Background Paper 8 1996-97
Tasmanian Election 1996
Dr Elizabeth Young
Statistics Group
Abbreviations and Sumbols
Major Issues
Introduction
Dominant Issues in the 1996 Tasmanian Election
Campaign
Summary of Results (Table 1)
Division Results (Table 2)
Candidates (Table 3)
Tasmania's Electoral Systems
Table 1 House of Assembly: State Summary
Table 2 House of Assembly: Division Summary
Table 3 House of Assembly: Division Details
Table 4 Members of the Legislative Council March
1996
Table 5 Legislative Council Elections 1992-95
Table 6 House of Assembly Elections 1950 to 1996
AD
- Australian Democrats
ALP
- Australian Labor Party
DLP
- Democratic Labor Party
EGP
- Extremely Greedy 40% Extra Party
LP
- Liberal Party
MLA
- Member of the Legislative Assembly
- NP
- National Party
- TG
- Tasmanian Greens
Symbols
House of Assembly elections were held in Tasmania on 24 February 1996,
one week before the Federal election. The election saw a significant swing
to the Labor Party, more than compensating for its dismal performance
in 1992 when the party recorded its worst result since the Second World
War. The Liberal Party won more seats than Labor, but not enough to form
government in its own right with the Tasmanian Greens holding
the balance of power.
In the lead up to the election attention focused on the issue of stable
government as it was expected that neither of the major parties would
win a majority of seats. There were suggestions that a second election
would need to take place as both the Labor and Liberal Parties argued
that a minority government, one that relied on either the Greens or the
Opposition to pass legislation, would be unworkable. Once the Liberal
Party was in a position to form government, however, it chose not to pursue
the option of another election.
Other issues that were of significance during the election campaign
were Tasmania's poor economic record, a 40% pay rise granted to politicians
during the Liberal government's term in office, (1) and homosexual law
reform. All of these issues were seen to be detrimental to the Liberal
Party and its bid to retain government.
Tasmanian Legislative Council elections are contested on a rotating
basis with three or four of its nineteen seats contended during May each
year. These electorates have historically been subject to high levels
of malapportionment.(2) A reform process has been put in place in recent
years to redress this problem, although practicalities associated with
the execution of these reforms have left questions over their implementation.
Elections for the Tasmanian House of Assembly were held on 24 February 1996.
The result saw a strong swing (of close to 12 per cent) to the Labor Party
state wide. The incumbent Liberal Party lost 3 seats, enough to lose its
majority in a House of 35, but still 2 seats ahead of the ALP. In the final
wash up, the Liberal Party formed a minority government, requiring support
from either the Labor Party Opposition or the Tasmanian Greens (with 4 seats)
to pass legislation. This result was entirely expected with opinion polls
published in the lead up to the election predicting a minority government.
What had been less clear was which of the major parties would form government.
During the election campaign the issue of stable government was the
focus of attention for both the Labor and Liberal Parties. Underlying
the attention given to this issue was Tasmania's recent political history.
In particular, the balance of power politics that had emerged in the aftermath
of the 1989 state election when the Labor Party formed a minority government
with the support of the Tasmanian Greens under an agreement known as the
Labor-Green Accord. In brief, the Accord process fell apart and an early
election was held in 1992 during which the Labor Party suffered a stunning
defeat. This experience has left a lasting impression in the Tasmanian
community about the instability of minority governments and has shaped
much of the debate initiated by the major parties which seeks to provide
a rationale for why the Tasmanian Greens should not enjoy electoral support.
In many ways the Tasmanian 1996 election was overshadowed by the Federal
election to be held one week later. Concern on mainland Australia focused
on what the Tasmanian poll revealed about the likely outcome in the Federal
election. While some saw the result as a glimmer of hope for the flagging
Keating government, most commentators recognised that the Tasmanian election
would provide little insight into the federal poll. In part this was because
the Tasmanian election was fought on state issues and in part because
it is widely acknowledged that the Tasmanian electorate is as likely to
vote against electoral trends on the mainland as it is to vote with such
trends.
The issue that dominated the election campaign was the question
of stable government. Opinion polls made it very clear that neither
the Liberal nor Labor Parties were likely to win government in
their own right and that the Tasmanian Greens would once again
hold the balance of power. This situation affected the strategies
adopted by the major parties, both of which tried to woo voters
back to their fold by convincing them that a vote for the Greens
or Independents would lead to a degree of political instability
that Tasmania could ill afford. With the failure of the Labor-Green
Accord in the not too distant past, these claims were likely to
have some weight.
The Greens asserted that they would be willing to cooperate with
either of the major parties. Their primary concern was to dispel
those fears, encouraged by the major parties, associated with
their role in holding the balance of power. In response to this
situation the Greens made the following commitments:
- security of tenure to the party with the most seats;
- passage of the Budget; and
- continuing confidence in the House, except if allegations
of incompetence or corruption were involved.(3)
Both the ALP and the Liberal Party, however, were adamant that
there would be no deals with the Greens. The media represented
these claims as strategic manoeuvring:
There is a certain amount of politicking in all this. Both Mr
Field and Mr Groom are attempting to promote a climate of uncertainty
in which voters, concerned about returning a minority government,
may be persuaded to turn away from the minor parties and towards
the major parties.(4)
Debate arose over what would happen if neither of the major parties
won a majority in February's poll. The possibility of a second
election was bandied about and again this was used in an attempt
to diminish the Green vote. Labor announced that it would not
form a minority government with the Greens, but it would allow
the survival of a minority Liberal government. The Labor Party
leader, Michael Field guaranteed that the ALP would not move a
no confidence motion against a minority Liberal government (for
a reasonable time, assumed to be around eight or nine months),
nor would it block a minority Liberal government's first Supply
Bill. The objective of this approach was twofold. First, it reiterated
the point that the ALP would not do deals with the Greens. It
was hoped that this would quieten fears of anti-Green ALP supporters
who had strongly disapproved of the Labor-Green Accord and had
left the Labor Party in significant numbers during the 1992 election.
Second, it reinforced the claim that a vote for the Greens was
in fact a vote for a minority Liberal government.
Liberal Premier, Ray Groom, adopted a similarly uncompromising
position, although unlike Labor, he argued that the Liberal Party
would form a minority government, but only for long enough to
secure a second election. Groom's contention was:
The bottom line is the Liberal Party will not go into minority
government, we are opposed to it. Minority government won't work.(5)
There was little doubt that the Greens would once again hold the
balance of power and thus a second election appeared imminent
following the February election. This raised a crucial problem:
there was nothing to suggest that a second election would secure
a substantively different outcome from the first. Commentators
consequently asked what would happen next? Would Tasmania have
election after election until a majority eventually appeared?(6)
Fortunately for the Tasmanian electorate this situation did not
eventuate. On winning enough seats in the February 24 poll to
form a minority government, the Liberal Party did just that. Discussion
of a second election was muted. There are a number of different
explanations that can be found for this change of tack. The first
is that following the election there was no longer any strategic
benefit to be gained by threatening a second election. While this
line of argument holds some merit, and no doubt tells part of
the story, a second explanation seems more plausible. It would
seem that the new government had constitutional advice suggesting
that it could not surrender government or request the Governor
to call a new poll. Rather, the government needed to be overthrown
by a no confidence motion or have a Supply Bill rejected to secure
an early election.(7)
A number of other issues affected the election campaign, although
they did not gain the same level of coverage as the question of
stable government. These all pointed to problems associated with
the Liberal Party and its performance since the 1992 election.
One of the main concerns was Tasmania's slow rate of economic
growth. This was seen to be especially problematic because there
had been a degree of economic recovery elsewhere in Australia.
Moreover, in the midst of this period of economic hardship Tasmanian
MPs had voted themselves a 40% pay rise. Much of the opprobrium
for this attached to the Government which had opposed public sector
pay rises and sacked public sector employees to reduce the Budget
deficit. Voters may be credited with a short memory, but it was
unlikely that the levels of popular outcry against this move would
be easily forgotten. Moreover, just in case the pay rise was overlooked
during the election, the Extremely Greedy 40% Extra Party was
formed. Although there was never any likelihood that this party
would win a seat, it remained a reminder of the incumbent government's
previous actions. A further issue that was seen to have eroded
support for the Liberal government was its payment of former Premier
Robin Gray's legal fees after the Rouse bribery royal commission,
especially when it failed to pay similar costs for Labor MP Jim
Cox.(8)
There was also the question of gay law reform. In Tasmania it
is an offence for men to engage in homosexual sex. Breaking this
law may be penalised with a 21 year jail term (the maximum penalty
under the criminal code). Throughout Groom's period in office
there had been considerable pressure placed on the government
to decriminalise homosexuality. While the issue polarised the
community, there appeared to be widespread support, particularly
in Southern Tasmania, for the gay lobby's claim for legal reform.
This was further reinforced after the United Nations Human Rights
Committee upheld a complaint by gay activists that Tasmania's
law against homosexual acts was an infringement of their human
rights. Groom's position on this issue remained confusing. On
the one hand the Premier claimed that his government had not enforced
the law and thus considered that the issue was not significant.(9)
On the other, during the campaign the government announced a new
law and order package that increased penalties in the criminal
code to a maximum penalty of 25 years and in doing so increased
the maximum penalty against gay sex.(10) The media was particular
quick to take up this issue and used it to suggest the regressive
character of the Liberal Party's social policies.
The Field-led Labor opposition promised to address these issues.
A pay cut for politicians was promised as was the repeal of legislation
that made homosexuality a criminal offence. Michael Field also
pledged to reduce electricity costs,(11) hire more teachers, and
create more jobs.(12)
The parliamentary record of the Liberal Party meant that it was
always expected to face a substantial swing against it in February's
poll, particularly in the light of the ALP's dismal result in
the 1992 election. The crucial question was how big this swing
would be and how many seats would change hands.
The Liberal Party suffered a massive swing against it of 12.91%
and lost three seats. This outcome more than reversed the large
swing of 7.19% enjoyed by the Liberal Party in 1992 and saw the
Labor Party clawing back from its worst electoral result since
the Second World War. Nevertheless, the Liberal Party remained
the party with the most seats (16), leading the ALP by two. Importantly
for the Labor Party the gap between the two parties' vote had
dwindled to less than one per cent.
The Greens managed to win 11.14% of the vote, enough to win four
seats (one seat less than it had won in both the 1989 and 1992
elections) but it was the second election in a row in which its
vote was reduced. The result was certainly a far cry from its
heyday in 1989 when the party won over 17% of the vote.
None of the other minor parties captured a significant portion
of the vote. It was the first time that the National Party had
contested a Tasmanian state election and it did not fare well
capturing 2.2% of the state wide vote. The Australian Democrats
were once again competing after not participating in the 1992
election and achieved a relatively meagre 3.74% in Franklin, the
only electorate in which the party stood. The most likely explanation
for both parties poor performance can be found in the nature of
Tasmanian state politics where the natural constituencies of both
the Nationals and the Democrats have been captured by other parties.
For instance, the Tasmanian Liberal Party has traditionally embraced
rural electorates and conservative values in such a way that leaves
little space for the National Party. Similarly, the longevity
and success of the Greens has left the Democrats without much
of their traditional support base.
The other point worth noting is the success of Independent Bruce
Goodluck (former Federal Liberal Member for Franklin) who won
a seat in Franklin and accounted for much of the Other
vote. Goodluck is a well known personality who is remembered for
his independence as a Liberal Member in the Federal Parliament.
The swing against the Liberal Party varied considerably between
each of the electorates. The Liberals suffered from the strongest
swings in Braddon (-16.09%), Lyons (-16.35%) and Franklin (-14.32%).
In Denison (-8.50%) and Bass (-8.81%) the swing was weaker, nonetheless,
it remained substantial. In spite of these swings, the Liberal
Party still managed to win significantly more votes than the ALP
in Bass (LP: 47.65%; ALP: 38.90%) and Braddon (LP: 49.62%; ALP:
34.36%). The result was much closer in Lyons with the Liberal
Party achieving only 0.8% of the vote more than the ALP. In the
electorates of Denison (LP: 35.45%; ALP: 45.36%) and Franklin
(LP:31.98%; ALP: 42.67%) the Liberal Party was outpolled by the
Labor Party by a substantial margin.
The swing to Labor was especially large in Lyons (13.85%) and
was also considerable in Denison (12.07%) and Braddon (13.55%).
In Franklin (8.92%) and Bass (9.34%) the swing was smaller but
still sizeable. It is interesting to note that the swing to the
ALP in Denison and Franklin can be associated with a swing away
from the Greens. This allowed the Labor Party to regain electoral
dominance in the southern seats of Denison and Franklin. The Greens
most successful electorate remained Denison with the party capturing
14.03% of the vote.
Six sitting members failed to be re-elected in the 1996 election.
Four of these seats were held by the Liberal Party. In the case
of Carole Cains (Braddon) and Brian Davison (Franklin), their
failure can be directly attributed to the significant reduction
in the Liberal Party's vote. For Cains this was due to the improved
ALP vote in Braddon. It was virtually inevitable that the Liberals
would lose a seat in this electorate after the party won five
of the seven seats in 1992, an unusual phenomenon that was not
expected to be repeated. Davison's loss in Franklin was the result
of Bruce Goodluck capturing a significant portion of the conservative
vote.
Sitting MLAs John Barker (LP, Denison) Graeme Page (LP, Lyons)
and Julian Amos (ALP, Denison) were defeated by members of their
own parties. Barker's loss to Bob Cheek has been associated with
Cheek's popularity as an ex football player, traditionally a highly
regarded skill in Tasmanian politics. In the case of Amos, the
entrance of high profile ALP candidate Jim Bacon, who had been
the Secretary of the Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council for a
number of years, provides a sound explanation for the sitting
member's defeat. It is also worth noting that Tasmania's use of
Robson Rotation(13) tends to result in a higher turnover of sitting
members than might otherwise be the case. Parties do not control
the order in which candidates' names appear on ballot papers and
are not in a position to advantage certain candidates, such as
sitting members, by placing them at the top of their list on the
ballot paper. Thus, the bias towards sitting members that often
occurs in systems of proportional representation, where lists
are used, is reduced.
In Bass all the sitting ALP and Liberal candidates were returned.
The sitting Greens candidate, Lance Armstrong, failed in his efforts
to be re-elected. ALP candidate, Jim Cox, picked up this seat,
with a substantial increase to his personal vote (he had failed
to be re-elected in 1992), as well as the ALP's overall vote.
The Division of Braddon saw Labor win back one seat from the Liberal
Party. In 1992, the electorate of Braddon was a disaster for Labor,
with the party securing only one of the seven seats. A swing of
over 13% secured ALP candidate, Brenton Best, a seat at the expense
of sitting Liberal Party Member, Carole Cains.
There was no change in the number of candidates elected to each
party in Denison, despite a swing to the ALP of over 12%. Green
candidate Peg Putt performed strongly, but captured nowhere near
the vote of her predecessor Bob Brown. Newcomer Jim Bacon received
the second highest vote for a Labor Party candidate, reflecting
his high profile in Tasmania.
The Liberal Party lost one of its three seats in Franklin with
Brian Davison failing to be re-elected following a strong swing
against the Liberal Party of over 14%. While the ALP did capture
some of this vote, the extent of the swing can be best explained
by the entrance of conservative Independent Bruce Goodluck, whose
high profile brought him success in state politics.
In Lyons, the Liberal Party lost a seat in the wake of a swing
of over 16% against the party. With the retirement of Robin Gray,
the Liberal Party's vote diminished significantly. Gray had an
enormous personal vote, winning two and a half quotas in the previous
election. The failure of the Liberal Party to retain this support
highlights the importance of personality politics in Tasmania.
Liberal Party MLA, Graeme Page, lost his seat, while compatriot
and newcomer Rene Hiddings was able to win a seat. Overall, this
left the Liberal Party with one less seat in Lyons than it had
won in 1992. ALP candidate Lara Giddings picked up this seat.
Green Party leader, Christine Milne, won the highest level of
support for a Green candidate statewide.
House of Assembly
House of Assembly or Lower House elections are conducted in Tasmania
every four years. Fixed terms were introduced following the Constitution
(Fixed Term Parliament) Special Provisions Act 1992. Should
a seat fall vacant between elections (because of resignation or
death) then a recount of ballot papers from the previous election
is undertaken. A by-election takes place only if there are no
candidates remaining in the count who belong to the same party
as the outgoing member. This provision was introduced in 1985
and since then there have been no by-elections in Tasmania.
House of Assembly elections are conducted under the Hare-Clark
system of proportional representation. There are five multi-member
constituencies (which have the same geographical boundaries as
Tasmania's five Commonwealth House of Representatives electorates)
each of which elect seven members. The electoral system uses a
Single Transferable Vote (STV) where voters rank candidates in
order of their preference. To cast a valid vote the voters must,
at a minimum, fill in their first seven preferences.
To determine the order of candidates on the ballot paper a method
known as Robson Rotation (named after the MHA Neil Robson who
devised the system) is used. In this system all of the candidates
names are placed in each position, within party groups, on the
ballot paper. The objective of this system is to ensure that no
one candidate benefits from having their name on a particular
position on the ballot paper.
To win a seat a candidate must achieve a Droop quota. A
Droop quota requires a candidate to win a proportion of the vote
determined by the following equation:
In Tasmania's case, this leads to the following calculation for
a quota:
When candidates receives a quota they are elected. Should they
receive more than a quota, the surplus of votes are passed on
to the voter's second preference, identified on the ballot paper.
Only a fractional value of the vote, however, is passed on to
the next candidate. These votes are divided by what is known as
Gregory's fraction. This is determined by the following
equation:
If this process is completed and seven candidates have not been
elected then the candidates who received the smallest number of
votes in the election are progressively excluded and their preferences
distributed (at full value) until seven members achieve a quota,
or the last remaining candidate is elected.(14)
Legislative Council
The Legislative Council or Upper House in Tasmania is elected
from nineteen single member electorates by a method known as preferential
voting or the alternative vote. This is the electoral
system used in Federal House of Representative elections and is
one in which voters identify all of their preferences for candidates
in numerical sequence. To win a seat a candidate needs to win
fifty per cent of the vote plus one additional vote. Should no
candidate achieve this after all first preference votes have been
counted then the candidate who wins the fewest first preferences
is excluded. Their second preferences are then allocated to other
candidates. Progressive exclusion of the fewest supported candidates
occurs until one candidate achieves the required fifty per cent
of the vote, plus one additional vote.
Members are elected for a fixed six year term. What is unusual
about this electoral system is the periodic character of the elections.
Each year three (or every six years four) members are elected
to the Upper House. This means that the Council has a permanent
character. Thus, because the Legislative Council cannot be dissolved
as an entity, it cannot be held accountable at any one election
for its decisions. For this reason it is often considered to be
one of the most powerful Upper Houses in Australia. It is somewhat
ironic then, that the interest in these elections is subdued,
to say the least. As W.A. Townsley explained in 1976:
Elections are relatively quiet affairs and pass almost unnoticed
outside the three or four single-member electorates whose turn
it is to return members.(15)
The power of the Legislative Council is also linked to the influence
that it may wield over the Government's budget. Although it cannot
amend Supply bills it has the power to amend financial bills in
other categories such as loan and probate bills.(16)
Unlike the majority of parliaments in Australia, the Legislative
Council is not dominated by political parties. Indeed, its members
typically identify themselves as independents rather than affiliate
themselves with particular parties as the electorate has tended
to favour independents over candidates representing the parties.
For many years the electoral system governing the Legislative
Council elections contained high levels of malapportionment. For
instance, in 1994 the electorate of Gordon had 4,901 electors,
compared to 22, 982 enrolled in Huon. Thus, one electorate had
over four times as many people enrolled as the other. In 1995
the Electoral Boundaries Act addressed this issue and introduced
a redistribution of seats based on enrolment size. The Act also
ensured that there will be a periodic redistribution of electoral
boundaries in response to changes in enrolment size. This system
is based on the model used to determine Commonwealth electoral
boundaries. Complications, however, have emerged over what will
happen to those MPs whose electorates cease to exist yet still
have a period of one to five years before they face re-election.
The resolution of this issue has become increasingly difficult
as the ALP, in particular, sees it as an opportunity to initiate
far wider ranging reforms to the Legislative Council.
- Although, to a certain extent, both the major political parties
were identified by the public to be responsible for the pay rises.
- An uneven and inequitable distribution of voters between electorates.
- "Tasmania's Reluctant Premiers" Australian January
22, 1996
- "Tasmania's Reluctant Premiers" Australian January
22, 1996.
- "Groom Says No to Labor Poll Offer" The Australian
February 8, 1996
- B. Montgomery "Green at the Core" Australian
January 22, 1996.
- Australian February 16, 1996.
- Australian January 22, 1996.
- B. Montgomery "Groom Hints Minority Libs Will Tough it Out"
Australian February 27, 1996.
- A. Darby "Tasmania to toughen penalties for gay sex in private"
Australian January 26, 1996.
- By abolishing the Hydro-Electric Commissions electricity network
charge. This move in fact only implied a reduction in electricity
costs.
- B. Montgomery "Field pledges instant repeal of anti-gay law"
Australian February 21, 1996.
- See explanation on Robson Rotation on p. 8.
- For further details see T. Newman 1994 Representation of the
Tasmanian People: Expanded Edition 1803-1994 Tasmanian Parliamentary
Library, Government Printing Office: 90-95.
- W.A Townsley 1976 The Government of Tasmania University
of Queensland Press, St Lucia Qeensland: 37.
- Ibid: 8.
Table 1 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY: STATE SUMMARY
Enrolled 324394 Candidates Seats First Preference Votes Change from 1992
Won Number Per cent Seats Votes Liberal Party 35 16 121391 41.20 -3 -12.91
Australian Labor Party 39 14 119262 40.47 3 +11.62
Tasmanian Greens 35 4 32813 11.14 -1 -2.09
National Party 18 0 6476 2.20 +2.20
Australian Democrats 4 0 2190 0.74 +0.74
Extremely Greedy 10 0 2251 0.76 +0.76
Others 17 1 10290 3.49 1 -0.31
Formal 294673 94.60 -0.86
Informal 16816 5.40 +0.86
Total 158 35 311489 96.02 +1.04
Division First Preference Votes Formal Informal Total Electors
ALP LP TG NP AD Others Votes Votes Votes Enrolled
Number
Bass 22866 28011 6065 893 949 58784 3553 62337 65140
Braddon 19513 28179 5194 2495 1411 56792 3380 60172 62172
Denison 27045 21133 8363 754 2323 59618 3240 62858 66059
Franklin 24986 18726 6250 431 2190 5971 58554 3182 61736 64169
Lyons 24852 25342 6941 1903 1887 60925 3461 64386 66854
Total 119262 121391 32813 6476 2190 12541 294673 16816 311489 324394
Per Cent
Bass 38.90 47.65 10.32 1.52 1.61 94.30 5.70 95.70
Braddon 34.36 49.62 9.15 4.39 2.48 94.38 5.62 96.78
Denison 45.36 35.45 14.03 1.26 3.90 94.85 5.15 95.15
Franklin 42.67 31.98 10.67 0.74 3.74 10.20 94.85 5.15 96.21
Lyons 40.79 41.60 11.39 3.12 3.10 94.62 5.38 96.31
Total 40.47 41.20 11.14 2.20 0.74 4.26 94.60 5.40 96.02
Swing
Bass +9.34 -8.81 -1.09 +1.61 -0.96 -0.31 +0.31 +0.31
Braddon +13.55 -16.09 +0.35 +4.65 -2.21 -1.54 +1.54 +1.08
Denison +12.07 -8.50 -3.92 +1.33 -0.92 -0.77 +0.77 +1.63
Franklin +8.92 -14.32 -5.15 +0.78 +3.94 +6.08 -0.99 +0.99 +1.17
Lyons +13.85 -16.35 -0.88 +3.30 +0.26 -0.67 +0.67 +1.09
Total +11.62 -12.92 -2.10 +2.32 +0.79 +0.45 -0.86 +0.86 +1.04
Table 3 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY:DIVISION
DETAILS
BASS Enrolled 65140 Candidate Party Votes Per cent Quotas Andrew B LP 590 1.00 0.08 Benneworth T* (Elected 7) LP 3608 6.14 0.49 Beswick J* (Elected 4) LP 4684 7.97 0.64 Fry D LP 3056 5.20 0.42 Madill F* (Elected 1) LP 8430 14.34 1.15 Napier S* (Elected 2) LP 6245 10.62 0.85 Smith P LP 1398 2.38 0.19 Total 28011 47.65 3.81
Armstrong L* TG 4414 7.51 0.60
Cameron D TG 253 0.43 0.03 Fairfax L TG 417 0.71 0.06 James D TG 218 0.37 0.03 Obendorf D TG 212 0.36 0.03 O'Keefe R TG 215 0.37 0.03 Smith E TG 336 0.57 0.05 Total 6065 10.32 0.83
Boulton B NP 476 0.81 0.06 Jefferies B NP 417 0.71 0.06 Total 893 1.52 0.12
Cox J (Elected 6) ALP 3307 5.63 0.45 Daniel P ALP 1904 3.24 0.26 James G* (Elected 5) ALP 4918 8.37 0.67 Jones L ALP 1648 2.80 0.22 Patmore P* (Elected 3) ALP 6004 10.21 0.82 Polley H ALP 2186 3.72 0.30 Potter D ALP 2374 4.04 0.32 Stacey A ALP 525 0.89 0.07 Total 22866 38.90 3.11
Barratt-Peacock E EGP 199 0.34 0.03 Heading P EGP 243 0.41 0.03 Total 442 0.75 0.06
Rice R 507 0.86 0.07
Formal 58784 94.30 Informal 3553 5.70 Total 62337 95.70
Quota 7349
BRADDON Enrolled 62172 Candidate Party Votes Per cent Quotas Balcock R LP 734 1.29 0.10 Bonde B* (Elected 2) LP 7379 12.99 1.04 Cains C* LP 3505 6.17 0.49 Cornish R* (Elected 5) LP 4131 7.27 0.58 Groom R* (Elected 3) LP 6298 11.09 0.89 Rundle T* (Elected 4) LP 5562 9.79 0.78 Wickham M LP 570 1.00 0.08 Total 28179 49.62 3.97
Dixon F TG 129 0.23 0.02 Hollister D* (Elected 7) TG 4561 8.03 0.64 Kelly J TG 94 0.17 0.01 O'Halloran P TG 146 0.26 0.02 Paice J TG 108 0.19 0.02 Storace E TG 101 0.18 0.01 Wilson J TG 55 0.10 0.01 Total 5194 9.15 0.73
Eiler H NP 86 0.15 0.01 Goodwin G NP 424 0.75 0.06 Holmes V NP 910 1.60 0.13 Lee G NP 205 0.36 0.03 Leslie G NP 411 0.72 0.06 Stevenson S NP 459 0.81 0.06 Total 2495 4.39 0.35
Altimira J ALP 1262 2.22 0.18 Best B (Elected 6) ALP 2493 4.39 0.35 Bird Y ALP 1698 2.99 0.24 Field M* (Elected 1) ALP 7955 14.01 1.12 Gard M ALP 1477 2.60 0.21 Green B ALP 2588 4.56 0.36 Richardson G ALP 1532 2.70 0.22 Schnackenberg S ALP 508 0.89 0.07 Total 19513 34.36 2.75
Cornuccio P EGP 103 0.18 0.01 Duffy P EGP 128 0.23 0.02 Total 231 0.41 0.03
Bissett D Group B 644 1.13 0.09 Heathorn L B Group B 83 0.15 0.01 Total 727 1.28 0.10
Mackenzie J Ungrouped 58 0.10 0.00 Vanderfeen A Ungrouped 395 0.70 0.01 Total 453 0.80 0.01
Formal 56792 94.38 Informal 3380 5.62 Total 60172 96.78 Quota 7100
DENISON Enrolled 66059 Candidate Party Votes Per cent Quotas Ames N LP 429 0.72 0.06 Barker J* LP 998 1.67 0.13 Cheek B (Elected 5) LP 3946 6.62 0.53 Goodluck J LP 1922 3.22 0.26 Groom R* (Elected 1) LP 9637 16.16 1.29 Hodgman M* (Elected 7) LP 3994 6.70 0.54 Willink H LP 207 0.35 0.03 Total 21133 35.45 2.84
Friend D TG 1211 2.03 0.16 Hughes C TG 299 0.50 0.04 Jones P TG 272 0.46 0.04 Law M TG 258 0.43 0.03 Moran T TG 277 0.46 0.04 Putt P* (Elected 4) TG 5738 9.62 0.77 Wessing A TG 308 0.52 0.04 Total 8363 14.03 1.12
Coggins I NP 292 0.49 0.04 Pelham K NP 462 0.77 0.06 Total 754 1.26 0.10
INFORMAL Group D 285 0.48 0.04 Locke J Group D 52 0.09 0.01 Total 337 0.57 0.05
Amos J* ALP 3721 6.24 0.50 Bacon J (Elected 2) ALP 8766 14.70 1.18 Jackson J* (Elected 6) ALP 3858 6.47 0.52 Riep B ALP 424 0.71 0.06 Slade S ALP 1038 1.74 0.14 Trevarthen C ALP 1541 2.58 0.21 White J* (Elected 3) ALP 6809 11.42 0.91 Wright P ALP 888 1.49 0.12 Total 27045 45.36 3.63
Kelly C EGP 435 0.73 0.06 Sheridan J EGP 267 0.45 0.04 Total 702 1.18 0.09
Briscoe J Group F 551 0.92 0.07 Howett S 35 0.06 0.00 Total 586 0.98 0.08
Maddox A Ungrouped 698 1.17 0.09
Formal 59618 94.85 Informal 3240 5.15 Total 62858 95.15
Quota 7453 FRANKLIN Enrolled 64169 Candidate Party Votes Per cent Quotas
Cleary J* (Elected 4) LP 4097 7.00 0.56 Davison B* LP 795 1.36 0.11 Gozzi B LP 2150 3.67 0.29 Harriss P LP 3040 5.19 0.42 Hodgman P* (Elected 3) LP 6102 10.42 0.83 Langham E LP 546 0.93 0.07 McManus B LP 1996 3.41 0.27 Total 18726 31.98 2.56 Bowden A TG 223 0.38 0.03 Bush J TG 277 0.47 0.04 Carolin-McFarlane K TG 313 0.53 0.04 Crossley L TG 1173 2.00 0.16 Foley M (Elected 5) TG 3515 6.00 0.48 Giblin M TG 279 0.48 0.04 King P TG 470 0.80 0.06 Total 6250 10.67 0.85
Darling B NP 242 0.41 0.03 Rogers P NP 189 0.32 0.03 Total 431 0.74 0.06 0.00 Goodluck B (Elected 6) Group C 3671 6.27 0.50 Goodluck J Group C 639 1.09 0.09 Total 4310 7.36 0.59
Alexander E ALP 1284 2.19 0.18 Bladel F* (Elected 1) ALP 7933 13.55 1.08 Boughey S ALP 602 1.03 0.08 Cooper G ALP 1276 2.18 0.17 Lennon P* (Elected 2) ALP 6504 11.11 0.89 Sheppard J ALP 2566 4.38 0.35 Thorp L ALP 1548 2.64 0.21 Wriedt P (Elected 7) ALP 3273 5.59 0.45 Total 24986 42.67 3.41
Cowburn R EGP 227 0.39 0.03 Newman T EGP 250 0.43 0.03 Total 477 0.81 0.07
Burton L AD 323 0.55 0.04 Farrington R AD 154 0.26 0.02 Godridge L AD 212 0.36 0.03 James R AD 1501 2.56 0.21 Total 2190 3.74 0.30
Devereux J Ungrouped 862 1.47 0.12 Somerville C Ungrouped 322 0.55 0.04 Total 1184 0.16
Formal 58554 94.85
Informal 3182 5.15 Total 61736 96.21
Quota 7320 LYONS Enrolled 66854 Candidate Party Votes Per cent Quotas Cleland M LP 2405 3.95 0.32 Hidding R (Elected 6) LP 4626 7.59 0.61 Mainwaring B* (Elected 3) LP 5335 8.76 0.70 Page G* LP 4572 7.50 0.60 Salter S LP 1615 2.65 0.21 Swan D (Elected 7) LP 4926 8.09 0.65 The Duke of Avram J LP 1863 3.06 0.24 Total 25342 41.60 3.33
Goldsworthy L TG 168 0.28 0.02 Imber K TG 131 0.22 0.02 Lennox S TG 152 0.25 0.02 Lynch D TG 195 0.32 0.03 Millar G TG 171 0.28 0.02 Milne C* (Elected 5) TG 5917 9.71 0.78 Willock A TG 207 0.34 0.03 Total 6941 11.39 0.91
Gulson J NP 177 0.29 0.02 Murray PH NP 806 1.32 0.11 Parry C NP 137 0.22 0.02 Pinder P NP 222 0.36 0.03 Tomkinson D NP 357 0.59 0.05 Wright R NP 204 0.33 0.03 Total 1903 3.12 0.25
Clifford M ALP 927 1.52 0.12 Giddings L (Elected 4) ALP 2162 3.55 0.28 Llewellyn D* (Elected 1) ALP 9817 16.11 1.29 MacGregor A ALP 1248 2.05 0.16 Parker D ALP 1468 2.41 0.19 Polley M* (Elected 2) ALP 7981 13.10 1.05 Tate P ALP 1249 2.05 0.16 Total 24852 40.79 3.26
Beecroft A EGP 214 0.35 0.03 Long A EGP 185 0.30 0.02 Total 399 0.65 0.05
Ashley P Group C 45 0.07 0.01 Burr M Group C 927 1.52 0.12 Total 972 1.60 0.13
Gerrity D Ungrouped 516 0.85 0.07
Formal 60925 94.62 Informal 3461 5.38 Total 64386 96.31
Quota 7616
Table 4 MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE
COUNCIL MARCH 1996
Division Member Party Year of
Retirement Buckingham Crean ALP 1998 Cornwell Bailey IND 1996 Derwent Batt ALP 1997 Gordon Schulze IND 2000 Hobart Parkinson ALP 2000 Huon Meyer IND 1996 Launceston Wing IND 2000 Macquarie Shaw* IND 1998 Meander Hope IND 1997 Mersey Squibb IND 1996 Monmouth Wilson IND 1999 Newdegate Ginn IND 1999 Pembroke McKay LP 2001 Queenborough Wilkinson IND 2001 Russell Fletcher* IND 1999 South Esk Rattray IND 1998 Tamar Loone IND 2001 West Devon Hiscutt IND 2001 Westmorland Brookes IND 1997 * Elected unopposed
Table 5 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
ELECTIONS 1992-95
Buckingham (23.5.92) Enrolled: 17821
Candidate Party Votes % First Count Cairns IND 2199 13.76 Crean * ALP 3161 19.78 Donahue IND 1183 7.40 Hale IND 374 2.34 Jury IND 1960 12.26 Slade IND 1901 11.89 Strickland IND 2453 15.35 Taylor IND 2130 13.33 Final Count Cairns IND 6420 46.06 Crean * ALP 7518 53.94 Exhausted 1423 10.21 Formal 15984 96.25 Informal 623 3.75 Total 16607 93.19
South Esk (23.5.92) Enrolled: 15682 Candidate Party Votes % First Count Cox ALP 2805 21.14 Fulton IND 3120 23.52 Rattray * IND 4488 33.83 Ryan IND 2503 18.87 Final Count Fulton IND 5362 41.51 Rattray* IND 7554 58.49 Formal 13266 97.43 Informal 350 2.57 Total 13616 86.83
Gordon (28.5.94) Enrolled: 4901
Candidate Party Votes % First Count Galpin IND 251 6.04 Harding ALP 1481 35.63 Schulze * IND 2355 56.65 Formal 4157 98.34 Informal 70 1.66 Total 4227 86.25
Monmouth (22.5.93) Enrolled: 22019 Candidate Party Votes % First Count McCathy IND 660 3.57 Stewart IND 3402 18.39 Traynor ALP 4644 25.11 Wilson* IND 9260 50.06
Formal 18497 97.21 Informal 531 2.79 Total 19028 86.42
Newdegate (22.5.93) Enrolled: 16515 Candidate Party Votes % First Count Cooper ALP 4331 32.63 Ginn* IND 4257 32.07 Weldrick GRN 1055 7.95 Zucco IND 3257 24.54 Final Count Cooper ALP 6251 48.46 Ginn * IND 6649 51.54
Formal 13273 97.27 Informal 373 2.73 Total 13646 82.63 Launceston (28.5.94) Enrolled: 18857 Candidate Party Votes % First Count Fry IND 2730 17.33 Tsinoglou IND 5268 33.44 Wing * IND 7408 47.03 Final Count Tsinoglou IND 6618 42.96 Wing* IND 8788 57.04
Formal 15753 97.84 Informal 347 2.16 Total 16100 85.38
Hobart (28.5.94) Enrolled: 16356 Candidate Party Votes % First Count Briscoe IND 2753 22.41 Moore IND 3456 28.14 Parkinson * ALP 3349 27.27 Petrusma IND 2288 18.63
Final Count Moore IND 5649 47.69 Parkinson* ALP 6197 52.31
Formal 12283 96.56 Informal 437 3.44 Total 12720 77.77
Pembroke (27.5.95) Enrolled: 21610 Candidate Party Votes % First Count Allen IND 4189 21.60 James AD 6329 32.64 McKay* LP 8875 45.76 Final Count James AD 9190 47.39 McKay* LP 10203 52.61
Formal 19393 97.16 Informal 566 2.84 Total 19959 92.36 West Devon (27.5.95) Enrolled: 17435 Candidate Party Votes % First Count French IND 3889 24.60 Gibbs IND 945 5.98 Hiscutt* IND 4510 28.52 Kons IND 3330 21.06 Messieh IND 3138 19.85 Final Count French IND 7116 45.22 Hiscutt* IND 8620 54.78 Exhausted 76
Formal 15812 96.60 Informal 556 3.40 Total 16368 93.88
Derwent (27.5.95) Enrolled: 16099 Candidate Party Votes % First Count Aird* ALP 7269 51.07 Bromfield IND 2688 18.89 Cornelius IND 421 2.96 Forster IND 1764 12.39 Jeffries IND 949 6.67 White IND 1142 8.02
Formal 14233 95.12 Informal 730 4.88 Total 14963 92.94 Tamar (27.5.95) Enrolled: 16491 Candidate Party Votes % First Count Edwards IND 3301 23.55 Loone* IND 10413 74.28
Formal 14019 95.23 Informal 702 4.77 Total 14721 89.27 Queenborough (27.5.95) Enrolled: 14563 Candidate Party Votes % First Count Bates GRN 2802 22.39 Cameron-Tucker IND 1089 8.70 Donnelly IND 538 4.30 Goodluck IND 2256 18.02 Hopson IND 152 1.21 Poe IND 352 2.81 Ruzicka IND 445 3.56 Stops IND 713 5.70 Wilkinson* IND 4169 33.31
Final Count
Goodluck IND 4908 41.44 Wilkinson* IND 6937 58.56 Exhausted 671
Formal 12516 97.46 Informal 326 2.54 Total 12842 88.18
Table 6 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
ELECTIONS1950 TO 1996
Election ALP LP NP AD GRN DLP Others Total Percentage of Vote 1950 48.6 47.6 3.8 100.0 1955 52.6 45.4 2.0 100.0 1956 50.3 43.6 3.5 2.7 100.0 1959 44.5 41.1 5.4 9.1 100.0 1964 51.3 38.5 2.4 7.8 100.0 1969 47.7 44.0 1.7 6.6 100.0 1972 54.9 38.4 6.7 100.0 1976 52.5 44.5 3.0 100.0 1979 54.3 41.3 2.9 1.5 100.0 1982 36.9 48.5 5.4 9.2 100.0 1986 35.1 54.2 2.1 5.6 3.1 100.0 1989 34.7 46.9 0.9 17.1 0.3 100.0 1992 28.9 54.1 13.2 3.8 100.0 1996 40.5 41.2 2.2 0.7 11.1 4.3 100.0
Seats Won
1950 15 14 1 30 1955 15 15 30 1956 15 15 30 1959 17 16 2 35 1964 19 16 35 1969 17 17 1 35 1972 21 14 35 1976 18 17 35 1979 20 15 35 1982 14 19 1 1 35 1986 14 19 2 35 1989 13 17 5 35 1992 11 19 5 35 1996 14 16 4 35
|
