Dr Kevin Bonham
THIS year’s Hobart City Council election delights us with the lovely spectacle of a full slate of Aldermen fighting to defend their seats against a stronger-than-normal field of wannabes. It’s going to be a very tricky one to call, but there are two major unknowns, and both of them concern Archers. Will veteran alderman Lyn Archer, coming off a very strong aldermanic vote when last re-elected, but recently in prolonged poor health, be able to retain his seat, or will his vote implode? And will high-profile Elise Archer, recently a Liberal candidate for Denison, break into the boys’ club of the city council’s majority grouping, or will the electorate stick with what it thinks it knows?
The 2007 slate of aldermen up for re-election (Lyn Archer, Briscoe, Christie, Hayes, Ruzicka and Cocker) are the same aldermen who were elected at the 2002 election, with the exception of Cocker, who was elected in 2005 for two years, and in a convoluted sense has inherited the seat Mat Hines won for the Greens at the 2002 poll. It is notoriously difficult to defeat a sitting aldermen at the polls in Hobart City, and only three have lost in the last eight elections (for the gory details see my previous preview here: http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/weblog/article/elections-a-mildly-biased-primer/). However, only two of those were, like 2007, “bases loaded” polls (in which the number of sitting aldermen contesting equals the number of vacancies) and in both of those cases a sitting alderman was defeated.
My recent analysis of Council voting patterns (http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/weblog/article/your-city-council-sorted-right-to-left/) showed that while there are no formal factions or voting blocks on council, the aldermen form two clusters, one clearly defined one of seven aldermen (Christie, Hayes, Lyn Archer, Briscoe, Freeman, Sexton, Zucco) and one less clearcut one of five (Valentine, Ruzicka, Haigh, Burnet and Cocker). Aldermen from each cluster will be generally more likely to vote with than against most others from that cluster on most contentious issues, although all aldermen are independent from each other to some degree.
These are not necessarily orchestrated groupings, although the first group did meet after the last election to carve up committees, and some observers have claimed sign-language collusion between some aldermen. The first group is what is often called the “right” or “conservative” wing of Council and includes some members who were once candidates on pro-business tickets, and some members who are or have been Liberals, although one or two do not fit either category. The second group is the “left” or “progressive” wing of Council and tends to include aldermen from progress association type backgrounds as well as endorsed Greens. Alderman Briscoe is unusual in having been originally elected on a left-leaning ticket, but having subsequently joined the Liberal Party and migrated to the other side. Four candidates from the majority grouping are up for re-election at this election, and two from the smaller one. Strangely, the aldermanic balance has slightly favoured the “right” for decades, but the “right” has not won a leadership position since 1996.
Lord Mayor
After winning very narrowly on preferences in 1999 (51% to 49%), Rob Valentine thrashed John Freeman by percentage margins of 66-34 in 2000 and 74-26 in 2002. In 2005 he polled 63.5% to Jeff Briscoe’s 25.4% and Marti Zucco’s 11.1%. This year Valentine faces only Briscoe, and will again win very easily. Considering that Freeman polled almost four thousand aldermanic votes in 2000 and Briscoe has never yet polled even half that many, Briscoe would be doing well to even match Freeman’s 2000 result. There is a large potential for error when forecasting lopsided two-candidate contests but I am predicting about 69-31. Anything more than ten points out from that will be surprising.
Deputy Lord Mayor
Eva Ruzicka was first elected to this position in 2002, polling 37% to 26.9% for Lyn Archer, 21.2% for Darlene Haigh and 15.2% for Christie, which translated to a 54.2% two-candidate-preferred result over Archer. In 2005 she faced a slightly more moderate main opponent, Peter Sexton, and polled 38.4% to 29.1% for Sexton, 17.2% for Ron Christie, and 15.3% for Haigh. The 2CP result over Sexton (54.7%) was slightly better than in 2005 but the position remained mildly “marginal”.
In this election, Ruzicka faces five “opponents”: Christie, Eric Hayes, Archer, Marti Zucco and Helen Burnet. I use the word “opponents” in quotes because running for a leadership position to boost one’s profile for an aldermanic defence (either at this election or a future one) is a well-known tactic, so it is unlikely many of these five will have even a half-serious crack at the position. It is likely (not inevitable) that Ruzicka’s primary DLM vote will decline a little given that she is up against five opponents, including the Greens for the first time. Considering results from other Councils where Greens have stood for leadership positions, I’m expecting Burnet, who does appear to be running seriously, to poll around the low twenties (say, 22%). Burnet will certainly take votes from Ruzicka, but Ruzicka should in turn pick up many of the votes received by Haigh last time. The lowest I could see Ruzicka being cut back to would be the very high twenties (especially as she polled nearly 20% as an alderman when she was not even a serving DLM). Even if that happened, the other four candidates would then split around half of the vote between them. Zucco may well not make double figures and Archer’s result is anyone’s guess (see aldermanic section). Christie and Hayes may poll more strongly but it would be surprising to see any of the four get out of the low twenties. In any case, the optional preferential system will result in much exhaust in the preferences between these four candidates (making it extremely difficult for any of them to win even if they have somewhat more than half the vote between them), while there is likely to be a strong preference flow from Burnet to Ruzicka.
Probably the only serious challenge to Ruzicka is in fact from Helen Burnet, as if the Greens vote increases sharply, there is a slim chance Burnet could lead Ruzicka on primaries and force Ruzicka to catch up on preferences (which, however, would be very likely to happen.) My suspicion, however, is that this “dog’s breakfast” field of candidates, without Sexton and with serious question marks over (a) Archer for health reasons (b) whether most candidates are actually trying to win, will play into Ruzicka’s hands and deliver her a rather easy victory, possibly with her DLM primary vote reduced by only a few percent or perhaps even not at all, and a significantly increased 2CP margin over her nearest opponent – whoever that may be. Ruzicka is not quite at Valentine’s unbackable odds, but is nonetheless a clear favourite this time to retain this position.
Aldermen (6 to be elected)
Let’s start with the really easy ones. In terms of who will win, there are only two of them.
Eva Ruzicka was first elected in 1999, polling 4.1% of the vote and outlasting the Greens’ Cath Hughes by just 10.94 votes in an incredibly close cutup (under the Hare-Clark system as used in councils votes are transferred in hundredths during the cutup). She then used Hughes’ preferences to win the sixth of seven seats and hence a four-year term. In 2002 Ruzicka topped the poll with 19.6% of the aldermanic vote. Ruzicka will certainly be re-elected as an alderman and will very likely top the poll again. I doubt her aldermanic vote will go down at all, and it may well increase into the low to mid 20s.
After nearly winning with just two candidates in 1999, the Greens have run larger tickets at subsequent elections. In 2000 they polled 11.6%, electing Patsy Jones. In 2002 they polled 19.2%, electing Mat Hines and being not too far short of electing Helen Burnet as well. In 2005 with Burnet leading the ticket they polled 19.6%, electing Burnet on the first count with Philip Cocker eventually winning the seventh seat and a two-year term on preferences despite polling only 279 primaries.
As endorsed #1 aldermanic candidate, Cocker will poll a lot more primaries than that this time! He is in a similar position to where Burnet was in terms of previous service, but Burnet appears to be a particularly strong candidate for the Greens, and hence he may not poll quite as well (proportionally) as her 15% of the aldermanic vote last time. As the quota this time will be around 14.3%, it is still possible Cocker could be elected on the first count, especially if the Green vote improves. If he is not, then he has Ruzicka’s likely surplus and three supporters to put him over the line, and even if they fail he is likely to be high enough in the count to survive without further assistance. Alderman Cocker will be re-elected, and will probably be the second, third or fourth candidate across the line.
Two down, and now it all gets tricky.
The most useful form guide for the remaining aldermen is the March 1999 election, which was the previous election to 2002 for this rotation. Aldermen Pru Bonham and Jamieson Allom (elected in 1999) did not contest in 2002, and Alderman Andrew Hurburgh was defeated in 1999. Other differences in the line-up included fewer non-party “minor” candidates (six in 2002 compared with ten in 1999) and a larger, more organised Greens ticket. The preferences of Bonham enable us to determine how the 1999 candidates might have fared had she not been a candidate, and from this it is possible to consider how Archer, Briscoe, Christie, Hayes, Ruzicka, the Greens and Peter Donnelly (who stood unsuccessfully in both elections) benefited (or failed to benefit) from the votes freed up by the absences of Allom and Hurburgh and the smaller number of minor candidates, and the passage of time.
Considering this, we find that in 2002, compared to a 1999 tally modified by transferring all votes that went to Bonham, the main beneficiaries were the Greens (+2028 votes) and Ruzicka (+2193 votes). The remaining results were: Archer +750, Christie +540, Donnelly +417, Hayes +230 and Briscoe –541. It makes sense that Ruzicka would be the one to gain the most in 2002, since in 1999 she was elected for the first time. The most striking figure was the severe decline in effective support for Briscoe in a situation in which any sitting alderman would have been expected to gain it.
Lyn Archer is the veteran of the Hobart City Council. Already a long-serving Alderman at the time, he polled a modest 3.1% primary vote in his first election under the postal vote system in 1994 but was third elected after receiving over a quarter of Doone Kennedy’s massive two-quota surplus. In 1999 his effective support (considering the Kennedy preferences) declined substantially and he polled 8.9% of primaries but was second elected fairly early in the count. In 2002 he improved his position (as discussed above), polling 16.1% to be second elected on the first count in a very strong result. By any normal standards he would now expect a very easy re-election but these have not been normal times for Alderman Archer, who suffered a stroke and controversially remained on council despite being away from council duties for most of a year, an absence that at one stage received some publicity in The Mercury. He was widely expected to step down at this election but has chosen to run again, although I have so far detected no signs of actual campaign activity. Spaces in Sandy Bay that normally carry his signs carry those for Elise Archer and Hayes, or are vacant.
I expect Alderman Archer’s vote to decline at this election, probably massively. However, with over a quota in his own right in 2002, he has a lot of votes to lose. Given the added curiosity of having a high-profile candidate with the same surname contesting for about the same staunch-Liberal vote, it’s possible he could lose as much as 80% of his vote, though it could also be as little as 30%, depending on what is known about the state of his health on the proverbial grapevine. Things start to get dicey for him if he loses over 45%, depending on where those votes go.
Ron Christie was first elected in 1999 for a two-year term after polling 4.5% of the aldermanic primary vote, having made at least two unsuccessful attempts before that. After crashing to 2.1% in 2000 he lost his seat to the Greens’ Patsy Jones, but he bounced back in 2002 polling an impressive 8.3% to be fifth elected for his first full term. If he can improve further on that position then he should be re-elected without problems, but the argument that he isn’t quite a sure thing for re-election runs as follows: given that the Greens finished behind him in 2002 but will probably be ahead of him this time, all other things being equal, his fifth place would become sixth. And if a non-alderman polled a very high primary vote then Christie would then be defeated unless he could improve his standing from 2002 relative to either Hayes or Briscoe, or unless Lyn Archer’s vote suffered a major collapse. I am also unsure what campaign effort Christie is putting in, having to this stage seen no signs, brochures or newspaper advertising, though he may well be working through electronic media and his profile through his last term has been high. Most likely, Christie will be re-elected, especially as the strongest newcomer should compete more with Hayes and Lyn Archer than with him.
Jeff Briscoe (a former Green who joined the Liberal Party but has continued to speak out on some green issues) was elected in 1994 on a ticket headed by then deputy mayor Pru Bonham. He polled 3.4% and was sixth elected after benefiting from ballot order effects to unexpectedly outlast Christie by 16.68 votes. Although not running on a ticket in 1999, Briscoe polled 7.2% of the primary vote and was third elected after Bonham and Lyn Archer. As noted above, Briscoe’s 2002 performance (8.1% of primaries) was actually an effective loss of over a quarter of his support base given the weakness of the 2002 field, but he was nonetheless elected fourth after Ruzicka, Lyn Archer and Hayes. Briscoe polled very poorly as a Liberal candidate for Franklin in 2002, but his mayoral result in 2005 (over double that of Marti Zucco) suggests he is capable of polling strongly as an alderman in 2007. The boost in profile granted by being the sole mayoral opponent to Ald Valentine, and his prominent support for a pulp mill plebescite, could also work in Briscoe’s favour. Thus, it is plausible Briscoe will poll a quota in his own right at this election and be elected as high as second. At the other end of the range, I don’t see any major chance of Briscoe losing his seat at this election, but his indifferent performance last time and the strength of the field on the “conservative” side means he is not absolutely certain to be returned. A mid-range prediction is a bit less than a quota and third to fifth across the line.
The last of the quartet, Eric Hayes, was elected easily at a recount following the death in office of Ian Malcolm during 1998. Hayes polled 6.5% of the primary vote in 1999 to be fifth elected, and increased this modestly to 8.4% and third elected in 2002. Hayes has thus far been a solid but unspectacular electoral performer, and the voting record analysis shows that while he definitely sides with the majority grouping, he is also the least contentious member of that grouping and rarely rocks the boat. While Hayes’ past form also bodes well, he is at risk of defeat if a strong vote for Elise Archer arises equally at the expense of himself and Lyn Archer, rather than mainly (which seems more likely) at Lyn Archer’s expense. Hayes seems to be running much more vigorously than Lyn Archer, with numerous signs through Sandy Bay in particular. I therefore expect he will be returned.
From my above comments it should be clear that I regard Elise Archer as a serious threat to displace one of the above four sitting aldermen. Elise Archer, a senior lawyer at Dobson Mitchell & Allport, was a candidate for Denison in 2006 for the Liberal Party, polling 1939 votes. If she polls that sort of tally for Council, she will be easily elected. Archer is endorsed by former mayor Doone Kennedy, Leader of the Opposition Will Hodgman and Nelson MLC Jim Wilkinson among others, and appears to be running a highly organised and professional campaign. She also has the benefit of being the only female candidate on a side of council politics dominated almost completely by men, several of them elderly. Council is a difficult nut to crack and most of the current aldermen were elected on recounts to fill casual vacancies, on the preferences of a ticket, and/or after a few failed attempts, none of which apply to Elise Archer. However first-time candidates have displaced established aldermen before and Elise Archer has a strong chance to be the next to do so.
Former ABC cameraman Peter Donnelly first ran for Council in 1999, polling just 2.6% of the vote and finishing 13th out of 21. In 2002 he polled almost a thousand votes, or 5.4% of the total, but the sitting aldermen were so far ahead of him that this was only good enough for eighth. In 2005 he polled 3.9% (the difference mainly due to the huge personal vote of Rob Valentine) but again finished eighth, beaten by Cocker for the seventh seat by about 180 votes. Donnelly received some media publicity during this council term when he declared himself ready to take over from Lyn Archer and suggested that Archer was being propped up to prevent him from winning a recount. The Mercury messed up the story by including a photograph of the wrong Peter Donnelly (their own music critic, no less!) Whether the unexpectedly younger image will do the candidate anyone’s favours is unknown, but in any case, Peter Donnelly (ex-cameraman) has announced this is his last tilt at Council. I expect him to again poll several hundred votes and again fall short, and probably finish around eighth or ninth. Most likely even if Lyn Archer’s vote does collapse in a very major way, Donnelly would still need well over 1200 votes to be elected in this field. I don’t see this happening at all and therefore will be very surprised if Donnelly is elected this time – but continuing to put his name forward gives him good chances of election in a recount for another four years.
Leo Foley polled 3.9% and traded blows with Donnelly through the 2005 cutup before finishing ninth behind Donnelly by just 29 votes. Had he outlasted Donnelly he would have gone very close to beating Cocker for the final seat, although most likely Cocker would have still just won. Foley has campaigned actively with signs and newspaper advertisements, and should again poll reasonably well, although in this strong field it will be challenging for him to get elected unless there is a strong swing away from the “conservative” side of council. Probably his best chance is to increase his primary vote and stay ahead of the second Green candidate, at which point he would have some chance of election on Green preferences, but this is a much tougher election than 2005.
Rod Force (the name alone is a sloganeer’s dream) is an award-winning real estate agent currently working for Nest Property. Force has no previous electoral form and his exact politics are unknown to me but he is likely to be very well-connected in the community through his occupation, and is running a serious and organised campaign including newspaper advertising. I believe he will poll above the typical few hundred votes for the average candidate. Some observers think he has a very serious chance of winning, but I am not sure whether his political profile is high enough just yet.
Positions two to four on the Greens ticket are filled by Bill Harvey, Corey Peterson and Elisabeth Perey. Harvey polled 518 votes in 2002 when the Greens did not so strongly push a specific ticket order, but when they did so in 2005 (and endorsed a stronger lead candidate) his vote decreased to 125. It will be very difficult for the Greens to get two seats at this election, for two reasons: firstly, their second candidate will start in a position that is close to two points (c. 300 votes) worse because of the different quota, and secondly, finishing seventh is not good enough for their second candidate this time; they need to be able to beat one of the sitting aldermen, which probably requires them to be another c. 600 votes stronger than in 2005. I originally thought a ticket vote around 26% would be needed for the Greens to win two seats. I now think they could achieve this feat with 24% provided Ruzicka’s surplus is high (which would reduce the “conservative” side from four seats to three) but apart from the pulp mill plebescite, I see no reason why the Green vote should increase at all. If it does, it is probably Harvey who would have a chance of election, as although Petersen and Perey may well both poll more primaries, any significant surplus from Cocker should put Harvey well ahead of both. The only way Petersen or Perey might get elected is if the Green vote both increases and is much less concentrated in the lead candidate than last time, and in this case there will probably be a lot of loss of votes to leakage anyway.
That leaves only Gary Winter and the Briscoe-allied Michael Shea, who did not greatly trouble the scorers in 2005, and will not do so this time either, and TJ Smith about whom little is known and who is therefore unlikely to make much impact.
This is a strange field in which only two aldermen have the right to feel safe, and only a few of the candidates have no chance at all. It’s still very possible that all the sitting aldermen will be returned, but the most likely scenario in my view is Elise Archer replacing one of Hayes, Briscoe, Christie or Lyn Archer. And despite his strong result five years ago, Lyn Archer could well be the one to go. I may have some firmer predictions after I have seen more of the campaign.
Kevin Bonham has scrutineered at every Council election cut-up since 1988. He has scrutineered for some of the above listed candidates (from both sides of the Council) at various elections, and sometimes been fed for so doing. He knows over half of the candidates personally, but is not actively involved in any candidate’s campaign. He is the son of former Hobart Deputy Lord Mayor Pru Bonham, but any person assuming his opinions are necessarily hers, or vice versa, or attempting to hold either accountable for the views of the other, is really incredibly silly.
