Groom – Australia 2013

LNP 18.5%

Incumbent MP
Ian Macfarlane, since 1998.

Geography
Groom covers the city of Toowoomba and rural areas to the west of the city contained entirely within Toowoomba Region council area.

History
Groom was created as part of the expansion of the House of Representatives at the 1984 election. The seat has always been held by Coalition MPs.

Groom was first won in 1984 by the National Party’s Tom McVeigh. McVeigh had been Member for Darling Downs since the 1972 election, and was elected Member for Groom in 1984 when Darling Downs was abolished. Darling Downs had previously centred on Toowoomba, which became the centre of the new seat of Groom.

McVeigh retired in 1988, triggering a by-election. The Liberal Party contested the by-election, and their candidate Bill Taylor outpolled the Nationals by 4.5% on primary votes and won a substantial majority on Labor preferences.

Taylor held the seat for a decade, retiring in 1998. The Nationals again challenged for the seat, but fell into fourth place behind Labor and One Nation, with the Liberal Party’s Ian Macfarlane winning the seat.

Macfarlane was made a junior minister in January 2001, and joined the Howard cabinet after the 2001 election as Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, a role he held for the remainder of the Howard government. Macfarlane has been a senior member of the Coalition frontbench since the defeat of the Howard government in 2007.

Candidates

  • Robert Henry Thies (Citizens Electoral Council)
  • Troy Murray (Labor)
  • Chris Whitty (Katter’s Australian Party)
  • Ian Macfarlane (Liberal National)
  • Trevor Smith (Greens)
  • Rick Armitage (Rise Up Australia)
  • Ewen James Mathieson (Palmer United Party)
  • Alex J Todd (Family First)

Assessment
Groom is a very safe LNP seat.

2010 result

Candidate Party Votes % Swing
Ian Macfarlane LNP 51,757 61.25 +8.54
Chris Meibusch ALP 19,153 22.67 -12.16
Frida Forsberg GRN 6,165 7.30 +2.46
Rose Kirkwood FF 4,696 5.56 +1.18
Rod Jeanneret IND 2,730 3.23 +2.63

2010 two-candidate-preferred result

Candidate Party Votes % Swing
Ian Macfarlane LNP 57,912 68.53 +10.31
Chris Meibusch ALP 26,589 31.47 -10.31
Polling places in Groom at the 2010 federal election. North in orange, South in blue, Toowoomba North in green, Toowoomba South in yellow. Click to enlarge.
Polling places in Groom at the 2010 federal election. North in orange, South in blue, Toowoomba North in green, Toowoomba South in yellow. Click to enlarge.

Booth breakdown
Booths have been divided into four areas. A majority of the population lives in the Toowoomba, and these booths were split into two halves: north and south. The booths outside of the Toowoomba urban area have also been split into north and south.

The LNP won a majority in all four areas, ranging from 62.3% in Toowoomba North to 77.4% in the rural south of the seat.

Voter group GRN % LNP 2PP % Total votes % of votes
Toowoomba South 7.57 67.52 23,751 28.11
Toowoomba North 8.58 62.26 23,044 27.27
North 5.75 73.70 11,958 14.15
South 4.87 77.41 6,343 7.51
Other votes 7.17 71.14 19,405 22.96
Two-party-preferred votes in Groom at the 2010 federal election.
Two-party-preferred votes in Groom at the 2010 federal election.
Two-party-preferred votes in Toowoomba at the 2010 federal election.
Two-party-preferred votes in Toowoomba at the 2010 federal election.

20 COMMENTS

  1. KAP oughta do well here. They actually have a state MP in this part of the world, thanks to Ray Hopper defecting to them after being elected for the LNP.

  2. Ben, I’m starting to think that you must rely on candidates to contact you to tell them that you are running. Maybe this explains it. But you’ve left out Bradley Tanks, who is the Australian Independents candidate for Groom. This fellow has received significant media attention too. He as on local TV the other day and in the local papers.

  3. Also, on your prompting I have just found this page. It’s a bit rich for you to get cranky at me for not posting the names of candidates who aren’t even on your party’s website!

  5. Ben, for your interest, I had a look at the spelling of the Australian Independents party on the AEC website. It actually says “Australian Independents”. I’ve just read the restrictions on names which you’ve correctly copied and pasted from the AEC website. I’m not sure that I see a problem to be honest. The AEC obviously doesn’t have an issue with it either otherwise they wouldn’t be at the “advertisement” stage.

    1. It is not more than six words long
    2. It is not obscene
    3. It is not the same as, or is likely to be confused with, or mistaken for, the name of a ‘recognised political party’, unless that other party is a ‘related party’
    4. It does not suggests a relationship or connection with a registered political party if that connection or relationship does not in fact exist
    5. It does not use the words ‘Independent Party,’ or the word ‘Independent’ with the name of a recognised political party, or in a way that is likely to be confused with the name of a recognised political party.

    Is there something that I’m missing? If so, please explain. Thank you.
    By the way, I wouldn’t expect you to know every candidate from every party. Apparently there will be about 40 parties registered by the time the election comes around. I didn’t mean to cause offence with what I said earlier. Mark.

  6. “Independent” is a word in Australian politics that applies to all candidates who don’t have an affiliation with a political party.

    To call yourself “Independent Party” or another generic party name that says “Independent” suggests that your members are independents, which is a contradiction with the fact you are a political party.

    I think the name “Australian Independents” has the same problem that would be caused by the words “Independent Party”. I don’t think the fact that the party is not using the word “Party” in its name changes that.

  7. There have been previously registered parties that have used the words ‘Independent’ or ‘Independents’, eg ‘Independent EFF’, but the only one registered since the new restrictions on party names came into force was the ‘Peter Andren Independent Group’ (which never made it on to a ballot paper). I would think that name is a different situation since it was being used in connection with a specific person’s name. I would imagine this name will generate objections as it definitely could be confusing to voters.

  9. Ben, what you said:
    ““Independent” is a word in Australian politics that applies to all candidates who don’t have an affiliation with a political party.

    To call yourself “Independent Party” or another generic party name that says “Independent” suggests that your members are independents, which is a contradiction with the fact you are a political party.

    I think the name “Australian Independents” has the same problem that would be caused by the words “Independent Party”. I don’t think the fact that the party is not using the word “Party” in its name changes that.”

    That’s all your personal opinion.
    The rules surrounding non-acceptance of registration of parties is VERY specific. You haven’t successfully argued a case against the name.

    You obviously don’t like this party for some reason. Maybe you are in the Liberal party and there are ideological differences between you and them, I’m not sure, but the AEC would not accept anything you have written.

    It’s VERY specific:

    1. It is not more than six words long
    2. It is not obscene
    3. It is not the same as, or is likely to be confused with, or mistaken for, the name of a ‘recognised political party’, unless that other party is a ‘related party’
    4. It does not suggests a relationship or connection with a registered political party if that connection or relationship does not in fact exist
    5. It does not use the words ‘Independent Party,’ or the word ‘Independent’ with the name of a recognised political party, or in a way that is likely to be confused with the name of a recognised political party.

    You haven’t successfully argued against ANY of these.
    If you are really wanting this party not to register, I suggest you hire a lawyer and give them a shot at it. But what you’ve written just doesn’t cut it.

    By the way, I mean no offence by anything I’ve written.

  10. Mark, Ben is not targeting you, or your party specifically. He’s one of the most tolerant and accepting of other people’s views on this site out of everyone.

    Ben’s stating his interpretation of the rules relating to the registration of party names, as are you. The fact that you came to different conclusions is beside the point.

    How about we drop the issue until a decision is made by the AEC (who should be making the decision)?

  11. For the record, I agree with Ben that the idea of having a party of independents is a contradiction in terms…

    … and Ben’s a Green.

  12. I suspect it will come a cropper on #5, even if you could argue the case.

    5. It does not use the words ‘Independent Party,’ or the word ‘Independent’ with the name of a recognised political party, or in a way that is likely to be confused with the name of a recognised political party.

    I’ve always thought the obvious area to go for if you wanted easy votes was the “Informal Vote”. “Vote for us if you don’t want to be represented!”

  13. This is actually an interesting debate. If the Independent party would have gone with independence party you would probably have made since globally multiple Independence parties exist such as UKIP in the UK and the junior coalition party in Iceland. The closest thing however to Independents party name wise is the American Independent party which was a segregationist political party in the south. But even it put American in front of their name and left off the s.

  15. I’m sorry you feel that way Mark. I don’t know what you took personal offence at from my last comment – none of it was directed at you.

  16. I agree with the suggestion that an “Independent Party” is a contradiction in terms.
    Still, candidates with substance can and do get elected, regardless of whether they call themselves Independent or are part of some Independent Alliance.
    Somebody once said that Bob Katter could call himself a candidate for a party of some really ridiculous name (eg. the Rotten Hippie Fruit-fly Party), and the people of Kennedy would still elect him easily.
    Katter’s mob didn’t do well in suburban Toowoomba, where most of this seat’s booths and voters are, despite a good showing in non-urban areas.
    Unless there’s an Independent or a minor party candidate of substance that Toowoombans in particular feel willing to support, I expect Ian Macfarlane to romp it in.

  17. This is the old Darling Downs renamed. In 1901 it was won by the only transported convict to serve in federal parliament.

  19. Geoffrey Robinson is an historical database! Thanks for all the interesting tidbits you add.

Comments are closed.