ALP 7.2%
Incumbent MP
Paul Pearce, since 2003.
Geography
Eastern suburbs of Sydney. Coogee includes parts of Waverley and Randwick local government areas, including the suburbs of Randwick, Coogee, Clovelly, Bronte, Waverley, Tamarama and Bondi Junction.
History
The electoral district of Coogee was first created in 1927, following the abolition of proportional representation in New South Wales. Back in 1927, there were a much larger number of districts covering the eastern suburbs of Sydney, Coogee sitting alongside Botany, Randwick, Waverley, Bondi, Vaucluse and Woollahra.
As the number of seats has declined and Coogee has expanded in size, the seat has become stronger for the ALP and less so for the Liberal Party, and it has now been 37 years since the Liberals last lost Coogee.
The first member for Coogee, Hyman Goldstein, was a Nationalist MP who had previously served as a member for the proportionally-elected Eastern Suburbs district from 1922 to 1925. He was found dead in 1928 at the bottom of the Coogee cliffs in mysterious circumstances. It has been rumoured that his death was caused by the federal Member for Barton, Thomas Ley, who was suspected in the murder of his Labor opponent in the 1925 election, and was later convicted of murder after moving to London.
The Nationalists and the United Australia Party held Coogee until the 1941 election, when they lost to the ALP’s Lou Cunningham. He had previously served as the federal Member for Gwydir from 1919 to 1925 and again from 1929 to 1931. He held Coogee until his death in 1948.
The Liberal Party’s Kevin Ellis defeated Cunningham’s widow at the 1948 by-election. Ellis lost to the ALP’s Lou Walsh in 1953, and the two engaged in numerous election battle over the next decade. Walsh lost to Ellis in 1956, winning the seat back in 1962 for one final term. Ellis held the seat from 1965 until his retirement in 1973.
At the 1973 election, the Liberal Party’s Ross Freeman won by only eight votes. The Court of Disputed Returns overturned the result in 1974, and the by-election was won by former rugby player Michael Cleary of the ALP by 54 votes.
Cleary served as a minister in the Labor state government from 1981 to 1988, and retired at the 1991 election.
Coogee was won in 1991 by the ALP’s Ernie Page, who had been Member for Waverley since 1991, and moved to Coogee after Waverley was abolished. Page served as Minister for Local Government for the first term of the Carr Labor government from 1995 to 1999, and retired at the 2003 election.
Page was succeeded in 2003 by the ALP’s Paul Pearce, Mayor of Waverley. He was re-elected in 2007.
Candidates
- Stuart Burney (Independent)
- Andrew McGowan (Christian Democratic Party)
- Sue Doran (Greens)
- Bruce Notley-Smith (Liberal)
- Paul Pearce (Labor)
- Nathan Jones (Independent)
Political situation
Coogee ‘s 7.2% margin is definitely vulnerable to the Liberal Party. The seat is also strong for the Greens, and there is a possibility that the ALP could fall from first place into third place, turning Coogee into a Liberal-Greens contest. In that scenario, however, the Liberals would likely be too far out in front for the Greens to have a chance of winning. The Liberals are the favourite to win the seat.
2007 result
| Candidate | Party | Votes | % | Swing |
| Paul Pearce | ALP | 15,623 | 39.0 | -6.9 |
| Jonathon Flegg | LIB | 14,323 | 35.8 | +5.0 |
| Kelly Marks | GRN | 8,457 | 21.1 | +3.2 |
| Nicole Tillotson | DEM | 1,138 | 2.8 | +0.5 |
| Yuan Wu | UNI | 488 | 1.2 | +0.2 |
2007 two-candidate-preferred result
| Candidate | Party | Votes | % | Swing |
| Paul Pearce | ALP | 20,775 | 57.2 | -6.4 |
| Jonathon Flegg | LIB | 15,521 | 42.8 | +6.4 |
Booth breakdown
Booths in Coogee have been divided into three areas. Booths in the northern end of the seat have been grouped as “Waverley”. Those along the coast in the southeast of the seat have been grouped as “Clovelly-Coogee”, with the southwest of the seat as Randwick.
The vote was fairly uniform across the seat. The Labor two-party vote was around 58% in the southern parts of the seat and 54% in Waverley. The Greens vote varied from just under 20% in Randwick to almost 23% in Clovelly-Coogee.
| Voter group | GRN % | ALP 2CP % | Total votes | % of votes |
| Randwick | 19.9 | 58.7 | 11,941 | 29.8 |
| Clovelly-Coogee | 22.7 | 58.6 | 10,246 | 25.6 |
| Waverley | 21.5 | 54.6 | 8,312 | 20.8 |
| Other votes | 20.6 | 55.8 | 9,530 | 23.8 |
This will be an interesting seat – it contains some really upper-class areas + some areas which isn’t really. I get a Liberal seat on 0.07% on federal results, which is probably higher under OPV.
Given OPV, the Liberals should be expected to win this.
Sue Doran’s Facebook page is here… http://www.facebook.com/coogeegreens
The swing to the Liberal Party in Wentworth at the 2010 federal election would suggest that the Liberal Party is likely to win this seat.
Apart from the rich north areas, it’s a surprisingly progressive seat. Plenty of progressive, middle class professionals live there. High greens votes around the suburb of coogee, and a high labor vote in the centre, south and south west of the seat has kept it Labor for 40 years. The liberals should win it this year but they might end up in a contest with the greens coming second, depending on how big the swing is and where it goes.
Federal results don’t really help to interpret the state result. There were strong personal factors affecting the federal vote. Peter Garrett was not doing well in Kingsford Smith and this helped to improve the Liberal vote in the south of the seat of Coogee.
Turnbull had a good swing in the Wentworth portion for a number of reasons, mostly because he can get pretty good exposure.
The state result will be different. I don’t think the Libs will win on first preferences.
Oops, I mean “win on primary vote”.
Sue Doran’s profile on The Greens website is up.
http://nsw.greens.org.au/coogee
Just remember – a vote for Greens is a vote for Labor.
A vote for Labor is a vote for the Liberals.
A vote for the Liberals is a vote for the Greens.
And you’re wasting your vote if you vote independent.
As time goes on this seat will become more and more Liberal, when the poorer ‘progressives’ get eased out by richer and cleverer Tories.
PS: Why do lefties refer to themselves as ‘progressive’? Is that to cover the fact that left-wing and illiberal have now become derogatory words, for surely they are the words that sum up the ALP and the Greens who can’t wait to pass more laws to limit freedom and to control our lives.
Peter the Lawyer – yes, I’ve personally struggled with the term progressive to describe the Greens and to a lesser extent, the ALP. Actually, I found the GST to be quite progressive taxation reform personally. If we get a train link to the outer south-west and north-west I would have thought that to be a progressive measure too!
Peter – all the rich and clever Tories bought investment properties in Coogee, and then rented them to left wingers.
In the green ghetto of the inner west where I live, the word “progressive” means the same as “nimby.” Since nimbys are interested in protecting property rights, and the inner west now contains some of the wealthiest property owners in Sydney, I think we should call “progressives” what they really are: tories.
The GST is not progressive but regressive, as it reverses the redistributive nature of income tax. Property (or land) rights are not inherently progressive or anything else, instead being enshrined in 800yrs of common law. However, the history of property (land) rights is that it has been an exclusionary process, not inclusionary, so the actions taken to exclude would be regressive. Think of the various fights over ‘common’ land or peasants farming rights (whether tenant farmers driven from land in the ‘clearings’ in Scotland, or the ‘range wars’ in the US). The use of progressive now stems from a movement away (epitomised by the old Green slogan “Not left or right but out in front”) from the dichotomisation of left-right, itself a long forgotten hangover from the National Constituent Assembly at the end of Ancien Regime – the Government (Royalists) sat on the right, the opposition on the left, which we still use in parliament today. There was, during the 90s, a pejoration of “left-wing” due to association with the former Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. Then again, lots of Greens don’t think they are left or right wing, so look for another term altogether. Progressive sounds nice…
Stewart J – good concise explanation on how the term ‘progressive’ has been managed to suit the lefties. I agree with you and that is my understanding of the history.
When you have a country that needs to tax goods and services, rather than income (as we do given our ageing population) then having the courage to implement such a tax measure is progressive in my mind, regardless of the tags placed on ‘regressive tax’ as opposed to ‘progressive tax’.
So yes, the GST is a regressive tax, however, it was a progressive policy implemented by the Government at the time.
I forgot to add that the “Progressive Party” became the “Country Party” in NSW. (Rodney Smith gives a good account of their beginnings in his book on NSW minor parties “Against the machines”).
As to Coogee and rich tories, the history of the area suggests that lots of people bought into the area in the 70s-80s when it was still cheap (even in the early 90s) coz it was unfashionable to live in Randwick & Coogee. That’s changed now, but the kind of people who are now buying in are also the sort of people who tend to vote Green – middle class (& often middle aged!) radicals, particularly those born at the end of the Baby Boom (born in the early 60s). Well educated and well heeled they are looking to make lifestyle choices and aren’t necessarily driven by consumerism. And of course, with all the mid-to-high-rise being packed into Randwick municipality there are lots of people who aren’t so well heeled still renting. Lachlan’s comment on Jan 24 summed it up well.
If you are well-educated and well-heeled you can’t be a Green. have you seen their manifesto? Only a person with no sense of history could support such dirigiste rubbish.
The term ‘Progressive’ actually came from the US in the ealry 20th century. It was the same as the Liberal movement in Britain, i.e. increase regulation to deal with modernisation and industrialiation. So Liberals/Progressives were keen to pass child labour laws and to recognise trades unions. However, they were also keen on Prohibition or Temperance. So thety were not progressive in all fields. I think the only truly progressives are those that believe in letting everyone have as much economic freedom as possible. So the Conservative philosophy is currently, the most progressive, because, unlike the philosphy behind the ALP and Greens it does seek to patronise people and make sure that they always have to stay in the nice little categories that have ben assigned to them.
“dirigiste rubbish” – except that if you look at who votes Green it is middle class professionals, mostly working in white collar areas, often earning good incomes (family income $150-200k). As they likely bought property in the 80s or 90s they are now doing well. They have the highest rate of education of any voter group (50%+ will have a degree, if not more than one). Okay, they are not the Vaucluse types, within individual incomes in excess of $300k, but they do have distinct values that set them apart from those who favour economic liberalism (thus your use of dirigiste as a pejorative) – they see the cause of ecological collapse (or if you don’t believe in that, then environmental destruction) as being an attachment to unfettered economic growth. They may seem libertarian in respect to social issues, but are left-wing on economic matters. Kitschelt called them “left-libertarian”, but thats just another pidgeon hole…
And as for the only true progressive being those who want maximum economic freedom – rubbish. Thats your classic liberal, although classic liberals would tell you that you have to make the money yourself and not through being a dividend bludger (ie; corporations are immoral). Neo-liberals don’t care about that, so perhaps what you are trying to equate is progressive = neoliberal. Thus it should come as no surprise to anyone that the Lib-Dems in the UK are preaching the economic lines they are under Clegg – they are simply being true to their Liberal heritage. The early 20th C “Progressive Party” in NSW came from a disaffected Labour MP who wanted to see a genuine city-country link, but increasing mechanisation saw the shift of rural workers into cities, and so the Country Pary came only to represent those who lived in rural areas. What progressive might mean now is open to interpretation, but its US history is perhaps only a limited guide.
Also running here is Andrew McGowan for the CDP.
My prediction: Liberal gain, 13-18% swing on ALP-LIB terms, and I expect the final figure to be LIB-GRN.
I used to think Paul could hang on thanks to the Green, but now I think Pearce will come in 3rd. The swing is on here big time and it’s going to the Libs. The Green vote will hold up, while the Labor vote will likely collapse. The Greens and Labor seem weaker on the ground this time, while there are Liberals everywhere on weekends.
Yes, this is one of the more interesting seats. I can’t see the ALP holding on here, and while there may be a strong Green vote, I can’t see many preferences being distributed from Greens to the ALP (that is if the ALP were to finish 1st or 2nd). This is the seat which is likely to have the highest exhaustion of Green primary votes in the election. Richard B is bold, but I agree that the ALP will likely finish 3rd on primaries and the Libs will win comfortably – perhaps on primary votes alone.
I hear ALP polling in the seat is terrible and the Libs are very confident in this one.
Ah the old myth about Greens having degrees and being professional. The degrees are low rent and the ‘profession’ is usually some jobsworth government job, which is vastly overpaid for the value it gives to the community. I’ve never met a green with any real depth of education or culture.
Nobody wants to trash the environment, but then again no one wants to so restrict humanity that it ceases to excel. Greens are really neo-feudalists with more than a narrow puritan streak who are keen to somehow put a dampener on the consumption of the aspirational middle classes.
Notley doorknocked my area yesterday (coogee/randwick). That’s one of the most leftie parts of the electorate, so if he’s doorknocking there he must be feeling good.
Peter the lawyer – bother to comment when you know what you’re talking about.
Nathan Jones of http://nostategovernments.com/ is a candidate. They run on a platform of introducing a referendum with this question: “Should we remove state governments and only have a national government and existing local councils as the second tier?”
Hmm.
Stewart
Your remark is so typical of the green/fascist modus operandi: abuse, don’t argue.
Big news here today – The Greens and Labor have decided to swap preferences. Game on.
Lachlan – huh? Hate to disappoint you here Lachlan, there is certainly no ‘game on’ here. Libs are pulling out of here and focussing on Balmain and there is some interest in Sydney. This is a fait accompli. FYI – a poll here suggests that 70% of Green primaries will exhaust. Labor appear to be heading for 3rd. Liberals will get close to 50% of primary vote here.
Sorry, I said Sydney above. I have been told Rockdale, not Sydney.
Peter the Lawyer – and your’s – “green/fascist”? Your comments on “low-rent professions”? Like what – lawyers? And “vastly overpaid for the worth of the community” – do you even know what happens in government? Your comments become simplistic, shrill and nonsensical when you carry on like that. If you want to talk about the demographics of this seat (not the relative worth – according to you – of people’s professions and livelihood) and how they will effect the outcome in this electoral race, then be my guest.
Lachlan – that decision will probably help the Libs more than the Greens – the deep sense of betrayal being expressed at the last election by quite alot of Green voters was clear, so I suspect some voters may now simply switch to the Libs and bypass the Greens. I’m surprised that the Greens did this, although I can see that they might have wanted to try and win (which will only happen on ALP preferences) and so did a deal. I would expect a Notley-Smith win in any case, coz I’m not convinced that even if the Greens poll 2nd that ALP preferences will flow strongly enough. Of course, from an ALP perspective, a Green win wouldn’t be all bad – keep the seats in non-Lib hands and win it back next time on the back of a resurgent vote. Plus its the only way that Pearce can even contemplate winning.
(BTW, does anyone know what the factional balance of ALP branches in Coogee/Bondi/Waverley is like these days? They used to be mostly left, but that’s been changing – that might also have a bearing on this)
Hey DB – where is this poll from that you speak of – I’d like to see what else it said (ie; primaries etc) – please provide more than tantalising snippets!!
For what its worth, the Greens press release on the preference decision starts:
“The Coogee Greens campaign today announced its decision to preference the progressive Independent and Labor candidates ahead of the Liberals’ in the election. The Coogee Greens campaign decided to recommend numbering every candidate on the ballot, with the Christian Democratic party coming in last in the order of preference”
Stewart J – I can’t give you a 2PP as the polling is limited to a certain number of seats and isn’t a wide representation. All I could say is that the Newspoll released last week (which is pretty much in line with all of the polls) is largely accurate. The big worry for the ALP will be that there are small swings to the co-alition in co-alition held seats, but really large ones in the 15-20% range, which could see a number of seats which have never gone before, go. It is not a bad thing in a democracy is it?
Thanks DB – of course – every seat should be considered marginal from a democratic point of view (ie; so that the member feels they must work at representing their electorate), but when swings that big are around then maybe they all are now! Logically what you say would of course be the biggest fear – a very un-uniform set of swings. But I would have thought that might occur when you have a party losing formerly established constituencies (ie; a Christian party losing the support of a set of churches), or when the political system is in the process of significant change – eastern Europe post-1990 or Italy in the 90s. So that kind of change could be very dangerous for the ALP if any other centrist parties emerge during the next 4 years. However, the stability of the Australian political system, and the solidity of the ALP vote nationally over 30% (well, if its stays over – last fed Newspoll not looking good!) suggests this is probably transient.
I’m a fan of Paul Pearce. I lived in Coogee briefly and he seemed like a good local member, with a pretty strong independent streak. Would be a shame if he lost.
I find it amusing when someone puts forth a corker like “I’ve never met a green with any real depth of education or culture.” and then later on squeals self-righteously about being abused.
But I do note Peter the Lawyers comment about the importance of people having as much economic freedom as possible. But of course no mention of individual rights. This just smacks of the free business / unfree people mentality of some sections of the Liberal party. Why else would they be directing preferences to the hateful CDP in the Upper House, a move no worse than preferencing Pauline Hanson, which is apparently unconscionable, even for the Liberals?
Actually, I now see Bruce Notley-Smith’s how to vote in Coogee doesn’t recommend a preference to the CDP in the Upper House. Nor does Adrian Bartels’ does in Sydney. Smart enough move, considering the candidates.
However, every other Liberal how to vote that I can see does recommend a preference to the CDP in the Upper House, even the ones for Balmain (bad idea) and Marrickville (exceptionally bad idea).
3zebras: My understanding is that the CDP refused to preference Notley Smith and Bartel first due to their orientation.
Libs will win. Greens finish second and Labor not far behind.
Look at the results in north or east ward of Randwick Council for an sense of the trend.
Politics in the area is also influenced by the bizarre situation in Randwick Council where the Greens support the Liberal to be mayor (and vice-versa)
@StewartJ
All the branches south of Randwick are right, the branches north are mostly left. The left expect to have the numbers to have one of their aligned people to win preselection next time. It would be close.
I am going to suggest Peter the Lawyer is a plant by the greens/ALP to make the Liberals look bad. He is either 15yo, because his posts has too much stupidity, shows too much ignorance and contained too much non-sense for it to ever come from any lawyer, I cannot see any Lawyer I know saying what he does, they mainly like sitting on the fence too much.
I personally just ignores his post. So lets get back to talking about this election and not each other
The Labor guy has been there too long, and I will give the Liberals credit for pre-selecting an openly gay candidate.
HAHAHAHA – good one dovif!
Hey Evan – Pearce has only been there two terms – a mere babe compared to many others on both sides. Notley-Smith is a nice guy but will be locked into voting on party lines, just like Pearce, so sadly crap stuff he doesn’t agree with will still be passed. Not sure how he will go in the Lib party room with the likes of Clarke & co.
“Not sure how he will go in the Lib party room with the likes of Clarke & co.”
Would love to be a fly on the wall. I don’t know Bruce personally, do you think he’s the type who would speak out?
Dovif
You obviously don’t know too many lawyers 🙂
Stewart J
I obviously touched a nerve there. My point is that I find Greens to be extremists who are always very keen on restricting the rights of others. They are usually what some commentators have labelled as folk-marxists, ie. the kind of people who don’t actually know any political philosophy but instinctively see the world in terms of the oppressors vs the oppressed. The Green psyche usually also contains a streak of conservatism by proxy. Hence, greens will praise the traditions of a third world tribesman whilst berating te traditions of their own culture. This give rise to the fact that there is always a strong whiff of the puritan millenarian hanging about those who profess to be Greens.
I deal with denizens of Government every day at all levels. I knowexactly how Government works. That is why I practice law, to help thse who have been caught in the tramels of the bureaucracy.
As far as Coogee is concerned, my point is that it is gentrfying as more and more people in the higher socio-economic groups move there because they wish to be nearer to the best parts of Sydney, ieithe core Eastern Suburbs. As that happens we can expect the Liberals and the Greens to attract more votes ad Labor to fall into third place.
I don’t really care who or what Peter the Lawyer is or does but he is right about the changing demographics of Coogee. This will eventually be dominated by established families wanting to live near the city and the beach, and uni students. This will make this seat (and eventually, Kingsforde-Smith) a Lib vs Greens bout.
I don’t think Kingsford-Smith will be going Liberal any time soon Hawkeye, most of the seat is in Maroubra and Heffron (about 72.1%).
Well Maroubra and Heffron are gentrifying pretty rapidly as well. Maroubra in particular has a vastly inflated Labor margin based on recent Federal elections.
Hey Matt – why don’t you use the the Kingsford Smith margin now as your guide – as has rightly been identified public housing is getting less and less, and the whole seat is gentrifying enormously. There can be no issue with the way the seat is trending – not Liberal at the next federal election, but quite likely come 2016 – especially if Garrett is still around.