Ex-MP's rare comeback bid in key marginal seat
A high-profile former member who has never lost an election is up against the first Labor member since 1949 in the intriguing battle for the South Australian seat of Boothby.
With a margin of 3.3 per cent, the southern Adelaide seat is considered to be one of only two SA seats that could change hands this election.
Louise Miller-Frost won the seat in 2022, defeating Liberal Rachel Swift after two-term MP Nicolle Flint stepped back from politics.
Polling commissioned by AAP and modelled by YouGov puts Labor ahead on a two-party preferred basis on 52 per cent, compared to 48 per cent for the Liberals.
Labor has 32 per cent of the primary vote, with the coalition on 30 per cent and the Greens on 14 per cent.
Ms Flint won the seat in 2016 and 2019, but endometriosis was a major factor in her decision not to run in 2022.
She has said medication has had a "miracle" impact on her health, which has "never been better", clearing the way for her to try to regain Boothby.
The return of a previous member who voluntarily stood down was unusual, University of Adelaide political analyst Clem Macintyre said.
"You don't often see that in Australian politics," he said.
He said there was a relevant factor of first-term MPs performing marginally stronger than the rest of their party, known as a "sophomore surge".
"It might be all of one per cent, but in a tight seat that can be a valuable difference," Professor Macintyre said.
"But the fact that the Libs pre-selected a previous member with a reasonably high profile might knock the edge off that."
Boothby has a strong Liberal vote along the coast and affluent areas in the foothills and a large mortgage belt of Labor voters at its centre.
Ms Miller-Frost said the key issues she was hearing from voters were climate change, particularly in the context of energy transition, cost of living and housing "and the Labor government has a lot of strategies that aim to address all three of those things".
"My career has always been about delivering for the community," she said.
"I worked in health, delivering services as an executive and manager, I worked in local government, and then I worked in the not-for-profit sector, in housing and homelessness."
She had been "delivering for the electorate at the macro level, things like the upgrade of the Flinders Medical Centre, some of the infrastructure projects ... the tram overpasses, the freight bypass".
While she would not directly address her opponent, Ms Miller-Frost said "people understand that a vote for Nicolle Flint is a vote for Peter Dutton".
Ms Flint was not available for an interview.
Prof Macintrye believed Labor would "hang on" in Boothby because the government was outperforming the opposition generally and there had been a long-term demographic shift in the seat.
"If I was the Liberal Party, I would be working hard on Boothby, but not optimistic," he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The taboo question: At what point does America become unworthy as our ally?
Last week, a man named Alex Padilla attended a press conference held by US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem. He attempted to ask questions. Federal agents pushed him out of the room. In the hallway, now on his knees, he fell to the floor, where he was handcuffed. Padilla, as you may have read, is a US senator. In Australia, meanwhile, the debate around our security arrangements with America was renewed after it emerged that the Trump administration was conducting a review of AUKUS. Quickly, the debate narrowed to the usual three pragmatic questions: How does this position us in relation to China? Will we ever get any submarines? And is America still a reliable ally? Good questions all. A question of quite a different sort, meanwhile, was contemplated by Australian Nobel laureate Brian Schmidt, who told The Australian Financial Review: The question I keep asking myself is what should I be doing? Schmidt was explaining his decision to sign an open letter addressing the 'resurgence of fascism' around the world. The letter was signed by hundreds of intellectual figures, including 30 Nobel Prize winners. 'True to the old fascist script,' they wrote, 'under the guise of an unlimited popular mandate, [authoritarian leaders] undermine national and international rule of law, targeting the independence of the judiciary, the press, institutions of culture, higher education, and science; even attempting to destroy essential data and scientific information.' The letter did not specify particular nations but there has been a debate for some years now about whether Trumpism is a form of fascism. Historian Robert Paxton, an expert in the era in which fascism became a dominant force, and who had resisted using the label, wrote in 2021 that he had changed his view. After the attack on the US Capitol, he realised: 'The turn to violence was so explicit and so overt and so intentional, that you had to change what you said about it.' The debate is important in part because, as author Daniel Trilling recently wrote, recognising a movement as fascist 'enables us to spot its destructive potential before it fully discloses itself'. We don't need to resolve that debate to see the thread of violence that runs through Donald Trump's actions. Padilla's treatment is in one sense the most minor: it lacks the threatening atmospherics of Trump sending in marines and the National Guard to California, or the nastiness of immigration agents forcibly taking people. But it is the totality of events that is sinister, which is to render anyone opposing Trump a problem: protesters against the system are treated as enemies; so are those working within the system. AUKUS, with its pros and cons, commands many column inches in this country; periodically it becomes the central topic of political debate, as it did last week. Similarly, there is much discussion of Trump's authoritarianism; and sometimes it flares up, as last week. Strangely, though, the two are rarely brought together. Instead, they tend to be treated as two separate issues, siloed from each other. It seems almost taboo to ask the simple question: at what point does America become the type of country we no longer want to ally with?
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
The taboo question: At what point does America become unworthy as our ally?
Last week, a man named Alex Padilla attended a press conference held by US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem. He attempted to ask questions. Federal agents pushed him out of the room. In the hallway, now on his knees, he fell to the floor, where he was handcuffed. Padilla, as you may have read, is a US senator. In Australia, meanwhile, the debate around our security arrangements with America was renewed after it emerged that the Trump administration was conducting a review of AUKUS. Quickly, the debate narrowed to the usual three pragmatic questions: How does this position us in relation to China? Will we ever get any submarines? And is America still a reliable ally? Good questions all. A question of quite a different sort, meanwhile, was contemplated by Australian Nobel laureate Brian Schmidt, who told The Australian Financial Review: The question I keep asking myself is what should I be doing? Schmidt was explaining his decision to sign an open letter addressing the 'resurgence of fascism' around the world. The letter was signed by hundreds of intellectual figures, including 30 Nobel Prize winners. 'True to the old fascist script,' they wrote, 'under the guise of an unlimited popular mandate, [authoritarian leaders] undermine national and international rule of law, targeting the independence of the judiciary, the press, institutions of culture, higher education, and science; even attempting to destroy essential data and scientific information.' The letter did not specify particular nations but there has been a debate for some years now about whether Trumpism is a form of fascism. Historian Robert Paxton, an expert in the era in which fascism became a dominant force, and who had resisted using the label, wrote in 2021 that he had changed his view. After the attack on the US Capitol, he realised: 'The turn to violence was so explicit and so overt and so intentional, that you had to change what you said about it.' The debate is important in part because, as author Daniel Trilling recently wrote, recognising a movement as fascist 'enables us to spot its destructive potential before it fully discloses itself'. We don't need to resolve that debate to see the thread of violence that runs through Donald Trump's actions. Padilla's treatment is in one sense the most minor: it lacks the threatening atmospherics of Trump sending in marines and the National Guard to California, or the nastiness of immigration agents forcibly taking people. But it is the totality of events that is sinister, which is to render anyone opposing Trump a problem: protesters against the system are treated as enemies; so are those working within the system. AUKUS, with its pros and cons, commands many column inches in this country; periodically it becomes the central topic of political debate, as it did last week. Similarly, there is much discussion of Trump's authoritarianism; and sometimes it flares up, as last week. Strangely, though, the two are rarely brought together. Instead, they tend to be treated as two separate issues, siloed from each other. It seems almost taboo to ask the simple question: at what point does America become the type of country we no longer want to ally with?
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Australia warned it could 'never replicate' at risk AUKUS deal as Anthony Albanese prepares for crucial talks with Donald Trump
A foreign policy expert has warned Australia and the United Kingdom could "never replicate" AUKUS without support from the United States ahead of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's crucial meeting with President Donald Trump. Concerns about President Trump's approach to AUKUS were raised to new heights following the announcement last week his administration was launching a review into the the trilateral pact. Set to be led by AUKUS sceptic Elbridge Colby, the review has stoked fears the US could walk away from the agreement in what would come as a huge blow to Australia's defence and strategic plan. Mr Albanese is now facing significant pressure to convince President Trump of AUKUS' value, with many analysts expecting the US leader will pressure his Australian counterpart on defence spending when the two meet on the sidelines of the G7 on Wednesday. British Foreign Policy Group senior research and programs manager Eliza Keogh warned there was a "real possibility" President Trump would pull out of the pact, with the Australian and UK governments now jointly scrambling to keep the deal alive. "AUKUS offers clear strategic advantages for the US - from regional proximity to China, to access to Australian facilities for docking and servicing - and there is a possibility the review could just be the Trump administration increasing pressure on Australia to boost its defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP," she told "Nevertheless, there is a real possibility the US could withdraw from AUKUS, particularly with AUKUS sceptic Elbridge Colby leading the review. "The Trump administration's tendency to prioritise short-term political calculations over strategic foresight means that it may opt to withdraw from AUKUS, despite its long-term focus on countering the rise of China, as short term interests - predominantly keeping US-built submarines at home - will win out." Several analysts and observers have highlighted flagging US submarine manufacturing as a potential dealbreaker, with the nation at risk of missing its goal to increase the size of its fleet to 66 vessels by 2049. Debate over the provision of Virginia class submarines to Australia - a stop-gap measure to ensure Australia remains well equipped while AUKUS vessels are constructed - has raged for almost two years and has drawn scrutiny from both Democrats and Republicans. Some have suggested President Trump may demand Australia increase the $3 billion it will send to the US to help offset production costs for the submarines in order to ensure the deal remains on tract, although Mr Albanese ruled out that possibility in 2023 and appears unlikely to change course. Instead, the Prime Minister is expected to emphasise the in-kind benefits AUKUS provides the US during his sit down with President Trump, while also pointing to Labor's $57 billion boost to defence spending over the next decade. According to Ms Keogh, highlighting Australia's role in deterring Chinese ambitions in the Indo-Pacific is likely to be another effective tactic given the US' desire to see "partners stepping up in the region". She also offered a more radical solution, which, while likely to appease President Trump, could also leave Australia dependent on the US until the first AUKUS vessels come online in the 2030s. "If they are looking to placate Trump, UK and Australian negotiators could look to renegotiate parts of the deal, including offering to loan submarines back to the US if necessary," Ms Keogh said. It remains to be seen what, if any concessions, Mr Albanese makes to the US President, but the foreign policy expert warned it would be impossible to replace AUKUS should Australia and the UK fail to maintain American support. "The UK and Australia have already agreed to negotiate a bilateral AUKUS treaty, but this could never replicate the scale and weight of the trilateral agreement," Ms Keogh said. Publicly both nations have sought to downplay the risk of US withdrawal, with Britain's Labour government highlighting the fact it held a similar review after it came to power. However, Ms Keogh explained officials were privately "very nervous" about how the Trump administration would proceed. The UK has made a flurry of announcements, including a pointed commitment to boost its own submarine production in coming years, as it attempts to demonstrate it is serious about raising its defence spend. Meanwhile, the Australian government has taken a different approach, pushing back against US calls to increase spending and insisting its current strategic plans are adequate. This has prompted intense criticism from a number of leading defence experts, who warn Australia is both weaker and less capable then in previous decades while also at risk of jeopardising its relationship with its most significant defence partner.
