The South Australian Liberals can’t afford any more by-elections, warns party insider Tom Dawkins.

Few observers could have been happier or more relieved than I was when Sam Duluk was elected as the new Member for Davenport on January 31.

Duluk and I both cut our political teeth in the early 2000s as undergraduate members of the Adelaide University Liberal Club. Sam was a hard-working and effective campaigner then and I fondly remember his efforts to hold to account various ‘representative’ bodies like the radical National Union of Students.

Despite offering up such a worthy candidate, the Davenport by-election was far too close for comfort for the Liberal Party. While most remained hopeful, I don’t know any SA Libs who were willing to put their house on a win in Davenport. It seemed that the closer polling day got, the more overwhelming the consensus was that it would be a very tight finish. I’m in no doubt that a lesser candidate would have actually surrendered the long-held Liberal seat.

Loath as I am to admit it, Labor has long been a lot smarter at playing the by-election game than the Liberals. Recent history underscores that quite emphatically, whether it be Frome, Fisher or elsewhere.

Despite some dirty tactics from Labor on polling day, Duluk did very well to get 47 per cent of the primary vote and 53 per cent of the two-party split. Nevertheless, the result represented a 5 per cent swing away from the March 2014 vote. It was a narrow win in which members of the Liberal campaign team were forced to scratch, scrap and sweat a lot harder than many may have predicted just to retain the seat.

In too many ways, the field of play was stacked against Duluk. The by-election date meant that much of the campaign proper took place during the summer holidays, a time when the general public is even less politically interested and engaged than normal. This is a nightmare scenario for a new candidate trying to build a profile with the local community. Some unhelpful Federal distractions obviously added to the challenge, something the ALP tried to exploit by focussing almost exclusively on an anti-Tony Abbott campaign. Such an approach from Labor wasn’t a surprise, especially given it played a significant part in the ALP’s narrow three-cornered contest win in Fisher before Christmas.

The two by-elections in Fisher and Davenport had some obviously similarities, including their location, electoral profile and the departure of long-serving local members. But there was a big difference between the two. Fisher was of course caused by the untimely death of Bob Such, while Davenport was triggered by the mid-term retirement of Iain Evans.

The last State Liberal to retire mid-term was Rob Kerin, which forced a disastrous by-election in Frome in early 2009. It was a contest the Liberals were ill-prepared for and the party ultimately lost to independent Geoff Brock, who received significant behind-the-scenes backing from Labor. Given Brock’s role in handing the reins of government to Jay Weatherill last year, that 2009 by-election must still be classed as the biggest own-goal kicked by the State Liberals in recent memory. As evidenced in Frome, and previously in seats like Chaffey, Mount Gambier, Hammond and Fisher, once independents are elected, they almost always support Labor and are very difficult to oust.

The fact is Liberal seats are historically more at risk of being lost in three-cornered contests than Labor strongholds. What’s more, genuine three-cornered contests are more likely to arise in by-elections. This is especially the case when a high profile independent (such as a local mayor) can eat away at the party’s traditional primary vote, usually helped along by the ALP which either runs ‘dead’ or doesn’t field a candidate at all.

From a strategic perspective, further by-elections caused by Liberal retirements would expose the State Liberals to a number of hazards.

Loath as I am to admit it, Labor has long been a lot smarter at playing the by-election game than the Liberals. Recent history underscores that quite emphatically, whether it be Frome, Fisher or elsewhere.

Another relevant example, though on a Federal level, was the by-election caused by the retirement from the seat of Mayo by former Foreign Minister Alexander Downer.

The November 2007 Federal Election saw Downer win Mayo with 57 per cent of the two-party-preferred split. Just 10 months later, the by-election saw the Liberal 2PP share reduced to 53 per cent. Labor didn’t field an official candidate, although its 2007 contender featured as an ‘independent’ and preferenced the Greens. This meant Liberal candidate Jamie Briggs was the lone major party candidate, fighting on a number of fronts against a field of minor party and independent challengers. As it turned out, the Greens gave Briggs the biggest run for his money and they finished with 47 per cent of the 2PP vote. The Liberals ended up retaining Mayo, but it was seriously hard slog for the party.

It is worth noting that the preselection which preceded the Mayo by-election could have very easily triggered another by-election had Iain Evans been successful in his bid to make a move to Federal politics by edging out Briggs as Downer’s replacement. Having surrendered Frome earlier that same year, who knows what might have happened if a by-election was required in Davenport in 2007.

No doubt some indulgent Liberals like to pontificate about party room renewal and which rising star could be parachuted into a particular ‘blue-ribbon’ seat via a by-election. Moving imaginary pieces on the chess board around in such fashion might be a Machiavellian thrill for some, but it ultimately shows no appreciation for the reality of modern electoral politics.

It should come down to a simple cost-benefit analysis, always keeping in mind that there can hardly anything worse than an Opposition losing ground and mid-term momentum thanks to a sub-par performance at a by-election, especially when one of their own triggered the contest. That’s why SA Labor tacticians would love nothing more than a few more by-elections in Liberal-held seats between now and 2018.

From a strategic perspective, further by-elections caused by Liberal retirements would expose the State Liberals to a number of hazards. In the first instance, there is the need to stump up the significant amount of cash – say at least $100,000 – needed to fund a competitive, professional campaign.

But there’s also the ‘protest’ vote factor, whether the angst is directed at the Federal Coalition Government or is stirred up by a particular emotive debate in a local community. Such a mood to ‘send a message’ is often at its most dangerous mid-term when a change of government isn’t at stake. The protest vote has the real potential to undermine the Liberal Party’s traditional voter base and significantly erode its share of the 2PP result. This was on show in both Davenport and Fisher, but is probably at its strongest in regional seats where local issues often have more prominence than the city.

As a party, South Australian Liberals should consider the pros and cons of future by-elections more judiciously and be wary of any unnecessary risks likely to be thrown up by a mid-term vote. With the real risk that an early exit would pose a potentially expensive and disastrous loss for the party, surely Liberal Party members must demand of their MPs the discipline and loyalty to stay on and serve out the remainder of their term.

Tom Dawkins is a freelance journalist and author based at Naracoorte. He is a member of the Liberal Party and a former member of the party’s state executive.