GetUp!, a self-styled “new independent political movement to build a progressive Australia”, has commissioned the right-wing shills* at Galaxy Research to conduct a poll of Senate voting intentions. Conducted the weekend before last from a sample of 1100 “adults 16+”, the poll has Labor on 38 per cent compared with its 2004 Senate result of 35 per cent, the Coalition down from 45 per cent to 34 per cent, the Greens up from 8 per cent to 13 per cent, and “other parties and candidates” up from 12 per cent to 13 per cent. Individual results from New South Wales and Victoria are provided in the accompanying press release, bearing in mind that the sample sizes are below 300.
This is the first Senate poll in living memory that was not conducted by Roy Morgan, whose efforts have proved hugely unreliable. My favourite explanation for this is that those responding to Morgan’s inquiry have just been asked how they will vote in the lower house, and are thus prone to name a different party for the second question purely in order to shake things up a bit. This has led Morgan to grotesquely overstate the vote for the Australian Democrats, who are evidently regarded as a party one might support if one was feeling adventurous, which tends not to be the case come polling day. The Galaxy poll does not appear to have this problem: it looks like Senate intention was the only question asked, and Democrats support is roughly where you would expect it to be (1 per cent). That makes the high vote for the Greens particularly interesting.
Even so, I suggest that asking a respondent about Senate voting intention places them in a slightly unnatural position. A very large proportion of the population – probably a majority – views the voting process purely in terms of deciding which party to favour. That decision having been made, they then proceed to follow the party’s how-to-vote card for the lower house and number its above-the-line box for the upper. By contrast, respondents to a survey such as this are specifically directed to consider the distinction between the house of government and house of review, producing a bias towards the minor parties. Greens supporters encouraged by the thought of a 13 per cent Senate vote would accordingly do well to restrain their enthusiasm. The precipitous plunge in the Coalition vote is perhaps of greater interest.
* Irony alert.
Its highly unlikely that 10% nationally would translate to six Green senators, but equally unlikely that it would translate to one. The ALP vote will be quite varied across the country – if they’re on 43% in the Senate nationally this will vary between mid 30s in WA and mid 40s in their better states. If the ALP preferences the Greens ahead of the relevant competition this, combined with a 10% Green vote, would mean several seats for the Greens – basically in the states where the ALP vote fell a distance from the average in either direction. (Complicated by the fact that 10% nationally would mean a varied Green vote as well)
I certainly don’t think we can be confident of getting 10% nationally, and who knows what the ALP will do preference-wise. However, possessing a physics degree as I do I think its a bit rich for Adam to allege innumeracy for believing that IF those two conditions are met we could expect to win 2-4 seats at this election.
13% Green vote is a tad bit high. They aren’t polling anywhere near as much in the House of reps polls and Green Senate and House of Reps votes have been generally the same.
There will not be a double dissolution or a seperate half senate election
as such would mean L-np would lose their senate majority
I would be suprised unless there was a very low L-np vote in the senate
for the non-labor force to lose their senate majority
Phil Says:
June 27th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Getup! only commissioned the poll, as in paid for it. Who paid for it has no relation on the results of the poll.
Yeah right: and Im female. That is a very naive perception Phil.
Gusface
You can’t be serious by drawing comparisons b/w this election and Canada’s in 1993. The circumstances are so different it’s not funny. It must be wishful thinking….
I think this ‘national emergency’ is going to be a lot more than a four or five day wonder.
I think there is a lot more twists and turns in this thing too come. For example what are the chances that the police force intervenes and arrests a few “black paedophiles” in aboriginal communities.
It will be a bonus if a few aboriginal groups protest about ‘arrests’. Brough and the Rodent will be claiming everyone is equal before the law. Is Labor really going to sit quiet whilst the Federal police ‘storm’ these communities?
Its highly cynical and very wag the dog but I think will be nicely effective. I see a gold tooth glistening in the sunlight!
Liberal supporters like Edward have become so cynical that they now assume that everything Howard does is done solely for political advantage. That is unfair on Howard. On this issue I think he is acting on principle, although obviously he hopes he will get some political credit for it, which he probably will. But since Labor is not opposing anything he is doing, it’s not going to be a headline-grabber for very long, and I can’t see it changing many votes.
Stephen L (at 6.25 p.m.) is the first post I’ve seen on the topic to address the probability that a national vote of whatever per cent for any Party, will probably mean significant variations between States.
My speculative guess is that these figures from Galaxy will provide nothing better than a talking point about the ultimate outcome, and that they will prove to be only a vaguely approximate estimate.
Clearly Adam (and others) are correct in saying that Coalition 43%, Labor 43% in any State provides an unequivocal outcome. However, even in a polarised election, that’s an unusually high figure for the majors in the Senate.
I just had a look at Adam’s figures for the Senate through three elections 2004, 1998, 1993. Of the 6 States in those three elections, only one – of eighteen – instances (Victoria 1993) produced a result where the two majors jointly exceeded 86% (when both had in excess of 43%).
Now plenty has changed in that time, the rise of the Greens, the demise of the Democrats and the increasing influence of the “christian” vote. It’s not out of the question that this time Senate votes will be concentrated in the two majors; but it doesn’t seem likely.
I’d also suggest that there’s likely to be reluctance among some voters to give either major a blank cheque, precisely because there will be some hostility to the way in which the Government has used its Senate numbers. Surely part of the adverse reaction to work choices is precisely about this issue of Senate control?
Posters have mentioned that large numbers of voters simply follow the Party recommendation for a “1” atl vote. However, there are significant numbers of voters who very deliberately split their Reps/Senate vote, whether out of careful calculation or sheer cussedness, as evidenced by varaiation in primaries for any individual electorate or booth, where these are published.
Oh Adam very naive. I am certain Howard is very concerned for the kiddies.
Gimme a break they are no doubt polling the impact as we speak. I reckon by Friday next week there will be arrests. Mark my words!
Howard is high on heavy handed action, especially when it comes to people of another race. Just like he sent the troops out to the Tampa, so too he is sending troops into the Aboriginal communities. I’m sure he is doing it this time out of a sense of paternalistic compassion, with his other eye on the focus polls, hoping that there is something in it for him also.
Ryan O’Neil is often quoted from Love Story, “Love is not having to say sorryâ€. Bollocks! Likewise, Howard would assert that saying sorry would only be symbolic, and that actions speak louder than words.
Well symbols are important, especially when elaborated through action. The only symbol that exists at present that accompany sending in law enforcement, is that of recent aboriginal deaths in custody, and a member of the constabulary being let off scott free after admitting to causing the death. Hardly a symbol of love on which to base a compassionate response.
I fear Howard’s lack of words betray him.
It is always good to see paedophiles being brough to account.
From News Ltd today
“A SENIOR member of the Anglican church has appeared briefly in the Brisbane Magistrates Court charged with nine sex offences.”
I believe Hollingsworth was in charge of Brisbane at the time.
And from the ABC
“Prime Minister John Howard has announced a $25 million boost to the Government’s school chaplaincy program.”
Howard forgives and forgets and rewards.
Our suburb (WA) hada half hour power failure right in the middle of the 7.30 report.
The lights went out just as Kerry irritably pulled young Mal up from his incessant obfuscatory waffle and told him to answer the damn question.
Did anyone see the whole show, and can you shed any light (no pun intended) on the outcome? I had the feeling Kerry had him rattled and the facade was likely to crack. Did anything like the truth come out?
“That is unfair on Howard. On this issue I think he is acting on principle”
If it was solely a matter of humanitarianism then issues that are not obviously necessary, are controversial, and which the government has been trying unsuccessfully to negotiate – such as the land tenure issue and housing under “market rates” and “normal tenancy arrangements” – wouldn’t have been linked in, at least not immediately.
As far as the tactics of it go, I agree that the public response seems bound to be limited. Tampa comparisons are surely overblown; much as one might like it to be the case, Indigenous issues do not have the same fundamental place in the role of the Federal government.
It seems to me to be like the Uranium issue, one that could at best be a very minor winner for the government in the public, but which has the potential to cause significant disruption internally to the ALP.
Edward I think it would be a mistake to assume that everyone else is as cynical, petty, unpleasant and devoid of principle as you. I certainly don’t assume that about Howard.
Martin, but clearly those issues ARE linked. Indigenous people are trapped by a collectivist system of land tenure which keeps them poor and dependent on the state, and those who wish to live in the real world of the market economy, where land is a tradeable commodity, obviously need legislative help to do so. Howard is quite right to tackle all these issues as a package.
“but clearly those issues ARE linked. Indigenous people are trapped by a collectivist system of land tenure which keeps them poor and dependent on the state,”
I don’t believe that it has been demonstrated that the poverty of remote communities will be overcome by such policy changes, and I certainly don’t believe that it has been demonstrated that such changes would have any impact on the immediate stabilisation of law-and-order in the remote communities, which is what this is meant to be about.
But this isn’t supposed to be a forum for policy discussion so I’ll just beg to disagree.
On the more relevant point, bets aside, do you firmly believe that the ALP and Libs will go 43/43 in the Senate at least in every state except Tas and WA? I think we all accept the mathmatics of it by now; it is the forecasts that are questionable.
I wan’t making a policy point, I was making a political point: Howard is tackling all these issues together because *he* believes they are all linked, not necessarily through the kind of grubby electoral calculus which Edward assumes is the only reason any politician does anything.
On the Senate, obviously I am not making an exact predictions of voting percentages. But yes, I think the Senate will split 3/3 in NSW, Vic, Qld and SA. It will probably go 3 coalition, 2 Labor, 1 Green in Tas, but if there is a big swing Labor could win 3. WA will probably also go 3/2/1 unless Labor’s position improves. I suppose it is possible that SA could go 4/2 Labor if there is a big swing but I don’t think it’s very likely.
Well I work intensively with Indigenous people every day and care for an Indigenous partner who is a victim of dreadful abuse and neglect. But the Howard government has cut funding to so many relevant areas that it is not at all funny. Anyone who has tried to work in this sector in recent years cannot but help being cynical at best, extremely angry at worst. We may be heading dangerously close to some kind of civil insurrection in parts of the bush.
Indigenous people have been used to being treated as lepers by this government. But now being used as Howard’s 2007 version of Tampa could do damage that will take generations to undo. Personally I think that it will backfire on Howard. No coincidence though that he’s disenfranchised many of these people with the changed electoral enrolment rules.
Fancy sending in the troops when people are crying out for a house to live in and basic services!
The symbols are pretty obvious. Remove the elected representative body ATSIC. Don’t say sorry. Rewrite history so that the past massacres didn’t happen. Leave the same useless bureaucracy in place under different names then send in troops. With a less passive people that would be an incitement to civil war.
We are all very lucky that our Indigenous brothers and sisters are not a warlike people.
Howard’s past behaviour towards Indigenous Australians does not inspire any confidence that he is acting on principle. And politics after all is about perceptions as much as anything.
Well said Edward. Paternalistic discipline, typified by the first stabilisation phase of this operation, is void of principle unless it is accompanied by a genuine desire to meet the basic needs of the Aboriginal communities. The law and order problem indeed needs addressing, but unless the underlying drivers of poverty and sheer hopelessness are addressed, all we will end up with is a permanent police state.
The true test of Howard’s intention would be seen well beyond the election, when the hard yards of restoring hope, jobs and self respect to these communities are undertaken. This is not sexy vote winning politics, and as such I doubt that Howard will be incentivised to stay the course.
There you go again playing the man and not the ball Adam! I refuse to be distracted by your poison darts!
Call me names when there arent arrests by next Friday! I think that’s fair!
I stick by my first post on the Indigenous issue as a potential ‘rabbit’ for Howard being very over rated. My “perception” is that Brough at least is fair dinkum about this issue and dosent have his electoral calculator out at all. It may score Brough some profile for his marginal seat, but it is a polarising issue so who knows if or how it would/will effect his position.
JWH is JHW, who knows what election mileage his minders are hoping to get out it , not much I would think. What is clear is that it is a polarising issue as evidenced in the divided sentiment on the ‘national crisis in the NT’ issue in this blogspace and out in the community where I live (QLD).
I say go for it- not much has worked for 2 decades under both Labor and Coalition Government’s (as Rudd conceded)- if nothing else it gives Indigenous Issues a day in the sun– lets hope it last longer than that.
If South Australia elects 2 Libs (and no other right wing) this time around then the Greens could well get a seat there as the Greens may be able to stay ahead of any ALP surplus over a third seat.
IMO, Howard NEVER acts out of the goodness of his heart. The indigenous business may do some good, but the real reason is to get back in the political game. There are 4 things that could go wrong for Howard later in the year:
1. Interest rates could rise.
2. There could be more focus on climate change.
3. Criminal charges against Qld Libs
4. Bush coming to APEC will be a negative.
The indigenous affairs will have been forgotten by October/November, when the election is expected. So, why did Howard go after this now, instead of late Sept? Because he wants to call an election for August, before any of the 4 above start going wrong. If the next inflation figures say that interest rate rises in August are very likely, or if the next polls say the govt is making up ground, expect an August election, as the RBA will not raise rates in an election campaign.
So, what do people think of the “What Women Want” party?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/power-dressing-women-launch-new-party/2007/06/28/1182624034537.html
http://www.whatwomenwant.org.au/home/modules/content/?id=3
A lot of leftists are screaming about a “new Stolen Generation” – just like “Life on Mars” you feel like you’ve woken up in 1974 – and that’s a big part of the Left’s problem – they either act like it’s still 1974 or think we can go back to it.
On a Green vote of 10%, the ALP would need to be poll 38% or less for the Green to be elected (on the basis that would see the 3rd ALP candidate eleiminated first). As the ALP are travelling much better than that this year, the chances are much better for 3 – 3 splits except possibly in Tasmania where a 3ALP – 2LIB + 1 BB is plausible. The chances of the coaltion not getting 3 in the other states are fairly low (unless there was a major landslide). So as WA is the ALP weakest link, getting a Green up there will be easier than elsewhere.
So Adam’s line on 10% is definitely quite plausible.
Stewart J:
I love it when people get involved in politics so I say “go for it!” – single issue parties are annoying but how can you fault people’s passion to get involved?
Stewart J:
I posted my opinion of “What Women Want” (WWW) on my site, but for people who are too lazy to click on my name:
Since WWW hold no opinions different to the Greens, anyone who supports their policies should just vote for the Greens. I also predicted a 0.7% share of the vote.
Ok – this isn’t exactly the right thread but I’m so excited I’m about to burst…
tomorrow they release the draft boundaries for the WA state redistribution!!!
Ok, that said let me just comment on a couple issues that have been raised above:
1. Above the line voting – at the last poll I voted in the staff manning the polling place actively discouraged people from voting below the line by giving instructions when handing out the ballots emphasising above the line votes and indicating that it wasn’t necessary to vote below the line. My complaint to the local returning officer went unanswered.
2. I doubt there is more than a handful of votes in the latest indigenous focus and most of those would be opposed. I also suspect that the Prime Minister and his advisors were aware of this before they did it.
3. Senate voting intentions would, if anything, be even softer this far out than HoR intentions – and I agree that for the most part many people wouldn’t/couldn’t differentiate.
4. Quick query around here – it drives me nuts when parliamentarians use MP instead of MHR. I have also seen it applied in place of MLA or MLC. Why? Does anyone else feel the same way as I do? We have our own perfectly good acronyms without borrowing from overseas!!!
Mr Speaker,
On the GetUp item, on your website you mention the unlikelyhood of a Green victory in the ACT. Would you agree that this would change if the number of Senators from the Teritories was increased to 3 or 4?
Imagine if the NT became a state with a full 12 Senators.
VPL:
Most people wouldn’t be able to tell you what the acronyms stand for.
To complicate matters further, in Tasmania and South Australia they have a “House of Assembly” rather than “Legislative Assembly”, which means it’s MHA in some states and MLA in others.
Peter Stephens, it’s not only “Leftists” who are concerned about history repeating itself (and let’s not forget, the stolen generations were also taken with the best of intentions) – actual aborigines in these townships are worried about this too, hence the reports of families leaving places like Mutujuli with their children.
The Right seems to think that it has claimed the moral high ground on this issue, and that any criticism of what the government is doing is somehow racist and uncaring, that we Lefties have our heads so far up our backsides that we don’t recognise good acts when we see them (Miranda Devine, that fine example of nepotism in journalism, made this argument in the SMH today).
Well, sorry, that’s just bunkem. This is not an “emergency” as such – these problems have been around for decades. So what’s the rush to get “something done” before the election? This is why people are being a bit cynical about it. Writers on Crikey and elsewhere have analysed the blatant cynicism that prevades this issue among the government.
Then we come to the issue of what they hope to achieve with this. What happens if parents (or children) refuse to be examined? And what happens after these examinations? Any health professional will tell that a one-off medical test without any sort of follow-up is next to useless.
Then there are the suggestions that the whole thing, via the effective abolition of the permit system, is cover to get rid of aboriginal title, and so let mining companies have greater rein over large tracts of NT.
Of course, we all want something done about the problems that aborigines in remote areas (and elsewhere) face, and at first I was prepared to give Howard the benefit of the doubt, but the more I hear about it, the more dubious it looks.
As for riding on this issue to an election, are you serious Lord D? Since when did doing anything for aborigines lead to votes? Labor is still miles ahead in every poll published and it’s hard to imagine the government making up that sort of ground in six weeks.
Besides, I’m going to London for two weeks in early August, so an election then would be highly inconvenient!
My understanding is that the Federal parliament adpoted ‘MP’ over ‘MHR’ soon after Federation.
I think members should use the proper title MHR, MLC, MLA.
Tom:
For three senators the quota would be %25, for four the quota is %20.
The Greens would then have a good chance at winning a senate seat in the ACT (but not NT), however there’s also an equally good chance it would be Labor and not the Greens who would benefit from the change.
Keep in mind, to get half the seats in a 4 seat senate, the Libs would only need 40% of the vote, so they could still hold on.
Even if the NT became a state they wouldn’t get 12 senators. Only “Original States” are constitutionally entitled to 12 senators. Any new states get senators based on legislation.
When the last NT statehood referendum was held JWH stated that the NT wouldn’t get a full complement of senators.
To be honest, the NT doesn’t deserve any more senators and neither do the ACT. Their populations are tiny.
Gosh, I never realised that there so many idealists on this site (especially Adam!)
Surely Howard’s indigenous move is simply: a) Rudd has been setting the agenda, b) the govt looks finished, c) Howard is desperate to seize control of the national discussion, and d) the sex abuse report and Noel Pearson happen to pop up and Howard sees an opening to take charge.
Any suggestion that Howard is motivated by genuine concern is bizarre beyond belief, for 2 main reasons:
1. Because in 11 years he has never demonstrated an awareness of Aboriginal disadvantage, let alone a desire to do anything about it, and
2. Because how can anyone really believe that in an election year Howard (or any other leader for that matter) would ever make a move this big that wasn’t electorally motivated. It’s simply implausible.
I agree with others that it won’t be a big vote winner like Tampa. But I don’t think Howard cares – he just wanted to be in control again and the issue was fairly irrelevant.
APARTHEID LITE? A policy of laws that only apply to some ‘classes’ of people.
From The Australian: “THE federal Government hopes to have legislation for its radical welfare blueprint for remote indigenous communities ready within three weeks. Under the plan, police and soldiers are being stationed in remote parts of the Northern Territory TO ASSESS the extent of child sexual abuse and restore law and order.
It also involves banning alcohol and making medical checks on children MANDATORY. ”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/pr … 14,00.html
[you will note that The Australian seems to have pulled this story as soon as it put it up – luckily I kept the address for now]
Now We have Apartheid Paternalism and demoting of Aboriginals to less than human status: The news is that Howard intends to legislate mandatory ‘health’ checks for all children in the communities.
This is sickening – this is government sponsored abuse of children and of parents.
Intimate probing of children regardless of evidence or not is against all tenants of law and human rights. It serves to abuse the abused, humiliate and dehumanise one segement of the population. It serves to traumatise children and families and communities, it serves to re-traumatise children who have been abused. Pediatricians have already stated that this approach would cause more harm than any good. Even in the setting of middle-class Australian hospital with doctors from the same culture this type of examination is traumatising for children – how much more so for Aboriginal children with bunches of strangers forcing them into mandatory examination against thier own will and the will of parents. The community had every right to be scared.
How would this go down in suburan Sydney or Brisbane?
This law is a bad an abuse as child sexual abuse, it is an abuse on each individual and on the whole community.
The Government is obviously desperate to find a victim and a suspect for its election campaign as if that will prove something extra for them.
It is now time for all governments State and International to stand up to Howard’s right-wing extremism for the sake of wining election votes from the simplistic and the rednecks.
I can see it now “I’m from the AFP and I am here to help”.
The correct designation for a Member of the House of Representatives is “MP”
See “House of Representatives Practice” http://www.aph.gov.au/house/pubs/PRACTICE/chapter5.htm#mpm
“Members of the House of Representatives are designated MP and not MHR. This was the decision of the Federal Cabinet in 1901—a decision which has since been reaffirmed in 1951 and in 1965.”
and
“A new Member is entitled to use the title MP once this status is officially confirmed by the declaration of the poll.”
As I scrolled down, I also caught sight of this crucial fact:
The Chair has also ruled that:
* a Member may distribute books to other Members in the Chamber;
* a Member may not distribute apples to other Members in the Chamber;
Howard trying to help out Aborigines out of conviction? Never laughed so much in my entire life! Since coming to power Howard has systematically cut funding to aboriginal programs and aid, and now after 11 years it’s an ’emergency’. It’s comedy hour at the Liberal Party HQ!!! He’s well and truly jumped the shark.
Darryl:
Apples are a threat to Democracy and our way of life!
btw Are you running for Griffith again this year ?
Well I think it is more “wag the dog”
Are we going to see Jeanette handing out “healthy” meals too!?
Mr Speaker:
No, I am not contesting Griffith this year. A pity, as I had a pretty good feeling about my chances this time… :^) This time that honour goes to the redoubtable Willy Bach.
But I am on the Greens’ senate ticket, so any Queenslanders ’round here who felt gypped they didn’t get a chance to vote for me in 2004, here’s your chance.
d
Darryl:
Rumour has it Kevin Rudd was relieved when he heard you weren’t contesting again. Close call for him.
btw I’m in Griffith.. and Greenslopes at state level too!
One of the major issues with the Indigeneous emergency is that the situation has been allowed so bad without adequate scrutiny. And to use, Kina’s term, there has been ‘apartheid lite’ but not in the way suggested. These abuses have largely occurred in communities that are closed to outsiders, as a non – aboriginal australian, I can’t go there without a permit, but neither can public servants or more importantly the press. These abuses have been allowed to go on unscrutinised and the perpetrators have known that their actions are to some extent protected by this enforced isolation. The second ‘ protection’ is that these places are extremely isolated. If indigeneuous communities were not so remote, and were not ‘closed’ more Australians would be able to see how bad things are, and change may be more likely to occur. Again, to use the ‘apartheid’ metaphor, indigenous Australia had it’s own ‘bantustan’ government called ATSIC, and in all those years what did it achieve? I was once told by an Aboriginal person that it stood for ‘Aborigines talking s..t in Canberra’.
The truth of the matter is that the NT government has failed, either through a lack of will, or lack of resources from being too small a jurisdiction. What would be happening if the NT had gained statehood? What would be happening? On Clare Martin’s record to date – absolutely nothing! Not a lot has been achieved in 11 years, or the 13 years before that, or the 8 years before that! The issue has been raised to the top of the national agenda – if it fails, things won’t be any worse,and if there is any improvement, that in itself will be an achievement. It may surprise some out there, but occasionally talk doesn’t achieve anything and action does!
On re reading Line 2 – allowed to get so bad.
Peter Brent on Mumble today has an article about what he considers the parlous state of the electoral role. One point he makes is that the role has increased by 1.6% since the 2004 election but the population has increased by 3.2%. Normally, I have a lot of respect for Mumble’s opinions, but in this case he grossly oversimplified an issue to suit his argument. Yes, they may be issues because of the new rules, but, a discrepancy will exist for at least three reasons:
1. The birth rate is increasing reasonably quickly, so there will be a larger cohort below voting age.
2. Most importantly, national population growth now is faster than it has been for many years, some due to P. Costello’s baby bonus but most to immigration. A large number of whom would be recent arrivals and unable to vote.
3. Birth rates were falling in the late 80’s and it is a diminishing cohort who are now joining the role
So, it is no surprise that the population is growing faster than the role.
Blackburnspeph:- yep blame the NT Government… for 11 years the Howard Government has done nothing and suddenly six months before an election it suddenly decides to act!!! Fair dinkum.. in 1996 the Howard Government using Beazleys’ Black Hole the Howard Government cut millions out of counselling services for drug and alcohol programs, health and education services and other social programs and why because it was some gimmicky economic bulldust called Beazleys’ black hole and because they simply are a racist government… oh but it is Clare Martins’ fault.. yep it may be a good thing now but where are counsellors, the teachers, health professionals and infrastructure in what this government is doing.. Blackburnspeph get your facts right pal…
Thanks Daryl – I didn’t know that.
I recall as a youngster seeing MHR used routinely and had wondered about the rise of the MP…
(It still irks me, even it if is correct usage).
Oh, and I’m still ok to hate it when used for State parliamentarians, right?
Rudd’s bipartisanship means the NT plan won’t be an election issue, unless something really goes wrong or Labor says something really stupid.
C- Woo.. With people like Swan, Conroy, Albanese and Smith that is distinct possibilty..