GRN 4.4% vs ALP
Incumbent MP
Carmel Tebbutt (ALP), Member for Marrickville since 2005. Previously Member of the Legislative Council 1998-2005.
Geography
Newtown covers parts of the City of Sydney and Marrickville council, stretching from Surry Hills and Redfern in the east to Lewisham in the west. Newtown covers Camperdown, Chippendale, Darlington, Enmore, Newtown, Redfern, Stanmore and parts of Erskineville, Lewisham, Marrickville, Petersham and Surry Hills.
Redistribution
Newtown is a new seat. Most of the electorate was previously contained in the seat of Marrickville, including Lewisham, Petersham, Enmore, Stanmore, Newtown, Erskineville and Darlington. Newtown also takes in Redfern from Heffron, and Chippendale and the southern half of Surry Hills from Sydney.
History
There has been an electoral district named Marrickville since 1894, with the exception of three elections in the 1920s when the seat was merged into the multi-member district of Western Suburbs. The seat has continuously elected Labor members since 1910.
The original district of Marrickville covered a smaller area, with the other seats of Newtown-Camperdown, Petersham, Darlington, Newtown-Erskine and Newtown-St Peters covering parts of the modern seat.
The seat was won in 1917 by the ALP’s Carlo Lazzarini, who defeated Thomas Crawford, a former Labor member who had joined the Nationalists over the issue of conscription.
In 1920 Lazzarini moved to the multi-member district of Western Suburbs. He briefly served as a minister from 1921 to 1922, and in 1927 he returned to the seat of Marrickville.
Lazzarini was opposed to Jack Lang’s leadership of the NSW Labor Party, and he was expelled from the ALP in 1936. He rejoined in 1937, but later joined the dissident Industrial Labor Party. Following Lang’s departure he served as an assistant minister in the new Labor state government from 1941 to 1944. He held Marrickville until his death in 1952.
Marrickville was won at the February 1953 election by the Mayor of Marrickville, Norm Ryan. He served as a minister in the state Labor government from 1959 to 1965, and retired in 1973.
Ryan stepped aside in 1973 in favour of Tom Cahill. The son of NSW Premier Joseph Cahill, Tom had won his father’s seat of Cook’s River after his father’s death in 1959. Cook’s River was abolished at the 1973 election, and he moved to Marrickville. He held that seat until his death in 1983.
The 1983 by-election was won by Andrew Refshauge. Following the ALP’s election defeat in 1988 he was elected Deputy Leader. He served in this role until 2005. Refshauge became Deputy Premier when the ALP gained power in 1995. He served in a variety of ministerial roles over the next decade.
In 1995, the Liberal Party was pushed into third place behind the No Aircraft Noise party, who polled over 23% of the primary vote. The Greens came second after preferences in 1999, and the Liberals have never again come in the top two in Marrickville.
When Premier Bob Carr announced his retirement in 2005, Refshauge also announced his retirement, along with senior minister Craig Knowles. The Marrickville by-election was held alongside by-elections in Maroubra and Macquarie Fields.
The ALP ran Carmel Tebbutt, a former Marrickville councillor who had been a Member of the Legislative Council since 1998 and a minister since 1999. The Greens ran Deputy Mayor of Marrickville, Sam Byrne. The ALP’s 10.7% margin was cut to 5.1% in the by-election.
Tebbutt was re-elected in 2007, winning with a 7.5% margin over the Greens, less than in the 2003 election, but more than in the 2005 by-election. Tebbutt served as Labor deputy leader and Deputy Premier from 2008 to 2011.
At the 2011 election, Tebbutt again faced strong opposition from the Greens. Her margin was cut to 0.9%.
Candidates
Sitting Marrickville Labor MP Carmel Tebbutt is not running for re-election.
- Jenny Leong (Greens)
- Noel McFarlane (Cyclists Party)
- Michael Walsh (Animal Justice Party)
- Rachael Wheldall (Liberal)
- Dale Dinham (No Land Tax)
- Karl Schubert (Christian Democratic Party)
- Penny Sharpe (Labor)
Assessment
Newtown will be a close race. The seat is notionally held by the Greens, who are running a strong campaign, but are facing Penny Sharpe, a sitting upper house MP. Sharpe may have some of the benefits of incumbency, but an upper house MP is not the same as a sitting local MP. Overall, polls suggest the ALP is gaining a swing back against the Liberal Party but we have no idea how this will translate in a Labor-Greens race.
2011 election result
| Candidate | Party | Votes | % | Swing | Redist |
| Carmel Tebbutt | Labor | 17,413 | 38.1 | -8.5 | 30.4 |
| Fiona Byrne | Greens | 16,395 | 35.9 | +3.3 | 35.6 |
| Rosana Tyler | Liberal | 8,714 | 19.1 | +6.5 | 21.1 |
| Pip Hinman | Socialist Alliance | 860 | 1.9 | +0.3 | 1.4 |
| Paul Quealy | Independent | 817 | 1.8 | +1.8 | 1.3 |
| James Cogan | Independent | 572 | 1.3 | +1.3 | 0.6 |
| Kylie Laurence | Christian Democrats | 531 | 1.2 | -0.3 | 1.1 |
| Jimmy Liem | Family First | 395 | 0.9 | +0.9 | 0.4 |
| Others | 8.1 |
2011 two-candidate-preferred result
| Candidate | Party | Votes | % | Swing | Redist |
| Carmel Tebbutt | Labor | 19,046 | 50.9 | -6.6 | 45.6 |
| Fiona Byrne | Greens | 18,370 | 49.1 | +6.6 | 54.4 |
2011 two-party-preferred result
| Candidate | Party | Votes | % | Swing | Redist |
| Carmel Tebbutt | Labor | 24,777 | 70.4 | -10.9 | 64.0 |
| Rosana Tyler | Liberal | 10,435 | 29.6 | +10.9 | 36.0 |
Booth breakdown
Booths in Newtown have been split into three parts:
- Central – Newtown, Camperdown, Chippendale, Darlington and Erskineville
- East – Redfern and Surry Hills
- West – Enmore, Petersham and Stanmore
The Greens topped the vote across the electorate, with a vote ranging from 21.9% in the east to 42.7% in the centre. The Greens came first in the centre and the west, and third in the east. The ‘east’ includes parts of Surry Hills where Clover Moore ran in 2011, and she polled 17.9% in that area overall (including booths where she wasn’t standing).
The Labor vote ranged from 28.7% to 35.5%, while the Liberal vote ranged from 16.7% in the centre to 25.3% in the east.
| Voter group | GRN % | ALP % | LIB % | Total votes | % of votes |
| Central | 42.7 | 28.7 | 16.7 | 10,290 | 25.4 |
| West | 38.2 | 35.5 | 19.5 | 9,457 | 23.3 |
| East | 21.9 | 29.6 | 25.3 | 8,120 | 20.0 |
| Other votes | 36.6 | 28.4 | 23.2 | 12,694 | 31.3 |
This will be a very interesting seat to watch. WestConnex is a prominent local issue here, which would seem to be favourable for the Greens.
My prediction: Tough to call, I think the Greens will win this new seat though, given their local campaign and popularity in this part of Sydney.
Penny Sharpe has ran a very consultative grassroots campaign including a community plan. I think she will win this by a margin of between 2-5%.
I don’t think you could draw a greener district than this. Surry Hills and Newtown are Sydney’s bastions of alternative culture.
That said, I think Labor made an astute choice in conducting a primary here. They’ve ended up with a strong candidate in Penny Sharpe. Labor appears to have the stronger ground game too. I work in Newtown (the suburb) and I’m seeing a lot more of Team Penny than Team Jenny.
Tough one to call.
My seat. Green gain. Labor has already cooked its own goose over WestConnex.
Also a big issue are police drug sniffer dogs at Redfern and Newtown stations, The Greens oppose it but Labor (despite Penny being very tight-lipped over the issue) supports the existing policy where 3 out of 4 random stop and searches are unsuccessful and more likely to target people of Aboriginal descent. Also most successful searches only uncover small amounts of drugs (mainly cannabis) for personal use so it is a waste of police resources which is more a show of force than an effective strategy to catch dealers.
However, Penny has run a very expensive campaign, which is probably a drain on resources for the ALP to pick up more winnable seats in Western Sydney. I think it will be very close but I would put my money on the Greens winning.
Pretty skewed assessment there I’d think Jack.
The Greens campaign against sniffer dogs I suspect only works marginally well with even very left seats like this. Unless you’re an active campaigner for pot legalisation, it’s hardly a hot-button issue – so I’m surprised to see the Green candidate run so hard on it. Some of the more middle-ground types here would even be turned off by it – you don’t have to go far in parts of this seat to see the negative result of drug dealing. (Just as an aside, I used to work in Redfern and can only imagine how the Police Superintendent there, who has done wonders for the suburb, would feel about working with a Green MP if she does unwisely make the protection of drug dealers an issue.)
Probably needless to say for most people, but Sharpe has not had a very expensive campaign at all. She’s well supported at events by Plibersek and Albo, but I can tell you that this seat is getting far less in the way of campaign resources when compared to Lib v Lab contests in other parts of the state.
I don’t know how the Greens have campaigned here, but they usually (and quite fairly) direct most of their resources to a small handful of winnable seats, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they have the best-funded campaign in Newtown – so I wouldn’t be too quick to play the broke minor party victim card.
Anyway, my assessment: I think both parties chose good candidates this time. Don’t forget that the Greens really should have won Marrickville in 2011 – indeed, a poll a fortnight out showed they were well on the way – but they ruined their chances with some poorly focussed campaigning, particularly over Israel sanctions. No doubt they’ve learned their lesson, aside from the aforementioned fixation about stopping sniffer dogs. I expect a close result, but if forced to pick, I’d say the Greens by about 3-5%.
Sorry PJ I disagree with your assessment about drug dogs, especially after the more heavy handed tactics by police after seeing people searched for drugs at Newtown station. Especially when many commuters are ordinary people working 9-5 would like to see this kind of heavy policing discontinued.
Penny had actually proven herself in her time in the LC to be like her colleague Paul Pearce to be quite skeptical against the war on drugs especially the use of drug dogs, but it has seemed now she has been pulled into line by head office.
However, you are right as I don’t think this is one of the main issues facing the electorate here but I still think it plays in the periphery of the mind of the many 1000s of commuters going through Newtown and Redfern stations daily.
Since this would be one of the most open-minded electorates in regards to drug legalization and many here would agree the war on drugs has failed I do believe this would be a hot button issue here, but I agree that Westconnex is probably the most vital issue in this seat.
The ALP would have spent a motzah on the community preselection in here and Balmain so I disagree with your sentiment that the ALP are not running an expensive campaign here (also I might add, The Greens have spent up big here and in Balmain with numerous billboards).
However, both parties have heavily invested in a very localised and volunteer driven campaign, doorknocking especially. While as an apartment dweller I have the luxury to have missed all doorknockers, my friends have been door-knocked multiple times by both parties, with Penny herself even coming in for a cuppa and chat.
So I agree it will be very close and could go either way, but if you live in the Newtown electorate expect to be campaigned within an inch of your life over the next two weeks!
Fair points Jack – I had forgotten about the community preselection.
Policy aside, I’m not sold on a discontinuing of drug searches as a good campaign strategy. A lot of older Redfern voters favour a tough on drugs approach. If I was running the Green campaign I’d keep it as a peripheral issue.
That aside, the more I think about it, the more I think Newtown is the Greens to lose.
Fair points Jack – I had forgotten about the community preselection.
Policy aside, I’m not sold on a discontinuing of drug searches as a good campaign strategy. A lot of older Redfern voters favour a tough on drugs approach. If I was running the Green campaign I’d keep it as a peripheral issue.
That aside, the more I think about it, the more I think Newtown is the Greens to lose.
Redfern is a peripheral part of this electorate. Labor can win Redfern by quite a lot and still lose.
I watched the Erskinville candidates forum, there were 2 political talents there, the greens candidate and the CDP guy
Incredibly surprised to learn (thank you Jack) that Jenny Leong is running on an issue that can only improve the income of drug dealers.
The Greens policy is to keep all drugs – including recreational cannabis – illegal.
Please, if you doubt that, check their website for their official position. That being the case, any policy that improves the marketability and attraction of their product(s) can only benefit organized crime.
I am still inclined to give Newtown the Greens (another post on that later), Though on drugs Jenny Leong is either very confused or misinformed. I doubt that most people in Newtown, will factor this as much of an issue, But if they do, she well may loose a seat that was naturally hers …
Then again, Fiona Byrne did exactly that in 2011 with another, incredibly misinformed, confused and irrational policy.
Had to think about this one overnight… That sniffer drug stuff threw me! But If the Greens can’t pluck this one, they may as pack away their corflutes forever.
Lab and Grns are preferencing one another, but as they will both be 1 or 2, that doesn’t matter. The minor radical parties (some may get in the 4 figures) will all preference the Greens and get Jenny Leong elected (regardless of her silliness on sniffer dogs). The Lib vote will exhaust (they have a 1. only on their online HTV)
As elsewhere in the inner west, the huge advertising billboards commandeering all the highly visible (and highly expensive) locations all belong to the Greens. They want to win. They expect to win.
WestConnex put Labor’s transport spokesperson Penny Sharpe on the back foot by. Her party hasn’t been able to cope with it all, and has resorted to evasions, vagueness about its route if not outright dishonesty. Without a tunnel for heavy commercial vehicles heading for the port and airport from the west (no entry or exitsl or stack in any potential Labor electorate is Labor’s inspired “revised plan”) King St and surrounding roads will remain as polluted and congested as they are now.
The Greens plan to “Save King St ” ie. maintain the (unpleasant, traffic choked, fuming) status quo.
So as a Grns vs Lab contest, Newtown has a choice between nothing and nothing. Irony for the area’s army of hipster philosophers, no joy for anyone else.
And it all appears to be too hard for the Liberal candidate. She is all but invisible. But gentrification (and the affected hipsterism) has positively favoured the natural Lib vote, so it should hold steady.
@ Coco Bunter
Suggesting that the Greens plan “can only improve the income of drug dealers” is as spurious as the Abbott governments claims that their metadata retention scheme is needed to catch paedophiles.
The issue is about freedom of movement, and waste of police resources. If the only way the NSW Police Force has of catching high volume drug dealers is waiting at train stations, and menacing all passers-by, then we should be seriously concerned about their competence. I’m not sure how it will play out electorally, but I’m willing to bet there are more than a few, non-drug users who are pretty uncomfortable about sniffer dogs at their train station, who are smart enough to know the dogs do nothing to deter drug crime.
Reachtel showing a strong 56.5% to 43.5% lead to Penny Sharpe over Jenny Leong.
In 2011 the Greens won about 35% in this seat, Labor about 30%, Libs about 21%, Clover Moore voters about 7%, CDP/FF 1.5% and other progressive candidates about 5%.(redistribution figures).
In all likelihood it comes down to the Greens increasing their vote- if it goes up by even a slight amount they will win. If it decreases then Labor will win.
That Reachtel pollster (Marky) in today’s Sun-Herald says that Liberal preferences will be the decider in Newtown. Libs usually advise 1. only, and ( I haven’t checked) will most likely do so again here. Does anyone know what happens to the Liberal vote in areas like this? Antony Green has some discussion on it (in connection with Balmain) on the ABCs electorate guide, but its hard for us non statisticians to work all that out.
Maybe some Liberal voters do preference if they have strong feelings. But they’re most likely antagonistic ones, to either Labor or Greens (or both).
The Cyclists and vegans will preference the Greens. Have no idea what the No Land Tax lot will do… (does anyone?).
Despite the poll, I’m still betting Greens will get this.
I think they’ve gotten the two-party-preferred count wrong – they say it’s 56.5% to 43.5%, which would suggest a big preference flow from Liberal to Labor, which doesn’t reflect the last few elections in Marrickville. I think the poll’s 2PP should be more like 52/48.
And even that, Reachtel were way off in Melbourne in 2013, so take the poll with more than handful of salt.
Baird was pushing vote 1 Liberal at his campaign launch, but the Libs are preferring Greenwich in Sydney, so not sure if there is much consistency. No Land Tax look like a Labor astroturf (candidates have run before for Labor), but as there isn’t cross-party ticket voting in the LegCo and I doubt they’ll have many canvassers, I don’t think it will matter much in either case.
Yeah, I’m not sold on the poll either.
Having said that, Sportsbet have the Greens at $1.83 and Labor at $2, so the latter may be good value if you trust this poll at all.
In regard to the drug dogs – I’m not pushing my opinion here, but I used to work quite a bit with the Redfern and Newtown Police Stations and I know that the background to them putting sniffer dogs at stations was because they were finding that a lot of the drug dealers they caught in the Newtown/Redfern area didn’t live in the community at all (and indeed came a long way to sell drugs in the area) – and the police found that the best way to reduce drug overdoses and drug crime was to stop the dealers coming to the area at all. (Of course, not everyone catches trains, but certainly drug arrests and overdoses in these Local Area Commands have decreased substantially since this practice began, so it has had a quantifiable effect.)
Again, not trying to sell one point or the other, but thought it was worth offering the police’s reasoning.
Poll looks suss to me too… just gut feeling, nothing to back that up. The Greens only need to come second here. Unless they are a very long way behind Labor (unlikely), then they will win this seat.
@ BalmainJack. There is much that is insane about “the war on drugs” and I still think it folly for the Greens candidate in Newtown to draw attention to her party’s widely misunderstood policies. That is to keep all recreational street drugs illegal (except “medical” cannabis) but reduce if not eliminate penalties for possession while at the same time limit the enforcement of the laws they are leaving in place. Perhaps you don’t see the effect that would have on the market, but then I don’t see what any of this has to do with paedophiles and metadata. You lost me …
All a minor side issue anyway, but since we’re swapping opinions and anecdotes (@ PJ), I used to live in the (still gritty) part of Redfern near Waterloo and saw all our ineffective “war on drugs” policies at first hand. Most of all – I developed a (deeply uncharacteristic) sympathy for the police on the beat and an equally intense dislike of the drug trade and those in it. I didn’t join a political party, I moved – to a more “gentrified” part of the city!
Greens came second to Labor on primaries in Marrickville in 2011 by 1018 votes. The final exclusion of the Liberal candidate saw 6671 of 9131 votes exhaust, 1295 went to Labor and 1165 to Green. The statement “The Greens only need to come second here” in order to win wasn’t true in 2011 in Marrickville (as Tebbutt won by 676 votes), and I suspect won’t be true in Newtown in 2015.
That’s definitely not true. It’s probably true that if Labor and Greens are tied on primary votes that the Greens would win, but Labor could win without the Greens being “a very long way behind Labor”.
I lived in what is now this seat at the previous election and there was two reasons why I could not vote Greens then. Firstly they selected, as seems to be their wont in the Inner West a shocking candidate and secondly I felt, and still feel that Carmel Tebutt was a great local member, even with her ministerial & family commitments.
Whilst there are parts of this electorate that will vote Green, areas around Stanmore tend not to… Newtown and Balmain are going to be interesting.
I do expect the primary count to be close, but I’m factoring in 2-3000 for the cyclists and animal libbers (combined) which will end up with Jenny Leong. Can’t say “definitely”, but I’m still calling this a Greens seat.
Weird that Labor’s transport spokesperson has not been able to come up with a single transport related improvement for Newtown. Not one.
Weird too that the Socialist Alliance and their odd micro-party offshoots didn’t bother this time. Judging by the signage posted on power poles and all the leaflets left to be blasted around by the traffic generated winds on King St, I would have thought this was the only part of the State in which socialism still existed.
“Keeping Newtown weird” I guess
The Cyclists and Animal Justice are both recommending that their voters exhaust on preferences. If their voters follow the how-to-vote, it will be harmful to the Greens and benefit Labor. Kinda odd given those parties’ positions and advocacy on both of those specific issues.
But I assume most of their supporters and voters would be inclined to the Greens over Labor, so it will be interesting whether the HTV is ignored, and whether the preference deal with Labor actually harms the minors’ vote in the first place.
If they are recommending an exhaust of preferences (and not to the Greens) then there has to be more to it than meets the eye. Since they have no hope of winning I’d say their purpose is to be spoilers and take votes away from the Greens candidate. Why not try and expose who or what is behind this decision?
Are very many voters ever going to read their HTVs? Its entirely likely that Greens and Labor material and volunteers will dominate every booth and the votes that the ‘really’ minor parties pick up will be from people seeing their signs or name on the ballot paper and deciding to vote for them.
Id say a maximum of 850 votes each.
Yes, animal Libbers and Cyclist have 1 only HTVs, rather confounding my early dogmatic (favouring Grn) assessment. Hmm… could be wrong.
@hrgh, how is their recommendation to exhaust a “preference deal with Labor”? Also, the Greens are preferencing them both before Penny Sharpe. Not that that will matter, Green preferences will not be counted. But if that’s a “Labor deal” then the Greens have been cuckold…
That said, those small parties’ HTVs did confound me…
As does the continued reference to Newtown being a “progressive” electorate, e.g. in yesterday Inner West Courier and constantly elsewhere. Often elevated to “the most progressive”…
On two occasions very recently the Mayor Of Marrickville has issued press releases condemning anti-Semitism in this area. Last week that was racist attacks on one of their Jewish councillors, yesterday the Mayor blasted The Red Rattler theatre (just outside Enmore’s borders) for refusing a Jewish community group access to its venue.
Good on Marrickville Council, no longer run by BDS proponents, for trying to makes amends for its past, but whatever else this electorate is, “progressive” is a very odd description.
I received a postal vote application from the Greens (which had details for Balmain on it, weirdly) and one letter from the Labor campaign about a month ago. I advised both campaigns in writing (thanks for the reply paid envelope, guys) to please consider observing ‘no advertising material’ stickers on mailboxes. Haven’t received anything since then! Result!
I think the Greens will win, and this is one case where their habit of flicking from candidate to candidate rather than letting one build up a profile over a few campaigns has worked. Jenny Leong is a lot more polished than some previous candidates. Given the Greens’ vote is about 10% state-wide I absolutely can’t begrudge them a couple of inner city seats, even if Penny Sharpe will be getting my second preference after Animal Justice. Now how about a western concourse for Redfern Station from Little Eveleigh Street to Cornwallis Street some day? (Dream on, Edward.)
Re: left microparties being spoilers, I don’t know if they’d see it like that. One hears that a lot of the minor left parties think that the Greens don’t do enough for their pet issues. This is probably not particularly fair, but that’s the way it goes. I suppose the Greens probably think Labor doesn’t do enough for them. I’m voting Animal Justice because I like to vote for a party that won’t make the 4% threshold as [1].
Edwardo, I’m pretty sure those materials are delivered by Australia Post, who don’t observe those stickers anyway, so there’s nothing the campaigns can do about it.
I think the reason the AJP and the Cyclists aren’t preferencing is that they see the problem with their issues being that they are too closely associated with the Greens, and if they run and don’t preference the Greens that will give them more influence over Labor. Which I think is a fundamental misunderstanding of how electoral power works.
Green MPs Lee Rhiannon and John Kaye have worked tirelessly in and outside of Parliament for animal justice (greyhounds, live exports, battery hens etc. The fact that the AJP have decided not to acknowledge that effort with a preference is a shame. A Green inside Parliament will give them a lot more clout then some nebulous influence over Labor. The AJP (and the Cyclists) have been poorly advised.
Well if I remember correctly the Cyclists actually explicitly say they want a different political voice for cycling interests so they can distance the issue from the Greens. I get the impression they are people who aren’t otherwise Greens-leaning anyway, and certainly from my experience I’ve found the recreational cycling lobby (as distinct from commuter cyclists) is rather conservative. As with many ‘single-issue’ parties it’s hard to understand how their strategy or reason for existence is supposed to work. AJP I can understand in terms of a reason to exist – other countries have animal rights parties and it is a philosophical focus which has its niche. Preferencing strategies seem misguided though
Animal Justice Party in the ACT Senate race in 2013 undertook a strategy directed against the Greens undercutting their attempt to unseat the Liberal Senate candidate. A strategy dictated by their opposition to the policy approach of the Green Minister in the ACT Assembly on kangaroo culling. Not helpful
Revenge as a motive in politics rarely achieves anything positive.
Ben, the Labor one (and a Liberal drop tonight) were at least done by a real human being as I saw the worker walking down my street, material in hand.
@edwardo re: No Junk Mail. Most of the political leaflet distribution is done by party volunteers. I once ran into Albo when I lived in Newtown doing his own (before he was a cabinet minister mind you…)
Aust Post does the usual MPs letter to every voter, often a postal vote form (and the personally addressed one I got from Bruce Beard)
All the reputable leaflet letterbox distribution companies strictly monitor their walkers who are asked to adhere to all “no junk” requests. The walkers can be penalised if a complaint is made. But below that level the industry is totally unregulated and there are many sub-contractors of sub contractors of contractors, all earning an absolute pittance… Many don’t speak English and please don’t blame them, they are paid by the 1000. Just put it all the recycling bin, no hassle at all.
There is also the notion around that “community” leaflets (e.g. Councils or charities) are exempt from any restrictions. Some political parties believe they are in that category.
Political parties and candidates can use Australia Post for delivery of both addressed mail and unaddressed mail. Political material is legally exempt from ‘no junk mail’ requests, hence Australia Post will deliver it, and political party volunteers are perfectly legally entitled to do so as well (although some choose not to). The commercial leaflet distribution contractors generally won’t drop political material into ‘no junk mail’ boxes because they are usually distributing it along with other commercial material which they aren’t allowed to drop there.
Yes, when I say a human, I did mean a party member. They were wearing colours. I appended a small blu-tacked piece of paper saying “This includes political material” to my mailbox and Labor and Green have left my mailbox alone. The Liberal person just ignored it and put it in anyway. There’s probably a metaphor to be made there.
Authorised election material is exempt from junk mail restrictions: that is, it’s not junk mail in the eyes of the law. So you can complain, but you have no action you can take.
I really didn’t expect Penny Sharpe to do so badly here, this was a catastrophic result for the Labor Party despite them pouring so many resources into this seat.
I have no idea where ReachTel got their figures from.
It’s not surprising at all Jack. Labor can never do what the Greens do with NIMBY issues like the WestConnex. The NSW party still (though the one run by Luke Foley shows scant evidence of this) contains people who think they might one day have responsibility for the economic health of the state. The Greens do not, in fact, do they even have an economic spokesperson?
In my office I hear a lot from their transport spokesperson, Mehreen Faruqi. She issues press releases every day, at least half of them complaining about the NW Metro and its proposed expansion. That’s the expanded metro that will soon be routed right through Jenny’s new electorate on its way through to Bankstown. Watch Jenny oppose it. Watch…
Penny Sharpe herself was stuck with Labor’s absurd, convoluted position on the WestConnex.
As I said above, it was incredible that Labor’s Transport spokesperson could not offer one transport improvement for Newtown, Not one. She deserves this loss.
Nothing says “economic health” like $15B toll roads, am I right? This claim that the Greens are economically illiterate or irresponsible, is old and tired. They’ve been asking for a business case, with cost benefit analysis for west connex since day dot, and the response from the government is “nah were just going to wing it, no need to call the accountants.” And on the NW Metro, they dug its tunnel specifically so it could never be compatible with our current fleet of doubledeck Waratah trains, so it will always be a private line, with separate trains. What a cock-up.
So who deserved to win?
@ BalmainJack, no the toll road should not be built. The money they get from the poles sell off should go to a West Metro line to Parramatta (as well as the one to Bankstown) instead. The previous Labor government was planning to build the West Metro, once…but (you know this story). If you don’t want a 21st century public transport (“cock-up” as you call it) then others will. You’ve got a car? No problem then.
@ Adam… Hmmm, harder to answer… The Greens candidate with the NIMBY issue (and that’s the one she chose to write about in the SMH this morning, so lets assume that’s that’s what she considers most important to her victory), campaigned hard on something that gave her the seat. So, she deserved her win… Her message (unlike Labor’s) was clear. No WestConnex. Nothing. (no light rail either, not for King St anyway). When she becomes a Minister in a party which enjoys a parliamentary majority, she will be able to deliver that promise to her Newtown constituents. Until then, they should take her at her word as repeated in the SMH this morning… Or judge her accordingly.
In other words, you don’t know. It’s easy to be cynical about everyone when you have no firm opinions of your own.
Cheers Adam, maybe I deserved that in using the word “deserve ” in the first place… Mostly here I am just interested in the numbers and meanings behind them, like most Ben’s readers (I think). Glad I didn’t have to vote in Newtown…
Coco Bunter
There is a need for all projects to be completed, & plenty more besides. In the future there will be oodles of pension fund money looking for a home. Please just let’s do SOMETHING ASAP. The debate over relative benefits, can be had, but what’s the point if there is an economic benefit overall ??. Westconnex is needed, if only for all the commercial, heavy traffic. Sydney’s rail capacity will have to be doubled in the next 25 years. no argument.