Swings, preferences, landslides and everything else that was wrong with the election
There has been far too much talk of a "Labor landslide", a "Liberal demolition", and a "Green wipe-out".
In fact, fairly modest swings were hugely magnified and amplified by the electoral system to result in very large swings in the number of seats for those three parties.
Single-member electorates and the preferential system, particularly the way the Liberal Party directed its preferences, conspired to make the 2025 election look like a seismic change, which it was not.
And anyone who imagines that this is the beginning of a long period of Labor ascendancy should look at the figures.
Labor got a swing towards it of just 2 per cent but got a seat swing of more than 20 per cent, on present projections. The Coalition got a swing against it of just under 3 per cent but got a seat loss of around 30 per cent.
The Greens got a tiny swing of less than half a per cent against them but a massive loss of 75 per cent of their seats.
Greens leader Adam Bandt lost his seat because of a deadly combination of boundary changes and the Liberal Party essentially directing its preferences to Labor.
Bandt's seat of Melbourne was one of up to half a dozen on present projections that was won by Labor on Liberal Party preferences.
Others (independents and minor parties) got a small swing towards them, but their seat count went backwards a little.
Overall, a roughly equal three-way split between Labor, the Coalition, and others resulted in a seat split of more than 63 per cent to Labor, 28 per cent to the Coalition and 9 per cent to others. Late counting might change this a bit, but not by much.
Perhaps one of the most important lessons of this election, especially for the Liberal Party, is to take care with the allocation of preferences on the how-to-vote card.
Sure, somewhere between a fifth and a half of voters do not follow the cards, depending on the electorate. But in elections where seats are won or lost on a few per cent, the 50 to 80 per cent who do are decisive.
As the primary vote for the major parties continues to leach away, preferences will become even more important. The Coalition's move to preference Labor over Greens and all minors and independents (bar One Nation) resulted only in an increased Labor seat count this election, but in the future, it could decide whether it is a minority or majority government.
Minority government is logistically better for an opposition.
Further, the Coalition's disgraceful preferencing of One Nation could easily cost Jacqui Lambie her Tasmanian Senate seat with Liberal preferences going to Pauline Hanson's daughter, Lee.
Lambie speaks sense quite a bit of the time; One Nation senators almost never do.
Staying on the theme of the importance of preferences, the new Parliament should revisit the Senate voting rules. The present system is disenfranchising a significant number of votes from deciding who gets the last Senate seat in each state.
At present, voters are told to either vote above the line (where just the parties are listed), numbering at least six preferences, or to vote below the line (where all the candidates are listed under their party banner), numbering at least 12 preferences.
From our own voting experience (including watching in the queue) and talking to people who work at polling booths, it is apparent that the vast majority of voters want the process to be as simple as possible.
Most conclude that numbering one to six above the line is the go and that below-the-line voting is too hard.
But the trouble with just numbering one to six is that there is a good chance your vote will have been exhausted by the time it comes to deciding the last seat.
The number of above-the-line boxes this Senate election was between 12 and 25 - say an average of 18. If you only number six, the average voter leaves 12 blanks. Once five seats have been taken you have to have one "live" box to stay in the franchise for the last seat.
In Tasmania,for example, many voters would not have selected Jacqui Lambie Network or One Nation among their six boxes. Yet the last seat could well be a contest between those two and their ballot paper would sit lifeless in the "exhausted" pile.
MORE CRISPIN HULL:
The new Parliament should abolish below-the-line voting and have full preferential voting for the parties and independents. The same instruction to voters to fill out all the boxes would apply to the Senate ballot paper in the same way as the House of Representatives paper.
The only reason that anyone would want to vote below the line is to change the order of candidates within a party list. Perhaps your Aunt Mary is No. 4 on the Labor list or your Uncle Tom is No. 5 on the Coalition list. Even then, it is not going to affect the result.
No state has ever elected a senator outside the party order since the present system was introduced a decade ago. So, abolishing below-the-line voting would disenfranchise no one.
It would then allow for full preferential voting of what are now above the line parties and independents without having too much complication or large ballot papers which attract derision from a lot of voters.
The unnecessary and ineffectual pandering to political junkies and friends and relatives of candidates low on their party's list is worth sacrificing for the enfranchisement of more voters by having a "number-all-the-boxes" system in the Senate, just like the House of Representatives.
There has been far too much talk of a "Labor landslide", a "Liberal demolition", and a "Green wipe-out".
In fact, fairly modest swings were hugely magnified and amplified by the electoral system to result in very large swings in the number of seats for those three parties.
Single-member electorates and the preferential system, particularly the way the Liberal Party directed its preferences, conspired to make the 2025 election look like a seismic change, which it was not.
And anyone who imagines that this is the beginning of a long period of Labor ascendancy should look at the figures.
Labor got a swing towards it of just 2 per cent but got a seat swing of more than 20 per cent, on present projections. The Coalition got a swing against it of just under 3 per cent but got a seat loss of around 30 per cent.
The Greens got a tiny swing of less than half a per cent against them but a massive loss of 75 per cent of their seats.
Greens leader Adam Bandt lost his seat because of a deadly combination of boundary changes and the Liberal Party essentially directing its preferences to Labor.
Bandt's seat of Melbourne was one of up to half a dozen on present projections that was won by Labor on Liberal Party preferences.
Others (independents and minor parties) got a small swing towards them, but their seat count went backwards a little.
Overall, a roughly equal three-way split between Labor, the Coalition, and others resulted in a seat split of more than 63 per cent to Labor, 28 per cent to the Coalition and 9 per cent to others. Late counting might change this a bit, but not by much.
Perhaps one of the most important lessons of this election, especially for the Liberal Party, is to take care with the allocation of preferences on the how-to-vote card.
Sure, somewhere between a fifth and a half of voters do not follow the cards, depending on the electorate. But in elections where seats are won or lost on a few per cent, the 50 to 80 per cent who do are decisive.
As the primary vote for the major parties continues to leach away, preferences will become even more important. The Coalition's move to preference Labor over Greens and all minors and independents (bar One Nation) resulted only in an increased Labor seat count this election, but in the future, it could decide whether it is a minority or majority government.
Minority government is logistically better for an opposition.
Further, the Coalition's disgraceful preferencing of One Nation could easily cost Jacqui Lambie her Tasmanian Senate seat with Liberal preferences going to Pauline Hanson's daughter, Lee.
Lambie speaks sense quite a bit of the time; One Nation senators almost never do.
Staying on the theme of the importance of preferences, the new Parliament should revisit the Senate voting rules. The present system is disenfranchising a significant number of votes from deciding who gets the last Senate seat in each state.
At present, voters are told to either vote above the line (where just the parties are listed), numbering at least six preferences, or to vote below the line (where all the candidates are listed under their party banner), numbering at least 12 preferences.
From our own voting experience (including watching in the queue) and talking to people who work at polling booths, it is apparent that the vast majority of voters want the process to be as simple as possible.
Most conclude that numbering one to six above the line is the go and that below-the-line voting is too hard.
But the trouble with just numbering one to six is that there is a good chance your vote will have been exhausted by the time it comes to deciding the last seat.
The number of above-the-line boxes this Senate election was between 12 and 25 - say an average of 18. If you only number six, the average voter leaves 12 blanks. Once five seats have been taken you have to have one "live" box to stay in the franchise for the last seat.
In Tasmania,for example, many voters would not have selected Jacqui Lambie Network or One Nation among their six boxes. Yet the last seat could well be a contest between those two and their ballot paper would sit lifeless in the "exhausted" pile.
MORE CRISPIN HULL:
The new Parliament should abolish below-the-line voting and have full preferential voting for the parties and independents. The same instruction to voters to fill out all the boxes would apply to the Senate ballot paper in the same way as the House of Representatives paper.
The only reason that anyone would want to vote below the line is to change the order of candidates within a party list. Perhaps your Aunt Mary is No. 4 on the Labor list or your Uncle Tom is No. 5 on the Coalition list. Even then, it is not going to affect the result.
No state has ever elected a senator outside the party order since the present system was introduced a decade ago. So, abolishing below-the-line voting would disenfranchise no one.
It would then allow for full preferential voting of what are now above the line parties and independents without having too much complication or large ballot papers which attract derision from a lot of voters.
The unnecessary and ineffectual pandering to political junkies and friends and relatives of candidates low on their party's list is worth sacrificing for the enfranchisement of more voters by having a "number-all-the-boxes" system in the Senate, just like the House of Representatives.
There has been far too much talk of a "Labor landslide", a "Liberal demolition", and a "Green wipe-out".
In fact, fairly modest swings were hugely magnified and amplified by the electoral system to result in very large swings in the number of seats for those three parties.
Single-member electorates and the preferential system, particularly the way the Liberal Party directed its preferences, conspired to make the 2025 election look like a seismic change, which it was not.
And anyone who imagines that this is the beginning of a long period of Labor ascendancy should look at the figures.
Labor got a swing towards it of just 2 per cent but got a seat swing of more than 20 per cent, on present projections. The Coalition got a swing against it of just under 3 per cent but got a seat loss of around 30 per cent.
The Greens got a tiny swing of less than half a per cent against them but a massive loss of 75 per cent of their seats.
Greens leader Adam Bandt lost his seat because of a deadly combination of boundary changes and the Liberal Party essentially directing its preferences to Labor.
Bandt's seat of Melbourne was one of up to half a dozen on present projections that was won by Labor on Liberal Party preferences.
Others (independents and minor parties) got a small swing towards them, but their seat count went backwards a little.
Overall, a roughly equal three-way split between Labor, the Coalition, and others resulted in a seat split of more than 63 per cent to Labor, 28 per cent to the Coalition and 9 per cent to others. Late counting might change this a bit, but not by much.
Perhaps one of the most important lessons of this election, especially for the Liberal Party, is to take care with the allocation of preferences on the how-to-vote card.
Sure, somewhere between a fifth and a half of voters do not follow the cards, depending on the electorate. But in elections where seats are won or lost on a few per cent, the 50 to 80 per cent who do are decisive.
As the primary vote for the major parties continues to leach away, preferences will become even more important. The Coalition's move to preference Labor over Greens and all minors and independents (bar One Nation) resulted only in an increased Labor seat count this election, but in the future, it could decide whether it is a minority or majority government.
Minority government is logistically better for an opposition.
Further, the Coalition's disgraceful preferencing of One Nation could easily cost Jacqui Lambie her Tasmanian Senate seat with Liberal preferences going to Pauline Hanson's daughter, Lee.
Lambie speaks sense quite a bit of the time; One Nation senators almost never do.
Staying on the theme of the importance of preferences, the new Parliament should revisit the Senate voting rules. The present system is disenfranchising a significant number of votes from deciding who gets the last Senate seat in each state.
At present, voters are told to either vote above the line (where just the parties are listed), numbering at least six preferences, or to vote below the line (where all the candidates are listed under their party banner), numbering at least 12 preferences.
From our own voting experience (including watching in the queue) and talking to people who work at polling booths, it is apparent that the vast majority of voters want the process to be as simple as possible.
Most conclude that numbering one to six above the line is the go and that below-the-line voting is too hard.
But the trouble with just numbering one to six is that there is a good chance your vote will have been exhausted by the time it comes to deciding the last seat.
The number of above-the-line boxes this Senate election was between 12 and 25 - say an average of 18. If you only number six, the average voter leaves 12 blanks. Once five seats have been taken you have to have one "live" box to stay in the franchise for the last seat.
In Tasmania,for example, many voters would not have selected Jacqui Lambie Network or One Nation among their six boxes. Yet the last seat could well be a contest between those two and their ballot paper would sit lifeless in the "exhausted" pile.
MORE CRISPIN HULL:
The new Parliament should abolish below-the-line voting and have full preferential voting for the parties and independents. The same instruction to voters to fill out all the boxes would apply to the Senate ballot paper in the same way as the House of Representatives paper.
The only reason that anyone would want to vote below the line is to change the order of candidates within a party list. Perhaps your Aunt Mary is No. 4 on the Labor list or your Uncle Tom is No. 5 on the Coalition list. Even then, it is not going to affect the result.
No state has ever elected a senator outside the party order since the present system was introduced a decade ago. So, abolishing below-the-line voting would disenfranchise no one.
It would then allow for full preferential voting of what are now above the line parties and independents without having too much complication or large ballot papers which attract derision from a lot of voters.
The unnecessary and ineffectual pandering to political junkies and friends and relatives of candidates low on their party's list is worth sacrificing for the enfranchisement of more voters by having a "number-all-the-boxes" system in the Senate, just like the House of Representatives.
There has been far too much talk of a "Labor landslide", a "Liberal demolition", and a "Green wipe-out".
In fact, fairly modest swings were hugely magnified and amplified by the electoral system to result in very large swings in the number of seats for those three parties.
Single-member electorates and the preferential system, particularly the way the Liberal Party directed its preferences, conspired to make the 2025 election look like a seismic change, which it was not.
And anyone who imagines that this is the beginning of a long period of Labor ascendancy should look at the figures.
Labor got a swing towards it of just 2 per cent but got a seat swing of more than 20 per cent, on present projections. The Coalition got a swing against it of just under 3 per cent but got a seat loss of around 30 per cent.
The Greens got a tiny swing of less than half a per cent against them but a massive loss of 75 per cent of their seats.
Greens leader Adam Bandt lost his seat because of a deadly combination of boundary changes and the Liberal Party essentially directing its preferences to Labor.
Bandt's seat of Melbourne was one of up to half a dozen on present projections that was won by Labor on Liberal Party preferences.
Others (independents and minor parties) got a small swing towards them, but their seat count went backwards a little.
Overall, a roughly equal three-way split between Labor, the Coalition, and others resulted in a seat split of more than 63 per cent to Labor, 28 per cent to the Coalition and 9 per cent to others. Late counting might change this a bit, but not by much.
Perhaps one of the most important lessons of this election, especially for the Liberal Party, is to take care with the allocation of preferences on the how-to-vote card.
Sure, somewhere between a fifth and a half of voters do not follow the cards, depending on the electorate. But in elections where seats are won or lost on a few per cent, the 50 to 80 per cent who do are decisive.
As the primary vote for the major parties continues to leach away, preferences will become even more important. The Coalition's move to preference Labor over Greens and all minors and independents (bar One Nation) resulted only in an increased Labor seat count this election, but in the future, it could decide whether it is a minority or majority government.
Minority government is logistically better for an opposition.
Further, the Coalition's disgraceful preferencing of One Nation could easily cost Jacqui Lambie her Tasmanian Senate seat with Liberal preferences going to Pauline Hanson's daughter, Lee.
Lambie speaks sense quite a bit of the time; One Nation senators almost never do.
Staying on the theme of the importance of preferences, the new Parliament should revisit the Senate voting rules. The present system is disenfranchising a significant number of votes from deciding who gets the last Senate seat in each state.
At present, voters are told to either vote above the line (where just the parties are listed), numbering at least six preferences, or to vote below the line (where all the candidates are listed under their party banner), numbering at least 12 preferences.
From our own voting experience (including watching in the queue) and talking to people who work at polling booths, it is apparent that the vast majority of voters want the process to be as simple as possible.
Most conclude that numbering one to six above the line is the go and that below-the-line voting is too hard.
But the trouble with just numbering one to six is that there is a good chance your vote will have been exhausted by the time it comes to deciding the last seat.
The number of above-the-line boxes this Senate election was between 12 and 25 - say an average of 18. If you only number six, the average voter leaves 12 blanks. Once five seats have been taken you have to have one "live" box to stay in the franchise for the last seat.
In Tasmania,for example, many voters would not have selected Jacqui Lambie Network or One Nation among their six boxes. Yet the last seat could well be a contest between those two and their ballot paper would sit lifeless in the "exhausted" pile.
MORE CRISPIN HULL:
The new Parliament should abolish below-the-line voting and have full preferential voting for the parties and independents. The same instruction to voters to fill out all the boxes would apply to the Senate ballot paper in the same way as the House of Representatives paper.
The only reason that anyone would want to vote below the line is to change the order of candidates within a party list. Perhaps your Aunt Mary is No. 4 on the Labor list or your Uncle Tom is No. 5 on the Coalition list. Even then, it is not going to affect the result.
No state has ever elected a senator outside the party order since the present system was introduced a decade ago. So, abolishing below-the-line voting would disenfranchise no one.
It would then allow for full preferential voting of what are now above the line parties and independents without having too much complication or large ballot papers which attract derision from a lot of voters.
The unnecessary and ineffectual pandering to political junkies and friends and relatives of candidates low on their party's list is worth sacrificing for the enfranchisement of more voters by having a "number-all-the-boxes" system in the Senate, just like the House of Representatives.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Shadow industrial relations minister Tim Wilson backs wage rise but blasts Labor for ‘milking' small business
The Coalition has expressed support for the recent minimum wage increase but warned the Albanese government is failing businesses who must absorb higher labour costs. Shadow industrial relations minister Tim Wilson told Sky News Sunday Agenda that Labor has left small businesses behind due to its economic inaction. 'As Liberals, we always support higher wages. The big question for all of us is, what is the government then doing to help small business to be able to afford them?' Mr Wilson said. 'They're not helping small business on tax, they're not helping small business on regulation. They're not doing anything to improve the overall economic conditions. 'We've just got government milking small business rather than empowering them to be in a position to afford these wage increases.' His remarks follow the Fair Work Commission decision to lift the national minimum wage by 3.5 per cent—equating to an extra $0.84 per hour, bringing the rate to $24.94. The Council of Small Business Organisations Australia (COSBOA) has warned the wage increase could tip vulnerable businesses over the edge. 'Ultimately, someone needs to pay here and overwhelmingly that will be small business,' COSBOA CEO Luke Achterstraat said on Tuesday. 'The irony here is that our industrial relations system continues to be a drag on productivity, and that is bad for workers and businesses.' Mr Achterstraat reiterated COSBOA's longstanding call for productivity reform to accompany wage growth. 'We have repeatedly warned that higher wages without higher productivity is a disaster waiting to happen,' he said. 'To ensure that our children don't endure a lower standard of living than us, we need to boost productivity – our workplace settings have a direct impact on this outcome.' Mr Wilson said the real path to higher wages lies in supporting overall business growth, not simply raising minimum wages. 'If the answer to improving wages is seeing small businesses fall over, we're not actually improving opportunities for more jobs, better paid jobs,' he said. 'The Liberal solution to getting wages up is to have small businesses being successful.' Mr Wilson also flagged the need to modernise Australia's industrial relations system to prepare for future challenges, including the rise of artificial intelligence. 'If we don't actually grapple with this and lead into this challenge, we might as a nation find ourselves very much in a position of being uncompetitive,' he warned. 'Labor's outdated thinking around industrial relations is based on the legacy of 19th century thinking. It's not based on where my focus is, which is building an employment environment for the 21st century.' The minimum wage increase will come into effect on July 1.
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
'It's real, it's fast': Shadow employment minister Tim Wilson sounds alarm on the threat of AI on Australia's workforce
Shadow employment minister Tim Wilson has sounded the alarm on artificial intelligence (AI) being on track to upturn Australia's workforce. Mr Wilson, who oversees the Coalition's industrial relations, employment and small business portfolios, said the Albanese government had 'outdated thinking' which risked Australia becoming 'uncompetitive' if it fails to adapt to the unstoppable force of AI. Speaking to Sky News Sunday Agenda, Mr Wilson expressed concern about 'emergent challenges' surrounding industrial relations, particularly the advent of AI. ' A classic example (of future IR challenges)… is going to be the emergence of artificial intelligence and how it's going to change the structure of the workplace,' he said. 'If we don't actually grapple with this and lean into this challenge, we might as a nation find ourselves very much in a position of being uncompetitive.' Mr Wilson said the employment uptake of US graduates into industries exposed to AI had declined and warned the same challenge was 'coming at us'. 'It's real. It's fast, and it's going to be one that we have to start to lean into as a country,' he said. 'A lot of Labor's outdated thinking around industrial relations is based on the legacy of 19th century thinking. It is not based on where my focus is, which is building an employment environment for the 21st century.' Last week, Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg told Sky News that Mr Wilson made a 'good point' by highlighting the Australian education system was not keeping up with the demand for AI in the workforce. Mr Bragg said Australia needed to prepare for the 'massive disruption' AI would have. 'Right now, what you see is a huge war between China and the US on who can best develop and deploy AI in their economy,' he said. 'I don't think we had the opportunity to talk to the Australian people about the great opportunities that can be found in these disruptive technologies like AI. 'But the good news is we still have time to do it over the next few years, and that's what we're looking to do alongside our other economic colleagues, Ted O'Brien, James Paterson, Tim Wilson.'
Sky News AU
3 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Labor committed to ‘significant uplift' in defence spending
Trade Minister Don Farrell says the Albanese government is committed to a "significant uplift" in defence spending amid calls from US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth urging Australia to increase spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP. "We [Labor] are committed to the defence of this country, we are committed to a significant uplift in the amount of [defence] spending," Mr Farrell told Sky News Political Editor Andrew Clennell. "We're focused on what Australia needs to do, and we'll make our decision on what is in our national interest."
