There was no shortage of heated rhetoric in the lead-up to the weekend’s Dunkley by-election, with the future of both major party leaders apparently under serious threat from a sufficiently bad result. As it turned out, Liberal candidate Nathan Conroy secured a swing of about 3.6%, far below the 6.3% required to take the seat off of Labor, whose candidate Jodie Belyea will now replace the late Peta Murphy.
So what did the outcome tell us? Well, it depends on who you ask.
A ‘devastating outcome’ for Albanese…
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, the day before the election: “People say that the swing of two or three percent would be a devastating outcome for the prime minister because that would be without historical precedent.”
Deputy leader of the Liberal party Sussan Ley on election night: “The people of Dunkley have sent Anthony Albanese a strong message and it’s not ‘Happy Birthday’, it’s ‘do something about the cost of living crisis.’ A swing of this size at the next election would see us win 11 seats from Labor. This is a terrible result for the prime minister”.
…or completely average?
David Crowe, The Age: “The ABC’s chief election analyst Antony Green says the average swing against governments in byelections since federation is a little under 4%. When Green looks at results since 1983, he calculates the average swing is 3.5%. The outcome on Saturday was, in a word, average.”
A repudiation of the fear campaign around asylum seekers…
The opposition and its supporters attempted to work up an issue out of the court-mandated release of asylum seekers who were being held in indefinite detention. After it was announced that police had charged one of those released with an assault, Ley tweeted that if Frankston residents had a problem with “Victorian women being assaulted by foreign criminals”, they should “vote against Labor”. The biggest of many problems with this tweet was that the police had made an error and swiftly dropped the charges. Ley was taking up a line that far-right campaign group Advance had been running, calling the former detainees “rapists, paedophiles and murderers”.
What did the result tell us about that approach?
Education Minister Jason Clare: “Sussan Ley spat out a lot of bile in that tweet and it’s all blown back in her face … I think she, in her heart of hearts, would be very embarrassed by that. She probably wants to take the tweet down, but someone’s told her that she can’t do it.”
Psephologist Kevin Bonham: “The biggest losers here are Advance, who spent heavily on Willie Horton tactics to zero visible effect.”
…or did that not even cross voters’ radars?
Shadow finance spokesperson Jane Hume: “I’ll be honest with you — the only people who have been talking about [Ley’s] tweet are either journalists or Labor staffers. I didn’t hear anybody talking about it on the booths yesterday.”
Certainly nothing says “cut through issue” like absolute dead silence from voters.
A really good result for Liberals…
Shadow immigration minister Dan Tehan called it was a “very good result” for the Coalition, which put it “in with a chance” at the next election.
Hume: “The primary vote for the Liberal Party increased. It was the best primary vote that we’ve seen in about a decade in Dunkley … this is a very positive result for us now.”
Dennis Shanahan, The Australian: “It also means that Dutton’s political strategy and tactics in a tough atmosphere for the Albanese government may be starting to work as an opposition but now he has to take the next step of becoming a credible alternative government make bigger inroads at the next election and entertain any hope of winning.”
…or proof their current approach isn’t working?
Jennifer Hewett, The Australian Financial Review: “This will undermine internal confidence in Dutton’s strategy of gaining sufficient strength in outer suburban seats to counter losses to the teals and other independents in their traditional Liberal stronghold seats.”
Michelle Grattan, The Conversation: “The government’s easy retention of the Melbourne seat of Dunkley at Saturday’s by-election is a poor result for Peter Dutton.”
Or does none of this mean anything at all?
Peter Brent, Inside Story: “As with all federal by-elections seen as contestable between the major parties, this one … has gone from being cast as a useful indicator of how the parties are ‘travelling’ to something incredibly important in its own right: massive tests for the prime minister and opposition leader.
“Whenever I write about a by-election I devote some words to explaining why these events are useless predictors of anything and why they only matter because the political bubble believes they do.”
What do you make of the result in Dunkley? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
So the LNP picked up the votes from One Nation and whatever Palmer’s party decides to call itself. That’s in no way a swing against Labor.
Except that the swing is 2PP, which kind of negates that argument, as PHON and PUP preferences would have gone to the Libs. I reckon a 3.6% swing is disappointing for them though, because of the big spend, the cost of living crisis, etc. 3.6% is, as has been pointed out by many others, about what one would expect – i.e., not really a change in voter sentiment.
That’s the Liberal Party – with a dustpan and brush.
What a captured neo lib media- ! A multinational data and industrial estate- biased ? A perfect example from OUR ABC- You know the one with stacked board who have demolished sovereign quality content journalistic autonomy ? Co- opted to middlemen and third party platforms ?” The Insiders” first 14 minutes was entirely spent selling the Liberal perspective – And THIS after the liberal candidate loses ; How do the Libs claw their way in ? When Nicky Savva sounds like the orogressive ya gotta question the bias agendas everywhere
<shrug> Labor primary up a tiny amount, Liberal primary up by hoovering up most (but not all) of the non-running-in-2024 One Nation / United Australia party vote of 2022 which they would have gained in preferences, sundry others also sharing small increases. Or in other words, almost no change. Personally I’m curious as to what’s happened to the electorate – in 2022 there were were 100,472 registered voters, but in 2024 only 86,652. That’s quite the change!
Turnout is always lower in by-elections, but there’s a fair number of postal votes that haven’t been counted yet. It’s now up to 88,667, and it’ll probably finish at something like 94,000.
I hear the RW media telling us that the Libs lost Dunkley when in fact it wasn’t theirs to lose. The primary vote for Labor increased as did the vote for Liberal because the Libs hoovered up the cooker votes that usually go to ON & UAP. It was a very poor result for Liberals as they poured money & misinformation (Advance) into the contest whereas Labor had policies that were going to improve the lives of ordinary Australians.
Oh given the resources spent on “Put Labor Last”, this was a total diaster for the Liberals.
Looking at the actual primary votes: three of the “ratbag right” parties didn’t run a candidate so the 7% they won in ’22 went back to the Libs, where most of it went in preferences last time, anyway. Labour’s vote went up 1% despite the loss of an admired local member so no evident damage to the brand there. Greens vote dropped by 40% which is the major source of the 2PP swing against the ALP. This loss of support for the Greens is the significant takeout from Dunkley. The party is trying to put pressure on the government to be more progressive but that appears to lose them votes. Message to Albanese et al is just be a bit to the left of Dutton & co. Not a good outcome for those who would like to see a more progressive agenda from government.
I want to vote an alternative but The candidates have very weak policy to support biological working womens ‘ issues and their economic and social inclusion ; just a bunch of generalised performative puff – The neo libs and labor lite similarly are pretty petty pridy poor
so they should pursue the all-important TERF vote, eh?
The whole Terf thing is extraordinary. (Disclosure – I’m the opposite of a Terf, I think that’s called being a decent human being who does not get their knickers in a knot about other people’s knickers….)
The Terf’s tried a hostile takeover of the Greens last year. Fools, all they had to do was attend a Greens event, any Greens event, to realise that wasn’t going to get them very far. For a couple of months there it looked like the only party not about to tear themselves apart on this non-issue was the ALP. Fortunately common sense has prevailed.
The Terf vote is worth about a Smidgeteenth of a Fuggall. They are far outnumbered by real people.
Hi Moira!
What is a “Terf”?
What’s a “Google”?
Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist… although that’s really a misnomer, they’re primary focus is anti trans. You can tell that because they will support anti trans positions irrespective of the harm it does to what they call “biological women.”
TERFs side with misogynists every time… they’ve basically given thugs a green light to harass every gender nonconforming girl or women that dare to play sport or use a toilet. They will affect far more cis girls and women than trans but they don’t care. Their goal is solely for gender conforming “biological women”.
Just because someone is a feminist doesn’t make them a humanist.
I prefer folks who are feminists BECAUSE they’re humanists…
TERF’s are also more than happy to side with Fascists, Anti-Vaxxers and assorted conspiracy nuts if it advances their anti-Trans agenda.
Yes, apparently they think they should abandon Labor’s childcare changes and more women-friendly tax package just so they can harass gender non conforming cis women and girls on the off-chance they manage to attack a trans person.