Another Senate poll shows tight Senate contest in Queensland

The latest Senate poll by Morgan has just been released, showing once more that I do have a real chance of retaining my seat, and also showing just how tight the Senate contest in Queensland could be.

The poll shows the ALP at 40% (down 0.5% from the last poll), Liberals & Nationals at 37.0% (up 3.0%), Greens 6.5% (up 0.5%), Pauline Hanson 5.5% (down 2%), Democrats 5.5% (up 1%), Family First 2.5% (down 0.5%), One Nation 0.5% (down 0.5%) and Others at 2.5% (down 1%).

I’ve done a few fairly long pieces in the past couple of months on possible Senate scenarios, party preference decisions and possible preference flows so I won’t redo all that again now. But if you plug these figures into the Senate preferences calculator on the ABC website, it shows that the composition of the “others” vote would make all the difference for the fifth and the sixth of the Senate places up for grabs.

If I can poll more than the Greens, I would get their preferences and be in with a very strong chance. Alternatively, if I can stay ahead of Pauline Hanson’s vote (after initial preference distributions) – noting that we’re level pegging in this poll – then if Family First were already excluded (which they would be on the above figures) then I would get her preferences and again be in with a very good chance.

Possible outcomes for the 6 Queensland Senate seats on these latest figures include:

  • 3 Labor/3 Coalition;
  • 3 Labor/2 Coalition/1 Democrat or Green;
  • 2 Labor/2 Coalition/1 Family First/1 Green;
  • 3 Labor/2 Coalition/1 Democrat or Green

Apart from the total uncertainty of how the 2.5% vote for ‘Others’ would split amongst the 17 groups it covers, there is also the fact that shifts of a couple of per cent (which is within the statistical margin of error for these sort of polls) in the primary votes of any of the 6 major contenders would also throw up a whole lot of other scenarios.

I wrote two weeks ago about the bookmakers’ odds for some of the Senate results. Those odds still show the return on a $1 wager on the Democrats winning a Senate seat anywhere stands at $4.50, while the return for a bet on Family First winning a seat stand at $4.00. There was a small piece recently in The Australian about it too.

Sportingbet Australia is offering odds of $4.50 on the Democrats managing to secure a single seat. And the outfit has set the short odds of $1.16 for punters willing to back the demise of the party. “Just about everyone is saying the Democrats will no longer be a political force after this election, so we’re giving political punters and pundits the chance to put their money where their mouth is and take the $1.16 on offer,” Sportingbet chief Michael Sullivan says. Sullivan believes Andrew Bartlett is the best chance the Democrats have of maintaining a presence. “Bartlett has been getting some positive press in Queensland and has to be considered some sort of chance,” Sullivan says, “I know he reckons he’s a chance and $4.50 is not a bad return.”

PS I again state for the record that I am not betting on myself (or anyone else), and am not advocating any bet on any particular outcome.

Like & share:


  1. the lesson here is, if you’re level pegging with pauline hanson, you’re doing something wrong.

    she is selling a legitimate message, buried in the ignorance and racism. the middle classes sold the battlers down the river in the 80’s, by reducing tariffs, and driving down the price of labor with high immigration. for all their talk of ‘fair go’, there is no sense of community in oz now.

    these rejects have a grievance and a vote. pauline doesn’t have the talent to energize them while adding other segments of the electorate, but some would-be hitler may come along who can.

    not possible here? the weimar republic was organized much like our parliamentary ‘democracy’. there is one legal impediment though. for all it’s flaws, preferential voting does have one charm: it allows the electorate to vote for “anyone but hitler”.

    in fact the rich are firmly in control of oz, and are very unlikely to get in bed with any nazi party. they don’t need to, the middle class are bought, and will stay bought.

    can these proto-fascists be brought back into mainstream oz politics? not by the major parties, who have assigned the scapegoat role to them. but any minor party could point out the injustice done to this group, and offer some compensation.

  2. Al. The Hansonites are exactly what you call them, as is both the now historical and obvious intent of Pauline Hanson. I have very strong feelings about the 80 s and more so Keating,and readers of a certain age and a lack of employment do not deserve to see this mans gloats again postured in the SMH. It surely isnt up to Senator Bartlett,to convince people their attitudes are functionally mental disorders,and thus escapes from reality! If you read into what is sometimes presented as worthy opinion,the mental disorders are everywhere, presented confidently, as if only ones own decorum ,in opinion is worthy. Gittins,SMH, versus Henderson yesterday,and then look at all the hoorays in the letters to the Editor,SMH re Keating. Those standing as Hansonites have been part of a lie that involved an ex Australian Democrat, when the Democrats were having problems in N.S.W. There are probably more than conscious political wisdom in the attitudes of the Democrats to Hansonites,and yet you think,the problem is all Senator Bartletts. No Muslim,No Sudanese had ever caused a personal problem for Hansonites in the 1980.s, the processes of new chums to Australia and the Hansonite attitudes belong in the Howard years,and Pauline had a problem with Howard remember!?They are just hating people for a emotional outlet,and I can too.It will not be factual or just… in that case.There could be very good reasons for a immigration certainly wont be found in the policies..if that is what they are…of Pauline Hansons disease. I could be a spoiler for Democrat votes,and given the same publicity Pauline has already had,would be a viable reason for dismantling the Democrats..accept,well why do it to people who as the years have passed have remained honestly consistent,and not dogged by even the failures of the Party completely at other times..To me Bartlett has got a resilience that is an engine in itself,he has Liberals trying to find it in themselves.Eat dog food Al!

  3. Andrew, I find it very difficult to believe that more than 50% of Queenslanders are supporting progressive parties in the senate. Particularly astonishing is the high ALP primary. It would be very unusual indeed for Queensland to return a minority of coalition senators. Further to that, I think that Boswell has a fairly strong profile. In effect therefore, I think Coalition senators will be elected for 3 spots and the ALP for 2 spots. The crucial part of the count will be seeing which senator is excluded first – 3rd ALP, Green or Dem.

    I have been surprised at how low key the Green campaign has been this time. Larissa has been almost invisible from the media. The approach taken in the Democrat radio ads to take a centrist “sensible balance of power” approach is clever. I would therefore be more confident than the media meme about your chances.

    I think your best chance will be for the ALP to have a primary well short of a third quota and to be higher than the Greens at the crucial point in the count. If the current array of bland policies continues, I would anticipate an increasing number of progressive voters parking their first preference votes elsewhere.

  4. There will hopefully be 3 small party candidates in the Senate, with a further reduction in Coalition seats.

    I think Family First made a big mistake in giving preferences to the Coalition.

  5. Well, I think Al knows what he’s talking about.

    In times of (actual) low unemployment, workers were paid above award wages – they didn’t have their wages and/or working hours cut, with reductions in conditions.

    They weren’t, for example, offered a mere $14.00 an hour to work as a kitchenhand for a huge corporation.

  6. An interesting read Andrew, I remain amazed at the lack of knowledge of the Senate and the lack of enthusiasm for people believing they can make a difference.

    Just wish we could get the message out to people that they have the power to deny control of the Senate to both parties.

    Encourage people who are offered the chance to participate in polling – as ridiculous as it is – to play with them and not give any value to the major parties at all.

    I resent the coverage given to polls because the questions are so far removed from the privacy of the voting booth where the question is simple – number the candidates.

    If the polls asked simple question – which candidate will you vote for – without all the leading and annoying questions associated – it might give a more interesting statistic for the media to waste time analysing.

    Carolyn Tucker, Sunshine Coast Daily had an informative piece – giving local candidates a fair opportunity to present themselves to their voters for consideration.

    Has anyone seen informative and interesting reporting during the campaign?

    With only a few days left surely it is time for the media to give the leaders a break and focus on the Senate and lesser known candidates.

  7. I think Greens, Democrats and Pauline Hanson may all win seats in the Senate.

    I think one Liberal seat will be lost. Just look at the dive Family First has made since preferencing Liberals.

Comments are closed.