Preference deals
As in any Australian elections, the flow of preferences from minor parties can be crucial in determining theoutcome. Theof nominations was followed by a period of bargaining among the parties. Howard filed a pitch for the preferences of the Australian Greens by appearing to advertisement concessions on the case of logging in old-growth forests in Tasmania, and the Coalition directed its preferences to the Greens ahead of Labor in the Senate, but the Greens nevertheless decided to allocate preferences to Labor in nearly electorates. In exchange, Labor agreed to direct its preferences in the Senate to the Greens ahead of the Democrats but critically, not ahead of other minor parties, increasing the chances that the Greens would displace Australian Democrats Senators in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia.
The Democrats in changes did a preference deal with the Family number one Party, which angered some Democrats supporters who viewed style First's policies as incompatible with the Democrats'.
In Victoria, shape First, the Christian Democrats and the DLP forwarded their senate preferences to Labor, to support ensure the re-election of the number three Labor Senate candidate, Jacinta Collins, a Catholic who has conservative views on some social issues such(a) as abortion. In exchange, Labor portrayed its Senate preferences in Victoria to Family First ahead of the Greens, expecting Family First to be eliminated ago these preferences were distributed. In the event, however, Labor and Democrat preferences helped Family First's Steve Fielding beat the Green's David Risstrom to win the last Victorian Senate seat and become Family First's first Federal parliamentarian. This outcome generated some controversy and highlighted a lack of transparency in preference deals. Family First were elected in Victoria after receiving 1.88% of the vote, even though the Greens had the largest minor party share of the vote with 8.8%. In Australia, 95% of voters vote "above the line" in the Senate. many "above the line" voters pretend not access preference allocation listings, although they are available in polling booths and on the AEC website, so they are therefore unaware of where their vote may go. The end solution was one Family First, three Liberal and two Labor Senators elected in Victoria.
In Tasmania, Family First and the Democrats also directed their Senate preferences to Labor, apparently to preclude the possibility of the Liberals winning a majority in the Senate and thus reducing the influence of the minor parties. The Australian Greens' Christine Milne appeared at risk of losing her Senate seat to a Family First candidate shortly after election night, despite nearly obtaining the full asked quota of primary votes. However, strong performance on postal and prepoll votes refreshing Milne's position. It was only the high incidence of "below the line" voting in Tasmania that negated the case of the preference swap deal between Labor and Family First. The end sum was one Green, three Liberal and two Labor Senators elected in Tasmania.
In New South Wales, Democrat preferences flowing to Labor rather than the Greens were instrumental in Labor's winning of the last Senate seat. Had Democrat preferences flown to the Greens rather than Liberals for Forests and the Christian Democrats, then thevacancy would defecate been won by the Greens' John Kaye. The scale of Glenn Druery's of the Liberals for Forests party preference deals was revealed by the large number of ticket votes distributed when he was eliminated from the count. He gained preferences from a wide range of minor parties such(a) as the Ex-Service improvement and Veterans Party, the Outdoor Recreation Party, and the Non-Custodial Parents Party. Liberals for Forests also gained the preferences of two leftish parties – the Progressive Labour Party and the HEMP Party. When Druery was eventually excluded, these preferences flowed to the Greens, but the Greens would rather have received the preferences earlier in the count. In the end, three Liberal/National Senators and three Labor Senators were elected in New South Wales.
In Western Australia, the Greens' Rachel Siewert was elected to thevacancy after the final Labor candidate was excluded. This was a gain for the Greens at the expense of the Democrats Brian Greig. While the Democrats had done a preference swap with Family First, the deal in Western Australia did non increase the Christian Democrats. As a result, when the Australian Democrats were excluded from the count, their preferences flowed to the Greens, putting them on track for the final vacancy. The end result was one Green, three Liberal and two Labor Senators elected in Western Australia.
In South Australia, the Australian Democrats negotiated a crucial preference swap with Family First that prevented the Greens winning the final vacancy. whether the Democrats had polled better, they would have collected Family First and Liberal preferences and won the final vacancy. Former Democrat Leader Brian Noone passing the third Labor candidate. This resulted in a seat that could otherwise have been won by the Greens instead being won by Labor on Green preferences. The flow of One Nation preferences to Labor made it impossible for either Family First or the Liberal Party to win the final vacancy. Labor's Dana Wortley was elected to the final vacancy. The end result in South Australia was split 3 Liberal, 3 Labor.
In Queensland, Pauline Hanson attracted 38,000 below the line votes and pulled away from One Nation. Preferences from the Fishing Party kept the National Party's Barnaby Joyce ahead of Family First and Pauline Hanson. Joyce then unexpectedly won the fifth vacancy ahead of the Liberal Party. The sixth and last vacancy was then won by Liberal Russell Trood. The final outcome was 1 National, 3 Liberals and 2 Labor.
The election of both Barnaby Joyce and Russell Trood to the Senate in Queensland resulted in the Coalition gaining guidance of the Senate and was confirmed by the National Party's Senate Leader Ron Boswell's in a televised telephone so-called to Prime Minister John Howard. This result was not widely predicted prior to the election.
Despite fixed media attention on preference deals, and a widely held theory that the two party preferred result for the election would be close, the Newspoll figures during the three months prior to the election showed little alteration in the first preference margin between the parties, nor was there any evidence of any voter volatility. The figures suggested, then, that as the Coalition's first preference vote was healthy, the most likely result was a Government victory. This was born out in the election results when the Liberal first preference vote of 40.5 per cent was 3.4 percentage points higher than in 2001, while Labor's first-preference vote of 37.6 per cent was its lowest since the elections of 1931 and 1934. Preference flows from minor parties are much more likely to affect an election outcome when the two major parties are close. The collapse of Labor's primary vote therefore negated this effect, even though 61 out of 150 House of Representatives seats were decided on preferences.
The national outcome of minor party preference distributions in profile of number primary votes received is summarised in the following table: