GRN vs ALP 5.8%
Incumbent MP
Adam Bandt, since 2010.
Geography
Central Melbourne. Melbourne covers the Melbourne CBD, as well as the inner city suburbs of North Melbourne, Parkville, Carlton, Docklands, Abbotsford, Fitzroy, Ascot Vale, Kensington, Richmond and East Melbourne. The seat covers all of the City of Melbourne north of the Yarra River, as well as a majority of the City of Yarra and part of Moonee Valley council area.
Redistribution
Melbourne contracted to a smaller area, losing northeastern parts of the seat. Melbourne gained no extra areas, but lost areas north of Park Street around Brunswick and Fitzroy to Wills, and losing the northeastern finger of the City of Yarra to Batman.
History
Melbourne is an original Federation seat, and has been held by the ALP for over one hundred years.
The seat was first won by Malcolm McEacharn, the former Mayor of Melbourne, who joined the Protectionist Party. Although McEacharn had defeated his Labor opponent William Maloney with over 60% of the vote in 1901, the 1903 election saw McEacharn only defeat Maloney by 77 votes, and the result was declared void after allegations that the result was tainted.
Maloney defeated McEacharn at the following by-election in 1904, and the ALP have held Melbourne ever since. Maloney polled over 60% at the 1906 election, and never polled less than 60% as he held the seat right through to 1940. Indeed, Maloney was elected unopposed at two elections. Maloney retired in 1940 but died before the 1940 election. He never held a frontbench role, and holds the record for the longest term of service without serving as a frontbencher.
The seat was won in 1940 by Arthur Calwell. Calwell held the seat for thirty-two years. He served as Minister for Immigration in Ben Chifley’s government from 1945 to 1949. He served as HV Evatt’s Deputy Leader from 1951 until 1960, when he became Leader of the Opposition.
Calwell led the ALP into three federal elections. The ALP was defeated by a slim margin at the 1961 election, but suffered a larger defeat in 1963 and a solid Liberal landslide in 1966. Calwell was replaced as Leader by Gough Whitlam in 1967 and Calwell retired in 1972. At no time did the seat of Melbourne come under any serious danger of being lost.
The seat was won in 1972 by Ted Innes, who held the seat until 1983.
He was succeeded by Gerry Hand, who served as a federal minister from 1987 until his retirement at the 1993 election.
The seat was won in 1993 by Lindsay Tanner. Tanner became a frontbencher following the defeat of the Labor government in 1996, and served on the Labor frontbench right until the election of the Rudd government, and served as Finance Minister in the first term of the Labor government.
The seat of Melbourne had been considered a safe Labor seat for over a century, but at the 2007 election the Greens overtook the Liberals on preferences and came second, and the two-candidate-preferred vote saw the ALP’s margin cut to 4.7%.
In 2010, Tanner retired, and his seat was won by the Greens’ Adam Bandt, who had first run for the seat in 2007.
Candidates
- Anthony Main
- Sean Armistead (Liberal)
- Kate Borland (Independent)
- Noelle Walker (Family First)
- Adam Bandt (Greens)
- Cath Bowtell (Labor)
- Martin Vrbnjak (Palmer United Party)
- Michael Bayliss (Stable Population Party)
- Michael Murphy (Democratic Labour Party)
- Nyree Walshe (Animal Justice Party)
- Josh Davidson (Bullet Train For Australia)
- Joyce Mei Lin Khoo (Rise Up Australia)
- Royston Wilding (Secular Party)
- James Mangisi (Sex Party)
- Frazer Kirkman (Independent)
- Paul Cummins (Australian Independents)
Assessment
Melbourne is the first seat ever won by the Greens in the House of Representatives at a general election.
In 2010, the Greens achieved a record-high vote, but relied on Liberal preferences to overtake the Labor candidate and win.
The Liberal Party decided to preference Labor ahead of the Greens in the Labor/Greens marginal seats that overlap with Melbourne at the 2010 state election, and this saw no Greens elected despite a collapse in the Labor vote.
In the current circumstances, Bandt is likely to see an increase in his primary vote. He should benefit from the usual ‘sophmore surge’. His campaign is very effective at community organising and he has been prominent in the community. His role in the hung parliament and his role as Deputy Leader of the Greens have increased his profile. While the Greens have gone backwards in some polls, they have not performed badly in comparison to the ALP.
If Bandt had gained Liberal preferences, he would have won comfortably, if not by a huge margin. With Liberal preferences flowing to Labor, it will be more difficult, but it is not inconceivable that the swing to the Greens on primary votes could be enough to overcome this hurdle.
2010 result
| Candidate | Party | Votes | % | Swing |
| Cath Bowtell | ALP | 34,022 | 38.09 | -11.4 |
| Adam Bandt | GRN | 32,308 | 36.17 | +13.37 |
| Simon Olsen | LIB | 18,760 | 21.00 | -2.49 |
| Joel Murray | SXP | 1,633 | 1.83 | +1.83 |
| Georgia Pearson | FF | 1,389 | 1.55 | +0.55 |
| Penelope Green | SEC | 613 | 0.69 | +0.69 |
| David Collyer | DEM | 602 | 0.67 | -0.76 |
2010 two-candidate-preferred result
| Candidate | Party | Votes | % | Swing |
| Adam Bandt | GRN | 50,059 | 56.04 | +10.75 |
| Cath Bowtell | ALP | 39,268 | 43.96 | -10.75 |
Booth breakdown
Booths have been divided into four areas. Booths around Ascot Vale and Kensington have been grouped as West. Fitzroy, Carlton and Abbotsford are grouped as North-East. East Melbourne and Richmond are grouped as South-East. Booths close to the Melbourne CBD are grouped as Central.
The Greens won a majority of the vote in three out of four areas, varying from 55.7% in the south-east, to 58.9% in the centre. The Labor candidate won a narrow 50.7% majority in the west.
The Liberal candidate came third, polling between 15.1% in the north-east and 26.3% in the south-east.
| Voter group | LIB % | GRN 2CP % | Total votes | % of ordinary votes |
| North-East | 15.09 | 57.93 | 18,686 | 34.09 |
| South-East | 26.30 | 55.72 | 13,768 | 25.12 |
| West | 20.32 | 49.27 | 12,107 | 22.09 |
| Central | 22.49 | 58.90 | 10,249 | 18.70 |
| Other votes | 24.08 | 56.58 | 26,211 |
The ALP are again running Cath Bowtell – https://www.facebook.com/cathbowtell.
The bookies have Labor as pretty strong favourites here, but I expect it to be very close, much closer than the $1.40/$2.75 would suggest. Bandt has, in my opinion, been pretty visible, but has also been caught saying the odd silly or overly rhetorical thing – his speech at the Melbourne by-election (state) when he said that Labor didn’t really win the seat because they came second on primary votes (see Bandt’s result above) was my personal favourite.
Bowtell is a strong candidate with a large inner-city base, but Bandt should get the sophomore surge. Needless to say that Lib preferences will play a big part.
PJ – I think the odds are probably harsh but realistically, I really can’t see the Greens winning. The Lib vote will rise and both the Labor and Green primary vote should fall.The Liberals will most likely preference Labor in this seat. If they preference Bandt, then I’d say the Greens should be favourites. But all indications are that the Libs will preference Labor.
Perhaps. I tend to think that very inner-city and country seats are the most inclined to vote based on the MP rather than the party (Lindsay Tanner a solid case in point). While I expect the Green vote to decline nationally, I wouldn’t be surprised if, aided by a good mailing allowance and three years of public life, that Bandt’s vote could hold up.
I do expect the Libs to preference the ALP though, but various minors (Dems, Sex, plus the usual circus of socialist parties) would preference the Greens. If pushed I would tip Bowtell, who I think is an excellent candidate, but I do think that $2.75 are attractive odds.
I would be interested if any recent polling has been done here. There was some contradictory polling done a long time ago, but I’m not sure how relevant that is now. (http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/10/26/secret-poll-says-bandt-needs-lib-support-to-survive/ – http://www.smh.com.au/national/whatever-your-preference-greens-sit-pretty-20111008-1lf59.html)
Bandt might poll in the low 40s at the expense of Labor, but it still wouldn’t be enough. Can’t see the ALP/Lib vote being less than 52-3% combined and I’d doubt many Libs would preference the Green ahead of Labor if the HTV is the reverse. FF won’t preference Green above Labor either and they will be good for 1.5% or thereabouts.
I think it is virtually impossible for Bandt to win unless a preference deal is struck with the Libs. And the Libs would be mad to do that this time.
Contests between parties on the same side can see large vote shifts: Libs/Nats Labor/Green margins mean less. Labor vote is down nationally more than Greens as you would expect but if Lib pref go to Labor this means less. Wouldn’t assume Sex Party will preference Green they didn’t in Melbourne state b/e. Voter turnover is high new voters probably more likely to be Green voters. Labor’s 2010 vote strongest in low-income public housing areas have Greens done work here what about 2010 feminist vote for JG?
Comparing the past two Vic elections, the leakage to the Greens from a Lib HTV preferencing Labor tended to be quite a lot more than the leakage to Labor for a Lib HTV preferencing the Greens. If the Libs get, say, 25%, using the Melbourne 2010 election preference data (2 votes went in preferences to Labor for every 1 to the Greens), that would 16% to Labor and 8% to the Greens with change. As I said, I think Bowtell will win, just, but if Bandt does get 40%, he has a shot.
That date is from the 2010 state election, in the State seat of Melbourne.
https://www.vec.vic.gov.au/Results/state2010distributionMelbourneDistrict.html
*data.
Sorry.
Bandt polled 36% of the primary vote in 2010. Considering sophmore surge and the collapse of the Labor vote, I don’t think it will be difficult for him to reach 40%.
The polls and recent results suggest a slight decline in support for the Greens, but the decline has been much worse for Labor.
Without any data, I’ll punt and say I’d expect Bandt to poll say 41%, the ALP to poll around 30% and the Libs to poll about 25%. Of the remaining 4%, it will probably be split 30/70 to minor right and minor left (as in 2010).
Now if the Libs preference Labor ahead of the Greens, I reckon about 85% of it will go to Labor ahead of the Greens as the Libs generally follow HTV cards.
So if we say Labor gets 30% primary, 21% out of 25% from Libs, and 1% other, Labor would be expected to win.
For Bandt to win, I reckon he’ll need about 44% of the primary vote, or the combined ALP/Lib vote to not exceed say 53%. Then he needs say 3% of the ‘other vote’ and a 4% leakage from the Liberals.
That assumes Lib preferences go to Labor on the How to Vote cards, which I’d expect to occur.
This is really a punt each way I think, and if Bandt is at $2.75, that is pretty good odds. I’d expect the Greens to be doing some polling here.
If the Greens were serious and wanted to ensure Bandt won, they’d preference the Libs ahead of Labor in some of the more marginal ALP held VIC seats. But I won’t hold my breath.
Sorry, I should have added to that last paragraph “preference Libs ahead of Labor in more of the more marginal ALP held VIC seats in exchange for Lib preferences in Melbourne”.
I’m sure the Lib hierarchy would be up for that, particularly in a couple of the Labor held seats around Higgins.
I tend to agree except that I think the Lib flow to Labor will be closer to 70% than 85%, as with the state elections. If the Greens did preference the Libs in a deal, I reckon it would backfire hugely, with Labor (rightly) able to run ‘who do the Greens really support?’ style attacks in the inner-city.
I’ll take a punt and say that Bandt will need 42% of the primary vote to win. I reckon he’ll get 41% and fall short by a whisker.
PJ – can’t really argue with that. It appears reasonable.
PS: I have seen a number of polls from over the weekend. One was in Lindsay/Greenway where the Libs had 57% of the primary vote and Labor 25%. Estimated 2PP was 64/36. Another was from Bruce/Chisholm where the Libs had 48% of the primary vote and Labor 31% for an estimated 2PP of 56/44. Another one was in QLD in Swan’s seat and another two Labor held seats around it putting the primary vote of the Libs at 47%, Labor 32% and estimated 2PP of 55/45. The final one was in Bass/Braddon which put the primary vote of the Libs at 50%, Labor at 23% and 2PP estimate of 59/41. This Government is in huge trouble. It is much worse than 1993 or 2001 because the marginal seats are much much worse.
The 56/44 or 55/45 nationally could be right, but I’d suggest the safest seats of the Liberal Party aren’t moving too much, if at all. The Coalition are on target for 100 seats here and probably control of the Senate with the minor right groups.
I presume the two Labor seats near Lilley are Petrie and Griffith?
PJ – Petrie was one, can’t remember the other. It wasn’t Griffith.
If Labor loses Griffith the people of that electorate will get what they deserve. If my fellow Queenslanders are gonna punish Labor well I gotta deal with it, but to kick out Rudd would be a huge mistake. BTW when is the profile of Griffith going to be up? I want to see if there’s any people game enough to say Rudd will lose? It would be a huge call to say so but I guess when a government is hated it often brings a few unfortunate casualties.
Rudd for PM – I can’t see Rudd losing, although he is up against a solid candidate this time. I do expect a small swing against him though as the sympathetic vote would have reduced. I can see Swan losing given his vehiment opposition to a Rudd leadership.
Swan is gone for all money and I think Rudd will get a bigger scare than some like myself may like to think, but I think he should have enough to hold on. I’d hate to think how bad the swing would be against Labor in Griffith if Rudd chose not to run.
The Liberals have announced their candidate is Sean Armistead
http://www.melbournetimesweekly.com.au/story/1532917/liberals-coy-on-melbourne-poll-candidates-ties/?cs=12
The Age is reporting that the ETU is donating $300,000 to Bandt’s warchest. That’s quite a lot.
The ALP seems more confident to regain Melbourne,
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/labor-push-on-to-reclaim-melbourne-20130704-2pev3.html
The latest Newspoll still has the Greens vote in Vic (12%) higher than anywhere else in the country.
PB also did a very decent analysis, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mumble/index.php/theaustralian/comments/can_bandt_withstand_the_tide/
Agree, that Melbourne will be a very close result.
I actually think there is a good chance of the ALP coming 3rd. They wont preference the Libs for the same reason the Greens wont, plus a few others.
The ALP will then push Bandt over the line.
Daves right and i recon that Bronwyn Bishop called be in real danger in her seat….
If you know Melbourne, you will know that the ALP will not come third and that looking at the state by-election, preferences will favour labor in a seat that draws alot of candidates to the ballot paper.
Dave- “I actually think there is a good chance of the ALP coming 3rd.”
Really cannot see that at all, it just appears too outlandish does it not based on historical voting in the seat. The ALP vote would have to utterly collapse by such a huge amount that it just doesn’t seem realistic.
This will still be close esp with the two big policy changes of the week most likely polarising some voters in this seat and sending a few more to the Greens. Wedging the Greens will work elsewhere but obviously not in this seat.
The only hope for the Liberals to beat the ALP here is if Turnbull becomes leader.
morgieb – even that wouldn’t get Melbourne to go to the Liberals. The 2PP for the seat in 2010 was 73.3% to the ALP, 26.7% to the Libs. And even if the Liberals were able to pull the swing off necessary to get ahead of the ALP in 2PP, they’d still have to beat the Greens on 2CP.
Melbourne is basically the left-wing equivalent of O’Connor.
I agree it is a long shot, but not impossible.
The primary vote was:
GRN 36
ALP 38
LIB 21
The polls were saying pre rudd that the ALP could lose up to 15% primary. With Rudd’s new policies he will alienate the Left. Being genenrous that could give Bandt a 7% primary boost.
The same things will happen to the right as they will be seen as pale copies of the LIBs. I’d say closer to 9% boost.
Then you have the minors, most of which will go Green or Liberal. A lot of new right wing parties too.
While unlikely, that could have the ALP third by 0.5%
When I posted originally I misread the votes and had the Libs only 10% behind.
I am going to explain how there is absolutley no chance the libs will come second here.
1. Funding- The ALP in victoria will probably spend alot of money to get this seat back, the greens will spend alot of money to retain their sitting MP. The liberals will be spending alot on Chisolm, Deakin, La Trobe and McEwen
2. Voters- The ALP came first in this seat. There would have to have a double digit swing against the ALP on the primary vote for this seat to go, there is no suggestion what so ever that this will occur in Melbourne. There are rusted on labor voters and just keep in mind, this seat left labor hands when Gillard got in.
3. Policy- If you think melbourne is going to buy liberal policy, your kidding yourself. The immigration policy won’t really do alot of damage, it will jsut make preference negotiations longer. ETS is what alot say caused this seat to go and now there is prospect of it being implemented under Rudd
4. Candidates- This is the state capital, it will draw alot of those minor left wing minor parties which even if libs are ahead of the ALP, will push labor to second spot.
Final result: I’d say this could be one seat without a sophmore surge because there was no incumbent last time and the incumbent being a minor party suffering
GRN: 38
ALP: 35
LIBS: 24
ALP: 55
GRN: 45
I know what your saying Dave but there is just not a chance at all that libs will come second her. The day where the libs are competitive in this seat, is a scary day for progressive people
Cath Bowtell has always been against the proposed East-West link, but state Labor coming out against it today will help her on the issue (most specificially in Carlton, Collingwood, Fitzroy, Travancore).
Campaign is heating up in Melbourne. I’ve seen teams of Bowtell supporters on a few occassions and Bandt has several big billboard posters up around the city.
Although a small sample of 400 these Galaxy numbers suggest that Bandt is doing well on 48% primary translating into a 2pp of 66%.
A long way to go yet but they suggest that the ALP might wish to spend limited resources elswhere on other Vic marginals? http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/victoria/bandt-has-strong-chance-of-holding-seat-poll-shows-20130803-2r6fn.html
A should have noted that the survey was commissioned by The Greens.
There aren’t too many marginal seats to defend in Victoria so the ALP probably won’t be spreading resources too thin by continuing to campaign here. They may also have memories of the 2011 NSW election, where the Greens underperformed their polling and lost in Marrickville.
On the other hand, if the Greens do get 46+ on the Primaries, they’d have to get pretty unlucky with the preferences not to win.
Refugee policy looks like it will work for Bandt – 62% opposed to the government policy – also high satisfaction rating for Bandt as local member
Polling in Denison has Andrew Wilkie at around 45%, despite the fact he only got 21% in 2010. Polling also shows there that Labor have collapsed from a commanding lead on the primary vote in 2010 to third place now.
I think this demonstrates that it’s entire possible for Labor to sink into third in Melbourne as well if Bandt can chomp the left vote in his electorate like Wilkie has.
KB doesn’t pull any punches in his analysis of this poll. Thus, I guess we ignore the poll results;
“Kevin Bonham Posted Sunday, August 4, 2013 at 3:37 pm
There’s some Galaxy findings for Melbourne floating around. It’s a Greens-commissioned poll with a smallish sample size (400), which asks the voting intention question naming candidates and not parties, and which then uses last-election preferences to get the 2PP when we know Melbourne is a seat where this won’t happen.
In short, it’s a dodgy bulldust party commissioned poll and should not be taken seriously.”
It’ll be an interesting contest and I’ve heard a couple of things recently worth considering in Melbourne and the wider scheme of things:
1 – Labor have been in discussions with the Liberals to exchange preferences in Melbourne for preferences in Mallee.
2 – It’s been reported today that Labor will not preference the Greens in the senate, possibly to remove it’s association with the ‘alliance’ in the hung parliament.
3 – The Sex Party polled 7% in the State Election and preferenced Labor.
Asylum seekers and Uni Cuts will hurt Labor big time, but I think Labor will win narrowly on this basis, even with Bandt polling as high as 44-45% on primaries.
“It’s been reported today that Labor will not preference the Greens in the senate, possibly to remove it’s association with the ‘alliance’ in the hung parliament.”
Link?
I am very much of the understanding that they will certainly preference the Greens above the right-wing parties, probably below some other left-wing ones.
If the ALP dont preference the Greens in the Senate then we will have results where the right win seats at the expense of the ALP/Greens like in the case of Fielding and Madigan at state level.
With the Coalition and the right posed to win almost half the senate, possibly more, this move by the ALP will either give Abbott absolute power or a hostile senate for the ALP.
The ALP will never admit it, but the Greens win at least 10 seats for the ALP at every election. There is no other party in a position to help the ALP, only to hurt them.
Again, link?
The ALP is well aware that Green preferences put them ahead of the Libs in a number of seats – it’s not like that is secret information – so the term ‘admit’, for what is clearly self-evident is pushing a bit of a barrow.
I’m sure that Labor will do a senate deal much like last election, preferencing left-wing parties ahead of right. I’m sure the Liberals will do the same in reverse. Of course, any evidence or even document rumour to the contrary should be backed up with a link.
This story claims that Labor and the Greens have yet to finalise a preference deal and therefore “Labor is seen as increasingly unlikely to give the Greens its preferences”. The article is a bit thin – it doesn’t specify which parties Labor would preference ahead of the Greens, and doesn’t have direct quotes from its anonymous sources.
Sorry, I got the html tags wrong. Here’s the URL for the article.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/8/6/election/labor-greens-rift-deepens
ALP believe that they are close to regaining Melb & the LIBs looking to pref ALP ahead of Greens will greatly help them, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/close-race-ahead-for-seat-of-melbourne-20130807-2rgu9.html
Oz article suggest the same on prefs, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/libs-preference-greens-last-to-prevent-hung-result/story-fn9qr68y-1226693130585
“Labor has dismissed claims that Greens MP Adam Bandt is poised to win the seat of Melbourne with a ”giant vote”, with internal polling suggesting a close race between the two parties.
The ReachTEL poll, taken on July 29, reveals a primary vote for Labor candidate Cath Bowtell of 36 per cent, compared with 33.9 per cent for Mr Bandt and 22.9 per cent for Liberal candidate Sean Armistead.”
I honestly don’t know here. Bowtell is running hard and is a very good progressive candidate, but the loss of Gillard in particular may lead toward a greater vote for the Greens and a handful of left protest parties. Bandt has a lot of money to spend ($300k from the ETU for starters) and definitely has more advertising and the financial advantage. We’ll have to wait and see. For what it’s worth, the Greens have gone from $2.75 to $2.10 and now back to $2.20 at the bookies.
As far as I’m aware, Ms Bowtell is the only woman standing in Melbourne at this time.
It’ll be interesting to see how preferences flow, here. Liberals are obviously coming third, and their HTV may preference Labor ahead of the Greens… but even then, it’s possible that enough votes will leak to the Greens to get them across the line, if Bandt can strengthen his primary vote. If typical low-leakage rates of 20% apply, and the Liberals hold at 23%, then Bandt would need to get over 45% primary vote. If leakage is stronger due to Liberal voters voting that way because they don’t like Labor (rather than because they like the Liberals), and we assume 40% leakage, then Bandt needs about 41% primary vote. This is, of course, neglecting the minor parties (sex party should again get about 2%, which will probably flow mostly to Greens, for instance).
Having said that, there’s a Galaxy poll of Melbourne that disagrees with that ReachTel poll, by a rather huge proportion. It was taken up to August 4th, and had Bandt drawing 48% primary vote – 66% after preferences if following 2010.
The Galaxy poll is of 400 people, while the ReachTel poll is of 653 people. That gives 95% MoE values of 4.9% and 3.8%, respectively. So either there’s a major systemic bias in one of the poll methods, or one or both of the polls are outside of their 95% margins of error.
Glen – I reckon in the end, the Libs will preference Labor and Labor will win the seat. Or, if the Greens are up to it, the Libs may preference the Greens in exchange for a preference deal in some of the more ALP held marginal VIC seats. In any case, the Liberals hold the key to the outcome of this seat.
Doing a deal with the Greens would do more harm than good for the Liberals in outer suburban marginal seats wouldn’t it?
There is certainly a school of thought that the Liberals preferencing against the Greens helped them in key marginals in the Victorian state election….
DB – that depends on which poll you trust more. If ReachTel is right, then Liberals will be the deciding factor in whether ALP or Greens win the seat. If Galaxy is right, it doesn’t really matter what the Liberals do, Bandt is returning.
Maybe this is best though of as an independent v major party contest, Bandt will poll more than the core Green vote in ReachTel but not as much as Galaxy which presented him as an independent without party label.
It’s worth keeping in mind that the galaxy poll was commissioned by the greens, and the reachtell poll by labor. More importantly, the galaxy poll also asked if voters approved of the PNG policy, if that question was asked before voting intention it surely would have skewed the results. Either way, a 48% primary vote for Bandt seems unrealistic.