88 Legislative Assembly seats and half (22) of the Legislative Counci l seats. There had been no redistribution since the previous election. Three Legislative Council by-elections, for the provinces of Ballarat, Melbourne and Melbourne North were to be held concurrently with the general election. Some observers wondered if the Premier had chosen the date so as to have the campaigning lost in Victoria's annual dose of football fever. It would be, said the Herald Sun, a '25-day footy finals campaign'.(6)

The Standing of the Kennett Government

In its first term, the Kennett Go vernment caught public attention with its radical approach to many aspects of government. Taking full advantage of its control of both houses of Parliament, the Government began a massive downsizing of the public sector, as well as an extensive privatising of government resources. It created controversy over the establishment of the Grand Prix track and its relationship with Crown Casino, and a lot of rural unrest was brought about by the suddenness and extent of local government changes. The important question in the 1996 Victorian election, therefore, was whether the Premier's preparedness to advance controversial policies was likely to see his government lose support at the ballot box. In the Commonwealth election of 2 March that saw the Howard Government come to power, the Liberal Party vote actually fell in Victoria, causing some observers to wonder if this were due to a backlash against the Kennett Government.(7)

If this was so, then there was no indication of this influencing voters in the Victorian State election held four weeks after the Commonwealth poll. In 1992 the Coalition first preference vote had been 52 per cent; four years later this had barely moved to 50.7 per cent. It was a quite remarkable stabilising of the vote, considering the many controversies surrounding the Government. This seemed to be recognised by the Premier, who described the 1996 victory as 'probably the most profound electoral result in any state or federally in this country in the last 50 years'.(8)

Dominating Victorian politics between 1992 and 1999, Premier Kennett was the latest in a long line of strong leaders to hold the top job at the State level. With his strong self-belief, his preparedness to ignore convention in his determination to push the State in a certain direction, and his refusal to be deflected by criticism, Kennett not only dominated his State's politics, but he had the highest national profile of contemporary Premiers. He was very much in the mould of the strong, autocratic leader who has played such an important role in government and politics of the States in this country:

Premiers with powerful personalities exerting tight control over their state domains are ... a characteristic of state politics. ... They have not been content to be first among equals; they have developed a presidential-like status, with their cabinets and governments relegated to supporting roles. They bestride the politics of their states.(9)

According to Professor Brian Costar, this most recent of boss-Premiers had elevated the practice of executive dominance 'to an art form'.(10) With this type of Premier, there is always the chance that the very dominance of the leader may become an election issue, but it clearly had not done so to any great extent in 1996. Few expected 1999 to be any different.

The Kennett Government thus entered the campaign extremely confident of its chances, despite the loss of six Ministers who did not recontest their seats: Alan Stockdale (LP, Treasurer), Phil Gude (LP, Deputy Leader, Education), Marie Tehan (LP, Conservation), Jan Wade (LP, Attorney-General), Tom Reynolds (LP, Sport) and Bill McGrath (NP, Police). A sign of the Premier's confidence came at the opening of the campaign, when he ruled out a debate with the Leader of the Opposition describing such an event as 'irrelevant' to the final result.(11)

The Labor Challenge

The 1996 election had re-confirmed the domination of the lower house by the Coalition, wit h the Liberals (49) and the Nationals (9) winning 58 of the 88 Assembly seats (65.9%). Labor, which had failed to win even 40 per cent of the vote when losing office in 1992, increased its vote by over 4 per cent to 43.1 per cent. This still left it well behind the Coalition, for it only managed to win back two seats, and the Labor total of 29 left it 16 short of control of the Legislative Assembly.

According to Graham Hudson of the University of Melbourne, Labor's performance since its 1992 defeat had done little to inspire confidence that it would be soon back on the government benches.(12) Its leaders were ineffectual in withstanding the Kennett onslaught, and none had produced electorally-popular policies. The Victorian branch of the ALP has had a long history of internal problems, which have tended to divert the leadership from either the job of government or opposition, and this tendency could be seen during  
1992-99. This was particularly difficult for John Brumby, leader between 1993 and 1999, and played a part in his eventual departure from the leadership. Brumby had not helped his cause, however, by seeming to be unable to control the factional wars. Brumby had also frustrated some Labor members with his apparently defeatist approach to the party's 1996 chances. As he explained it, 'gaining six seats would be good, 12 would be fantastic, and 18 exceptional'. Such an attitude, however realistic, seemed to suggest the impossibility of denting the Coalition's position in the Parliament.(13)

Despite all of this, during 1996-99 there were some signs that Labor might enter the next election with rather more confidence than in 1996:

  • As noted above, there had been an increase in its vote of 4.7 per cent at the 1996 election, and its first preference vote of 43.1 per cent placed it within reach of the Coalition.
  • In addition, the largest swings to Labor in 1996 tended to be in safe Coalition seats making many of them marginal. The Coalition was therefore more vulnerable in 1999 than it had been in 1996.
  • The Government had come under a lot of criticism from rural communities for what were described as its 'Melbourne-centric' policies.(14) As a measure of this, the independent candidate, Russell Savage, surprised by winning the safe Liberal rural seat of Mildura in 1996. Savage had gained barely one-third of the vote, but won with the help of ALP preferences.
  • When former Liberal leader Alan Brown resigned his seat of Gippsland West to assume the position of Victorian Agent-General in London, the Liberals lost the seat to the independent, Susan Davies, in a by-election in February 1997. The Liberal first preference vote fell by 16.3 per cent.
  • In December 1997 a by-election for the Melbourne seat of Mitcham was brought about by the resignation of Liberal sitting member Roger Pescott. In a rare example of dissension in Coalition ranks, Pescott's 'open letter' to the Premier accused Kennett of authoritarian leadership, and pointed to various examples of what Pescott called 'bad government', including Kennett's high-handed treatment of the Auditor-General's office.(15) The Mitcham by-election attracted 17 candidates, saw the Liberal vote fall by 23.5 per cent, Labor's first preference vote climb by 5.8 per cent, and a 16 per cent two-party-preferred swing against the Government, with loss of the seat. Observers wondered if this by-election signalled the end of the potency of the 'Guilty Party' slogan used to such great effect in the 1992 and 1996 general elections.(16)
  • Peter McLellan, Liberal MLA for Frankston East, left the party in July 1998, also making a strong criticism of the leadership of Kennett as he did so. Unlike Pescott, however, on this occasion the dissident remained in Parliament, sitting on the cross-benches as an independent.(17)
  • During 1998 opinion polls began to suggest that Labor might have a better chance in the next State election than most observers were prepared to concede. AgePolls for May-June and July-August, for instance, suggested that the ALP was actually ahead of the Government in two-party-preferred terms.(18)
  • Labor's preselections had produced some younger, seemingly well-qualified candidates, including former ABC presenter, Mary Delahunty (who had won Northcote in a 1998 by- election), former mayor, Richard Wynne, the lawyers, Stuart Moss and Jenny Mikakos, Candy Broad, former ALP assistant national secretary, and Justin Madden, Australian Football League (AFL) footballer and former President of the AFL Players' Association.

There were signs, therefore, that the Government might be more vulnerable than many media observers believed, but within the Labor Party there developed a belief that any slip in the Kennett Go vernment's standing had occurred in spite of Labor's efforts. There was a general disillusionment with Brumby's leadership, even within the leader's own faction, that produced a dangerous level of instability. Brumby finally conceded that a change was necessary, resigning in March 1999. He was replaced by Steve Bracks, MLA for Williamstown since 1994. It was a move that has been described as 'poll-driven'.(19)

Despite all of this, it was the common view of the media that the Government was certain of victory, probably by quite a wide margin. In fact, a February 1999 Newspoll that described the Coalition as 11 per cent ahead, had some observers wondering if the Labor Party might actually lose seats.(20) In addition, the polls showed a great deal of community ignorance of the Leader of the Opposition, though to one writer, 'the biggest problem for Labor was not so much their unknown leader, as the great popularity of the Premier'.(21) One journalist summed up the general media view that Bracks was:

Labor's sacrificial lamb, a good-looking guy in a suit who would inevitably be flattened by the Kennett steamroller.(22)

Such a view was echoed by former ALP federal secretary, Bob Hogg, who asserted in late August that it:

... stretches credibility too far for Bracks to look voters in the eye and say we can/will win this election.(23)

The Campaign Battle

In many State ele ctions, the standing of the Premier is often central to the result. As head of the State's administration, as effective leader of the State branch of the governing party, as the State's 'ambassador' in relations with the Commonwealth, and as its roving 'trade commissioner' in the endless quest to bring capital to the State, the Premier is often seen as crucial to his or her party's electoral chances. When a government is performing well, the importance of the Premier can occasionally be spelled out in a campaign slogan: 'Hamer Makes it Happen', 'Wran's Our Man', and 'Now, more than ever, Queensland needs Joh and the Nationals', were slogans of our recent past that thrust the Premier firmly before the voters.

Despite this historical tendency, the Victorian Government campaign in 1999 was probably unprecedented in the intensity of its focus on the political head of government. In a move reminiscent of Queensland's Joh Bjelke-Petersen (NP, 1968-87) at the height of his powers, Premier Kennett worked to ensure that he, and only he, was the spokesperson for the Government, when he issued a blanket ban on campaign comments by all Ministers bar himself. This was not achieved, largely due to the presence of the Nationals' Deputy Premier, Pat McNamara, who was certainly not silenced, but it effectively kept all of the Liberal Ministers out of the mainstream media. Not since the criticism of the Greiner 'one- man band' in the 1991 New South Wales election, has there been as much adverse comment about the domination of a campaign by a Premier.

The Liberals went further, however, when they attracted a great deal of attention by their creation of a Web-site geared entirely to the personality of the Premier. This was shown clearly in the fact that its internet address featured just the Premier's forename: 
www.jeff.com.au. Apart from listing party policies, the site devoted much of its space to detailing the campaign activity of the Premier, and a sustained reading of the site would have suggested very much that the Victorian Government equalled Jeff Kennett. It even gave space to the Premier's dog. So unusual was the site as a campaigning tool, that it was seen as a probable pace-setter in campaigning throughout Australia. There was even a degree of adverse comment on the ordinariness of the Victorian Labor Party's site, which was concerned solely with policy matters, with no attention being paid to the leader.

Opinion polls showed Kennett so comfortably ahead of Bracks as 'preferred Premier', that the Labor leader and his advisers judged that there was no campaign mileage to be gained out of attacking the Premier. It was felt to be far more important to emphasise that Labor was now free of the baggage of the Cain-Kirner years.(24) The focus of Labor's campaign was therefore on policy questions and the promise of 'transparent' government. This featured three inter-related aspects:

  • Labor spoke at length about what it described as its new and attractive policies.
  • The Opposition did all it could to draw attention to weaknesses in the Government's administrative performance, with particular attention being paid to such matters as the Intergraph ambulance difficulties, school closures, hospital problems, police numbers, the reduction in the independence of the Auditor-General's office and the increased restrictions placed on freedom of information.
  • Alert to the general unhappiness of many rural communities concerning their 'neglect' by the Government, Labor did all it could to remind voters of closed schools, diminished rail services, movement of local government councils to distant towns and other major regional complaints. To symbolise its concern it opened its campaign in Ballarat, and pledged a $170 million infrastructure fund for regional Victoria.

Overriding this was Labor's p romise of 'A new style of leadership', wherein Bracks promised to be both 'socially progressive' and 'financially conservative'. In an effort to convince voters of this, Labor had the independent firm, Access Economics, 'sign off on the challenging party's election promises. Labor also was keen to emphasise that its leader was 'a nice bloke'.(25)

By polling day the general view of observers seemed to be that the Kennett Government was certain of being elected. More seemed to believe the final AC Neilson Agepoll, which had the Government ahead by ten percentage points 50-40 per cent, than the final Newspoll result which suggested the Government and Opposition were locked together on first preferences, with Labor ahead on a two-party-preferred basis.

The Outcome—Legislative Assembly

The Opposition (30 seats) entered the election needing 15 seats to gain control of the Legislative Assembly. The Coalition (Liberal 46 seats, National 9) seemed impregnable, despite the Liberal loss of Mildura, West Gippsland, and Mitcham since 1996. Even Malcolm Mackerras, almost the only commentator prepared to tip an increase in Labor seats—he spoke of seven being picked up—still asserted that no one expected Labor to be in government after the election.(26)

The seats that changed hands were as follows:

Liberal losses to Labor

Ballarat East, Ballarat West, Bendigo East, Carrum, Geelong, Gisborne, Narracan, Oakleigh, Ripon, Seymour, Tullamarine

Independent loss to Labor

Frankston East

National loss to Liberal

Warrnambool

National loss to independent

Gippsland East

The Labor Party contested all 88 seats, with its vo te of 45.5% being 2.4 per cent higher than in 1996. It gained 11 seats (excluding Frankston East), its total of 41 being four short of an absolute majority.

The Liberal Party won 36 of the 81 seats it contested. It lost 11 to Labor and won a seat from the National Party. Its first preference vote of 42.2 per cent was a fall of just 1.8 per cent, though it did contest three fewer seats than in 1996.

The National Party contested 12 seats, winning seven, a nett loss of two seats, one to the Liberal Party and one to an independent. Its share of the vote fell 1.8 per cent to 4.9 per cent, despite its contesting two more seats in 1999.

Independent candidates won three seats. (For more details see Table 1)

Of the other parties and groups, the Australian Democrats won fewer votes in 6 electorates than Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party (PHON) did in 4. The average PHON vote was 6.9 per cent, a reminder of the party's potential to cause trouble to the big three when it has a higher electoral profile than on this occasion. In the rural seat of Rodney, Dorothy Hutton, a PHON candidate for an outer-Sydney seat in the March 1999 New South Wales election, managed 10.8 per cent.

The Outcome—Legislative Council

There are 44 Members of the Victorian Legislative Council. Th e Members represent 22 electoral provinces with two Legislative Councillors representing each province. Each province is made up of four Legislative Assembly electorates. Legislative Councillors serve for two terms of the Legislative Assembly. At any general election half of the Legislative Council provinces fall vacant; the other half falling vacant at the next general election. The voting method is preferential voting.

The normal half-Council election saw Labor (42.2%) win eight of the 20 provinces it contested. The party won three Liberal seats: Ballarat, Chelsea and Geelong. The Liberal Party (39.7%) won 11 of 19 provinces it contested, and the National Party (7.3%) won the three provinces it contested. The Labor and Liberal vote was lower than in the Assembly election. Many of these lost votes may well have been gathered by the Australian Democrats, whose Statewide vote of 6.8 per cent indicated that the party seems to be seen by voters primarily as an upper house player, even in an election where preferential voting is used.

In the three by-elections, Labor won Ballarat from the Liberal Party and retained Melbourne and Melbourne North.

The party balance after the election was, therefore, Liberal 24 seats (a loss of four seats on 1996), Labor 14 seats (+4) and the National Party 6 seats (no change).

Electorates of interest

Brighton

Brighton had been held by the retiring Treasurer, Alan Stockdale. With such a safe Liberal seat becoming vacant, the party's preselection was likely to determine who would be the next MLA. Brighton quickly became the battleground for a struggle between forces led by the Premier and others supportive of the Commonwealth Treasurer, Peter Costello. In the event, Kennett's support for the Small Business Minister, Louise Asher, an MLC seeking to move to the lower house, proved decisive, though not before a very public struggle was conducted. As expected, Asher won the seat comfortably in the general election, but the fall in the Liberal first preference vote of 8.8 per cent was one of the largest shifts of Liberal votes in the metropolitan area.(27)

Frankston East

This was the seat held by the rebel Liberal, Peter McLellan, who had left the party in the previous year to sit as an Independent. McLellan had won the seat for the Liberals in 1992, but resigned after clashes with the Premier over various issues including WorkCover, privatisation and the effort to reduce the importance of the Auditor-General. In a re-run of the aborted Commonwealth election for Newcastle in 1998, McLellan's death on the morning of the election meant that Frankston East voters would have to wait for a supplementary election, on 16 October (see below, p. 13-14).

Geelong

If Labor was to do well, it needed to win back seats in areas it once held. Geelong was just such an area, and the Opposition nominated Ian Trezise, son of N eil, Geelong football legend, MLA for Geelong West (1964-91) and Minister in the Cain Government. Geelong was held by Ann Henderson, Minister for Housing and Minister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs. She had increased the Liberal vote by over six per cent in the previous election, winning the seat on first preferences (52.6%) and seeming to make it much more likely to be retained. Despite this, Geelong turned out to be the ultimate cliff-hanger. Henderson's vote fell by 5.1 per cent, the Labor vote barely moved (+0.1%), but the seat went to preferences, where Trezise eked out a win by just 16 of the 30 984 formal votes that had been cast. If just nine of Labor's Geelong voters had shifted to the Government, the Coalition would probably have retained office.

Gippsland East

One difficulty in analysing State elections is that the most easily found information tends to relate to general State-wide issues. In focussing on the broad picture, however, commentators can sometimes fail to notice the existence of l ocal issues that are important enough to turn many voters away from the major parties. Occasionally a sitting member can be defeated by a spectacular movement of such votes—in 1988 the Labor Party lost the safe Labor seat of Swansea in New South Wales over the controversial issue of the Swansea Bridge. In Gippsland East an issue that had caused much local unhappiness was the virtual disappearance of water running in the Snowy River. Craig Ingram, a concerned local resident, decided to stand in an effort to draw attention to the Snowy issue. As in the Swansea case, the single issue campaigner did much better than he expected. The National sitting member's vote fell by 16.9 per cent, with Ingram's vote of 24.8 per cent leaving him in third position. Preferences from three other candidates pushed him into second place, and Labor's second preferences produced a massive 15.4 per cent two-candidate-preferred margin for the political novice. The National Party and its predecessors had held the seat since 1920.(28)

Gippsland West

In the 1996 State election, the endorsed Labor candidate, Susan Davies, managed just one- third of the first preferences votes, finishing a distant runner-up to former Liberal leader Alan Brown (57.7%). When running as an independent in the 1997 by-election, Davies' percentage of the vote actually declined by 0.6 per cent, but aided by the preferences of the four other candidates, who stripped 16.3 per cent off the Liberal vote, she squeaked into the seat by 159 votes. In 1999 Davies was only able to increase her first preference vote by 3.1 per cent despite being the sitting MLA. She was helped greatly by the Liberal vote falling a further 3.4 per cent from the by-election figure and won the seat on preferences by an eventual margin of eight per cent.(29)

Gisborne

Tom Reynolds, the Member for Gisborne, and Minister for Sport and Rural Development, retired at this election. Premier Kennett participated in the resulting preselection, making it clear that he wished it to be won by Rob Knowles, Minister for Health and Aged Care. Knowles, fifth in the Ministerial list, was spoken of as Kennett's preferred successor as party leader, but had the disqualification of having a seat in the Legislative Council. After much intra-party argument, Knowles gained preselection for a seat that Reynolds had retained in 1996 with a first preference vote of 55.7 per cent (itself a drop of 7.2 per cent). In 1999, the Liberal vote dropped a further 13.8 per cent and although Labor's vote also fell (0.4%), its candidate Joanne Duncan managed to win on preferences—the Liberals thus lost a seat held since 1967. Apart from its vote suffering because of the general drop in regional areas, the Liberal Party was reported to have suffered from voter resentment at the government's inattention to concerns over a noisome waste treatment plant, as well as resentment at Knowles being brought in as a headquarters-anointed candidate.(30)

Mildura

In 1996 the loss of Mildura by the Liberals to an independent was seen by the party as a one-off, fluke result. As is typical in the occasional independent victory, Russell Savage had gained only a modest first preference vote (35.7%), but picked up the lion's share of preferences to win the seat by just 1.8 per cent. During his term in Parliament, Savage was portrayed as standing up for his rural constituents, while also managing to anger the Premier on a number of well-publicised occasions. Although the Liberal Party had expected to win back the seat, Savage's first preference vote increased by 8.7 per cent in the general election, and he secured over 56 per cent of the two-candidate-preferred vote. The Liberal vote fell by 19 per cent, most of which probably went to the National Party (19.7%) which nominated a candidate, unlike 1996.(31)

Mitcham

As already noted, Mitcham was the scene of a remarkable by-election in December 1997 when an enormous swing saw Labor's Tony Robinson win the seat narrow ly from Andrew Munroe (LP) and 15 other candidates. In the 1982 State election it was the movement of eastern suburb electorates, such as Mitcham, to Labor, that was considered to have been crucial in returning Labor to office. In 1999, observers believed that if Labor could not win a parcel of such seats, then its chances would be slim. It was therefore important for Robinson to hold the seat in another contest with Munroe. In the event, Labor did not recover ground in this part of Melbourne, though Mitcham was held by just 343 votes after preferences. The seat may well have been decided on the votes of an independent who campaigned against Government proposals for the Eastern Freeway extension. He won 4.8 per cent of the vote and directed his second preferences to Labor.(32)

Niddrie

In normal circumstances the electorate of Niddrie, held by Rob Hulls for the ALP by a margin of 8.8 per cent, would not feature in a listing of electorates of interest. On this occasion, however, the electorate was in the news because of the origins of the Liberal candidate, Susannah Kruger. Hulls, former MHR for Kennedy (Qld, 1990-93), and one of the more colourful of Labor's Assembly members, had been forced to apologise to two young women, one of whom had been Kruger, after he had a verbal altercation with them earlier in the year. At the time of the announcement of the election, Kruger received publicity by approaching the Liberal Party and offering herself as a candidate, despite her apparent lack of any political experience. How would she fare against a no-holds-barred politician like Hulls? The answer was quite clear, due to the fact that each of the 1996 and 1999 contests had only two candidates. Kruger's vote of 43.2 per cent was a fall of 2.4 per cent, giving Hulls a 13.6 per cent margin.(33)

Swan Hill

In 1996 Swan Hill was one of the safest Coalition seats, having been retained by Barry Steggall (NP) with a first preference vote of 59 per cent. Three years later, local schoolteacher and former St Kilda football star, Ca rl Ditterich, stood as an independent, apparently at the urging of Russell Savage in neighbouring Mildura. The picture was made more interesting by the decision of Bill Croft of PHON to stand. Croft had won 12 per cent of the vote in Mallee in the 1998 Commonwealth election. Like Savage, Ditterich and Croft both emphasised government neglect of the bush. Although Ditterich won only 22.6 per cent of the vote, he forced the sitting member to preferences as a consequence of his vote falling by 13.8 per cent, and briefly seemed to have a chance of winning the seat. Eventually, Steggall won with a 52.8 per cent two-candidate-preferred vote. Croft had managed only 5.1 per cent of first preferences.

Warrnambool

Water was also a problem for the Government in Warrn ambool, the seat of retiring Police Minister, Bill McGrath (NP). A rise in water charges for local farmers had become a controversial issue. With the retirement of the Minister, the Liberal Party nominated John Vogels, to the Nationals' chagrin (see below p. 25). Despite this competition the National Party expressed its confidence of retaining the seat. In the event its vote fell by an extraordinary 40.3 per cent to just 17.5 per cent. The Liberal candidate topped the poll with 40.2 per cent and won easily on preferences.(34)

The Frankston East Supplementary Election

After the counting of all seats except Frankston East, the Government held 43 seats, Labor held 41 and independents held 3 (Gippsland East, Gippsland West, Mildura). The Frankston East supplementary election, to b e held on 16 October, therefore assumed great importance. If the seat was retained by the Liberal Party, the Government would have half the lower house numbers, and would need only the support of one of the independents to control the Assembly—Craig Ingram seemed the least hostile to Premier Kennett. If Labor could win the seat, it would then be in a position of being able to govern with the support of the three independents, but a loss by Labor would have meant that it could not form a government that had any realistic chance of survival. In addition, the supplementary election was likely to be seen as an opinion poll upon the standing of the Government and might therefore play a part in influencing the independents when considering their future actions in the Parliament. During the election, they had, in fact, made it clear that the result in the supplementary election would do just that.

The major parties therefore put all of their resources into winning the seat, for it was eminently winnable for both si des—in 1996 McLellan's first preference vote had been 4.6 per cent ahead of his Labor opponent, though later preferences had pushed that out to a margin in excess of 6 per cent. In addition, the presence of 14 non-major party candidates on the ballot paper seemed to make it more of a lottery than would usually be the case. Leader of the Opposition Bracks made little alteration to his election pitch, but Premier Kennett caught the headlines by a sudden announcement of more money to be given to the local hospital. He attracted some criticism by the apparent ease with which he expressed his preparedness to modify some of his Government's policies despite his strong defence of them in the general election. He also made an unprecedented apology for his political style which, he acknowledged, may have antagonised some people.

The result was quite convincing, for Labor's Matt Viney won the seat on first preferences, a rise of 7.1 per cent to 51.4 per cent. The Liberal vote fell substantially by 7.3 per cent, to 41.6 per cent. Labor now held 42 of the 88 Legislative Assembly seats, three short of an absolute majority.

A New Government

On 27 September shortly before the Frankston East election the three independent MLAs released their 'Independents' Charter Victoria 1999', stating they wanted written responses to the Charter from the party leaders by the Tuesday prior to polling day for the supplementary election. Stating their determination to remain independent and outside any 'formal part of any government', the independents expressed their willingness to support a government which publicly undertook to:

  • Promote 'open and accountable government'
  • Improve 'the democratic operation of Parliament'
  • Establish 'clear plans, strategies and targets to address the urgent needs of Rural Victoria'
  • Offer assurances of increased levels of cooperation with Independent Members, and improved codes of conduct between government and other Members of Parliament
  • Permit no more privatisation of public assets 'at least until after a full independent inquiry has reported to Parliament on the social and economic costs and benefits of planned and existing privatisations'.

The independents also expressed their willingness to provide political stability by voting with the government on ap propriation and supply bills and all motions of no confidence, 'unless there is evidence of fraud, misappropriation or illegal activities'.(35)

After negotiations with both sides, on 18 October the independents announced their support for Labor,(36) and tw o days later the Bracks Labor Government was sworn in by Governor Gobbo. There were 18 ministers, none with prior ministerial experience and eight of whom were women—a record proportion for any State or Commonwealth government. Four of the new Ministers, Candy Broad, Justin Madden, Bronwyn Pike and Marsha Thomson accepted office prior to their taking their Parliamentary seats for the first time. Only two, Peter Batchelor and Sherryl Garbutt, had been in Parliament at the time of the defeat of the previous Labor Government in 1992.

The Verdict

Government Performance

Three factors seem to affected voters' perceptions of the Kennett Government's performance.

A Radical Conservative Government

In many ways the Kennett Government was ground-breaking. The extent of innovation was great , and the preparedness to tread where others had refused to go marked it out as a ministry prepared to test public patience. The Kennett Government has, in fact, been described as 'a genuine revolution in the relationship between the public and private sectors and between society and the State'.(37) Its radical reorganisation of local government, for instance, dealt with a political issue that had seen its predecessor unwilling to take on vested regional interests, while its embrace of the Crown Casino was in stark contrast to the timidity of the Liberal Government of Dick Hamer. The swathe cut through the public service, which included the closure of schools and hospitals, was very controversial, and the pushing of outsourcing eclipsed any other Australian government's efforts. Such a record may well have been a double-edged sword, for although it would have pleased many in the community, it probably antagonised many more. Woodward and Costar have noted that State governments 'cannot … assume that having good credentials as economic managers will suffice [to ensure their re-election]'. In saying this they drew a parallel between the governments of Jeff Kennett and Wayne Goss.(38)

Here also it would not have taken very many votes to be loosened for the Government's position to become uncertain.

The Premier and Governmental Style

Although the opinion polls consistently gave Premier Kennett a very favourable rating, there seems to have been no doubt that his political style was controversial. His crash- through approach to government, his unpreparedness to tolerate criticism and his muzzling of ministers during the campaign, were all well-publicised examples of his leadership style. Woodward and Costar have stated that this became a 'major' issue after the Herald Sun ran a front page story on the Premier's gagging of his team.(39) Prior to the election, Gary Morgan stated that his research suggested that many voters saw the Premier's confidence as arrogance. He cited Kennett's decision to ignore Bracks as a 'crucial mistake', suggesting that, '[w]hen you ignore the opposition they have a field day'.(40) It seems quite likely, therefore, that some votes shifted because of an unhappiness with Kennett's mode of operation.

On the other hand, it was claimed that the Premier's brash style won him many supporters among young males aged 18-25 years.(41) The use, and the style of, the 'jeff' website was seen as a means of attracting this part of the electorate. Kennett was often heard on various Melbourne rock radio stations, where his 'Jeff f……. rules, OK!' adverts were also to be heard. In hindsight, the danger may have been that in pitching so public a message to this demographic segment, he may have alienated support from others. There was some evidence of middle-aged voters being less keen on the Premier than younger voters.(42) The hostile journalist, Pamela Bone, claimed in the Age before the election that '[Liberal] party strategists knew many traditional Liberal voters would be shocked, not only by the language [of the adverts] but the sentiment behind them'. Dame Beryl Beaurepaire, Liberal grande dame, was said to have described them as 'a pity'.(43)

Services

It is a truism of State and Territory elections that the performance of the government in the provision of services plays a very important part in explaining election results. Poll evidence suggests that service delivery was a significant issue in this election. When surveying voters' views prior to the election the Herald Sun claimed that nearly eight voters in 10 were unhappy at the state of hospitals, nearly two-thirds unhappy at changes in schools, and over three-quarters dissatisfied at the central place that gambling had assumed in Victoria.(44) A Morgan poll, published in the final weeks of the campaign, suggested that whilst voters preferred the Government as the manager of the economy (58% favoured the Government and 14% favoured the Opposition), by contrast Labor was preferred in the areas of health (55-15), education (51-18) and law and order (53-18).(45) As we have seen the Government did not lose many votes overall, but a few disgruntled voters unhappy with particular services and prepared to shift their vote because of this, may well have made the difference between a narrow defeat and a comfortable parliamentary majority for the Coalition.

The fact that during the campaign the Premier announced a number of significant initiatives relating to government services suggests that he may have realised the potential for the loss of votes in this area. In his policy speech much was made of the provi sion of more teachers and nurses, as well as a promise for faster hospital treatment—perhaps these promises were seen as an implicit recognition that there were some serious weaknesses in the provision of these services or that the changes had gone further than voters were prepared to accept.

A potential problem for a State government that cuts back the provision of services by its own agencies is that it runs the risk of suffering an electoral backlash if the new providers are not up to the mark. For the Kennett Government this may have been symbolised by three aspects of outsourcing that gained it unwelcome publicity. First, there were a number of stories of ambulances failing to answer calls quickly, some of which produced claims of patients dying because of these delays. The second matter involved the creation of private gaols, where claims were made of inefficiency, and of inmates being able to abscond easily. Finally, there was the pending introduction of high tolls to be paid on new privately-run motorways, and the conversion of older public roads into the motorway system.

The Urban-Rural Divide

The Government seemed well aware that the question of services seemed particularly to affect rural and regional residents. The Premier had reportedly made 27 visits to country areas during January-August 1999 for a significant number of the Government's marginal seats were outside of Melbourne.(46) Coalition relationships had become strained over policies that appeared to be uncaring of the position of rural people, while being very much capital city-centred. Some policies, in particular, earned unwelcome criticism. The massive reshaping of local government, which removed many government offices from country towns and was said to have reduced the quality of service, and the plans to privatise the State Electricity Commission, for example, both put strains upon the Coalition, for the National Party was uncomfortable with such changes.(47) Some cases, such as the closure of the Mortlake hospital in 1994, took on a symbolic importance, as they seemed to illustrate how the Government did not understand the needs of country people. As the editor of a country newspaper put it: 'you tear the heart out of any community when a hospital shuts'.(48)

The division between town and country has been a key part of Australian electoral politics since the advent of elected legislatures in the nineteenth century. The importance of this division has been seen most obviously in the continuing electoral health and political significance of the (Country) National Party that emerged during the second decade of this century. Generally, this has worked to the disadvantage of the Labor Party. In the 1999 Victorian election, however, the belief that the Kennett Coalition Government had neglected rural areas seems to have been crucial in accounting for the marked success of the ALP in rural electorates. A paper by two Victorian academics states that 'The backlash against the government in rural and regional Victoria was decisive'.(49) In Melbourne the Government lost just three seats, on a vote fall of 2.3 per cent, but in the thirty-two non- metropolitan seats the combined Liberal-National vote fell by 6.1 per cent, with nine seats lost by the Coalition—eight to the ALP and one to the successful independent in Gippsland East. There was a 4.7 per cent swing to Labor in provincial city electorates.(50) Surprisingly, National leader McNamara put this down to an inability to counter the 'folksy' and 'country boy' image of Bracks, who had been raised in Ballarat.(51) Despite this unusual claim of a Labor politician apparently sounding more sympathetic to the bush than were the Nationals, the loss of rural votes and seats was presumably much more to do with a longer-term rural unhappiness with the Government. In two general elections the Government parties had in fact lost 12 of the 26 regional seats that they gained in 1992. At the same time, just six of the 35 Melbourne seats were lost to Labor. This suggests that Bracks' election as party leader had little to do with the final result, and that regional Victorian voters had begun to resent what they saw as 'big-city' neglect some years before.(52)

The impact of preferential voting

This election is a reminder that occasionally the preferential voting method can have an impact upon the result of an election.

Labor won the election despite being behind the Coalition on first preferences. Sometimes su ch a result can be an indication that many votes have been wasted—large majorities built up in safe seats can be a problem for a party. This occurred to Labor in the 1954 Commonwealth election when it failed to win government despite topping 50 per cent on first preferences. A variant of this occurs then a party can win a significant number of seats by securing enough second or later preferences from other candidates although its opponents win a greater number of first preferences. This second example was said to have been crucial to Labor's 1990 Commonwealth election victory.

It also seems to have been very important in Victoria in 1999. In five seats (Carrum, Geelong, Gisborne, Mitcham, Seymour) Labor trailed its major opponent on first preferences. The average margin was 1.7 per cent. In all cases Labor won the seat on preferences, despite their opponent's first preference figure averaging 47.7 per cent in four of the seats. Only in Gisborne, where the Liberal first preference vote was 41.9 per cent, was the Government candidate some distance from the figure needed for victory. This suggests that although quite a number of voters shifted from the Coalition parties many of these voters did not find the Labor Party attractive enough to receive their first preference. Instead, they voted for a third candidate but put Labor ahead of the Coalition on their later preferences. It was hardly a ringing endorsement of the Labor Party.

The importance of preferences was also evident in Gippsland East and Gippsland West, both won by independents. In Gippsland East the first preference count had the National candidate (35.9%) 11.1 per cent ahead of Craig Ingram—who in fact was third after the first preference count. Despite this the National was defeated comfortably on preferences. In Gippsland West the gap was narrower, but again the Liberal candidate (38%) lost a lead, and Susan Davies won comfortably on preferences.

It is therefore clear that if a different voting method had been in use, the result would have been different. First-past-the-post, for instance, would have produced a comfortable majority for the Kennett Government.

A Protest Vote?

It has been noted that if a State administration continues to deliver benefits to the electorate then it is likely to remain in office. It does seem that, generally, a State government's administrative performance has to be very bad for it to be voted out by the voters.(53) The 1999 Victorian election must make analysts think again about some of the 'truths' of State-level electoral politics, for on the eve of the election it appeared that the Kennett Government was in much better electoral standing than the challenging Labor party. It had experienced some community unrest over aspects of its administration of the State's services, but polls seemed to be saying it was still held in high regard.

Was this result, then, simply a 'protest' vote against the Kennett Government? In this context, 'protest' is meant to suggest that some voters, resentful about some aspect of the Government's performance, but not wanting its actual defeat, voted against it to give it and its leader (in the words of an unnamed senior Liberal), 'a bit of a kick up the arse on a few things'.(54) Was it, in the words of Denis Napthine, successor to Kennett as leader of the Liberal Party, 'a protest vote gone wrong'?(55) Such a view is well summed up by the Liberal MLA for Mordialloc, Geoff Leigh, who described the election result as 'one of the great accidents of history'.(56) The journalist Mike Steketee has even used such a view to wonder if the publication of opinion polls ought to be controlled close to an election, as is done in some European countries.(57)

Despite the fact that such views have been heard on similar occasions—after the near- defeat of the Greiner (NSW, L-NP, 1991) and Goss (Qld, ALP, 1995) Governments for example—such views are essentially unprovable. It is impossible to know when a vote against a government is 'genuine' and when it is 'not-genuine', that is, a 'protest' vote. All that electoral analysts can do is ascertain just how many votes shifted in an election—the reasons for each shift are impossible to establish with any accuracy. One possible test of the 'protest vote' view might be the Frankston East and Burwood by-elections. If voters in these electorates were concerned that a 'protest vote' had gone too far, they could at least have shown their support for the Liberal Party. In both cases, however, there was a further movement of voters away from the Liberals.

To a marked degree, elections deal with expectations. If enough people are certain of a particular result—in this case the comfortable return of a government—then there is a need to explain away a different outcome. Despite the impossibility of really know ing what motivates the individual voter, journalists and politicians together can find comfort in the notion of the 'protest' vote: in the words of one journalist, 'Saturday's poll may well go down as the election that defied all predictions, producing the mother of all protest votes'.(58) To state such a conclusion, however, is not to prove it.

The Election that Would not Die

Apart from having to wait for four weeks after polling day to learn the Frankston East result, three other important post-polling day events formed part of the story of the 1999 Victorian election.

End of the Coalition

Mention has already been made of the long history of poor relations between the two major non-Labor parties, typified by the words of long-time Liberal Premier, Sir Henry Bolte, who once described the Country Party as 'a mob of political prostitutes who will go to bed with anybody'.(59) Despite the fact that the 1992-99 Kennett Government was the longest surviving coalition in Victorian history, relations between the long-time antagonists was at times very strained. This was partly due to the inevitable tensions that exist in Liberal-National coalitions wherever they are established, but it was given particular feeling because of the relative strengths of the parties. The Liberal Party actually won a majority of seats in the 1992 and 1996 elections, and the Coalition was formed by the grace of the Premier—himself a determined opponent of coalition in the 1980s. Not all Liberals were pleased with this.(60)

The relationship was also strained by many of the policies followed by the Kennett Government that appeared to be unsympathetic to the needs of rural people (see above, pp. 17-18). In the aftermath of the unexpected defeat, it therefore seemed inevitable that the formal coalition would crumble. On 22 October, a meeting between National MPs and the party's State Council duly reported that henceforth there was 'no coalition agreement between the Liberal and National Parties in Opposition'.(61)

Such a decision was in part a recognition that tensions existed in both camps. For the Nationals there was also the feeling that they were fighting for their very existence. In 2000, the National Party holds just seven Legislative Assembly seats and six in the Legislative Council—nine per cent of the Parliament. Fifty years ago the respective figures were 20 and 13 in a smaller Parliament, for 32 per cent of the total membership. For the Liberals there were the continuing resentments felt in that party over the very notion of coalition. In an echo of Henry Bolte's words, one unnamed Liberal MLA claimed after the election that, 'The Nationals like to stay for the night but don't like to get married'.(62)

Eventually a memorandum of understanding was signed. It was designed to satisfy disgruntled National supporters, while apparently accepting the probable need to work together in the future:

  • Although the formal coalition is at an end for the time being, there will be a combined Opposition front bench.
  • There will be an Opposition front bench team of 22 (out of a total Assembly representation of 43).
  • Five of these 22 will be from the National Party.
  • The parties will remain 'separate and distinct'.
  • The party leadership will meet weekly, and shadow Cabinet will meet regularly.
  • Backbench members will sit in separate party blocs. The Liberal party will be the official Opposition, and the National Party 'the Third Party'.
  • The National Party Leader will have a place at the Legislative Assembly table with the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party.(63)

The Kennett Resignation and the Burwood By-election

Jeff Kennett submitted his resignation from Parliament on 2 November, thus precipitating the by-election for his seat of Burwood that was held on 11 December. Both the Labor and Liberal Parties put a great deal of effort into winning a seat that had been held by the Liberals since its re-creation in 1976. Labor's candidate was Bob Stensholt, the defeated candidate in the general election, while the Liberals surprised by their by-passing of prominent party member, Helen Kroger, for Lana McLean.

The Liberal Party seemed to be on the back foot throughout the campaign. McLean proved unexpectedly controversial. Among other matters, she had been involved in a local planning dispute and she was apparently involved in a legal dispute with the Commonweal th Bank. She even earned notice during the campaign for her criticism of a junior basketball referee. The party also earned media criticism for some of its claims, such as the prediction that a Labor victory would encourage the government to set up a chain of heroin injecting rooms across all suburbs of Melbourne. At the same time, Labor seemed to concentrate its efforts on the discrediting of McLean rather than discussing policy. When the fact of Stensholt having not mentioned his brief career as a seminarian was noted by the Liberal Party, an Age journalist criticised the 'grubby' campaigning efforts of both sides, 'Why such crowded gutters in Burwood?', he asked.(64) The picture in the by-election was made more uncertain by the nominations of a Green candidate and of Stephen Mayne, former Kennett media adviser, who had earlier had a well-publicised falling-out with his employer.

The Labor Party won Burwood comfortably after preferences, though the result was probably brought about more by voter disillusionment with their opponents than enthusiasm for a party which had never held the seat. Even in a climate of support and interest for a new government, Labor's first preference vote of 45.1 per cent was only 3.6 per cent higher than in the general election. As in the case of the general election itself, it was a reminder of the relatively small increase in the Labor vote over the State as a whole (see below, p. 22). By contrast, the Liberal vote fell to its lowest in over twenty years, with its 40.5 per cent being ten per cent lower than in September. Mayne pointed to a probable disillusionment with both major parties: in the general election the combined Labor-Liberal vote was 97 per cent, but in the by-election this fell by 11.4 per cent.(65)

The Resignation of Pat McNamara

Soon after the election, the National Party leader, Pat McNamara, announced that he would soon leave the leadership, and would probably leave the Parliament by Christmas. It seemed likely that there would be a by-election for his seat of Benalla in the new year, possibly February. The 1999 Victorian election therefore seemed still to have some life, particularly as a swing of 7.5 per cent would see the National Party lose a seat that it has held since 1943.

In due course McNamara handed over the reins to Peter Ryan in November, but did not say anything about his resignation from the Parliament. However, in the immediate aftermath of the Burwood by-election, reports began to be heard of McNamara coming under pressure to remain in the seat, at least for a few more months.(66) Were the seat to be won by the Government, this would be the first time Labor has held a seat whose history can be dated back to the first decade of this century. Such a result would give Labor half of the Legislative Assembly, a significantly stronger position than before the resignation of Kennett. Loss of Benalla would also further weaken the Nationals' parlous parliamentary position. McNamara remains in Parliament at the time of writing.

The State of the Parties

The Labor Party

Labor is fortunate to be occupying the government benches in the Legislative Assembly. Its vote of 45.5 per cent, which was a modest increase of only 2.4 per cent on the 1996 figure, was actually 1.6 per cent behind its Coalition opponents. L abor's total of first preferences is the lowest by a winning party since the final Hamer victory in 1979. The election result might actually tell us more about the disillusionment of voters with the Coalition Government, than their support for their challengers. Many voters abandoned the Coalition, but a significant number chose to give Labor their second preference, rather than their first. In the seat of Seymour, for example, Labor trailed the Liberal sitting member on first preferences, but won the seat by just 462 votes after the distribution of Australian Green preferences.

On a more positive note, Labor's vote of 45.5 per cent was its second increase in successive elections, and was a healthy 7.1 per cent above its dark days of 1992—which had been its worst vote for 25 years. The ALP needs to use the advantages of office to prepare the ground to win majority government in its own right and gain a safer parliamentary position—as did the New South Wales party between the elections of 1995 and 1999. It has to work to win more seats east and south of the Yarra, for history suggests that its hold on its regional gains will be harder to maintain than its hold over its metropolitan seats. The increase in its Melbourne vote was only 2.6 per cent, and its total metropolitan vote of 49.6 per cent gives significant room for improvement—in 1982 John Cain's Labor Party won 54.7 per cent of the Melbourne vote. There is room for growth outside of the capital as well. Despite Labor picking up so many regional seats, its overall vote was only 38.1 per cent, 4.8 per cent lower than in 1982. It must ensure that its policies are seen as 'bush-friendly', if it is to retain these seats.

Of course, the length of time that Labor has in office may be insufficient to build up any degree of extra support, for its biggest problem will be ensuring that it retains the government reins. A minority government, propped up with some reluctance by independents, which has to face a Legislative Council controlled by the Opposition, is likely to see an early election as a strong possibility. Whether it could win majority control of the Assembly may well depend on a great many variables that are out of its control.(67) Not the least of its problems is the great difficulty it will have in gaining control of the Legislative Council while the two-member province electoral system is retained.

The Liberal Party

The Liberal Party's new leader, Denis Napthine, has moved to indicate a new style of leadership: '1 can't imagine a denis.com'. He quickly signalled this in symbolic fashion. The Victorian Liberals under the succes sive leadership of Henry Bolte, Dick Hamer, Lindsay Thompson and, initially, Jeff Kennett, had always had caucus election for most of their front bench. In 1988 this had been scrapped by Kennett, who took over the responsibility himself—as is done in other divisions of the party. In turn, Napthine has reinstated caucus election with a few positions chosen by the party leader.(68)

Like the ALP, the Liberals can face the next few years with some optimism. With a new leadership team, and presumably a forthcom ing review of its policies, it should be encouraged by the fact that its 1999 State-wide vote fell by only 1.8 per cent. In fact, its first preference vote was higher than any vote managed by Sir Henry Bolte from 1955 to 1970, when the party was reliant on Democratic Labor Party preferences in a great many seats. The party is very strong in Melbourne, so that its main aim must be to regain the seats it held in regional Victoria—for instance, it lost both Ballarat East and Ballarat West, as well as the two Legislative Council Ballarat contests.

Overall, the Liberal Party is well-placed to launch a bid to regain office at the next election, providing the early, emotional views of some members ('the worst ever loss in the history of the Victorian section'(69)) do not lead to any widespread party blood-letting with resulting poor publicity. If such blood-letting does occur, past history suggests that the earlier it is done before the next election, the better.

The National Party

The National Party's position i s far less healthy. Despite its running of two more candidates than in 1996 its vote fell. Its State total of 4.9 per cent was the party's lowest on record—50 years ago its vote was exactly 10 percentage points higher. It currently holds just seven of the 88 seats; fifty years ago it held 20 of 75 seats. Its chances of growth appear to be non-existent. A steady decline in regional seats presents it with a dilemma familiar to branches in New South Wales and Queensland. One chance of growth is to contest near-metropolitan seats, but its abject failure when it attempted to do so in Victoria in the mid-1980s does not bode well for such a tactic if it were to be tried again.(70)

In the immediate future, the party must work to regain Gippsland East. The task of pushing the Liberals out of Warrnambool might be rather more difficult. Elsewhere, it possibly needs to reconsider its opposition to three-cornered contests, for to do so wo uld enable it to mount a serious challenge in the Liberal-held regional seats, as well as in the regional seats its coalition partner has just lost.

The Nationals must hope that the Bracks push to introduce proportional representation for Legislative Council elections can be stopped. On its current vote, it would be hard-pressed to retain its six seats, assuming that the upper house remained the same size. Were it to be reduced, as has been flagged by Labor, and as occurred in Tasmania in 1998, the task of gaining any upper house representation would be very much harder than it is at present.

The Nationals also have a dilemma over the matter of coalition with the Liberal Party. Despite the view of Pat McNamara that the advantages in being involved in government decision-making justified joining a coalition, others have suggested that 'the experience of power in the Kennett years can be said to have been at best a mixed blessing'.(71) The party presumably suffered by being part of the 'Melbourne-centric' Kennett Government, and a return to a coalition government would leave it open to a similar problem in the future. Ryan has pledged to visit rural Victoria to listen to its concerns, but it has been argued that this may be too late: 'The time to communicate with rural communities and then deliver meaningful, effective policies was between 1992 and the 1999 election'.(72)

Three-cornered Contests

Three-cornered contests used to be an important component of Coalition electoral contests. In recent years, however, the National Party, ever-mindful of its declining number of seats, has criticised the Liberal Party for its continued enthusiasm for them—as was heard after the 1999 New South Wales election.(73) In a similar fashion, McNamara expressed his annoyance at the number of 'pointless' three-cornered contests in Victoria in 1999. A journalist summed up what he called 'one of the many lessons' learned from the campaign, namely that the partners had spent 'too much energy and resources' fighting such three-cornered battles.(74) The evidence does not seem to bear out such a view.

There were five such contests in this Legislative Assembly election, three in Liberal (or former Liberal) seats, and two in National seats. None of these seats had three-cornered contests in 1996. There were none in the Legislative Council contests.

In Gippsland West and Mildura the three-cornered contests in former Liberal seats were actually caused by the nomination of National Party candidates. In both, the combined Liberal-National vote topped the first preference vote of the winning independent, suggesting that the theory that three-cornered contests maximise the combined Coalition vote, was borne out. In neither case, however, did the Coalition vote top 50 per cent, and this no doubt was of vital importance in aiding the independent victories. In both cases, however, the three-cornered contest tactic appears to have been justified.

In Polwarth, a Liberal seat that runs west from the electorates of Geelong North and Geelong, the Liberal candidate ( 41% ) saw 10 percentage points stripped from the party's 1996 vote. As the National candidate (16.6%), was a prominent ex-Geelong AFL player, it is quite likely that it was his nomination that forced the Liberal sitting member to preferences. The margin between the two Coalition partners was so great—and the National vote so low—that it can be argued that if there was a 'pointless' three-cornered contest, this was it. It was forced, though, by the National Party.

As we have seen the Coalition lost a larger proportion of votes in rural Victoria than in metropolitan electorates. In Wimmera, however, the Coalition figure jumped from 56.9 per cent in 1996 (National only) to a combined Liberal and National vote of 63.5 per cent. Assuming that a National candidate standing alone would have had a reduced vote, the three-cornered contest quite clearly maximised the Coalition vote, as the theory suggests it should. The impact upon the ALP was such that it received less than one-quarter of the vote and was excluded from the contest at the penultimate count. The final count was therefore between National and Liberal, with the National candidate retaining the seat by a 15 per cent margin.

We have seen earlier that the National Party had come under criticism in Warrnambool over water charges. Despite this, the 'intrusion' of a Liberal Party candidate presumably helped the Coalition vote to top 57 per cent—though the National's 17.5 per cent was a drop of 40.3 per cent on the previous result. The question here is whether the National standing alone could have won this seat that is normally not friendly to the ALP. Labor's candidate received just 31.5 per cent, so it is unlikely that enough of the vote that went to the Liberals would have shifted to Labor if a Liberal candidate had not been on the ballot paper. As no other candidate topped 6 per cent, it is in regard to this seat, alone, that McNamara's complaint—as a National spokesperson—has some justification. From the Liberal perspective, however, the fact that the Liberal Party was able to nominate an attractive candidate for the seat meant that Warrnambool did not slip out of Coalition hands as might have happened.

Conclusion

A matter of timing?

The Victorian Liberal Party, the most successful division of the party that Robert Menzies created over 50 years ago, will probably mull over two tantalising questions for some time to come:

  • Should Kennett have gone earlier? A combination of good polls, plus Labor's leadership tensions, suggests that the Premier should probably have gone to the people earlier, possibly as early as May or June. The delay meant that the new leadership was able to stake out a position as a reasonable, 'new' face of Labor that could increasingly claim to have put the party's internal problems behind it.(75)
  • It seems clear that if Kennett had timed his departure from the Liberal leadership—and hence the Premiership—as soon as it was clear that he had lost his parliamentary majority, then at least Russell Savage, and possibly Craig Ingram, would have supported a minority Liberal-National Government. Indeed, as late as the Monday after the Frankston East by-election, Savage suggested that an earlier Kennett resignation would have swung independent support behind the Coalition: 'They had a great chance to do it but they didn't'.(76)

Implications?

There are several implications that can be drawn from the Victorian election.

  • The urban-rural divide remains an important part of Australian politics. Given the right circumstances, as in Victoria in 1999, even if few votes move in metropolitan electorates a significant movement of votes in the bush can decide an election result. This recent Victorian election is a reminder of New South Wales 1976. In that election Labor's ability to retain the seats it held outside of the cities, and to pick up the rural seat that gave it a one-seat parliamentary majority, brought Neville Wran to power.
  • It is clear that the growing volatility of the Australian electorate means that no government, whether at Commonwealth or State level, can be seen as impregnable. The past decade has seen governments defeated in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the ACT as well as in the Commonwealth election of 1996.
  • A related point is that even governments with very large majorities can see these quickly disappear. This occurred to Premiers Greiner, Goss and Kennett, with Greiner resigning before the end of his term, Goss losing power after a by-election defeat and Kennett's recent loss of power.
  • Governments that undertake a large-scale reform program run the risk of bringing about a voter backlash, no matter how much the economic circumstances of the time suggest the need for such reform.
  • Victoria 1999 reminds us that the use of preferential voting can sometimes have an important impact upon the result of an Australian election.

 

Endnotes

  1. Peter Aimer, Politics, Power and Persuasion. The Liberals in Victoria , James Bennett, Syd ney, 1974, pp. 150 - 4.
  2. At this time, a symbol of the less-than-friendly relations between the non-Labor parties was the decision of the Liberal Party in 1949 to call itself the Liberal and Country Party. The party only dropped the word 'Country' in 1965.
  3. James Jupp, 'Victoria: Left, Right and Centre', in Andrew Parkin and John Warhurst, ed., Machine Politics in the Australian Labor Party , George Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 1983, pp. 69 - 72.
  4. Brian Costar and Nicholas Economou, 'Elections and Electoral Change 19 82 - 92', in Mark Considine and Brian Costar, ed., Trials in Power. Cain, Kirner and Victoria 1982 - 1992 , Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1992, p. 261.
  5. Leanne White, 'The Fourth Estate and the Kennett Government', in Brian Costar and Nicholas Economou, eds, The Kennett Revolution. Victorian Politics in the 1990s , University of New South Wales Press, Sydney, 1999, p. 33.
  6. Herald Sun , 25 August 1999.
  7. Ardel Shamsullah, '"The Policy of Confidence": Politics in Victoria 1992 - 98', in Costar and Economou, The K ennett Revolution , p.  6.
  8. Australian , 1 April 1996.
  9. Ernie Chaples, Helen Nelson and Ken Turner, 'The Wran model in perspective', in Ernie Chaples, Helen Nelson and Ken Turner, eds, The Wran Model. Electoral politics in New South Wales 1981 and 1984 , Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1985, p. 245.
  10. Brian Costar, 'Laboring against the Jeff factor', Sunday Age , 29 August 1999.
  11. Age , 25 August 1999.
  12. Graham Hudson, 'The ALP: Labouring in Opposition', in Costar and Economou, The Kennett Revolution , p. 99.
  13. Brumby q uoted in Hudson, op. cit., p. 100.
  14. Nicholas Economou and Brian Costar, 'The Electoral Contest and Coalition Dominance 1992 - 98', in Costar and Economou, The Kennett Revolution , p. 131.
  15. Shamsullah, op. cit., p. 13.
  16. Economou and Costar, 'The Electoral Contest ', p. 130; Age , 12 November 1997.
  17. Age , 27 July 1998.
  18. Australian , 25 February 1999.
  19. Shamshullah, op. cit., p. 11; Hudson, op. cit., p. 109.
  20. For speculation that Labor could lose seats, see Australian , 25 February 1999, Age , 25 August 1999.
  21. Age , 25 August 1 999.
  22. Allan Attwood, 'A true believer takes his chance while cameras roll', Age , 20 September 1999.
  23. Age , 26 August 1999.
  24. Age , 25 August 1999.
  25. Age , 28 August 1999.
  26. Australian , 25 August 1999.
  27. Age , 17, 18 July 1999, Weekend Australian , 3 - 4 July 1999.
  28. Sunday A ge , 24 October 1999.
  29. Age , 9 September 1999.
  30. Herald Sun , 6 September 1999; Age , 20 September 1999.
  31. Sunday Herald Sun , 5 September 1999; Age , 10 September 1999.
  32. Weekend Australian , 28 - 29 August 1999; Sunday Age, 5 September 1999; Herald Sun , 8  September 1999 ; Age , 20 September 1999.
  33. Herald Sun , 25 August 1999; Australian , 26 August 1999.
  34. Age , 25 August 1999.
  35. Independents' Charter Victoria 1999, http://home.vicnet.au/~susandavies/Charterfinal.htm
  36. Age , 18 October 1999.
  37. Robert Manne, Sydney Morning Herald , 13 Se ptember 1999.
  38. Woodward and Costar, op. cit., p. 15.
  39. Dennis Woodward and Brian Costar, 'Another Case of Electoral Volatility? The 1999 Victorian Election', unpublished paper, 1999, p. 3.
  40. Bulletin , 7 September 1999.
  41. Financial Review , 17 September 1999, Couri er Mail , 18 September 1999.
  42. Age , 28 August 1999.
  43. Pamela Bone, 'Why some Liberals can't abide Kennett', Age , 16 September 1999; Anne Henderson, 'Rewards go to grassroots pollies', Australian , 30 September 1999.
  44. Herald Sun , 27 August 1999.
  45. Herald Sun , 10 Sep tember 1999.
  46. Age , 25 August 1999.
  47. Anne Vince, 'Amalgamations', in Brian Dollery and Neil Marshall ed., Australian Local Government. Reform and Renewal , Macmillan, Melbourne, 1997, p. 160; Brian Costar, 'Coalition Government: An Unequal Partnership', in Cos tar and Economou, The Kennett Revolution , pp. 93 - 4; Bill Russell, 'Rebuilding Victoria after Kennett', Dissent , Summer 1999/2000, p. 56.
  48. Editor, St Arnaud North Central News , quoted Costar, 'Coalition Government ', p. 92.
  49. Woodward and Costar, op. cit., p. 9.
  50. ibid, p.16.
  51. Age , 20 September 1999.
  52. See Tim Colebatch, 'Behind the rural revolt', Age , 18 October 1999; for other articles on the rural view of the Kennett Government, see Weekend Australian , 28 - 29 August 1999, Bulletin , 5 October 1999.
  53. Scott Bennett, Affa irs of State: politics in the Australian States and Territories , Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 1992, p. 187.
  54. Australian , 2 - 8 December 1999.
  55. Age , 18 December 1999.
  56. Age , 25 October 1999.
  57. Mike Steketee, 'Felled by the polls', Australian , 2 - 8 December 1999.
  58. Tony Pa rkinson, 'Can-do Premier undone', Age , 20 September 1999.
  59. Quoted in Brian Costar, 'The National Party Campaign', in Brian J. Costar and Colin A.  Hughes ed., Labor to Office. The Victorian State Election 1982 , Drummond, Blackburn, p.  70.
  60. Bennett, op. cit., p. 7.
  61. Financial Review , 23 October 1999.
  62. Age , 27 October 1999.
  63. Age , 29 October 1999.
  64. Age , 9 December 1999.
  65. Age , 16 December 1999.
  66. See, for example, Australian , 12 January 2000.
  67. Virginia Trioli, 'End of the line', Bulletin , 26 October 1999, pp. 42 - 3.
  68. Age , A ustralian , 27 October 1999.
  69. Bernie Finn, former MLA for Tullamarine, Age , 22 December 1999.
  70. Ardel Shamsullah, 'Politics in Victoria: Parliament, Cabinet and the Political Parties', in Considine and Costar, op. cit., pp. 16 - 17.
  71. Age , 21 December 1999.
  72. ibid.
  73. For the New South Wales National Party's complaints, see Scott Bennett and Gerard Newman, 'New South Wales Election 1999', Research Paper No. 22 , Department of the Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 1999, pp. 14 - 15. See also Scott Bennett, Winning and Losing . Australia's National Elections , Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1996, pp.  52 - 3.
  74. Ewin Hannan, 'Running on empty in Liberal country', Age , 18 December 1999.
  75. Adam Kilgour, Executive Director of CPR Communications & Public Relations Pty Ltd, who worke d on the Labor campaign, was one observer who believed the delay was a 'major' mistake by the Premier, see 'How Bracks won it', Age , 22 October 1999.
  76. Bulletin , 26 October 1999.

 

Table 1 Legislative Assembly, State Summary

Enrolled 3 130 338

 

Candidates

S eats Won (a)

First Preference Votes

Change from 1996

Number

Per cent

Seats(b)

Votes

Australian Labor Party (ALP)

88

42

1 289 696

45.57

+13(+12)

+2.44

Liberal Party (LP)

81

36

1 194 998

42.22

-13(-10)

-1.77

National Party (NP)

12

7

135 930

4.80

-2( -2)

-1.89

Australian Greens (AG)

21

 

32 570

1.15

 

+1.15

Hope Party (HP)

10

 

10 894

0.38

 

+0.38

One Nation (PHON)

4

 

8 181

0.29

 

+0.29

Australian Democrats (AD)

6

 

7 972

0.28

 

+0.28

Democratic Labor Party (DLP)

8

 

6 183

0.22

 

+0.22

Natural Law P arty (NLP)

15

 

6 044

0.21

 

-1.65

Shooters Party (SP)

2

 

2 011

0.07

 

+0.03

Australian Reform Party (ARP)

3

 

1 483

0.05

 

+0.05

Christian Democratic Party (CDP)

1

 

  414

0.01

 

-0.22

Abolish Child Support (ACS)

1

 

  194

0.01

 

+0.01

Independents (IND)

67

3

133 701

4.72

+2(0)

+0.65

             

Formal Votes

   

2 830 271

96.98

 

-0.72

Informal Votes

   

88 275

3.02

 

+0.72

Totals/Turnout

319

88

2 918 546

93.23

 

-0.85

(a) After the Burwood by-election, ALP 43 and LP 35.

(b) Figures in brackets represent change from position prior to 1999 election.

 

 

Table 2a Legislative Assembly: District Summary

Number

Electoral District

First Preference Votes

Formal

Votes

Informal

Vo tes

Total

Votes

Electors

Enrolled

ALP

LP

NP

Others

Albert Park

18 997

14 671

   

33 668

  989

34 657

39 365

Altona

21 545

11 774

   

33 319

1 303

34 622

36 589

Ballarat East

16 100

13 886

   

29 986

  706

30 692

32 526

Ballarat West

1 5 527

14 910

   

30 437

  744

31 181

32 893

Bayswater

13 732

17 165

 

1 380

32 277

  786

33 063

35 427

Bellarine

14 289

15 875

 

1 930

32 094

  599

32 693

34 423

Benalla

13 013

 

17 543

 

30 556

1 128

31 684

34 087

Benambra

13 561

18 016

   

31 577

  931

32 508

35 378

Bendigo East

15 478

14 123

 

2 380

31 981

  567

32 548

34 094

Bendigo West

18 315

11 679

 

2 483

32 477

  638

33 115

34 932

Bennettswood

13 103

16 715

   

29 818

  733

30 551

32 822

Bentleigh

13 831

15 679

 

1 927

31 437

  865

32 302

34 492

Berwick

17 248

21 958

 

1 519

40 725

1 241

41 966

44 452

Box Hill

12 166

17 299

 

1 356

30 821

  671

31 492

34 099

Brighton

6 973

17 701

 

5 920

30 594

  664

31 258

34 221

Broadmeadows

22 718

6 889

 

2 080

31 687

1 898

33 585

36 559

Bulleen

9 810

17 843

 

2 722

30 375

  982

31 357

33 760

Bundoora

18 375

14 612

 

  807

33 794

  973

34 767

36 747

Burwood

13 062

17 455

 

  928

31 445

  789

32 234

34 668

Carrum

16 099

16 770

 

1 896

34 765

  899

35 664

38 150

Caulfield

13 460

18 947

   

32 407

1 024

33 431

37 601

Clayton

20 037

12 441

   

32 478

1 503

33 981

36 653

Coburg

18 877

7 765

 

2 547

29 189

1 248

30 437

35 338

Cranbourne

14 892

20 444

 

2 379

37 715

  997

38 712

41 084

Dandenong

23 129

18 297

   

41 426

1 733

43 159

46 056

Dandenong North

16 406

11 908

 

2 096

30 410

1 302

31 712

33 802

Doncaster

10 579

19 707

 

2 126

32 412

  915

33 327

35 902

Dromana

13 542

17 900

 

1 441

32 883

  799

33 682

36 014

Eltham

14 325

18 696

 

4 157

37 178

  907

38 085

40 355

Essendon

18 489

13 135

   

31 624

  839

32 463

34 636

Evelyn

11 480

18 367

 

3 686

33 533

1 042

34 575

36 733

Footscray

19 916

9 533

   

29 449

1 503

30 952

34 174

Forest Hill

12 895

17 583

 

1 000

31 478

  816

32 294

34 556

Frankston

10 083

17 778

 

2 476

30 337

  635

30 972

33 431

Frankston East

13 127

10 632

 

1 803

25 562

1 280

26 842

28 877

Geelong

14 001

14 719

 

2 2 64

30 984

  802

31 786

33 830

Geelong North

19 000

12 176

   

31 176

1 158

32 334

34 379

Gippsland East

8 177

 

10 776

11 054

30 007

  812

30 819

33 075

Gippsland South

9 955

 

15 130

4 867

29 952

  800

30 752

32 761

Gippsland West

5 487

11 502

1 973

11 332

30 294

  821

31 115

32 796

Gisborne

13 589

14 084

 

5 975

33 648

  981

34 629

36 390

Glen Waverley

10 738

18 410

   

29 148

  714

29 862

31 984

Hawthorn

10 635

20 548

 

1 650

32 833

  792

33 625

36 943

Ivanhoe

15 079

12 788

 

2 227

30 094

  858

30 952

33 205

Keilor

22 338

12 851

 

2 875

38 064

1 967

40 031

42 091

Kew

10 751

19 594

 

1 380

31 725

  795

32 520

35 644

Knox

14 684

20 481

 

1 408

36 573

  943

37 516

39 768

Malvern

10 583

21 129

   

31 712

  697

32 409

35 940

Melbourne

20 572

12 122

 

1 986

34 680

1 334

36 014

41 000

Melton

24 237

15 294

   

39 531

1 862

41 393

44 047

Table 2 a Legislative Assembly: District Summary

Number continued

Electoral District

First Preference Votes

Formal

Votes

Informal

Votes

Total

Votes

Electors

Enrolled

ALP

LP

NP

Others

Mildura

2 572

7 998

6 015

13 942

30 527

  763

31 290

33 191

Mill Park

24 307

12 405

 

  924

37 636

1 541

39 177

41 456

Mitcham

14 411

15 043

 

2 423

31 877

  729

32 606

34 479

Monbulk

12 266

15 206

 

3 043

30 515

  870

31 385

33 627

Mooroolbark

12 549

19 509

   

32 058

  896

32 954

34 835

Mor dialloc

14 200

15 515

   

29 715

  955

30 670

32 829

Mornington

12 198

17 821

 

3 599

33 618

  813

34 431

36 840

Morwell

17 366

11 040

 

2 912

31 318

  700

32 018

33 737

Murray Valley

10 811

 

20 899

 

31 710

  990

32 700

34 790

Narraca n

13 074

11 925

 

3 685

28 684

  939

29 623

31 688

Niddrie

17 761

13 525

   

31 286

1 252

32 538

33 802

Northcote

20 681

8 124

 

2 480

31 285

1 306

32 591

35 695

Oakleigh

15 060

13 558

 

1 975

30 593

1 118

31 711

34 347

Pakenham

11 949

17 202

 

3 208

32 359

  802

33 161

35 194

Pascoe Vale

17 725

9 569

   

27 294

1 098

28 392

31 045

Polwarth

7 393

12 668

5 116

5 735

30 912

  686

31 598

33 217

Portland

8 016

12 093

 

7 153

27 262

  515

27 777

29 156

Prahran

13 056

16 789

 

3 055

32 900

  904

33 804

39 089

Preston

20 087

8 769

 

1 052

29 908

1 339

31 247

33 794

Richmond

20 121

10 716

 

4 213

35 050

1 348

36 398

41 466

Ripon

15 579

14 045

   

29 624

  668

30 292

31 732

Rodney

8 565

 

18 329

3 257

30 151

  692

30 843

32 526

Sandringham

11 693

19 478

   

31 171

  828

31 999

34 629

Seymour

15 410

15 675

 

1 797

32 882

  879

33 761

35 717

Shepparton

7 616

 

12 355

10 965

30 936

  865

31 801

33 823

South Barwon

12 468

16 892

 

3 937

33 297

  761

34 058

36 107

Springvale

18 230

11 152

 

2 078

31 460

1 476

32 936

35 438

Sunshine

19 826

9 100

 

4 780

33 706

1 987

35 693

38 506

Swan Hill

5 511

 

12 378

9 486

27 375

1 066

28 441

30 088

Thomastown

23 305

8 212

   

31 517

1 479

32 996

35 416

Tullamarine

18 346

15 561

 

2 383

36 290

1 210

37 500

39 652

Wantirna

13 301

21 579

   

34 880

  931

35 811

37 964

Warrandyte

10 630

19 395

 

1 645

31 670

  620

32 290

34 386

Warrnambool

9 993

12 739

5 550

3 418

31 700

  962

32 662

34 226

Werribee

22 652

14 120

 

1 524

38 296

1 221

39 517

41 644

Williamstown

20 468

8 877

 

1 341

30 686

1 155

31 841

34 501

Wimmera

7 230

9 450

9 866

3 868

30 414

  878

31 292

32 652

Y an Yean

18 265

15 397

 

1 712

35 374

1 048

36 422

38 305

                 

   Total

1 289 696

1 194 998

135 930

209 647

2 830 271

88 275

2 918 546

3 130 338

                 

Regions

               

  Metropolitan

907 539

837 769

  0

82 894

1 828 202

61 771

1 889 973

2 040 259

  Non-Metropolitan

382 157

357 229

135 930

126 753

1 002 069

26 504

1 028 573

1 090 079

Note: Party winning seat shown in bold.

 

Table 2b Legislative Assembly: District Summary

Per cent

Electoral District

First Preference Votes

Formal

Votes

Informal

Votes

Turnout

ALP

LP

NP

Others

Albert Park

56.4

43.6

   

97.1

2.9

88.0

Altona

64.7

35.3

   

96.2

3.8

94.6

Ballarat East

53.7

46.3

   

97.7

2.3

94.4

Ballarat West

51.0

49.0

   

97.6

2.4

94.8

Bayswater

42.5

53.2

 

4.3

97.6

2.4

93.3

Bellarine

44.5

49.5

 

6.0

98.2

1.8

95.0

Benalla

42.6

 

57.4

 

96.4

3.6

93.0

Benambra

42.9

57.1

   

97.1

2.9

91.9

Bendig o East

48.4

44.2

 

7.4

98.3

1.7

95.5

Bendigo West

56.4

36.0

 

7.6

98.1

1.9

94.8

Bennettswood

43.9

56.1

   

97.6

2.4

93.1

Bentleigh

44.0

49.9

 

6.1

97.3

2.7

93.7

Berwick

42.4

53.9

 

3.7

97.0

3.0

94.4

Box Hill

39.5

56.1

 

4.4

97.9

2.1

92.4

Brighton

22.8

57.9

 

19.4

97.9

2.1

91.3

Broadmeadows

71.7

21.7

 

6.6

94.3

5.7

91.9

Bulleen

32.3

58.7

 

9.0

96.9

3.1

92.9

Bundoora

54.4

43.2

 

2.4

97.2

2.8

94.6

Burwood

41.5

55.5

 

3.0

97.6

2.4

93.0

Carrum

46.3

48.2

 

5.5

97.5

2.5

93.5

Caulfield

41.5

58.5

   

96.9

3.1

88.9

C layton

61.7

38.3

   

95.6

4.4

92.7

Coburg

64.7

26.6

 

8.7

95.9

4.1

86.1

Cranbourne

39.5

54.2

 

6.3

97.4

2.6

94.2

Dandenong

55.8

44.2

   

96.0

4.0

93.7

Dandenong North

53.9

39.2

 

6.9

95.9

4.1

93.8

Doncaster

32.6

60.8

 

6.6

97.3

2.7

92.8

Dromana

41.2

54.4

 

4.4

97.6

2.4

93.5

Eltham

38.5

50.3

 

11.2

97.6

2.4

94.4

Essendon

58.5

41.5

   

97.4

2.6

93.7

Evelyn

34.2

54.8

 

11.0

97.0

3.0

94.1

Footscray

67.6

32.4

   

95.1

4.9

90.6

Forest Hill

41.0

55.9

 

3.2

97.5

2.5

93.5

Frankston

33.2

58.6

 

8.2

97.9

2.1

92.6

Frankst on East

51.4

41.6

 

7.1

95.2

4.8

93.0

Geelong

45.2

47.5

 

7.3

97.5

2.5

94.0

Geelong North

60.9

39.1

   

96.4

3.6

94.1

Gippsland East

27.3

 

35.9

36.8

97.4

2.6

93.2

Gippsland South

33.2

 

50.5

16.2

97.4

2.6

93.9

Gippsland West

18.1

38.0

6.5

37.4

97.4

2.6

94.9

Gisborne

40.4

41.9

 

17.8

97.2

2.8

95.2

Glen Waverley

36.8

63.2

   

97.6

2.4

93.4

Hawthorn

32.4

62.6

 

5.0

97.6

2.4

91.0

Ivanhoe

50.1

42.5

 

7.4

97.2

2.8

93.2

Keilor

58.7

33.8

 

7.6

95.1

4.9

95.1

Kew

33.9

61.8

 

4.3

97.6

2.4

91.2

Knox

40.1

56.0

 

3.8

97.5

2.5

94.3

Malvern

33.4

66.6

   

97.8

2.2

90.2

Melbourne

59.3

35.0

 

5.7

96.3

3.7

87.8

Melton

61.3

38.7

   

95.5

4.5

94.0

Table 2b Legislative Assembly: District Summary

Per cent continued

Electoral District

First Preference Votes

Formal

Votes

Informal

Votes

Turnout

ALP

LP

NP

Others

Mildura

8.4

26.2

19.7

45.7

97.6

2.4

94.3

Mill Park

64.6

33.0

 

2.5

96.1

3.9

94.5

Mitcha m

45.2

47.2

 

7.6

97.8

2.2

94.6

Monbulk

40.2

49.8

 

10.0

97.2

2.8

93.3

Mooroolbark

39.1

60.9

   

97.3

2.7

94.6

Mordialloc

47.8

52.2

   

96.9

3.1

93.4

Mornington

36.3

53.0

 

10.7

97.6

2.4

93.5

Morwell

55.5

35.3

 

9.3

97.8

2.2

94.9

Murray Valley

34.1

 

65.9

 

97.0

3.0

94.0

Narracan

45.6

41.6

 

12.8

96.8

3.2

93.5

Niddrie

56.8

43.2

   

96.2

3.8

96.3

Northcote

66.1

26.0

 

7.9

96.0

4.0

91.3

Oakleigh

49.2

44.3

 

6.5

96.5

3.5

92.3

Pakenham

36.9

53.2

 

9.9

97.6

2.4

94.2

Pascoe Vale

64.9

35.1

   

96.1

3.9

91.5

Polwarth

23.9

41.0

16.6

18.6

97.8

2.2

95.1

Portland

29.4

44.4

 

26.2

98.1

1.9

95.3

Prahran

39.7

51.0

 

9.3

97.3

2.7

86.5

Preston

67.2

29.3

 

3.5

95.7

4.3

92.5

Richmond

57.4

30.6

 

12.0

96.3

3.7

87.8

Ripon

52.6

47.4

   

97.8

2.2

95.5

Rodney

28.4

 

60.8

10.8

97.8

2.2

94.8

Sandringham

37.5

62.5

   

97.4

2.6

92.4

Seymour

46.9

47.7

 

5.5

97.4

2.6

94.5

Shepparton

24.6

 

39.9

35.4

97.3

2.7

94.0

South Barwon

37.4

50.7

 

11.8

97.8

2.2

94.3

Springvale

57.9

35.4

 

6.6

95.5

4.5

92.9

Sunshine

58.8

27.0

 

14.2

94.4

5.6

92.7

Swan H ill

20.1

 

45.2

34.7

96.3

3.7

94.5

Thomastown

73.9

26.1

   

95.5

4.5

93.2

Tullamarine

50.6

42.9

 

6.6

96.8

3.2

94.6

Wantirna

38.1

61.9

   

97.4

2.6

94.3

Warrandyte

33.6

61.2

 

5.2

98.1

1.9

93.9

Warrnambool

31.5

40.2

17.5

10.8

97.1

2.9

95.4

Werribee

59.1

36.9

 

4.0

96.9

3.1

94.9

Williamstown

66.7

28.9

 

4.4

96.4

3.6

92.3

Wimmera

23.8

31.1

32.4

12.7

97.2

2.8

95.8

Yan Yean

51.6

43.5

 

4.8

97.1

2.9

95.1

               

   Total

45.6

42.2

4.8

7.4

97.0

3.0

93.2

               

Regions

             

  Metropolitan

49.6

45.8

0.0

4. 5

96.7

3.3

92.6

  Non-Metropolitan

38.1

35.6

13.6

12.6

97.4

2.6

94.4

Note: Party winning seat shown in bold.

 

 

Table 3 Legislative Assembly: District Details

Albert Park  Enrolled 39 365

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Thwaites J * ALP 18 997 56.4 -0.6

Rushford R LP 14 671 43.6 +4.1

 

Formal  33 668 97.1  -0.7

Informal   989 2.9 +0.7

Turnout  34 657 88.0 -1.8

 

 

 

Altona  Enrolled 36 589

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Kosky L * ALP 21 545 64.7 +7.9

Lambrinakos S LP 11 774 35.3 -1.4

 

Formal  33 319 96.2 -0.9

Informal  1 303 3.8 +0.9

Turnou t  34 622 94.6 +0.1

 

 

 

Ballarat East  Enrolled 32 526

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Traynor B * LP 13 886 46.3 -2.0

Howard G ALP 16 100 53.7 +5.8

 

Formal  29 986 97.7 -0.7

Informal   706 2.3 +0.7

Turnout  30 692 94.4 -0.5

 

 

 

Ballarat West  Enrolled 32 893

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Verlin J # LP 14 910 49.0 -0.5

Overington K ALP 15 527 51.0 +5.2

 

Formal  30 437 97.6 -0.6

Informal   744 2.4 +0.6

Turnout  31 181 94.8 -0.1

 

 

 

Bayswater  Enrolled 35 427

Candidate Pa rty Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Bristow J HP 1 380 4.3 +4.3

Craven S ALP 13 732 42.5 +1.4

Ashley G * LP 17 165 53.2 -2.8

 

Two Party Preferred

Craven S ALP 14 623 45.3 +2.8

Ashley G * LP 17 654 54.7 -2.8

 

Formal  32 277 97.6 -0.5

Informal   786 2.4  +0.5

Turnout  33 063 93.3 -1.0

 

 

 

 

Bellarine  Enrolled 34 423

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Erler K ALP 14 289 44.5 +0.1

Menheere-Thompson E AD 1 930 6.0 +6.0

Spry G * LP 15 875 49.5 -6.1

 

Two Party Preferred

Erler K ALP 15 495 48.3 +3.8

Spry G * LP 16 599 51.7 -3.8

 

Formal  32 094 98.2 -0.1

Informal   599 1.8 +0.1

Turnout  32 693 95.0 -0.8

 

 

 

Benalla  Enrolled 34 087

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Allen D ALP 13 013 42.6 +19.0

McNamara P * NP 17 543 57.4 -1.5

 

Formal  30 556 96.4 -1.6

Informal  1 128 3.6 +1.6

Turnout  31 684 93.0 -1.9

 

 

 

Benambra  Enrolled 35 378

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Plowman T * LP 18 016 57.1 -5.8

Murdoch B ALP 13 561 42.9 +9.9

 

Formal  31 577 97.1 -0.9

Informal   931 2.9 +0.9

Turnout  32 508 91.9 -1.4

 

 

 

Bendigo East  Enrolled 34 094

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Rivendell B AG  1 552 4.9 +4.9

John M * LP 14 123 44.2 -8.1

Thorpe A ARP  828 2.6 +2.6

Allan J ALP 15 478 48.4 +6.6

 

Two Party Preferred

John M * LP 15 004 46.9 -8.1

Allan J ALP 16 977 53.1 +8.1

 

Formal  31 981 98.3 -0.4

Informal   567 1.7 +0.4

Turnout  32 548 95.5 +0.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bendigo West  Enrolled 34 932

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Cameron B * ALP 18 315 56.4 +12.7

Howard A IND 1 092 3.4 +3.4

Hall A AG 1 391 4.3 +4.3

Cappy F LP 11 679 36.0 -7.0

 

Two Party Preferred

Cameron B * ALP 19 893 61.3  +9.6

Cappy F LP 12 582 38.7 -9.6

 

Formal  32 477 98.1 -0.4

Informal   638 1.9 +0.4

Turnout  33 115 94.8 -0.1

 

 

 

Bennettswood  Enrolled 32 822

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Wilson R # LP 16 715 56.1 -2.0

Andrews M ALP 13 103 43.9 +4.4

 

Formal  29 818 97.6 -0.5

Informal   733 2.4 +0.5

Turnout  30 551 93.1 -1.4

 

 

 

Bentleigh  Enrolled 34 492

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Maloney C ALP 13 831 44.0 +0.1

Brunton N AG 1 139 3.6 +3.6

King G DLP  492 1.6 +1.6

Barber M IND  296 0.9 +0.9

Peulich I * LP 15 679 49.9 -3.9

 

Two Party Preferred

Maloney C ALP 15 090 48.1 +2.8

Peulich I * LP 16 300 51.9 -2.8

 

Formal  31 437 97.3 -0.7

Informal   865 2.7 +0.7

Turnout  32 302 93.7 -1.4

 

 

 

Berwick  Enrolled 44 452

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Dean R * LP 21 958 53.9 +0.8

Reed P ALP 17 248 42.4 -0.3

Rowe M DLP 1 519 3.7 +3.7

 

Two Party Preferred

Dean R * LP 22 376 54.9 -0.4

Reed P ALP 18 348 45.1 +0.4

 

Formal  40 725  97.0 -0.4

Informal  1 241 3.0 +0.4

Turnout  41 966 94.4 -0.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

Box Hill  Enrolled 34 099

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Waters J HP 1 356 4.4 +4.4

Thorn C ALP 12 166 39.5 +1.2

Clark R * LP 17 299 56.1 -3.0

 

Two Party Preferred

Thorn C ALP 13 067 42.4 +2.7

Clark R * LP 17 754 57.6 -2.7

 

Formal  30 821 97.9 -0.4

Informal   671 2.1 +0.4

Turnout  31 492 92.4 -1.4

 

 

 

Brighton  Enrolled 34 221

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Del Porto A IND 5 920 19.4 +19.4

Dunsmuir I  ALP 6 973 22.8 -7.3

Asher L # LP 17 701 57.9 -8.8

 

Two Party Preferred

Dunsmuir I ALP 10 529 34.4 +2.5

Asher L # LP 20 061 65.6 -2.5

 

Formal  30 594 97.9 -0.4

Informal   664 2.1 +0.4

Turnout  31 258 91.3 -1.5

 

 

 

Broadmeadows  Enrolled 36 559

Candidate Part y Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Marr G IND 1 022 3.2 +3.2

Tay P LP 6 889 21.7 -1.7

Brumby J * ALP 22 718 71.7 0.0

Haidar A IND  789 2.5 +2.5

Kaliniy J IND  269 0.8 +0.8

 

Two Party Preferred

Tay P LP 8 019 25.3 +0.4

Brumby J * ALP 23 651 74.7 -0.4

 

Formal  31 687 94.3 -2.7

Informal  1 898 5.7 +2.7

Turnout  33 585 91.9 -0.8

 

 

 

Bulleen  Enrolled 33 760

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Manassa D HP  890 2.9 +2.9

Miras C ALP 9 810 32.3 -1.1

Trafficante R AG 1 832 6.0 +6.0

Kotsiras N # L P 17 843 58.7 -4.7

 

Two Party Preferred

Miras C ALP 11 662 38.4 +3.0

Kotsiras N # LP 18 709 61.6 -3.0

 

Formal  30 375 96.9 -0.5

Informal   982 3.1 +0.5

Turnout  31 357 92.9 -2.0

 

Bundoora  Enrolled 36 747

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Mason N NLP  807 2.4 -0.5

Garbutt S * ALP 18 375 54.4 +3.9

McCabe C LP 14 612 43.2 -3.3

 

Two Party Preferred

Garbutt S * ALP 18 942 56.1 +3.5

McCabe C LP 14 852 43.9 -3.5

 

Formal  33 794 97.2 -0.8

Informal   973 2.8 +0.8

Turnout  34 767 94.6 -0.6

 

 

 

Burwood  Enrolled 34 668

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Bunn M NLP  734 2.3 -0.9

Kennett J * LP 17 455 55.5 -1.7

Stensholt B ALP 13 062 41.5 +2.0

Abolish Child Support ACS  194 0.6 +0.6

 

Two Party Preferred

Kennett J *  LP 17 858 56.8 -1.8

Stensholt B ALP 13 585 43.2 +1.8

 

Formal  31 445 97.6 -0.7

Informal   789 2.4 +0.7

Turnout  32 234 93.0 -1.0

 

 

 

Carrum  Enrolled 38 150

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Bray D AG 1 896 5.5 +5.5

Lindell J ALP 16 099 4 6.3 +0.4

Lean D * LP 16 770 48.2 -1.1

 

Two Party Preferred

Lindell J ALP 17 444 50.2 +1.0

Lean D * LP 17 321 49.8 -1.0

 

Formal  34 765 97.5 -0.5

Informal   899 2.5 +0.5

Turnout  35 664 93.5 -0.7

 

 

 

Caulfield  Enrolled 37 601

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

Fi rst Preference Votes

Shardey H * LP 18 947 58.5 +0.2

Simon H ALP 13 460 41.5 +3.0

 

Formal  32 407 96.9 -0.7

Informal  1 024 3.1 +0.7

Turnout  33 431 88.9 -2.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clayton  Enrolled 36 653

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Lok C LP 12 441 38.3 0.0

Lim H * ALP 20 037 61.7 +6.2

 

Formal  32 478 95.6 -1.3

Informal  1 503 4.4 +1.3

Turnout  33 981 92.7 -0.9

 

 

 

Coburg  Enrolled 35 338

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Carli C * ALP 18 877 64.7 -1.5

Rush E AG 2 547 8.7 +8.7

Hr ycek M LP 7 765 26.6 -4.8

 

Two Party Preferred

Carli C * ALP 20 951 71.8 +4.9

Hrycek M LP 8 232 28.2 -4.9

 

Formal  29 189 95.9 -1.0

Informal  1 248 4.1 +1.0

Turnout  30 437 86.1 -5.9

 

 

 

Cranbourne  Enrolled 41 084

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

McCormack C IND 2 379 6.3 +6.3

Perera J ALP 14 892 39.5 -1.5

Rowe G * LP 20 444 54.2 -4.8

 

Two Party Preferred

Perera J ALP 16 708 44.3 +3.3

Rowe G * LP 21 002 55.7 -3.3

 

Formal  37 715 97.4 +0.1

Informal   997 2.6 -0.1

Turnout  38 712 94.2 -1.4

 

 

 

Dandenong  Enrolled 46 056

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Miller A LP 18 297 44.2 +0.1

Pandazopoulos J * ALP 23 129 55.8 +6.2

 

Formal  41 426 96.0 -0.4

Informa l  1 733 4.0 +0.4

Turnout  43 159 93.7 -0.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dandenong North  Enrolled 33 802

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Lenders J # ALP 16 406 53.9 +3.3

Harris G IND 1 820 6.0 +6.0

Emmanouil G LP 11 908 39.2 -6.8

Klimek F ARP  276 0. 9 +0.9

 

Two Party Preferred

Lenders J # ALP 17 634 58.0 +5.8

Emmanouil G LP 12 775 42.0 -5.8

 

Formal  30 410 95.9 -1.1

Informal  1 302 4.1 +1.1

Turnout  31 712 93.8 -0.5

 

 

 

Doncaster  Enrolled 35 902

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Fyfi eld S AG 1 497 4.6 +4.6

Perton V * LP 19 707 60.8 -3.1

McCallum J ALP 10 579 32.6 -0.3

Dawe G HP  629 1.9 +1.9

 

Two Party Preferred

Perton V * LP 20 518 63.3 -1.6

McCallum J ALP 11 892 36.7 +1.6

 

Formal  32 412 97.3 -0.3

Informal   915 2.7 +0.3

Turnout  33 327 92.8 -1.8

 

 

 

Dromana  Enrolled 36 014

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Dixon M * LP 17 900 54.4 +3.5

Thompson D ALP 13 542 41.2 +7.0

Crea P DLP  951 2.9 +2.9

Charlwood J NLP  490 1.5 +0.6

 

Two Party Preferred

Dixon M * LP 18 480 56.2 -1.9

Thompson D ALP 14 403 43.8 +1.9

 

Formal  32 883 97.6 -0.8

Informal   799 2.4 +0.8

Turnout  33 682 93.5 -0.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eltham  Enrolled 40 355

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Engish J IND  546 1.5 +1.5

Jennings M IND 1 310 3.5 +3.5

Hanney P ALP 14 325 38.5 +0.2

Rosenfeldt W NLP  98 0.3 -0.8

Whitehead J AG 1 237 3.3 +3.3

Phillips W * LP 18 696 50.3 -4.4

Carter S AD  966 2.6 +2.6

 

Two Party Preferred

Hanney P ALP 17 315 46.4 +3.2

Phillips W * LP 19 960 53.6 -3.2

 

Formal  37 178 97.6 -0.9

Informal   907 2.4 +0.9

Turnout  38 085 94.4 -1.0

 

 

 

Essendon  Enrolled 34 636

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Maddigan J * ALP 18 489 58.5 +7.6

Saunders K LP 13 135 41.5 -1.7

 

Formal  31 624 97.4 -0.3

Informal   839 2.6 +0.3

Turnout  32 463 93.7 +0.4

 

 

 

Evelyn  Enrolled 36 733

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Gillam C IND 1 824 5.4 +5.4

Fyffe C # LP 18 367 54.8 -5.1

Marquez-Bridger N AL P 11 480 34.2 +0.8

Houlihan R IND 1 862 5.6 +5.6

 

Two Party Preferred

Fyffe C # LP 19 957 59.5 -3.2

Marquez-Bridger N ALP 13 571 40.5 +3.2

 

Formal  33 533 97.0 -0.6

Informal  1 042 3.0 +0.6

Turnout  34 575 94.1 0.0

 

 

 

Footscray  Enrolled 34 174

Candidate Pa rty Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Lynch D LP 9 533 32.4 +2.6

Mildenhall B * ALP 19 916 67.6 -0.4

 

Formal  29 449 95.1 -0.7

Informal  1 503 4.9 +0.7

Turnout  30 952 90.6 -0.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forest Hill  Enrolled 34 556

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Pr eference Votes

Richardson J * LP 17 583 55.9 -3.8

Buxton J ALP 12 895 41.0 +3.3

Hardiman S HP 1 000 3.2 +3.2

 

Two Party Preferred

Richardson J * LP 17 974 57.1 -3.2

Buxton J ALP 13 503 42.9 +3.4

 

Formal  31 478 97.5 -0.6

Informal   816 2.5 +0.6

Turnout  32 294 93.5 -1.4

 

 

 

Frankston  Enrolled 33 431

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Borg F IND  626 2.1 +2.1

Koch D ALP 10 083 33.2 -0.4

Kelsall H AG 1 850 6.1 +6.1

McCall A * LP 17 778 58.6 -5.7

 

Two Party Preferred

Koch D ALP 11 891 39.3 +4.7

McCall A * LP 18 399 60.7 -4.7

 

Formal  30 337 97.9 -0.3

Informal   635 2.1 +0.3

Turnout  30 972 92.6 -1.0

 

 

 

Frankston East  Enrolled 28 877

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Vogt M AG  486 1.9 +1.9

Bunyan I I ND  72 0.3 +0.3

McClure M IND  77 0.3 +0.3

McLean C # LP 10 632 41.6 -7.3

Rankin S IND  131 0.5 +0.5

Anderson R IND  95 0.4 +0.4

Pavlekovich-Smith I IND  13 0.1 +0.1

Viney M ALP 13 127 51.4 +7.1

Clark G IND  21 0.1 +0.1

Hoser R IND  11 0.0 +0.0

Burleigh G IND  140 0.5 +0.5

Crea P DLP  93 0.4 +0.4

Clarke L NLP  24 0.1 -1.0

Eames L IND  319 1.2 +1.2

Dawn D IND  58 0.2 +0.2

Coppard J IND  263 1.0 +1.0

 

Two Party Preferred

McLean C # LP 11 603 45.4 -7.7

Viney M ALP 13 953 54.6 +7.7

 

Formal  25 562 95.2 -2.6

Informal  1 280 4.8 +2.6

Turnout  26 842 93.0 -1.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Geelong  Enrolled 33 830

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Faris R IND 1 292 4.2 +4.2

Grose L IND  641 2.1 +2.1

O'Dea J IND  331 1.1 +1.1

Henderson A * LP 14 719 47.5 -5.1

Trezise I  ALP 14 001 45.2 +0.1

 

Two Party Preferred

Henderson A * LP 15 484 50.0 -3.5

Trezise I ALP 15 500 50.0 +3.5

 

Formal  30 984 97.5 -0.3

Informal   802 2.5 +0.3

Turnout  31 786 94.0 -0.3

 

 

 

Geelong North  Enrolled 34 379

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Pref erence Votes

Kennett B LP 12 176 39.1 -2.9

Loney P * ALP 19 000 60.9 +2.9

 

Formal  31 176 96.4 -0.6

Informal  1 158 3.6 +0.6

Turnout  32 334 94.1 -1.4

 

 

 

Gippsland East  Enrolled 33 075

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Buckley B IND 1 70 4 5.7 +5.7

Ingram C IND 7 439 24.8 +24.8

Bolitho B ALP 8 177 27.3 -1.3

Treasure D * NP 10 776 35.9 -16.9

Freshwater M PHON 1 911 6.4 +6.4

 

Two Candidate Preferred

Ingram C IND 17 317 57.7 

Treasure D * NP 12 690 42.3 

 

Formal  30 007 97.4 -0.9

Informal   812 2.6 +0.9

Turnout  30 819 93.2 -1.0

 

 

 

Gippsland South  Enrolled 32 761

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Sayers M IND 4 411 14.7 +14.7

Ryan P * NP 15 130 50.5 -17.2

Emanuel H ALP 9 955 33.2 +4.7

Clarke R NLP  456 1.5 -2.3

 

Two Party Preferred

Ryan P * NP 17 238 57.5 -11.9

Emanuel H ALP 12 740 42.5 +11.9

 

Formal  29 952 97.4 -0.9

Informal   800 2.6 +0.9

Turnou t  30 752 93.9 -0.7

 

 

 

 

Gippsland West  Enrolled 32 796

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Taylor P ALP 5 487 18.1 -15.1

Head W NP 1 973 6.5 +6.5

Richardson M NLP  128 0.4 +0.4

McRae G LP 11 502 38.0 -19.8

Lowry M IND  385 1.3 -7.7

Davies S * IND 10 819 35.7 +35.7

 

Two Candidate Preferred

McCrae G LP 13 934 46.0 

Davies S * IND 16 360 54.0 

 

Formal  30 294 97.4 -0.9

Informal   821 2.6 +0.9

Turnout  31 115 94.9 -0.4

 

 

 

Gisborne  Enrolled 36 390

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference V otes

Mowatt R AD 1 260 3.7 +3.7

Reynolds G IND  643 1.9 +1.9

Duncan J ALP 13 589 40.4 -0.4

Dunn D IND 3 394 10.1 +10.1

Knowles R # LP 14 084 41.9 -13.8

Hall L AG  678 2.0 +2.0

 

Two Party Preferred

Duncan J ALP 17 371 51.6 +9.4

Knowles R # LP 16 277 48.4 -9.4

 

Formal  33 648 97.2 -0.9

Informal   981 2.8 +0.9

Turnout  34 629 95.2 -0.4

 

 

 

Glen Waverley  Enrolled 31 984

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Smith R * LP 18 410 63.2 -1.6

Dalby R ALP 10 738 36.8 +4.0

 

Formal  29 148 97.6 -0.6

Inform al   714 2.4 +0.6

Turnout  29 862 93.4 -1.4

 

 

 

Hawthorn  Enrolled 36 943

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Baillieu T # LP 20 548 62.6 +1.7

Wickiramasingham N ALP 10 635 32.4 +3.3

Dawborn K HP 1 650 5.0 +5.0

 

Two Party Preferred

Baillieu T # LP 21 042 64.1 +0.5

Wickiramasingham N ALP 11 791 35.9 -0.5

 

Formal  32 833 97.6 -1.1

Informal   792 2.4 +1.1

Turnout  33 625 91.0 -3.4

 

 

 

Ivanhoe  Enrolled 33 205

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Poynton L HP  358 1.2 +1.2

McLean D  LP 12 788 42.5 -5.0

Langdon C * ALP 15 079 50.1 +0.8

Clarke L NLP  132 0.4 -2.8

Roberts R AG 1 737 5.8 +5.8

 

Two Party Preferred

McLean D LP 13 413 44.6 -3.8

Langdon C * ALP 16 679 55.4 +3.8

 

Formal  30 094 97.2 -0.7

Informal   858 2.8 +0.7

Turnout  30 952 93.2 -1.0

 

 

 

Keilor  Enrolled 42 091

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Seitz G * ALP 22 3 38 58.7 -0.3

Burns H IND 2 875 7.6 +7.6

Fenech J LP 12 851 33.8 -3.5

 

Two Party Preferred

Seitz G * ALP 23 529 61.9 +0.3

Fenech J LP 14 481 38.1 -0.3

 

Formal  38 064 95.1 -0.7

Informal  1 967 4.9 +0.7

Turnout  40 031 95.1 +0.9

 

 

 

Kew  Enrolled 35 644

Candid ate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Hale P HP 1 380 4.3 +4.3

McIntosh A # LP 19 594 61.8 -1.9

Lewes J ALP 10 751 33.9 +1.1

 

Two Party Preferred

McIntosh A # LP 20 247 63.8 -1.2

Lewes J ALP 11 478 36.2 +1.2

 

Formal  31 725 97.6 -0.6

Informal   795 2.4 +0.6

Turnout  32 520 91.2 -2.0

 

 

 

Knox  Enrolled 39 768

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Wells K DLP 1 408 3.8 +3.8

Smith C ALP 14 684 40.1 -0.1

Lupton H * LP 20 481 56.0 -0.9

 

Two Party Preferred

Smith C ALP 15 611 42.7 +0.6

Lupton H * LP 20 962 57.3 -0.6

 

Formal  36 573 97.5 -0.5

Informal   943 2.5 +0.5

Turnout  37 516 94.3 -0.5

 

 

Malvern  Enrolled 35 940

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Doyle R * LP 21 129 66.6 +0.2

Wallace J ALP 10 583 33.4 +2.8

 

Formal  31 71 2 97.8 -0.3

Informal   697 2.2 +0.3

Turnout  32 409 90.2 -2.1

 

 

 

Melbourne  Enrolled 41 000

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Pike B # ALP 20 572 59.3 +5.7

McLean L LP 12 122 35.0 +4.2

Jorquera J IND 1 986 5.7 +5.7

 

Two Party Preferred

Pike B # ALP 22 112 63.8 -2.1

McLean L LP 12 568 36.2 +2.1

 

Formal  34 680 96.3 -0.7

Informal  1 334 3.7 +0.7

Turnout  36 014 87.8 -0.6

 

 

 

Melton  Enrolled 44 047

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

McGeary J LP 15 294 38.7 +0.8

Nardella D # ALP 24 237 61.3 -0.8

 

Formal  39 531 95.5 -1.2

Informal  1 862 4.5 +1.2

Turnout  41 393 94.0 +0.3

 

 

 

Mildura  Enrolled 33 191

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Mansell A NP 6 015 19.7 +19.7

Danson P LP 7 998 26.2 -19.0

Savage R * IND 13 551 44.4 +8.7

Zigouras J ALP 2 572 8.4 -9.5

Joyce T AD  391 1.3 +1.3

 

Two Candidate Preferred

Mansell A NP 11 039 43.9 

Savage R * IND 14 110 56.1 

 

Formal  30 527 97.6 -0.7

Informal   763 2.4 +0.7

Turnout  31 290 94.3 +0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mill Park  Enrolled 41 456

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Davenport A LP 12 405 33.0 +1.0

D'Angelo R NLP  924 2.5 +1.0

Andrianopoulos A * ALP 24 307 64.6 +4.5

 

Two Party Preferred

Davenport A LP 12 864 34.2 -1.8

Andrianopoulos A * ALP 24 772 65.8 +1.8

 

Formal  37 636 96.1 -0.4

Informal  1 541 3.9 +0.4

Turnout  39 177 94.5 -0.5

 

 

 

Mitcham  Enrolled 34 479

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Robinso n T * ALP 14 411 45.2 +4.7

Petherbridge T HP  894 2.8 +2.8

Munroe A LP 15 043 47.2 -6.4

Aubrey C IND 1 529 4.8 +4.8

 

Two Party Preferred

Robinson T * ALP 16 110 50.5 +5.8

Munroe A LP 15 767 49.5 -5.8

 

Formal  31 877 97.8 -0.3

Informal   729 2.2 +0.3

Turnou t  32 606 94.6 -0.6

 

 

 

Monbulk  Enrolled 33 627

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Scurfield L NLP  258 0.8 -0.5

Voigt W CDP  414 1.4 +1.4

McArthur S * LP 15 206 49.8 -2.7

Wood L ALP 12 266 40.2 +2.0

Holtham R AG 1 928 6.3 +6.3

Feltham F D LP  443 1.5 +1.5

 

Two Party Preferred

McArthur S * LP 16 241 53.2 -2.0

Wood L ALP 14 306 46.8 +2.0

 

Formal  30 515 97.2 -0.8

Informal   870 2.8 +0.8

Turnout  31 385 93.3 -1.1

 

 

 

Mooroolbark  Enrolled 34 835

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Vot es

Elliott L * LP 19 509 60.9 0.0

McCrorey D ALP 12 549 39.1 +2.7

 

Formal  32 058 97.3 -0.6

Informal   896 2.7 +0.6

Turnout  32 954 94.6 -0.3

 

 

 

 

 

Mordialloc  Enrolled 32 829

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

McLeod R ALP 14 200 47.8 +5.8

Leigh G * LP 15 515 52.2 -1.2

 

Fo rmal  29 715 96.9 -1.2

Informal   955 3.1 +1.2

Turnout  30 670 93.4 -1.1

 

 

 

Mornington  Enrolled 36 840

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Nicholson V IND 2 816 8.4 +8.4

Cornelius G ALP 12 198 36.3 -0.8

Plunkett S IND  783 2.3 +2.3

Cooper R * LP 17 821 53.0 -6.2

 

Two Party Preferred

Cornelius G ALP 14 880 44.3 +5.6

Cooper R * LP 18 733 55.7 -5.6

 

Formal  33 618 97.6 -0.4

Informal   813 2.4 +0.4

Turnout  34 431 93.5 -0.5

 

 

 

Morwell  Enrolled 33 737

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preferen ce Votes

Tyler P LP 11 040 35.3 +35.3

Hamilton K * ALP 17 366 55.4 +4.0

Hoppner H IND 2 912 9.3 +9.3

 

Two Party Preferred

Tyler P LP 12 856 41.1 -6.2

Hamilton K * ALP 18 457 58.9 +6.2

 

Formal  31 318 97.8 -0.1

Informal   700 2.2 +0.1

Turnout  32 018 94.9 - 0.2

 

 

 

Murray Valley  Enrolled 34 790

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Jasper K * NP 20 899 65.9 -5.3

Leschen Z ALP 10 811 34.1 +8.4

 

Formal  31 710 97.0 -1.4

Informal   990 3.3 +1.4

Turnout  32 700 94.0 -0.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Narracan  Enrolled 31 688

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Fozard M AD 1 534 5.3 +5.3

Mathieson R IND  504 1.8 +1.8

Maxfield I ALP 13 074 45.6 +3.7

Dowling C SP 1 292 4.5 +4.5

Andrighetto F * LP 11 925 41.6 -5.8

Robinson H IND  355 1.2 +1.2

 

Two Party Preferred

Maxfield I ALP 15 063 52.5 +4.1

Andrighetto F * LP 13 261 47.5 -4.1

 

Formal  28 684 96.8 -1.3

Informal   939 3.2 +1.3

Turnout  29 623 93.5 -1.8

 

 

 

Niddrie  Enrolled 33 802

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Kruger S LP 13 525 43.2 -2.4

Hulls R * ALP 17 761 56.8 +2.4

 

Formal  31 286 96.2 -0.7

Informal  1 252 3.8 +0.7

Turnout  32 538 96.3 +1.0

 

 

 

Northcote  Enrolled 35 695

Candidate Pa rty Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Richardson E LP 8 124 26.0 -2.2

Duffy S IND 2 480 7.9 +7.9

Delahunty M * ALP 20 681 66.1 +6.5

 

Two Party Preferred

Richardson E LP 8 552 27.3 -2.8

Delahunty M * ALP 22 733 72.7 +2.8

 

Formal  31 285 96.0 -0.2

Informal  1 306 4.0 +0.2

Turnout  32 591 91.3 -1.5

 

 

 

Oakleigh  Enrolled 34 347

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Barker A ALP 15 060 49.2 +3.4

McGregor S IND  452 1.5 +1.5

Eboli L IND  268 0.9 +0.9

Walters S AG 1 107 3.6 +3.6

McGill D * LP 13 5 58 44.3 -3.1

Schlager R NLP  148 0.5 -0.5

 

Two Party Preferred

Barker A  ALP 16 286 53.3 +4.1

McGill D * LP 14 262 46.7 -4.1

 

Formal  30 593 96.5 -1.1

Informal  1 118 3.5 +1.1

Turnout  31 711 92.3 -0.8

 

 

 

Pakenham  Enrolled 35 194

Candidate Party Votes % Sw ing

First Preference Votes

Scoullar D AG 2 571 7.9 +7.9

Maclellan R * LP 17 202 53.2 -5.0

Dean F IND  637 2.0 +0.3

Anderson J ALP 11 949 36.9 +0.8

 

Two Party Preferred

Maclellan R * LP 18 284 56.5 -4.6

Anderson J ALP 14 059 43.5 +4.6

 

Formal  32 359 97.6 - 0.4

Informal   802 2.4 +0.4

Turnout  33 161 94.2 -0.5

 

 

 

Pascoe Vale  Enrolled 31 045

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Aghajani V LP 9 569 35.1 -2.9

Campbell C * ALP 17 725 64.9 +4.9

 

Formal  27 294 96.1 -0.9

Informal  1 098 3.9 +0.9

Tur nout  28 392 91.5 -1.4

 

 

 

Polwarth  Enrolled 33 217

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Crook B IND 4 574 14.8 -3.8

Brown S AG 1 161 3.8 +3.8

Couch P NP 5 116 16.6 +16.6

Garland S ALP 7 393 23.9 -4.5

Mulder T # LP 12 668 41.0 -10.0

 

Two Party Preferred

Garland S ALP 12 237 39.6 -2.3

Mulder T # LP 18 675 60.4 +2.3

 

Formal  30 912 97.8 -0.3

Informal   686 2.2 +0.3

Turnout  31 598 95.1 -0.3

 

 

 

Port land  Enrolled 29 156

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Jackson L ALP 8 016 29.4 -5.1

Kempton P IND 7 153 26.2 +26.2

Napthine D * LP 12 093 44.4 -11.3

 

Two Party Preferred

Jackson L ALP 12 394 45.5 +5.9

Napthine D * LP 14 868 54.5 -5.9

 

Formal  27 262 98.1 -0.2

Informal   515 1.9 +0.2

Turnout  27 777 95.3 -0.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prahran  Enrolled 39 089

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Salter W AG 2 282 6.9 +6.9

Burke L * LP 16 789 51.0 -1.8

O'Reilly J ALP 13 056 39.7 -3.9

Dawson M N LP  164 0.5 -3.1

Murphy F DLP  609 1.9 +1.9

 

Two Party Preferred

Burke L * LP 17 785 54.0 -0.6

O'Reilly J ALP 15 126 46.0 +0.6

 

Formal  32 900 97.3 -0.4

Informal   904 2.7 +0.4

Turnout  33 804 86.5 -1.1

 

 

 

Preston  Enrolled 33 794

Candidate Party Votes % Sw ing

First Preference Votes

Dickins M NLP 1 052 3.5 +1.2

Padgett R LP 8 769 29.3 -4.6

Leighton M * ALP 20 087 67.2 +3.3

 

Two Party Preferred

Padgett R LP 9 384 31.4 -3.3

Leighton M * ALP 20 522 68.6 +3.3

 

Formal  29 908 95.7 -0.1

Informal  1 339 4.3 +0.1

Tu rnout  31 247 92.5 -0.8

 

 

 

Richmond  Enrolled 41 466

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Jolly S IND 4 213 12.0 +12.0

Tran D LP 10 716 30.6 +0.6

Wynne R # ALP 20 121 57.4 -4.8

 

Two Party Preferred

Tran D LP 11 837 33.8 +1.2

Wynne R # ALP 23 204 66.2 -1.2

 

Formal  35 050 96.3 -0.9

Informal  1 348 3.7 +0.9

Turnout  36 398 87.8 -1.4

 

 

 

Ripon  Enrolled 31 732

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Helper J ALP 15 579 52.6 +8.8

Elder S * LP 14 045 47.4 -5.0

 

Formal  29 624 97.8 -0.5

Informal   668 2.2 +0.5

Turnout  30 292 95.5 -0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rodney  Enrolled 32 526

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

McCulloch M ALP 8 565 28.4 +8.7

Maughan N * NP 18 329 60.8 -2.8

Hutton D PHON 3 257 10.8 +10.8

 

Two Party Preferred

McCulloch M ALP 10 358 34.4 +10.5

Maughan N * NP 19 793 65.6 -10.5

 

Formal  30 151 97.8 -0.6

Informal   692 2.2 +0.6

Turnout  30 843 94.8 -1.1

 

 

 

Sandringham  Enrolled 34 629

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Thompson M * LP 19 478 62.5 -0.3

Munt J ALP 11 693 37.5 +3.2

 

Formal  31 171 97.4 -0.9

Informal   828 2.6 +0.9

Turnout  31 999 92.4 -1.2

 

 

 

Seymour  Enrolled 35 717

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Hardman B ALP 15 410 46.9 +2.9

Rule D # LP 15 675 47.7 -4.8

Romagnesi J AG 1 797 5.5 +5.5

 

Two Party Preferred

Hardman B ALP 16 672 50.7 +4.9

Rule D # LP 16 210 49.3 -4.9

 

Formal  32 882 97.4 -0.7

Informal   879 2.6 +0.7

Turnout  33 761 94.5 -0.4

 

 

 

Shepparton  Enrolled 33 823

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Boyle W ALP 7 616 24.6 -3.2

Kilgour D * NP 12 355 3 9.0 -26.0

Hazelman C IND 10 965 35.4 +35.4

 

Two Candidate Preferred

Kilgour D * NP 16 724 54.1 

Hazelman C IND 14 212 45.9 

 

Formal  30 936 97.3 -0.3

Informal   865 2.7 +0.3

Turnout  31 801 94.0 -0.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

South Barwon  Enrolled 36 107

Candidate Party Vo tes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Paterson A * LP 16 892 50.7 -8.4

Crutchfield M ALP 12 468 37.4 -0.6

Paull J AD 1 891 5.7 +5.7

Lauren T IND  598 1.8 +1.8

Gannon M IND  215 0.6 +0.6

Chenery S AG 1 233 3.7 +3.7

 

Two Party Preferred

Paterson A * LP 18 222 54.7 -5.5

Crutchfield M ALP 15 076 45.3 +5.5

 

Formal  33 297 97.8 -0.4

Informal   761 2.2 +0.4

Turnout  34 058 94.3 -1.0

 

 

 

Springvale  Enrolled 35 438

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Liu-Hyland B IND 1 680 5.3 +5.3

Campbell J LP 11 152 35.4 -2.7

Bisset R IND  398 1.3 +1.3

Holding T # ALP 18 230 57.9 +2.9

 

Two Party Preferred

Campbell J LP 12 322 39.2 -2.9

Holding T # ALP 19 114 60.8 +2.9

 

Formal  31 460 95.5 -1.2

Informal  1 476 4.5 +1.2

Turnout  32 936 92.9 -1.1

 

 

 

Sunshine  Enrolled 38 506

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Morgan S LP 9 100 27.0 -2.7

Languiller T ALP 19 826 58.8 -8.8

Barker I * IND 4 780 14.2 +14.2

 

Two Party Preferred

Morgan S LP 10 062 29.9 -1.0

Languiller T ALP 23 643 70.1 +1.0

 

Formal  33 706 94.4 -0.8

Informal  1 987 5.6 +0.8

Turnout  35 693 92.7 -0.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Swan Hill  Enrolled 30 088

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Schorel G IND  257 0.9 +0.9

Ditterich C IND 6 192 22.6 +22.6

Williams D ALP 5 511  20.1 +2.7

Maher B IND 1 435 5.2 +5.2

Croft B PHON 1 383 5.1 +5.1

Steggall B * NP 12 378 45.2 -13.8

Bonney L IND  219 0.8 +0.8

 

Two Candidate Preferred

Ditterich C IND 12 925 47.2 

Steggall B * NP 14 450 52.8 

 

Formal  27 375 96.3 -2.0

Informal  1 066 3.7 +2.0

Turnout  28 441 94.5 -0.7

 

 

 

Thomastown  Enrolled 35 416

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Gidley M LP 8 212 26.1 -1.3

Batchelor P ALP 23 305 73.9 +3.0

 

Formal  31 517 95.5 -1.0

Informal  1 479 4.5 +1.0

Turnout  32 996 93.2 -1.4

 

 

 

Tu llamarine  Enrolled 39 652

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Beattie L ALP 18 346 50.6 +6.5

Fraser P AG  996 2.7 +2.7

Grenfell R SP  719 2.0 +2.0

Finn B * LP 15 561 42.9 -5.4

Mulholland J DLP  668 1.8 +1.8

 

Two Party Preferred

Beattie L ALP 19 502 53.8 +6.9

Finn B * LP 16 751 46.2 -6.9

 

Formal  36 290 96.8 -1.0

Informal  1 210 3.2 +1.0

Turnout  37 500 94.6 -0.5

 

 

 

Wantirna  Enrolled 37 964

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Abraham C ALP 13 301 38.1 +2.3

Wells K * LP 21 57 9 61.9 -0.3

 

Formal  34 880 97.4 -0.6

Informal   931 2.6 +0.6

Turnout  35 811 94.3 +1.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Warrandyte  Enrolled 34 386

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Orr D ALP 10 630 33.6 +3.2

Honeywood P * LP 19 395 61.2 -0.2

Roberts P NLP  288 0.9 -0.3

Sto ckdale K HP 1 357 4.3 +4.3

 

Two Party Preferred

Orr D ALP 11 571 36.5 +0.4

Honeywood P * LP 20 096 63.5 -0.4

 

Formal  31 670 98.1 -0.4

Informal   620 1.9 +0.4

Turnout  32 290 93.9 -1.9

 

 

 

Warrnambool  Enrolled 34 226

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Pref erence Votes

Blair G AG  740 2.3 +2.3

Walsh G # NP 5 550 17.5 -40.3

O'Brien R IND  435 1.4 +1.4

Vogels J LP 12 739 40.2 +40.2

Lindop M IND 1 864 5.9 -6.7

Reekie R ALP 9 993 31.5 +2.9

Wilson B ARP  379 1.2 +1.2

 

Two Party Preferred

Vogels J LP 18 682 58.9 -4.9

Reekie R ALP 13 018 41.1 +4.9

 

Formal  31 700 97.1 -1.1

Informal   962 2.9 +1.1

Turnout  32 662 95.4 -0.5

 

 

 

Werribee  Enrolled 41 644

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Gillett M * ALP 22 652 59.1 +12.8

Manson C AG  913 2.4 +2.4

Impso n G IND  353 0.9 +0.9

McLaren D LP 14 120 36.9 -6.7

Backhouse W IND  258 0.7 +0.7

 

Two Party Preferred

Gillett M * ALP 23 540 61.5 +10.8

McLaren D LP 14 754 38.5 -10.8

 

Formal  38 296 96.9 -0.6

Informal  1 221 3.1 +0.6

Turnout  39 517 94.9 -0.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Williamstown  Enrolled 34 501

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Dyson N IND 1 341 4.4 +4.4

Evers-Buckland A LP 8 877 28.9 -4.3

Bracks S * ALP 20 468 66.7 +2.8

 

Two Party Preferred

Evers-Buckland A LP 9 671 31.5 -2.9

Bracks S * ALP 21 011 68.5 +2.9

 

Formal  30 686 96.4 -0.2

Informal  1 155 3.6 +0.2

Turnout  31 841 92.3 -0.4

 

 

 

Wimmera  Enrolled 32 652

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Hallam D IND 1 446 4.8 +4.8

Cross G LP 9 450 31.1 +31.1

Mackley B PHON 1 630 5.4 +5.4

Liston L IND  792 2.6 +2.6

Power L ALP 7 230 23.8 +3.0

Delahunty H # NP 9 866 32.4 -24.5

 

Two Candidate Preferred

Cross G LP 12 904 42.4 

Delahunty H # NP 17 510 57.6 

 

Formal  30 414 97.2 -1.4

Informal   878 2.8 +1.4

Turnout   31 292 95.8 -0.1

 

 

 

Yan Yean  Enrolled 38 305

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Smith L IND 1 371 3.9 +3.9

Rigby B NLP  341 1.0 -1.5

Tivendale H LP 15 397 43.5 -3.7

Haermeyer A * ALP 18 265 51.6 +1.4

 

Two Party Preferred

Tivendale H LP 16 204 45.8 -2.6

Haermeyer A * ALP 19 170 54.2 +2.6

 

Formal  35 374 97.1 -0.6

Informal  1 048 2.9 +0.6

Turnout  36 422 95.1 -0.4

 

 

 

Table 4 Legislative Assembly: Two Party Preferred Vote

Electoral District

Number

Per cent

% Swing

to ALP

ALP

LP/NP

ALP

LP/ NP

Albert Park

18 997

14 671

56.4

43.6

-2.4

Altona

21 545

11 774

64.7

35.3

+6.5

Ballarat East

16 100

13 886

53.7

46.3

+3.7

Ballarat West

15 527

14 910

51.0

49.0

+2.4

Bayswater

14 623

17 654

45.3

54.7

+2.8

Bellarine

15 495

16 599

48.3

51 .7

+3.8

Benalla

13 013

17 543

42.6

57.4

+7.9

Benambra

13 561

18 016

42.9

57.1

+7.9

Bendigo East

16 977

15 004

53.1

46.9

+8.1

Bendigo West

19 893

12 582

61.3

38.7

+9.5

Bennettswood

13 103

16 715

43.9

56.1

+3.2

Bentleigh

15 090

16 300

48.1

51.9

+2.8

Berwick

18 348

22 376

45.1

54.9

+0.3

Box Hill

13 067

17 754

42.4

57.6

+2.7

Brighton

10 529

20 061

34.4

65.6

+2.5

Broadmeadows

23 651

8 019

74.7

25.3

-0.4

Bulleen

11 662

18 709

38.4

61.6

+3.0

Bundoora

18 942

14 852

56.1

43.9

+3. 5

Burwood

13 585

17 858

43.2

56.8

+1.8

Carrum

17 444

17 321

50.2

49.8

+1.0

Caulfield

13 460

18 947

41.5

58.5

+0.8

Clayton

20 037

12 441

61.7

38.3

+2.1

Coburg

20 951

8 232

71.8

28.2

+4.9

Cranbourne

16 708

21 002

44.3

55.7

+3.4

Dandenong

23 129

18 297

55.8

44.2

+2.5

Dandenong North

17 634

12 775

58.0

42.0

+5.8

Doncaster

11 892

20 518

36.7

63.3

+1.6

Dromana

14 403

18 480

43.8

56.2

+1.9

Eltham

17 315

19 960

46.5

53.5

+3.2

Essendon

18 489

13 135

58.5

41.5

+5.1

Evelyn

13 57 1

19 957

40.5

59.5

+3.2

Footscray

19 916

9 533

67.6

32.4

-1.7

Forest Hill

13 503

17 974

42.9

57.1

+3.4

Frankston

11 891

18 399

39.3

60.7

+4.7

Frankston East

13 953

11 603

54.6

45.4

+7.7

Geelong

15 500

15 484

50.0

50.0

+3.5

Geelong North

19 000

12 176

60.9

39.1

+2.9

Gippsland East

14 222

15 782

47.4

52.6

+12.6

Gippsland South

12 740

17 238

42.5

57.5

+11.9

Gippsland West

13 199

17 095

43.6

56.4

+6.2

Gisborne

17 371

16 277

51.6

48.4

+9.5

Glen Waverley

10 738

18 410

36.8

63.2

+2.5

Hawthorn

11 791

21 042

35.9

64.1

-0.5

Ivanhoe

16 679

13 413

55.4

44.6

+3.8

Keilor

23 529

14 481

61.9

38.1

+0.3

Kew

11 478

20 247

36.2

63.8

+1.2

Knox

15 611

20 962

42.7

57.3

+0.6

Malvern

10 583

21 129

33.4

66.6

+1.0

Melbourne

22 11 2

12 568

63.8

36.2

-2.1

Melton

24 237

15 294

61.3

38.7

-0.9

 

Table 4 Legislative Assembly: Two Party Preferred Vote continued

Electoral District

Number

Per cent

% Swing

to ALP

ALP

LP/NP

ALP

LP/NP

Mildura

11 223

19 304

36.8

63.2

+1.4

Mill Park

24 772

12 864

65.8

34.2

+1.9

Mitcham

16 110

15 767

50.5

49.5

+5.9

Monbulk

14 306

16 241

46.8

53.2

+2.1

Mooroolbark

12 549

19 509

39.1

60.9

+1.4

Mordialloc

14 200

15 515

47.8

52.2

+2.5

Mornington

14 880

18 733

44.3

55.7

+5.5

Morwell

18 457

12 856

58.9

41.1

+6.2

Murray Valley

10 811

20 899

34.1

65.9

+6.5

Narracan

15 063

13 621

52.5

47.5

+4.1

Niddrie

17 761

13 525

56.8

43.2

+2.4

Northcote

22 733

8 552

72.7

27.3

+2.8

Oakleigh

16 286

14 262

53.3

46.7

+4.1

Pakenham

14 059

18 284

43.5

56.5

+5.6

Pascoe Vale

17 725

9 569

64.9

35.1

+3.9

Polwarth

12 237

18 675

39.6

60.4

-2.3

Portland

12 394

14 868

45.5

54.5

+5.9

Prahran

15 126

17 785

46.0

54.0

+0.6

Preston

20 522

9 384

68.6

31.4

+3.3

Richmond

23 204

11 837

66.2

33.8

-1.1

Ripon

15 579

14 045

52.6

47.4

+7.2

Rodney

10 358

19 793

34.4

65.6

+10.5

Sandringham

11 693

19 478

37.5

62.5

+1.8

Seymour

16 672

16 210

50.7

49.3

+4.9

Shepparton

11 743

19 267

37.9

62.1

+7.4

South Barwon

15 076

18 222

45.3

54.7

+5.5

Springvale

19 114

12 322

60.8

39.2

+2.9

Sunshine

23 643

10 062

70.1

29.9

+1.1

Swan Hill

10 619

16 864

38.6

61.4

+7.6

Thomastown

23 305

8 212

73.9

26.1

+1.9

Tullamarine

19 502

16 751

53.8

46.2

+6.8

Wantirna

13 301

21 579

38.1

61.9

+1.3

Warrandyte

11 571

20 096

36.5

63.5

+0.5

Warrnambool

13 018

18 682

41.1

58.9

+4.9

Werribee

23 540

14 754

61.5

38.5

+10.7

Williamstown

21 011

9 671

68.5

31.5

+2.9

Wimmera

10 648

19 850

34.9

65.1

+6.1

Yan Yean

19 170

16 204

54.2

45.8

+2.5

           

   Total

1 420 775

1 409 567

50.2

49.8

+3.7

           

Regi on

         

  Metropolitan

960 658

867 363

52.6

47.4

+2.5

  Non-Metropolitan

460 117

542 204

45.9

54.1

+6.1

 

 

Table 5 Legislative Assembly: Electoral Pendulum

District

Swing to Lose

%

 

District

Swing to Lose

%

ALP/Ind Seats

 

LP/NP Seats

Broadmeadows

24.7

 

Malvern

16.6

Thomastown

23.9

 

Murray Valley

15.9

Northcote

22.7

 

Rodney

15.6

Coburg

21.8

 

Brighton

15 .6

Sunshine

20.1

 

Wimmera

15.1

Preston

18.6

 

Hawthorn

14.1

Williamstown

18.5

 

Kew

13.8

Footscray

17.6

 

Warrandyte

13.5

Richmond

16.2

 

Doncaster

13.3

Mill Park

15.8

 

Glen Waverley

13.2

Pascoe Vale

14.9

 

Sandringham

12.5

Altona

14.7

 

Shepparton

12.1

Melbourne

13.8

 

Wantirna

11.9

Keilor

11.9

 

Bulleen

11.6

Clayton

11.7

 

Swan Hill

11.4

Werribee

11.5

 

Mooroolbark

10.9

Melton

11.3

 

Frankston

10.7

Bendigo West

11.3

 

Polwarth

10.4

Geelong North

10.9

 

Evelyn

9.5

Springvale

10.8

 

Warrnambool

8.9

Mor well

8.9

 

Caulfield

8.5

Essendon

8.5

 

Box Hill

7.6

Dandenong North

8.0

 

Gippsland South

7.5

Gippsland East (Ind)

7.7

 

Benalla

7.4

Niddrie

6.8

 

Knox

7.3

Albert Park

6.4

 

Forest Hill

7.1

Mildura (Ind)

6.1

 

Benambra

7.1

Bundoora

6.1

 

Burwood

6.8

Dande nong

5.8

 

Pakenham

6.5

Ivanhoe

5.4

 

Dromana

6.2

Frankston East

4.6

 

Bennettswood

6.1

Yan Yean

4.2

 

Mornington

5.7

Gippsland West (Ind)

4.0

 

Cranbourne

5.7

Tullamarine

3.8

 

Berwick

4.9

Ballarat East

3.7

 

South Barwon

4.7

Oakleigh

3.3

 

Bayswater

4.7

Bendigo East

3.1

 

Portland

4.5

Ripon

2.6

 

Prahran

4.0

Narracan

2.5

 

Eltham

3.5

Gisborne

1.6

 

Monbulk

3.2

Ballarat West

1.0

 

Mordialloc

2.2

Seymour

0.7

 

Bentleigh

1.9

Mitcham

0.5

 

Bellarine

1.7

Carrum

0.2

     

Geelong

0.0

     

Note: Swing to lose for Independent held seats based on two candidate preferred vote.

 

Table 6 Legislative Council, State Summary

Enrolled 3 130 338

 

Candidates

Seats Won

First Preference Votes

Swing Per cent

Number

Per cent

Australian Labor Party ( ALP)

20

8

1 187 484

42.23

+1.72

Liberal Party (LP)

19

11

1 116 347

39.70

-4.20

National Party (NP)

3

3

204 587

7.28

+0.65

Australian Democrats (AD)

17

 

190 940

6.79

+1.06

Australian Greens (AG)

4

 

62 796

2.23

+2.23

Christian Democratic Party (CDP)

2

 

6 608

0.24

+0.04

Australian Reform Party (ARP)

1

 

6 617

0.23

+0.23

Independents (IND)

8

 

36 399

1.29

-1.74

           

Formal Votes

   

2 811 778

96.63

-0.79

Informal Votes

   

97 949

3.37

+0.79

Turnout/Total Votes

74

22

2 909 727

92.95

-1.13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7 Legislative Council, Composition After 1999 Election

 

Elected

1996(a)

Elected

1999

Total

Liberal Party

13

11

24

National Party

3

3

6

Australian Labor Party

6

8

14

Total

22

22

44

(a) Adjusted for 1999 By-election results. Ballarat Province changed from LP to ALP.

 

Table 8 Legislative Council: Province Summary

Electoral Province

First Preference Votes

Formal Votes

Informal Votes

Total Votes

Electors Enrolled

ALP

LP

NP

AD

Others

Number

Ballarat

57 655

55 834

 

6 853

 

120 342

3 383

1 23 725

133 541

Central Highlands

61 686

70 353

     

132 039

4 368

136 407

144 842

Chelsea

57 949

56 642

 

5 250

2 185

122 026

4 621

126 647

135 896

Doutta Galla

93 833

49 202

     

143 035

7 441

150 476

158 446

East Yarra

41 644

72 041

 

13 236

 

126 921

3 308

130 229

141 354

Eumemmerring

64 024

65 426

 

5 161

9 509

144 120

6 243

150 363

159 504

Geelong

57 389

58 390

 

6 540

5 568

127 887

3 350

131 237

138 739

Gippsland

47 503

46 447

 

6 802

18 652

119 404

4 330

123 734

131 261

Higinbotham

 

69 024

 

53 414

 

122 438

3 892

126 330

136 171

Jika Jika

87 169

45 415

     

132 584

5 390

137 974

147 692

Koonung

51 052

71 158

 

6 908

4 480

133 598

3 915

137 513

146 767

Melbourne

73 484

44 220

 

13 517

 

131 221

5 460

136 681

152 440

Melbourne North

78 663

42 115

   

4 909

125 687

6 777

132 464

142 672

Melbourne West

79 460

43 561

 

7 682

 

130 703

5 801

136 504

146 908

Monash

45 926

62 295

 

9 211

4 165

121 597

4 009

125 606

15 1 995

North Eastern

43 958

 

70 020

10 148

 

124 126

3 889

128 015

136 517

North Western

49 952

 

62 789

8 855

 

121 596

2 913

124 509

132 305

Silvan

48 266

66 992

 

7 375

3 587

126 220

3 685

129 905

138 275

South Eastern

51 147

70 597

 

6 551

5 972

134 267

3 807

138 074

146 734

Templestowe

 

69 383

 

13 568

46 776

129 727

3 944

133 671

143 222

Waverley

54 573

57 252

 

9 869

 

121 694

4 686

126 380

135 806

Western

42 151

 

71 778

 

6 617

120 546

2 737

123 283

129 251

  Total

1 187 484

1 116 347

204 587

190 940

112 420

2 811 778

97 949

2 909 727

3 130 338

Per cent

Ballarat

47.9

46.4

 

5.7

 

97.3

2.7

92.6

Central Highlands

46.7

53.3

     

96.8

3.2

94.2

Chelsea

47.5

46.4

 

4.3

1.8

96.4

3.6

93.2

Doutta Galla

65.6

34.4

     

95.1

4.9

95.0

East Yarra

32.8

56.8

 

10.4

 

97.5

2.5

92.1

Eumemmerring

44.4

45.4

 

3.6

6.6

95.8

4.2

94.3

Geelong

44.9

45.7

 

5.1

4.4

97.4

2.6

94.6

Gippsland

39.8

38.9

 

5.7

15.6

96.5

3.5

94.3

Higinbotham

 

56.4

 

43.6

 

96.9

3.1

92.8

Jika Jika

65.7

34.3

     

96.1

3.9

93.4

Koonung

38.2

53.3

 

5.2

3.4

97.2

2.8

93.7

Melbourne

56.0

33.7

 

10.3

 

96.0

4.0

89.7

Melbourne North

62.6

33.5

   

3.9

94.9

5.1

92.8

Melbourne West

60.8

33.3

 

5.9

 

95.8

4.2

92.9

Monash

37.8

51.2

 

7.6

3.4

96.8

3.2

82.6

North Eastern

3 5.4

 

56.4

8.2

 

97.0

3.0

93.8

North Western

41.1

 

51.6

7.3

 

97.7

2.3

94.1

Silvan

38.2

53.1

 

5.8

2.8

97.2

2.8

93.9

South Eastern

38.1

52.6

 

4.9

4.4

97.2

2.8

94.1

Templestowe

 

53.5

 

10.5

36.1

97.0

3.0

93.3

Waverley

44.8

47.0

 

8.1

 

96.3

3.7

93.1

Western

35.0

 

59.5

 

5.5

97.8

2.2

95.4

  Total

42.2

39.7

7.3

6.8

4.0

96.6

3.4

93.0

Note: Party winning seat shown in bold

 

Table 9 Legislative Council, Province Details

Ballarat  Enrolled 133 541

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Clark D # LP  55 834 46.4 -5.3

Lutz G AD  6 853 5.7 +1.8

Hadden-Tregear D ALP  57 655 47.9  +6.4

 

Two Party Preferred

Clark D # LP  58 568 48.7 -5.7

Hadden-Tregear D ALP  61 774 51.3 +5.7

 

Formal   120 342 97.3 -0.9

Informal   3 383 2.7 +0.9

Turnout   123 725 92.6 -2.3

 

 

 

Central Highlands  Enrolled 144 842

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Pref erence Votes

Stoney G * LP  70 353 53.3 -0.8

Mitchell R ALP  61 686 46.7 +8.9

 

Formal   132 039 96.8 -0.9

Informal   4 368 3.2 +0.9

Turnout   136 407 94.2 -0.8

 

 

 

Chelsea  Enrolled 135 896

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Smith B ALP  57 949 47.5 +5.3

Good M IND  2 185 1.8 +1.8

Bennett J AD  5 250 4.3 -0.4

Wilding S * LP  56 642 46.4 -4.3

 

Two Party Preferred

Smith B ALP  62 501 51.2 +4.5

Wilding S * LP  59 525 48.8 -4.5

 

Formal   122 026 96.4 -1.1

Informal   4 621 3.6 +1.1

Turnout   126 647 93.2 -1.1

 

 

 

Doutta Galla  Enrolled 158 446

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Madden J # ALP  93 833 65.6 +7.8

Daw P LP  49 202 34.4 -1.8

 

Formal   143 035 95.1 -0.6

Informal   7 441 4.9 +0.6

Turnout   150 476 95.0 +0.9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eas t Yarra  Enrolled 141 354

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Birrell M * LP  72 041 56.8 -0.5

Harcourt P AD  13 236 10.4 +1.5

Walpole D ALP  41 644 32.8 +2.6

 

Two Party Preferred

Birrell M * LP  76 560 60.3 -1.8

Walpole D ALP  50 356 39.7 +1.8

 

Formal   126 921 97.5 -0.8

Informal   3 308 2.5 +0.8

Turnout   130 229 92.1 -1.8

 

 

 

Eumemmerring  Enrolled 159 504

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Dickson L CDP  4 492 3.1 +0.5

Blades R IND  5 017 3.5 +3.5

Berk D AD  5 161 3.6 -0.5

Rich-Phillips G # LP  65 426 45.4 -3.4

Baldovino C ALP  64 024 44.4 +1.4

 

Two Party Preferred

Rich-Phillips G # LP  72 518 50.3 -2.5

Baldovino C ALP  71 602 49.7 +2.5

 

Formal   144 120 95.8 -1.0

Informal   6 243 4.2 +1.0

Turnout   150 363 94.3 -0.7

 

 

 

Geelong  Enrolled 138 739

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Whitehead A AG  5 568 4.4 +4.4

Hodge R AD  6 540 5.1 +0.6

Carbines E ALP  57 389 44.9 +1.6

Hartigan B * LP  58 390 45.7 -5.5

 

Two Party Preferred

Carbines E  ALP  65 790 51.4 +4.7

Hartigan B * LP  62 097 48.6 -4.7

 

Formal   127 887 97.4 -0.3

Informal   3 350 2.6 +0.3

Turnout   131 237 94.6 -1.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gippsland  Enrolled 131 261

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Treasure D IND  11 1 79 9.4 +9.4

Seabrook P IND  3 957 3.3 +3.3

McCubbin J AD  6 802 5.7 +1.0

Davis P * LP  46 447 38.9 +38.9

Wishart D ALP  47 503 39.8 +6.2

O'Brien J IND  3 516 2.9 +2.9

 

Two Party Preferred

Davis P * LP  60 046 50.3 -10.7

Wishart D ALP  59 358 49.7 +10.7

 

Formal   119 404 96.5 -1.4

Informal   4 330 3.5 +1.4

Turnout   123 734 94.3 -0.7

 

 

 

Higinbotham  Enrolled 136 171

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Strong C * LP  69 024 56.4 -0.4

Tucker C AD  53 414 43.6 +35.8

 

Formal   122 438 96.9 -1.0

I nformal   3 892 3.1 +1.0

Turnout   126 330 92.8 -1.4

 

 

 

Jika Jika  Enrolled 147 692

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Mikakos J # ALP  87 169 65.7 +10.4

Dunn A LP  45 415 34.3 +0.4

 

Formal   132 584 96.1 -0.3

Informal   5 390 3.9 +0.3

Tur nout   137 974 93.4 -0.8

 

 

 

Koonung  Enrolled 146 767

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Kir M AG  4 480 3.4 +3.4

Legg K ALP  51 052 38.2 +2.7

Atkinson B * LP  71 158 53.3 -3.2

Alesich S AD  6 908 5.2 -0.4

 

Two Party Preferred

Legg K ALP  58 137 43.6 +3.2

Atkinson B * LP  75 248 56.4 -3.2

 

Formal   133 598 97.2 -0.7

Informal   3 915 2.8 +0.7

Turnout   137 513 93.7 -0.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Melbourne  Enrolled 152 440

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Handsaker S AD  13 517 10.3 +1.9

Romanes G # ALP  73 484 56.0 +1.1

McGraith S LP  44 220 33.7 +0.2

 

Two Party Preferred

Romanes G # ALP  83 865 63.9 +0.1

McGraith S LP  47 313 36.1 -0.1

 

Formal   131 221 96.0 -0.9

Informal   5 460 4.0 +0.9

Turnout   136 681 89.7 -1.3

 

 

 

Melbourne North  Enrolled 142 672

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

De Bono G LP  42 115 33.5 -2.5

McClure M IND  4 909 3.9 +3.9

Thomson M # ALP  78 663 62.6 +4.9

 

Two Party Preferred

De Bono G LP  44 484 35.4 -2.9

Thomson M # ALP  81 196 64.6 +2.9

 

Formal   125 687 94.9 -1.4

Informal   6 777 5.1 +1.4

Turn out   132 464 92.8 -1.2

 

 

 

Melbourne West  Enrolled 146 908

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Darveniza K # ALP  79 460 60.8 +13.2

Barnes D AD  7 682 5.9 +2.8

Borg A LP  43 561 33.3 -0.2

 

Two Party Preferred

Darveniza K # ALP  84 297 64.5  +3.3

Borg A LP  46 404 35.5 -3.3

 

Formal   130 703 95.8 -0.4

Informal   5 801 4.2 +0.4

Turnout   136 504 92.9 -0.8

 

 

 

Monash  Enrolled 151 995

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

D'Andrea R IND  4 165 3.4 +3.4

Coote A # LP  62 295 51.2 -0. 5

Willox J ALP  45 926 37.8 -0.7

Peters J AD  9 211 7.6 +1.0

 

Two Party Preferred

Coote A # LP  67 158 55.3 +0.5

Willox J ALP  54 246 44.7 -0.5

 

Formal   121 597 96.8 -0.8

Informal   4 009 3.2 +0.8

Turnout   125 606 82.6 -7.8

 

 

 

North Eastern  Enrolled 136 517

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Davis L ALP  43 958 35.4 +9.8

Lee B AD  10 148 8.2 +4.2

Baxter B * NP  70 020 56.4 +19.4

 

Two Party Preferred

Davis L ALP  49 395 39.8 +9.1

Baxter B * NP  74 727 60.2 -9.1

 

Formal   124 126 97.0 -0.8

Informal   3 889 3.0 +0.8

Turnout   128 015 93.8 -0.8

 

 

 

North Western  Enrolled 132 305

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Kidd J ALP  49 952 41.1 +7.3

Bishop B * NP  62 789 51.6 -5.6

Van Diesen A AD  8 855 7.3 +1.6

 

Two Party Preferred

Kidd J ALP  54 332 44.7 +6.3

Bishop B * NP  67 257 55.3 -6.3

 

Formal   121 596 97.7 -0.4

Informal   2 913 2.3 +0.4

Turnout   124 509 94.1 -0.8

 

 

 

Silvan  Enrolled 138 275

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Tunstall M ALP  48 266 38.2 +3.5

R askovy S IND  1 471 1.2 +1.2

Leeper A AD  7 375 5.8 -0.1

Olexander A # LP  66 992 53.1 -2.9

Levick R CDP  2 116 1.7 +1.7

 

Two Party Preferred

Tunstall M ALP  54 475 43.2 +3.6

Olexander A # LP  71 662 56.8 -3.6

 

Formal   126 220 97.2 -0.6

Informal   3 685 2.8 +0.6

Turnout   129 905 93.9 -1.1

 

 

 

South Eastern  Enrolled 146 734

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Kingsford S AG  5 972 4.4 +4.4

Bowden R * LP  70 597 52.6 -4.0

Armstrong R AD  6 551 4.9 0.0

Binney M ALP  51 147 38.1 -2.7

 

Two Party Preferred

Bowden R * LP  76 088 56.7 -3.4

Binney M ALP  58 148 43.3 +3.4

 

Formal   134 267 97.2 -0.6

Informal   3 807 2.8 +0.6

Turnout   138 074 94.1 -0.8

 

Templestowe  Enrolled 143 222

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Evans R AG  46 7 76 36.1 +36.1

Forwood B * LP  69 383 53.5 -1.3

Millane B AD  13 568 10.5 +1.8

 

Two Candidate Preferred

Evans R AG  57 426 44.3 

Forwood B * LP  72 294 55.7 

 

Formal   129 727 97.0 -0.7

Informal   3 944 3.0 +0.7

Turnout   133 671 93.3 -1.5

 

 

 

Waverley  Enrolled 135 806

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Morgan P AD  9 869 8.1 +1.2

Brideston A * LP  57 252 47.0 -3.9

Morris S ALP  54 573 44.8 +4.3

 

Two Party Preferred

Brideston A * LP  61 735 50.7 -4.1

Morris S ALP  59 959 49.3 +4.1

 

Formal   121 694 96.3 -1.1

Informal   4 686 3.7 +1.1

Turnout   126 380 93.1 -1.0

 

 

 

Western  Enrolled 129 251

Candidate Party Votes % Swing

First Preference Votes

Hallam R * NP  71 778 59.5 +59.5

Mitchell P ALP  42 151 35.0 +1.8

McDonald L ARP  6 617 5.5 +5.5

 

Two Party Preferred

Hallam R * NP  74 660 61.9 -2.8

Mitchell P ALP  45 884 38.1 +2.8

 

Formal   120 546 97.8 -0.4

Informal   2 737 2.2 +0.4

Turnout   123 283 95.4 -0.4

 

 

 

Table 10 Legislative Council: Two Party Preferred Vote

Electoral Province

Number

Per cent

% Swing  to ALP

ALP

LP/NP

ALP

LP/NP

Ballarat

61 774

58 568

51.3

48.7

+ 5.7

Central Highlands

61 686

70 353

46.7

53.3

+4.3

Chelsea

62 501

59 525

51.2

48.8

+4.5

Doutta Galla

93 833

49 202

65.6

34.4

+4.4

East Yarra

50 356

76 560

39.7

60.3

+1.9

Eumemmerring

71 602

72 518

49.7

50.3

+2.5

Geelong

65 790

62 097

51. 4

48.6

+4.7

Gippsland

59 358

60 046

49.7

50.3

+10.7

Higinbotham (a)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Jika Jika

87 169

45 415

65.7

34.3

+2.9

Koonung

58 137

75 248

43.6

56.4

+3.2

Melbourne

83 865

47 313

63.9

36.1

+0.1

Melbourne North

81 196

44 484

64 .6

35.4

+2.9

Melbourne West

84 297

46 404

64.5

35.5

+3.3

Monash

54 246

67 158

44.7

55.3

-0.5

North Eastem

49 395

74 727

39.8

60.2

+9.1

North Western

54 332

67 257

44.7

55.3

+6.3

Silvan

54 475

71 662

43.2

56.8

+3.6

South Eastern

58 148

76 088

43.3

56.7

+3.4

Templestowe (a)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Waverley

59 959

61 735

49.3

50.7

+4.1

Western

45 884

74 660

38.1

61.9

+2.8

           

   Total

1 298 003

1 261 020

50.7

49.3

+4.7

(a) Two Party Preferred votes not available due to absence of ALP candidate.

 

Table 11 Legislative Council: Electoral Pendulum

Province

Swing to Lose 
%

 

Province

Swing to Lose 
%

LP/NP Seats

 

ALP Seats

Western (NP)

11.9

 

Jika Jika

15.7

East Yarra

10.3

 

Doutta Galla

15.6

North Eastern (NP)

10.2

 

Melbourne North

14.6

Silvan