Why the Liberals should accept defeat in Bradfield
It is hardly surprising that the battered and bruised Liberal Party does not want to surrender one of its last bastions of metropolitan Sydney without a fight. To give up on Bradfield, which has been in Liberal hands for 75 years, would be the final nail in the coffin for the party, which has watched its heartland turn teal or, in the case of John Howard's former seat of Bennelong, stay firmly red.
The Liberals have an exceptional offering in Gisele Kapterian, who still has a frontbench spot on hold for her in the hope that she and not her teal nemesis Nicolette Boele ends up in Canberra. But for her sake and the party's, the Liberals should accept the loss in Bradfield, learn its lessons and focus on rebuilding the NSW division ahead of its next battle: the 2027 state election.
The party's only hope of retaining Bradfield rests on petitioning the Court of Disputed Returns to overturn the result. The Liberals are seeking legal advice. The appeal of pursuing court action is obvious from the party's perspective. Kapterian won the first count, albeit by just eight votes, only for Boele to overtake her on the recount and to emerge victorious with a final lead of 26. Liberals who are agitating for a court challenge say it is a no-brainer because Kapterian won initially.
But eight votes is far from a resounding win and the Australian Electoral Commission 's formal policy is to recount any result under 100. By the time the AEC wrapped up the final recount, most ballot papers in Bradfield had been counted seven times. The AEC, a well-established impartial and independent institution, followed due process but the final result was always going to disappoint someone. That is democracy. Mistakes can be made, which is why the AEC welcomes scrutineers for all candidates, but seeking to cast doubt on the electoral watchdog would reek of sour grapes.
There would also be costs to the party in mounting a legal challenge, although friendly Liberal-aligned barristers would be likely to offer their services pro bono. Kapterian was one of the most successful fundraisers for the Liberals ahead of the May poll, but given that some of their federal campaign was debt-financed based on pre-election polling (which turned out to be vastly wrong), the party will not recoup the public funding it had anticipated. A court challenge would be a financial impost on a party that will struggle to fundraise after such a monumental election loss. Depleted coffers will not help their NSW colleagues in March 2027.
Loading
There is, of course, the argument that the Liberals have nothing to lose by throwing everything at retaining the seat. If the results were reversed, Boele, who devoted three years to campaigning as the shadow MP for Bradfield, would no doubt be considering the same. The worst-case scenario, as many Liberals see it, is the status quo. Boele remains the MP for Bradfield and Kapterian suffers a respectable defeat. So why not take a risk?
There are other possible scenarios from a court challenge. The best, but also highly unlikely, would be that the result is overturned, and Kapterian is declared the winner. Even the most optimistic Liberals accept that will not happen. The second-best outcome would be for the election to be declared void, forcing Bradfield voters back to the polls.
Kapterian would have several factors on her side. There is no Peter Dutton factor, which was a drag on her vote, and her name recognition is higher thanks to coverage of the never-ending count. But there are cons, too. Firstly, the voters of Bradfield would be rightly annoyed at being dragged back to the polls. Secondly, the Liberals' dirty laundry has been well and truly aired post-election.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
6 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Corruption watchdog clears Brittany Higgins' payout
Sky News host Chris Kenny discusses the Brittany Higgins saga as the National Anti-Corruption Commission delivers a new ruling. 'The Brittany Higgins saga is back in the news with the National Anti-Corruption Commission delivering a ruling that validates the former Liberal Party staffer's multimillion-dollar payout under the Albanese Labor government,' Mr Kenny said. 'I daresay there will be even more to come in this political, legal drama in the future, and whatever happens, it will be taxpayers picking up the bill.'
Perth Now
8 hours ago
- Perth Now
Reynolds' fresh target in Higgins lawsuit
Linda Reynolds has turned her attention to former Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus in her bid to sue the Commonwealth over its compensation payment to Brittany Higgins, as the nation's anti-corruption agency revealed there was 'no corruption issue' in the payment. The retiring former Liberal minister in May launched action in the Federal Court against the Commonwealth, with the crux of the claim over the $2.4m compensation payment to Brittany Higgins in 2022. Senator Reynolds argued the payment was 'publicly affirming' of Ms Higgins allegations against her that she didn't support her former staffer when she alleged she was raped by Bruce Lehrmann. Brittany Higgins was paid a $2.4m compensation payment. NewsWire / Jeremy Piper Credit: News Corp Australia The Federal Court has found Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. A criminal trial was aborted due juror misconduct and a charge against him was dropped. Mr Lehrmann has always denied the allegation and is appealing the Federal Court's finding. An amended version of Ms Reynolds statement of claim was filed on Wednesday, just a day before the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) said there was 'no corruption issue' in the $2.4m payment. The NACC on Thursday announced there was 'no evidence that the settlement process, including the legal advice provided, who was present at the mediation, or the amount was subject to any improper influence by any Commonwealth public official'. Senator Reynolds' amended statement of claim was made public late on Thursday afternoon. Linda Reynolds has amended her statement of claim. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia Among the changes is a reference to a speech by Mr Dreyfus the then Attorney-General made to parliament on March 15, 2021. Mr Dreyfus is not a party to the claim. Mr Dreyfus recounted to the House of Representatives a speech by Ms Higgins just outside Parliament House, where she told a large crowd she was raped inside the building by a colleague, and how her story was 'a painful reminder to women that it can happen in Parliament House and can truly happen anywhere'. 'If a woman cannot feel safe from rape in Parliament House, a veritable fortress ringed with security cameras, with entrances protected by armed guards and with Federal Police officers on duty inside, where can women feel safe?' Mr Dreyfus told the House of Representatives, according to a transcript excerpt in the claim. 'How strong is the rule of law if it isn't able to protect a young woman working in the ministerial wing of Parliament House?' The amended statement of claim argued Senator Reynolds had suffered loss and damage as a result of Mr Dreyfus' conduct, including denying her the opportunity to rebut Ms Higgins' allegation 'in the appropriate forum'. Former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia It also argues Mr Dreyfus 'enabled and encouraged the falsity of Ms Higgins' claim to be maintained by Ms Higgins'. HWL Ebsworth, which acted on the Commonwealth's behalf, is also being sued by Senator Reynolds for negligence. Lawyers on behalf of Senator Reynolds argued HWLE breached its fiduciary duty to her by excluding her from the mediation conference where the $2.4m settlement was reached, and failing to conduct independent investigations to establish if there was 'at least a meaningful prospect of liability' by Ms Higgins. However, similar alleged breaches initially put forth against the Commonwealth were withdrawn in the amended document, with it now largely focusing on allegations of Mr Dreyfus' misfeasance of public office and alleged breaches of HWLE. Mr Dreyfus has been contacted for comment. He earlier welcomed NACC's statement. 'The NACC has conclusively found there was no improper interference by any Commonwealth official at any stage,' Mr Dreyfus said. 'I regret the baseless allegation of corruption has been so widely publicised ahead of this finding and hope future matters can be resolved in a more timely manner. 'I also regret any further distress caused to Ms Higgins as a result of this matter.'
The Advertiser
8 hours ago
- The Advertiser
How Australia's 'no-worries' approach has led our nation's defence astray
With the precision of a barrister and the venom of a politician betrayed, Malcolm Turnbull has torpedoed the credulous heart of Australia's multibillion-dollar AUKUS evangelism, raising the question: are we the only true believers? If the answer turns out to be yes, and we may know soon, the unhealthy consensus between our two major parties will have been exposed as the most naive conflation of our security interests with those of another country since Iraq, or even Vietnam. "The UK is conducting a review of AUKUS" the former Liberal prime minister tweeted. "The US DoD [dept of defence] is conducting a review of AUKUS. But Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review. Our Parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?" Maybe. We don't really do introspection and we're not much inclined towards looking backwards, either. To its credit, the UK allowed seven years for its Chilcot inquiry into Britain's disastrous enthusiasm for the Iraq invasion. It found that non-military options had been deliberately overlooked, that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that the UK had too willingly agreed with America in sexing up intelligence. An easily beguiled Australia was along for the ride, unlawful and unethical as it all was. Yet an Australian equivalent of the Chilcot process was never embarked on in the years after. Lessons went unlearned. When it was unveiled in September 2021, AUKUS quickly became the new big thing - one of those binary faith questions in mainstream politics and most media. There were only two types: believers and apostates. The tripartite Anglophone deal for nuclear subs came as a rude shock to the French who had been contracted (by the Turnbull government) to build our next generation of conventionally powered submarines. The costs were gargantuan but the long-term punt on unfailing US delivery was far greater because it relied on future administrations and unknowable security challenges in the decades ahead. Change of president? No worries. Everybody in Washington is onboard, the story went. Now, with Anthony Albanese on his way to the Americas for a possible first-ever meeting with Donald Trump, AUKUS is suddenly under active review to assess its consistency with Trump's populist rubric, "America First". Few really know where Trump stands or if he has ever thought about AUKUS. What is clear is that the president's acolytes are fuming about Australian sanctions on far-right members of Netanyahu's cabinet and are looking askance at Albanese's recent statements affirming Australia's exclusive right to set levels of defence spending. Then there's the whole trade/tariff argument. READ MORE: These eddies will make for trickier conditions than Albanese might have imagined only days ago. Might it even see a bilateral meeting delayed or downgraded as a rebuke to Australia? With friends like Trump, literally anything is possible. Which, by the way, is why blind faith in AUKUS has always been disreputable. With the precision of a barrister and the venom of a politician betrayed, Malcolm Turnbull has torpedoed the credulous heart of Australia's multibillion-dollar AUKUS evangelism, raising the question: are we the only true believers? If the answer turns out to be yes, and we may know soon, the unhealthy consensus between our two major parties will have been exposed as the most naive conflation of our security interests with those of another country since Iraq, or even Vietnam. "The UK is conducting a review of AUKUS" the former Liberal prime minister tweeted. "The US DoD [dept of defence] is conducting a review of AUKUS. But Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review. Our Parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?" Maybe. We don't really do introspection and we're not much inclined towards looking backwards, either. To its credit, the UK allowed seven years for its Chilcot inquiry into Britain's disastrous enthusiasm for the Iraq invasion. It found that non-military options had been deliberately overlooked, that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that the UK had too willingly agreed with America in sexing up intelligence. An easily beguiled Australia was along for the ride, unlawful and unethical as it all was. Yet an Australian equivalent of the Chilcot process was never embarked on in the years after. Lessons went unlearned. When it was unveiled in September 2021, AUKUS quickly became the new big thing - one of those binary faith questions in mainstream politics and most media. There were only two types: believers and apostates. The tripartite Anglophone deal for nuclear subs came as a rude shock to the French who had been contracted (by the Turnbull government) to build our next generation of conventionally powered submarines. The costs were gargantuan but the long-term punt on unfailing US delivery was far greater because it relied on future administrations and unknowable security challenges in the decades ahead. Change of president? No worries. Everybody in Washington is onboard, the story went. Now, with Anthony Albanese on his way to the Americas for a possible first-ever meeting with Donald Trump, AUKUS is suddenly under active review to assess its consistency with Trump's populist rubric, "America First". Few really know where Trump stands or if he has ever thought about AUKUS. What is clear is that the president's acolytes are fuming about Australian sanctions on far-right members of Netanyahu's cabinet and are looking askance at Albanese's recent statements affirming Australia's exclusive right to set levels of defence spending. Then there's the whole trade/tariff argument. READ MORE: These eddies will make for trickier conditions than Albanese might have imagined only days ago. Might it even see a bilateral meeting delayed or downgraded as a rebuke to Australia? With friends like Trump, literally anything is possible. Which, by the way, is why blind faith in AUKUS has always been disreputable. With the precision of a barrister and the venom of a politician betrayed, Malcolm Turnbull has torpedoed the credulous heart of Australia's multibillion-dollar AUKUS evangelism, raising the question: are we the only true believers? If the answer turns out to be yes, and we may know soon, the unhealthy consensus between our two major parties will have been exposed as the most naive conflation of our security interests with those of another country since Iraq, or even Vietnam. "The UK is conducting a review of AUKUS" the former Liberal prime minister tweeted. "The US DoD [dept of defence] is conducting a review of AUKUS. But Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review. Our Parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?" Maybe. We don't really do introspection and we're not much inclined towards looking backwards, either. To its credit, the UK allowed seven years for its Chilcot inquiry into Britain's disastrous enthusiasm for the Iraq invasion. It found that non-military options had been deliberately overlooked, that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that the UK had too willingly agreed with America in sexing up intelligence. An easily beguiled Australia was along for the ride, unlawful and unethical as it all was. Yet an Australian equivalent of the Chilcot process was never embarked on in the years after. Lessons went unlearned. When it was unveiled in September 2021, AUKUS quickly became the new big thing - one of those binary faith questions in mainstream politics and most media. There were only two types: believers and apostates. The tripartite Anglophone deal for nuclear subs came as a rude shock to the French who had been contracted (by the Turnbull government) to build our next generation of conventionally powered submarines. The costs were gargantuan but the long-term punt on unfailing US delivery was far greater because it relied on future administrations and unknowable security challenges in the decades ahead. Change of president? No worries. Everybody in Washington is onboard, the story went. Now, with Anthony Albanese on his way to the Americas for a possible first-ever meeting with Donald Trump, AUKUS is suddenly under active review to assess its consistency with Trump's populist rubric, "America First". Few really know where Trump stands or if he has ever thought about AUKUS. What is clear is that the president's acolytes are fuming about Australian sanctions on far-right members of Netanyahu's cabinet and are looking askance at Albanese's recent statements affirming Australia's exclusive right to set levels of defence spending. Then there's the whole trade/tariff argument. READ MORE: These eddies will make for trickier conditions than Albanese might have imagined only days ago. Might it even see a bilateral meeting delayed or downgraded as a rebuke to Australia? With friends like Trump, literally anything is possible. Which, by the way, is why blind faith in AUKUS has always been disreputable. With the precision of a barrister and the venom of a politician betrayed, Malcolm Turnbull has torpedoed the credulous heart of Australia's multibillion-dollar AUKUS evangelism, raising the question: are we the only true believers? If the answer turns out to be yes, and we may know soon, the unhealthy consensus between our two major parties will have been exposed as the most naive conflation of our security interests with those of another country since Iraq, or even Vietnam. "The UK is conducting a review of AUKUS" the former Liberal prime minister tweeted. "The US DoD [dept of defence] is conducting a review of AUKUS. But Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review. Our Parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?" Maybe. We don't really do introspection and we're not much inclined towards looking backwards, either. To its credit, the UK allowed seven years for its Chilcot inquiry into Britain's disastrous enthusiasm for the Iraq invasion. It found that non-military options had been deliberately overlooked, that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that the UK had too willingly agreed with America in sexing up intelligence. An easily beguiled Australia was along for the ride, unlawful and unethical as it all was. Yet an Australian equivalent of the Chilcot process was never embarked on in the years after. Lessons went unlearned. When it was unveiled in September 2021, AUKUS quickly became the new big thing - one of those binary faith questions in mainstream politics and most media. There were only two types: believers and apostates. The tripartite Anglophone deal for nuclear subs came as a rude shock to the French who had been contracted (by the Turnbull government) to build our next generation of conventionally powered submarines. The costs were gargantuan but the long-term punt on unfailing US delivery was far greater because it relied on future administrations and unknowable security challenges in the decades ahead. Change of president? No worries. Everybody in Washington is onboard, the story went. Now, with Anthony Albanese on his way to the Americas for a possible first-ever meeting with Donald Trump, AUKUS is suddenly under active review to assess its consistency with Trump's populist rubric, "America First". Few really know where Trump stands or if he has ever thought about AUKUS. What is clear is that the president's acolytes are fuming about Australian sanctions on far-right members of Netanyahu's cabinet and are looking askance at Albanese's recent statements affirming Australia's exclusive right to set levels of defence spending. Then there's the whole trade/tariff argument. READ MORE: These eddies will make for trickier conditions than Albanese might have imagined only days ago. Might it even see a bilateral meeting delayed or downgraded as a rebuke to Australia? With friends like Trump, literally anything is possible. Which, by the way, is why blind faith in AUKUS has always been disreputable.
