• Two comments on this site regarding the government’s Queensland council amalgamations gambit deserve wider exposure. Electoral law authority Associate Professor Graeme Orr anticipates legal hurdles for the proposal that the AEC conduct plebiscites over the head of the state government (UPDATE: Graeme clarifies this point in comments):
The Feds can appropriate money for broad purposes, so I assume they will try to package any legislation to enable this as purely a matter of bespoke expenditure (like the Hospital ‘intervention’). But legislate they must: the AEC currently has several functions under the Electoral Act, but none of them involves holding plebiscites, let alone on state issues. How the Feds will be able to override the clear State legislative prerogative to determine Council activities is unclear. Councils are created by State law, and can only act within that law. It may be Howard is just goading Beattie to go further and appear undemocratic, by restricting Councils abilities to co-operate with the AEC. Or it may be Howard will just pay the AEC to run some half-baked plebiscite across Qld on election day, that says ‘do you approve of council amalgamations’.
Anthony Llewellyn detects the influence of recent practice in the United States, where ballot initiatives have been used as a ploy to mobilise voters on polling day (also noted earlier by Optimist). The most famous example was a 2004 initiative providing for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, which was seen to have given the President a boost in the crucial swing state of Ohio.
• PortlandBet is running a blog noting developments in its comprehensive federal electorate betting market. Of particular interest is a shortening of odds on Labor’s Sid Sidebottom in Braddon after the government announced its Mersey Hospital intervention, famously described by indiscreet Tasmanian Liberal Senator Stephen Parry as “a disaster”. Taken in aggregate, the agency’s electorate-level odds point to a result of 75 Coalition, 73 Labor and two independents.
• Sydney residents of a particular political persuasion might like to note a free presentation from 6pm on Monday from US poll maven Vic Fingerhut, who boasts “four decades’ experience in polling for progressive political parties and unions”. Fingerhut will discuss “the anti-WorkChoices campaign in the context of other international campaigns, including the campaign against Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America” (not a successful campaign so far as the 1994 congressional elections were concerned, but you can’t win ’em all). Presented by the Walkley Foundation and the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (whose card-carrying members include me), those wishing to attend must RSVP by Friday. More info here.
Hey William, when is that Vic Fingerhut event? You’ve said the time, and the date to RSVP but it don’t say what date the event is held.
Sorry Ben, it’s on Monday. I’ve now cut all that detail and provided a link.
If the result turns out to be 75 Coalition, 73 ALP, and 2 independents, would that mean the government would be returned? Is that the most likely scenario?
Thanks for this William. Perhaps the lawyers can run interference and prevent the conflation of local and federal issues?
I’ve a had a few more hours to think about this (piece coming out in the Canberra Times tomorrow and maybe elsewhere). Howard can cash up the AEC to run all sorts of ballots: even for bridge clubs. Probably still needs a 1 page piece of legislation to confer such functions on the AEC.
What he can’t do is legislate to require Councils to participate, or people to vote. There just doesn’t seem to be any constitutional power to oblige anyone to do anything, as opposed to enabling legislation and dipping into a hollow log of current appropriations.
In short, at best these will be fairly meaningless straw polls.
Beattie on the other hand can go either of two ways. (1) appear even more undemocratic by punishing councils/councillors who formally engage in such polls. or (conversely) (2) backflip and organise compulsory plebiscites under rules set by Qld Parliament.
* In the event of a 75 / 73 / 2 Parliament, neither side could form a majority government (unless one side could persuade someone from the other side to become Speaker), and we would be off to the polls again.
* Genius Howard seems to have forgotten that while his Mersey Hospital stunt may gain some votes in Devonport, it will assuredly lose votes in Burnie, which will be shafted. Burnie (see my map http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/2007seats/braddon.shtml) is more of a Labor town than Devonport, and also has a long-running sense of grievance against Launceston and Devonport. (These things matter in Tasmania.) There are thus more votes for Labor to win there than there are to lose in more middle-class Devonport. That’s why Parry (who is based in Burnie) called the decision a disaster.
When I say “In the event of a 75 / 73 / 2 Parliament, neither side could form a majority government,” that assumes that Windsor and Katter supported Labor. If they supported the Coalition then of course they would have 77 votes. But Windsor and the Nats hate each other so much I’m sure he would take pleasure in putting them out, and Katter would probably go along (though he is totally unpredictable).
Graeme, during the 1994 council amalgamations in South Australia, the AEC conducted a ballot for Wakefield Council on whether it should amalgamate. Now, I presume that the Council paid, and the AEC can conduct sundry ballots if paid. So it might be possible for the government to pick up the tab for such an election done on a commercial basis. But by this method, the councils would have to get the AEC to conduct the ballot. And once the councils are amalgamated with the passage of the bill, I suspect that is much less likely.
Thanks for the background Antony. Yes, most local government acts provide for Councils taking indicative polls on a range of issues. And yes, under section 7A of the Cth Electoral Act the AEC is already empowered to offer electoral ‘services’ for a ‘reasonable’ fee: just like PriceWaterhouse and the other accounting firms that run private elections for companies. Under the almost unlimited appropriations power, Howard can just reach into a hollow log and provide councils with the AEC’s fee.
But Beattie is threatening fines for councillors who seek to organise such plebiscites, and could legislate if needed to ban councils asking for such a plebiscite.
In which case I surmise Howard would need to formally legislate to ensure voluntary ballots go ahead. No problem if he is determined to plow ahead with this folly/clever stunt: Barnaby will back him 100% on it. (And setting them on federal election day guarantees a high turnout even if the ballots were honest and said ‘not compulsory/indicative only’ like some overblown online poll).
But the Feds only legislative power would be to give the AEC an ad hoc, voluntary function in this regard. Such a function may only be valid where it is sufficiently incidental to its existence (which owes itself to the federal electoral power and possibly external affairs). I doubt the Feds have any power to trump State law restricting what councils/llors can get involved in. But as others have said, Beattie might be wiser to compromise than to put on bigger jackboots.
ps – ironic that Howard as Leader of the Opposition in 1988 helped scuttle the Constitutional Alteration (Local Government) Bill that would at least have entrenched local government under the federal constitution.
The NT Statehood referendum in 1998 was held on same day as Federal election. I do not know under what power or Act, and whether it was under Territory or Federal legislation.
Given the Electoral Commission and Commissioner has some statutory independence, I think any attempt to legislate forcing the AEC to hold a referendum might produce a little outburst of independence. The Commissioner does have several years to run under his contract.
I note some have referred to Herbert as one seat where the mergers could be critical. I find that hard to believe. I don’t believe that voters are going to get het up about Townsville and Thuringowa being amalgamated. The boundary between the two councils makes no sense whatsoever.
Antony,
What seats do you believe that the outcome may be affected by the council amalgamation vote?
Since when does anything in Queensland have to make sense?
A cartographic marathon. Now you too can know how they voted in Useless Loop.
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/2007seats/kalgoorlie.shtml
Remind me not to have this idea again.
I’d have to check on the basis of the NT referendum. Section 394 of the Cth Electoral Act prevents State/Territory polls on federal polling day except with the authority of the GG. (Nb the Feds have total power over the Territories, so it wouldn’t have been a problem for them to organise the statehood referendum in any way they wished).
The rule against mixing State and Federal polls is a fair principle, and one that Howard’s proposal insults.
My guess is that the plebiscite stunt is designed to shore up a 3rd Senate seat, especially for the Nats. I’ve not been following the psephology, but I’d guess of the winnable Qld seats for Labor, only Blair, Longman and Hinkler would take in many regional Shires.
I always know the result in Useless Loop. It is always one of the first booths in in Western Australia.
Yes, Antony, but you know everything. I was talking to (relatively) ordinary folk.
OK smartypants, without looking: in which Kalgoorlie booth did Labor poll 1 (one) vote?
I think Labor has been looking longingly at Leichhardt and Flynn as well.
At the risk of boring everyone but Antony, after a quick scan of legislative databases, I’d say the NT Statehood Referendum was formally run by the NT Chief Electoral Officer (as he was then known) under their Referendums Act. But with background agreement with the Cth and AEC resources effectively running it. And the GG’s approval for the dates to coincide.
My guess is the seats with the most heat will be Leichhardt (Douglas), Wide Bay (Noosa), Flynn and Capricornia where some of the the central Queensland amalgamations are, and Petrie (Redcliffe). Other angry areas like Toowoomba are in very safe seat.
If Howard could arrange for these local council plebiscites to be held on the day of the Federal election, the assumption seems to be that the Labor vote would suffer and the Coalition vote would benefit.
There is a historical counter-example (going back a long time). In 1933 WA voted to secede from the Commonwealth by an over 2 to 1 margin, yet they also voted to elect the anti-secessionist ALP at the simultaneously held state election. The pro-secession government of James Mitchell was so comprehensively rejected that the Premier even lost his own seat.
Yes it was a long time ago and during the Great Depression – but it also suggests people can seperate different ballots when they vote (BTW the secession vote was compulsory).
I don’t know. I don’t know the result in Useless loop either. On the night, I just get matched booth comparison totals of this election with the last. I don’t actually need to know any booth results. But I’ll let you in to a trick about television. Just being able to name which booths are in make you sound very knowledgable. But I would be completely wasting my time actually looking at any booth results. In the ABC computer, I store the historical votes for booths in a small number of electorates,just so I can know the booth names. But on the night, we don’t get booth results. I always call elections without knowing booth results. You just need to know the current percentage, and the percentage in the same booths last time. It removes all the bias from the estimator and allows an accurate prediction.
Either that or sit next to Robert Ray. He knows the results of all elections by mid-afternoon on polling day.
Ah yes, Robert Ray. He came out of TV retirement to work with us on the 1996 Victorian election, when Steve Bracks and Ted Bailieu were our political panelists. Mind you, that was not a very hard election to call.
BTW Adam, I’m Melbourne on 6 September for a Melbourne Press Club function if you feel like lunch.
I don’t know if this is poor form or not … but does anyone know if the group voting tickets from 2004 are available in spreadsheet form anywhere? I really want to plug them into my calculator and see what happens!
I always feel like lunch, especially on my birthday. Email me.
Dembo, if you can find the candidate names, this will probably be the easiest way of getting the tickets.
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/guide/groupvotingtickets.htm
Hey! Thanks Antony! That’s a HUGE help. I have the names from the PDF provided by the AEC, so it should be easy(!) to match up.
If its ALP 75 seats, Coalition 73 and 2 independents, thats a win.
One of the independents would be given the job as speaker (which i’m sure they would not refuse!!) They could even do that without needing to guarantee labor supply.
Once one of the independents were made speaker, Labor would have 75 votes to 74 (73+1), and would thus form government. (The speaker only gets to vote in a tied vote.)
Likewise if its 73 ALP / 75 Coalition / 2 Ind, then of course the coalition could make one of the independents speaker, and would govern.
Assuming the election of the 2 Independents the only situation where it would not be a clear result is if it was 74 ALP, 74 Coalition.
In this case it would depend on the independents, and while they are conservative, they would likely be looking at the 2PP vote as a guide as to what to do.
Adam, the links to the maps are broken (kalgoorliebig1.shtml file refers to kalgoorlie1big.gifnot kalgoorliebig1.gif like it should) (and similarly for 2)
Adam
I mentioned on a previous thread, but couldn’t the state governments run their own plebecites in regards to Work Choices on election day if they wished.
The Commonwealth Electoral Act can prevent states holding elections the same day, and from memory, the Federal law trumps the state law. Graeme Orr would know the detail better. But even if the states tried that, the Commonwealth can deny the state electoral authorities access to the Federal polling booths.
I’m trying to fix the Kalgoorlie maps now 🙁
OK they are working now
Peter Beattie, very impressive on Lateline.
Howard made an error picking a fight with the QLD Premier.
You’ve got to wonder if the rodent has already lost it: his behaviour is becoming more and more erratic.
Apparently, he’s campaigning in Noosa on Friday – in a safe Liberal seat.
Thanks Antony
I would not like to see the states do it anyway as it could decend into a farce of multiple plebicites from the Federal and state governments.
Though I would like one government to suggest it just to stir up Howard and get a reaction.
Frank, I can’t rememeber (or quickly find) the relevant provision, but Commonwealth law prevents the states holding genereal elections or by-elections on the same day as a commonwealth election. If for some reason that doesn’t apply to referendums, the AEC would deny co-operation, the state Electoral Authority would then have to organise its own seperate poll. That means hiring all its own staff for the duplicate poll, rather hard to find when most usual staff will already be working on the federal poll. It isn’t going to happen as it would just cause massive confusion. What the Unions need is to win the election, not win a meaningless referendum, so you can bet they would all want to work as booth workers on the general election as well.
I don’t understand how there can be a vote on whether or not to merge a council when the council has already been merged via an act of parliament. Doesn’t that mean the council no longer exists, how can there then be a vote about something that doesn’t exist?
Antony, what is your e-mail address? I organise guest speaker events for the Melbourne University Political Interest Society – we’re a non-partisan club for politically engaged students – and if you are willing I think you’d be a wonderful guest if we could match it up with a date when you were in Melbourne.
In a showdown between Beattie and Howard I know who I would back. Remember Gough v Joh.
Section 394
No State referendum or vote to be held on polling day
(1) On the day appointed as polling day for an election of the Senate or a general election of the House of Representatives, no election or referendum or vote of the electors of a State or part of a State shall, without the authority of the Governor‑General, be held or taken under a law of the State.
Charlie, I’m in Melbourne on 6 September. You can contact me through the ABC. If the Swans are playing in Melbourne that weekend (hopefully they’ll have a final in Sydney), I might stay on.
Antony, you warm this Swans tragic’s heart. 🙂 I reckon we will sneak into fourth and play Geelong at the MCG that weekend. I will e-mail you and find out if we can organise something. Thanks.
Interesting analogy Adam. Joh was the winner by a long way – I presume you would pick Beattie in this fight.
There was a new Govenor appointed in South Australia yesterday, but I didn’t get a vote on who was selected. I hope the Prime Minister remedies this by having the AEC intervene to enable democracy to operate more effectively.
Why would state government’s try to do anything in the months leading up to the election? They run the risk of the government scoring political points out of any tought decision they dare to make.
According to The Oz, the saw millin Eden-Monaro lost the government contract because they didn’t open a new saw mill, even though that was a condition they had with the government.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22213431-11949,00.html
But it’s election time, so the government turns into socialists in a desperate bid to win the seat. Matt Price is right, we should arrange with our friends to vote exactly 50/50 in this election so that we can all be in marginal seats, and thus all have the ability to get hand outs from the government. I mean, who cares about what’s good for the country.
Re Adam, post #6:
I thought Tony Windsor’s enmity was with John Anderson, rather than the National Party.
Windsor has supported a minority Coalition government once before.
Has any poll been conducted up in Qld to actually ascertain just how unpopular the amalgamation plan is? Is there anyone in favor of it, except for Beattie?
In the past Councils threatened by amalgamations have sometimes organised polls which always recorded strong majorities against amalgamations (on low turnouts). This happened when NSW Labor govts proposed amalgamations in the 1950s. Amalgamations are unpopualr in a vagie motherhood sense for most voters, but they may have more impact in small towns where council office is centre of town and a significant employer. On the hung parliament scenario: Howard would remain in power unless there were the numbers for a no-confidence motion, this seems unlikely and the govt would just take each bill one at a time. In 1970 the Swedish parliament was split 50:50 between left and right, the Social Democrats remained in office and on the rare occasions of a tied vote it was resolved in the negative (or maybe by tossing a coin?).
Pseph
In the spirit of your silly question, one answer would be “Yes. Those higher echelon LGA officials who will not be made redundant and who will earn much more managing larger financially viable organisations”.
Try to some research as to why these amalgamations make sense as they did in Victoria and NSW. It’s easy. Simply go to Wikipedia and look up
.
There you will find that in the first place is not all Councils are in line for the chop. Reading on you will find that some of the shires in line for amalgamation have tiny populations where the sole functions are really collecting rates, repairing a few roads, managing a few effectively derelict halls and holding council meetings. Oh and giving a few glory seeking cane toads the opportunity to ponce around with the honorific “Mayor” or “Shire President”.
Even the much vaunted Douglas Shire Council has a population of less than 12000 (2006) and relatively few of them are actually ratepayers.
Closer to Brisbane Esk has a population of less than 16000 and yet there are 11 elected Councillors. Compare and contrast this with (say) Blacktown with a population of 270000 and 15 elected Councillors.
A lot of the multitude of pocket borough politicians are there by dint of an uncontested election – there is such little interest in the council and its functions that they actually often have to scratch around to get people to nominate.
That is not democracy. It is not good management of taxpayers funds.
Beattie’s error is that he is doing the amalgamations in one fell swoop unlike in NSW where in the last 25 years in NSW the excercise has been done piecemeal with some LGAs going through multiple amalgamations. Nobody in their right minds would suggest that the replacement of dozens of “roads and pothole repair” LGAs with larger financially viable councils based on regional areas of common interest has revitalised both the management of the areas and in fact the politics.