I recently analysed Council voting patterns for the 2007-9 session in far more esoteric detail than you can possibly poke a stick at Here. The current council contains three endorsed Greens (Burnet, Cocker, Harvey) and six aldermen (Christie, Freeman, Zucco, Briscoe, Archer, Sexton) who tend to be disagree with the Greens on contentious votes and who I have described as “blues”. This is not a formal grouping but these aldermen tend to favour business, commerce and construction rather than environmental issues or the concerns of nearby residents on closely divided issues, and most of them have known past or present links to the Liberal Party. Three aldermen (Valentine, Ruzicka, Haigh) are intermediate between the Greens and “blues”. At this election one Green (Burnet), three “blues” (Sexton, Zucco, Freeman) and two intermediate aldermen (Valentine, Haigh) are facing the electorate. The 2005 election for seven seats returned two Greens, three “blues” and two intermediate; the 2007 election returned two Greens, three “blues” and one intermediate.
I have sometimes said that it is difficult to defeat Hobart Council incumbents. In the eight elections from 1990 to 2005, only three incumbents were defeated, before two lost in 2007. But a better way of looking at it is to split elections into “bases loaded” elections where there are as many sitting aldermen as vacancies, and “vacancy” elections where there is room for a newcomer to win without necessarily defeating anyone. When it is looked at that way, the contrast is quite striking. Of the last nine elections, three have been the “bases loaded” variety, and six have not. The three “bases loaded” elections have together resulted in four sitting aldermen losing, while the six “vacancy” elections have seen only one incumbent defeated. 2009 is another “bases loaded” election and on this basis the recent pattern suggests that one or two incumbent aldermen will be voted out.
The headline no-contest for Lord Mayor will be interesting only to see just how lopsided it is and whether it helps Marti Zucco to retain his aldermanic seat. Rob Valentine first won the mayoralty by a whisker in 1999 against one-termer John Freeman, but made the position so much his own (with a bit of help at first from Freeman’s post-defeat antics) that he thrashed Freeman 66-34 in 2000 and 74-26 in 2002. He then beat Jeff Briscoe and Marti Zucco (64-25-11) in 2005 and Briscoe alone 72-28 in 2007. Zucco, the sole opponent this time, has had a high-profile year, especially through his attempt to seek preselection as a Denison Liberal candidate. All the same his results in recent council elections, whether trying or not, have been consistently worse than Briscoe’s, and he struggles to add aldermanic preferences to the primary votes he gets from his loyal but fairly small support base. Lopsided two-candidate elections are extremely difficult to predict accurately but on past form this could be the most lopsided of the lot. I’d expect Valentine to poll in the mid to high 70s assuming he is making about his usual level of effort. If Zucco can get anything over 30 he will have done rather well. An unsurprising but not necessarily reliable straw poll can be seen in the Mercury’s online comments section, with virtually every comment abusive towards Zucco, a mild undercurrent dismissive of both candidates but preferring Valentine, and only a couple of comments in Zucco’s favour.
If the mayoral contest is a contest in name only, the Deputy Lord Mayor contest is much more intriguing, and might even be very close. Incumbent Deputy Eva Ruzicka, after winning the position by about the same fairly narrow margin three times in a row, has decided not to recontest. In her absence, the position will be fought out by her closest opponents from 2005 ( Peter Sexton) and 2007 ( Helen Burnet ) and also ( Darlene Haigh ).
Burnet polled 30% of the primary vote in a field including Ruzicka and four “blues” (albeit none of them as popular as Sexton) in 2007 while Sexton polled 29% against Ruzicka, Christie and Haigh in 2005. It does not take much insight to see that both Burnet and Sexton should poll substantially larger primary votes in this smaller field and therefore that Haigh will be almost certainly be third on primaries for DLM. Haigh in turn should improve on the 15% she polled in 2005, perhaps into the low 20s, but basically this is a straight-out two-candidate preferred contest between Sexton, the most moderate of the “blues” and Burnet, the longest-serving of the three endorsed Greens.
A case can be made that either should win it. Burnet should win because nearly half the voters preferred her to Ruzicka in 2007, and plenty of voters who preferred Ruzicka to Burnet would still prefer Burnet to Sexton. On the contrary, Sexton should win because nearly half the voters preferred him to Ruzicka in 2005, and plenty of voters who preferred Ruzicka to Sexton would still prefer Sexton to Burnet. It doesn’t help that Ruzicka’s preferences have never been distributed for DLM because she has always won. In the aldermanic ballots in 2002 and 2007, sitting “blue” aldermen tended to do better than non-incumbent Greens on her surpluses, but there was never any case in which her preferences were distributed to an incumbent Greens alderman. So which way those who supported Ruzicka in both previous elections will jump in her absence is unclear.
Another line of argument is that since the “blues” persistently win more aldermanic seats than the Greens, that therefore Sexton must win, but that argument too is faulty. Greens win seats off the back of a solid ticket vote, but “blues” typically win them by polling large personal votes then drawing preferences from everywhere on profile and name recognition. The preference flow between them isn’t all that strong, and thus those who vote for one “blue” alderman won’t always vote for another. Thus, a lone “blue” (even one of the more popular ones) is not assured of the same level of success as the “blues” collectively have achieved in the councillor elections.
A key difference between the 2005 and 2007 HCC elections is that in 2007 the Green vote was much higher. If this remains the case, then the 2007 DLM result is a more accurate pointer, and if that is so then it is plausible (but far from certain) that Burnet could just scrape over the line. If the Green vote cannot match 2007 levels (for instance if there is a backlash over North Hobart street closures) then Sexton has the upper hand and could win rather easily. The position is challenging to model because nothing really like it has come up in HCC elections before, and it will be a fascinating test of the Greens’ potential to win single-seat elections in Tasmania in the future.
The aldermanic ballot includes the six sitting aldermen, three Greens (Corey Peterson, Wendy Heatley and Toby Rowallan), and four other candidates. The remaining candidates are Damon Thomas, Leo Foley, Peter Brownscombe and Dina Alexopoulos. A difference between this election and 2005 (when this slate of sitting aldermen last contested) is the dearth of challengers. Of the ten non-sitting non-Green candidates from 2005, Foley is the only one to contest 2009, and only three new non-Green candidates have joined them. Since the nine non-sitting non-Green candidates apart from Foley scored 2715 votes in 2005, there are around a quota worth of votes looking for new homes in this year’s election. I shall run through the candidates starting with the sitting aldermen and attempt to assess their chances.
First elected as an alderman in 1992, Rob Valentine as sitting Lord Mayor nowadays polls an enormous aldermanic vote – he polled 36.9% in 2000 and 36.6% in 2005. The case that his vote will increase comes from the much smaller field, while the case that his vote will go down comes from the increase in Green voting (if sustained) and the possibility that one of the new candidates (Thomas) might do particularly well. On balance I expect no great change, perhaps down a few points. Rob Valentine should be the first candidate elected with a large surplus, which will strongly favour incumbents as it has done in the past. For this reason, do not necessarily write off any incumbent who polls a poor primary vote on election night.
Helen Burnet first stood as the second Greens candidate in 2002, polling an exceptionally strong 5.3% (endorsed #1 Mat Hines polled 8.5%) and getting within about 200 votes of beating the ticket-leader after preferences, and within about the same margin of snagging a second Green seat. After thus demonstrating that the Greens had got their 2002 preselection the wrong way around she was on top of the ticket in 2005 and polled 14.6% (just over the quota for a six-seat election). As the Green vote increased sharply between 2005 and 2007 it is likely that the Green ticket vote will be higher this time than in 2005 and therefore that Burnet will be well over a quota and the second candidate elected. In any event, her seat is totally safe.
Before moving on to the next three aldermen, it is interesting to note that they appear to have some degree of co-ordinated sign distribution. Sets of fairly large Sexton, Zucco and Freeman signs (often two of each) have been seen clustered together on walls at some locations in the city.
Peter Sexton was initially elected on a recount in 1999 after John Freeman temporarily resigned from Council. In 2000 he polled 3.7% after eighteen months on council, and while that was not a big increase in primary support, he did well on the preferences of Valentine and was elected fifth. In 2005 he increased his primary vote to 6.6% and gained a massive 23% of Valentine’s surplus, very quickly crossing the line in third place. In this campaign, Sexton has benefited from a large Sunday Tasmanian feature on his incoming chairmanship of the Art Foundation of Tasmania, an advantage in an election season in which the mainstream press have been so apathetic that even the retirement of an incumbent Deputy hasn’t rated a mention. A further increase may well occur (even to the point that he crosses the line on Valentine’s surplus), but it is also possible that competition from Damon Thomas will affect his vote to some degree. Sexton will be re-elected, most likely in third or maybe fourth place.
Marti Zucco was first elected in 1992. He polled 11% on primaries in 1996, 6.2% in 2000 and 7.0% in 2005. However, these figures were masked by massive changes in the votes of competitors Valentine and Freeman, and to really gauge his support levels over time we need to look at where he was after the surpluses of candidates elected on the first count. In 1996 he was a distant fourth with .82 quotas, in 2000 clear third with .83 quotas, and in 2005 a close fifth behind Freeman with .66 quotas. (Quotas are converted to the amounts needed for a six-seat election for this comparison). That effective drop of position shows how Zucco could in theory be at risk – supposing Damon Thomas bolted in and the Greens got two seats, then Zucco would be fighting with Freeman for the final seat. But I believe that Zucco has made enough noise in the last year or so, and additionally has the bonus of being the sole Lord Mayoral opponent, not to mention the reasons why Freeman’s position is more difficult. I don’t consider Zucco to be completely safe but I do think it is very likely he will keep his council seat, most likely finishing in fourth to sixth position.
John Freeman was first elected in 1988 (with a brief break between the 1999 and 2000 elections after he resigned his aldermanic position upon losing the mayoralty). In 1996 he polled 27.4% and was narrowly elected as Lord Mayor. Despite the hiatus after losing that position, his 2000 vote of 20.0% was not much down. 2005 was a very different story – he ran hardly any campaign and his primary vote crashed to 6.8%, although he was still easily re-elected. It was widely rumoured (and even publicly reported as fact by Charles Waterhouse in January this year) that he would not contest the 2009 election, but surprisingly he has changed his mind and is back for another tilt. He is making much more of an effort this time (eg Mercury ads authorised by Michael Hodgman and declaring that his re-election would ensure “the rebuilding of the Myer site” and “the building of the Battery Point Walkway”), but voters once lost can be hard to recover. Thomas will compete heavily for the same voters Freeman once attracted in droves, and there may also be still further drift from Freeman’s supporters to Sexton (a major cause of Freeman’s collapse in support in 2005). Freeman could still be returned fairly comfortably if he can contain the rot (most likely in around fifth place), but he is also at quite serious danger of defeat.
The most at-risk alderman in this election is Darlene Haigh. Haigh was first elected in 1988 and polled very strongly in her first three elections, but her primary vote has since declined. It was 12% in 1996, 3.9% in 2000 and 3.7% in 2005. In terms of her effective standing after surpluses, 0.98 quotas (clear third) in 1996, 0.66 quotas (distant fourth) in 2000, and 0.51 quotas (sixth) in 2005. (Figures are again in six-seat election quota terms). Since all the other aldermen were elected well ahead of her last time, the problem Haigh faces is clear. If any candidate not on the current council jumps over her, then she is gone unless she can defeat at least one other sitting alderman. As there are three outside candidates who might conceivably defeat her, Haigh’s chances rest either on all three failing (which is rather unlikely) or, perhaps a better hope, on only one succeeding but Freeman losing so badly that he goes out instead of her.
Of the seven challengers, the most formidable is the former Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry CEO, Crown Solicitor and Ombudsman Damon Thomas. Thomas is not only extremely high profile, but has also been campaigning very vigorously including TV and cinema ads and early signs on the backs of parked vehicles. His website is remarkably comprehensive and support for his campaign pops up in all sorts of odd ways and placesall sorts of odd ways and places, even getting one of his supporters in a bit of trouble. Furthermore, his many endorsements now include the influential and fairly rarely given endorsement of former Lord Mayor Doone Kennedy. With three veteran aldermen in various levels of decline and a quota of slop from former minor candidates to compete for, it’s not that easy to see how Thomas could actually fail. Of course, getting in to Council from the outside is not easy for any candidate, and there have been some fairly high-profile commerce failures in the past, but I expect Thomas to be elected easily at the first attempt, perhaps in third or fourth position.
The other challenger with a serious chance is Green #2 and sustainability technician Corey Peterson. Peterson, an articulate campaigner, was #3 on the Greens ticket in 2007 and polled a very respectable 484 votes (2.5%) on a ticket that polled 25.7% of the aldermanic vote. Peterson’s preferences favoured Greens #2 Bill Harvey remarkably tightly and gave him enough of a leg-up that Harvey got home by about 200 votes. Without knowing exactly where the sitting aldermen who are fighting for survival will turn up in the mix this time, it’s hard to predict whether the same level of Green vote will secure two seats again or not. A minor potential nuisance for the Greens is competition from the Mayor: a few hundred voters who would have otherwise voted 1-4 Green may vote 1 Valentine and then down the Green ticket, and these votes are then reduced in value as part of Valentine’s surplus, perhaps affecting the Greens’ net standing by 100 votes or so. A more serious problem might be any backlash against the Greens over the North Hobart street closures issue. It is also not clear whether Peterson will draw preferences from outside the ticket as effectively as Harvey did. If the Greens vote stays about the same as in 2007, it is line-ball whether Peterson will be elected or not. If it goes up significantly he will very likely be elected; if it goes down significantly he won’t. Once again the Greens have campaigned vigorously, with their campaign including radio ads.
The third candidate with some chance, albeit an outside one this time in my view, is Leo Foley . Foley, the chairman of the Council of Hobart Community Associations and an example of the now less-common style of campaigning that originally elected Alty, Bonham, Valentine, Ruzicka etc, polled 3.9% in his first attempt in 2005, almost winning a seat but eventually finishing ninth. In 2007 he increased his primary to a very strong 5.7% but the strong Green performance left him with no preference flow, and he was boxed in just behind all the struggling sitting aldermen and eventually again finished ninth. The problem for Foley in 2009 is that while defeating a sitting alderman is well within reach if he can build on previous efforts (especially Haigh, whose vote is declining and who competes for a politically similar vote in similar areas of the city), defeating one sitting alderman is probably not enough for him in this field. Assuming (as seems likely) that he will be behind Thomas and Peterson in the cut-up, he would need to beat three sitting aldermen, which is not realistic given the way that preferences flow between incumbents. Beating two aldermen and then catching Peterson on their preferences is more plausible, but would still require him to increase his support level markedly and have everything go his way. More likely he will again be thereabouts but finish eighth or ninth.
The #3 and #4 Green candidates Wendy Heatley and Toby Rowallan have no realistic chance of election because of their position on the ticket. The Greens can only win two seats if their #1 polls well over a quota, in which case the #2 candidate gets the bulk of the surplus and moves far ahead of the remaining Greens, even if they were close behind (or even ahead) on primaries. Heatley has more profile than the average Greens #3 after recently contesting the Legislative Council seat of Pembroke, where the Greens polled a reasonable vote and Heatley ran a very surprising second on primaries (mainly as a result of the abysmal failures of some of her higher-profile opponents). She may well poll a similar vote to Peterson’s last time, while Rowallan will probably get a few hundred.
Peter Brownscombe is a health economist and secretary of Noise Tasmania, a lobby group against noise pollution. His candidate’s statement stresses policy and provides relatively little detail about himself, a formulation that is almost never effective for candidates who are not already very well known. Google searching suggests he has a fair community profile but I am not aware of any evidence of enough effort to make him a serious contender at a first attempt. In a small field with many candidates either incumbents or Greens he may be able to poll a respectable vote (say, 400-500 votes) but I see no reason why he would be elected.
The final candidate is the most mysterious (there’s always at least one). I have been unable to find any information online about Dina Alexopoulos beyond her candidates’ statement (referring somewhat vaguely to a wide range of professional and life experience and the familiar concern about violence in nightclubs and streets), and a solitary news reference to a surf drama involving her children. It doesn’t help that the candidate has declined to make her contact details available through the Electoral Office, thus making it difficult for those conducting questionnaires or doing interviews to contact her. If she can get even 200 votes under such circumstances she will be doing well.
The election is far from issue-free. Water metering changes, trial Sunday street closures in North Hobart, the system of rates evaluation, the proposed Battery Point walkway and the Myer site are all among the many issues that have been raised by various candidates. I don’t have either the time or the knowledge to do justice to reporting the views expressed on these issues, but I will be surprised if any of them individually have major impacts on the results. What they do provide is opportunities for candidates to get their names in the media, and those candidates who seize the most opportunities to do so increase their chances of success.
You can see candidate views on the proposed Battery Point walkway here and on canal development and related issues (tangential as all that is to the business of Hobart Council – but the Freeman response is well worth a look) here. There is a meet-the-candidates forum run by the Council of Hobart Progress Associations on Monday 19 October, 7:30pm, Town Hall Hobart; unfortunately a bit late as most voters will have already voted. I may be back with some more thoughts as the campaign unfolds. Otherwise I will have something up after election night.
Disclosure: As well as the many disclosures appended to previous Council articles (eg see at the bottom here), a national event I am currently involved in voluntarily organising is the recipient of a grant from the current Council.
