The latest semi-monthly Reuters Poll Trend figure, a weighted composite of results from Morgan, Newspoll and ACNielsen, continues the gentle trend back to the Coalition that has been evident since May. On the primary vote, Labor is down from 47.7 per cent to 46.9 per cent and the Coalition up from 39.5 per cent to 40.4 per cent. Kevin Rudd’s preferred prime minister rating is steady on 46.4 per cent, while John Howard’s is down from 40.5 per cent to 40.2 per cent.
Queensland amalgamations
1. This is very much a non – Brisbane issue (Brisbane amalgamations occurred in 1925 to create the giant BCC). So it will not resonate in seats like Bonner and Moreton which the ALP have to win and will. It causes problems for the ALP in seats such as Longman, Hinkler, Blair, Flynn which the ALP have a reasonable chance of winning and need to make up a decent majority.
2. The issue resonates in Queensland because local government is bigger, more powerful and more visible than in the other states. They do much more than collect garbage and repair footpaths.
3. Having done business in QLD, it is amazing how much government is involved in business and service delivery – the QLD govt still delivers services that have been privatised in other states or corporatised (i.e. there is still a big and powerful Public Works Dept in QLD).
4. The Kennett amalgamations were absolutely necessary – Victorian local government had completely ossified and there were a large number of very small units – did Geelong, Bendigo and Ballarat really need suburban councils? The system was stuck in the 19th century. NSW, for instance had a major amalgamation round in 1948. However, a major part of the regional backlash against Jeff Kennett was because of council amalgamation. The only deamalgmation in Victoria was between Benalla and Mansfield – promised in the 1999 or 2000 Benalla by election (won by the ALP after the Nats had held it since 1943). Lost to the Nats in 2002 and now held by an enourmous pre Kennett Nat majority.
So it is actually not an issue whose political effects can be underestimated.
Wonder whether rampant trashing of states rights had anything to do with the apparent slide in the Libs’ WA vote as per Westpoll last weekend. WA is one place where states rights is still a hot button issue, particularly among Lib voters. There are rusted on Libs over there who still havent forgiven Howard for killing another of their sacred cows – retrospective tax legislation – when he closed down the bottom of the harbour tax schemes in 1981. Howard certainly does and I bet this is one state he’ll leave right alone.
When I was up in Qld a couple of weeks ago I thought the amalgamations issue was actually going OK for Beattie given the difficulty of the task he’d taken on. The Curious Snail actually complimented him on his handling of it in an editorial. There are pockets of very vocal resistance but much of it (eg Darling Downs, Noosa) is not in winnable territory for Labor. Only seat where it could be decisive is Petrie because the Redcliffe peninsula is pretty parochial. Flynn will be decided by the vote in Gladstone – and I don’t think it’s not an issue there.
I think most people see the sense in amalgamations and the votes Howard is winning in those pockets of resistance may well be offset by lost votes elsewhere. I’m no great fan of the media tart but I suspect his timing has more to do with his own departure plans for next year and not wanting to give Anna Bligh a hospital pass. I think he genuinely had her and his legacy in mind because it will be long forgotten when they go into campaign mode in 2009.
That said, he’s probably underestimated how it would play into the federal campaign but there are few better tactical operators in politics and I suspect this has a way to run. My tip – Beattie and Rudd will patch up their differences post election and Beattie will be “rewarded” with a plum diplomatic post that takes him right out of play.
STROP Says:
August 16th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Do you get fined for not voting on a State or local council plebiscite ?
It depends if voting is compulsory. In WA State Polls are, local Govt Polls aren’t.
I don’t think John Howard is doing himself or the Liberal Party any good with these moves in QLD. I am sure he believes it will win him votes in QLD, but it will not do him much good anywhere else and I’m not convinced it will in QLD either.
This “nothing to lose” behaviour will backfire on him. He is far from Prime Ministerial and as has been mentioned before, is behaving like a shonky used car salesman, doing anything and saying anything, to get the sale.
Luckily for him, and unluckily for the Liberal Party, Peter Costello has badly damaged his standing within the party and so will have much less authority to rein in Howard.
Whilst those who desperately want to see the Coalition returned, will cheer anything Howard does, because they are viewing it through the prism of clever politics; the public at large will view it through the prism of desperate politics.
Hugh MacKay wrote something about this on Monday.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/drastic-measures-as-good-ship-howard-founders/2007/08/12/1186857342385.html
Murder on the stock exchange today. Down 5% currently.
Thank you Frank. I will check it out for QLD when I get a moment after ‘question time’.
workchoices referendums will presumably need to be launched by Labor leaning Qld councils – are there many of these? Could Brisbane’s ALP majority outmanoevre Campbell?
Strop,
Please give those of us who cant get to a TV the highlights of QT.
Oh and for those Political Junkies in WA, Access 31 (Community Television) have started showing WA Question Time each sitting day between 2-3pm WST.
And for those in the East, it is streamed in both audio and video formats at:
http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/web/newwebparl.nsf/iframewebpages/Legislative%2BAssembly%2B-%2BLive%2BBroadcast
bring on multimember electorates.
Give Maranoa and Fairfaix say 10 members to redress the balance in the regional QLD vote.
I see that Howard says he has legal advice that the Commonwealth does have the power to override the Queensland legislation (imposing fines on councils) and that Beattie says he has legal advice that there’s no basis for it.
I’d love to know the substance of the legal advice.
If the Commonwealth really does have the power to override this Queensland legislation, what State legislation is there that it doesn’t have the power to override?
[I’d love to know the substance of the legal advice.]
I think Howard is banking on the High Court Desicion on Workchjoices where it basically said that the Federal Govt can use Corporations Laws to override the states.
I may be wrong, and I’m sure someone will correct me if it’s o, or will clarify the situation.
I’ve got some real problems with my mother-in-law… not an uncommon issue amongst real Australians. I’d almost given up hope of having these problems resolved… Mr. Howard with his increasingly erratic forrays into all sorts of things which have never concerned him before has given me hope.
I’d like to call on Mr. Howard to intervene as a matter of urgency and solve once and for all my domestic problems. Specificaly, the overturning of my mother-in-law’s rights as an Australian citizen, and her immediate deportation. If Mr. Howard has the courage to do this… I’m sure he’ll get the votes of nearly all married men in Australia. That’s a hell of a prize Mr. Howard… think about it.
Don’t over-generalise from your own experience. My father loved his mother-in-law.
[If the Commonwealth really does have the power to override this Queensland legislation, what State legislation is there that it doesn’t have the power to override?]
The Commonwealth has had, since the Franklin Dams case, the power to overrule basically any State law via the External Affairs power. If the Commonwealth is a signatory to any treaty which is designed to (for example) provide that people have the right to vote in relation to governmental representation, this would form the basis for enacting a Commonwealth law overriding Qld legislation. There is almost no limitation to this (except where Commonwealth law actually prevented a State from governing – such as, for example, seeking to sack all State public servants).
Of course, the High Court could interpret that there is an implied limitation upon Commonwealth power under the External Affiars power which it has not yet discovered, but that would be a long-shot with a conservative High Court bench.
Historically the Coalition has been critical of using the External Affairs power like this but, as we know, things have changed.
Glen, you can obviously predict the future with absolute certainty – “The Coalition has a lot to thank Beattie for after all Rudd WILL get less than 6 seats on election day….” Tell me Glen do I come into a fortune in the near future? How about giving me next week’s winning tattslotto number. Noone else cheat now.
A good summary of what the constitution covers…
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200471h.html
“defence, posts and telegraphs, navigation, customs and excise, trade and commerce with other countries and among the States, currency, census and statistics, marriage and divorce, banking, insurance, weights and measures, immigration and emigration, copyright, fisheries, quarantine, naturalization, external affairs and treaties, the relations of the Commonwealth with the islands of the Pacific, conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State.”
Workchoices, affecting companies that have workers in more than one state, would seem to be affected there. Nothing, it would seem, to stop a referendum on rescinding workchoices to companies that don’t fit that criteria.
Could be wrong though. Sounds like some lawyers could earn a fair bit of cash arguing about it though. Probably why the entire front bench of the liberal party are lawyers.
I know the Commonwealth can override the States (that was established long before the Workchoices case), but about absolutely anything? Surely not? And how would this come under the corporations power? Do local councils count as corporations?
All very well if there is a relevant international treaty. But what international treaty would be relevant to this case?
[All very well if there is a relevant international treaty. But what international treaty would be relevant to this case?]
Well, if you look at Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:
(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;
(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.
There would be more than enough there I’d say.
[Well, if you look at Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:]
Conversely, Beattie can call a plebiscite on the Changes to the Federal Electoral Act in regards to the closing of the electoral rolls the same day an Election is called.
Bit of a Double Edged Sword that 🙂
Look, I’m not saying deport all mother-in-laws – just _my_ mother-in-law! It would however serve as a signal lesson to many mother-in-laws to curtail their interest in domestic terrorism. I also think it’d be a vote winner.
Mother-in-laws who have done nothing wrong, J-D, need fear nothing.
Mr. Howard please hear my cry for assistance. Only you can save me now!
[Conversely, Beattie can call a plebiscite on the Changes to the Federal Electoral Act]
But under our Constitution a Commonwealth law trumps a State law, so the Commonwealth could outlaw such a plediscite if it wished (which it wouldn’t, I would assume, for political reasons as the whole idea seems to be to create as much fuss as possible)
BV…
I don’t see anything there about firing the coucils en-masse. They still can, after all, vote out the people that initiated the change. Beattie was, after all, elected.
If you were talking about Howard having the ability to do it, of course he would. But Beattie would be equally within his (our) rights to call a referendum on the implementation of WorkChoices in QLD for any organization that didn’t have employees in other states.
[I don’t see anything there about firing the coucils en-masse. They still can, after all, vote out the people that initiated the change. Beattie was, after all, elected]
Not sure what you’re saying Pi?
I think people should put a bet on the election say 50 bucks but for the party you don’t want to win…for instance if you vote Labor put money on the Coalition and vice versa because in the chance that your preferred side doesn’t get in you can have something to be happy about and if you win…big whoop.
Costello won’t be Liberal leader now and that can only be a good thing.
If Turnbull gets it… well i wish i could see the look on Sophie Mirabella’s face.
Peter if the Libs lose i doubt Costello will lead the party he’ll most likely quit…thus leaving Turbull, Nelson and Bishop to fight it out and thus leaving Downer Ruddock and the rest of the old guard to take the position of Simon Crean harping on the Opposition front benches…though i wouldnt count Brough out on a leadership position depending on whether he’d been able to hold his seat.
BV Says:Not sure what you’re saying Pi?
I’m suggesting that the state government could reasonably create a law in QLD that effectively fires every council in QLD, and there’s nothing anyone could do about it.
It is, after all, a very similar reason as to why QLD has only one house of parliament.
I should have said ‘legislature’
John Rocket, are you the John Rocket who was the Labor candidate in Herbert in 1974 and 1975?
Glen,
Surely Brough can hold Longman on 6.7% with his high profile? Will that seat be affected by the council amalgamation issue?
“I’m suggesting that the state government could reasonably create a law in QLD that effectively fires every council in QLD, and there’s nothing anyone could do about it.”
Well, i would have to disagree – if the Commonwealth enacted a law outlawing such an act based upon the external affairs power it is likely to be upheld by the High Court and over-rule the State act.
The High Court has said that it will not judge the manner in which the Commonwealth seeks to enact a treaty as long as that is what it is doing.
Beattie vs Howard is the contest now, and I fully expect Beattie to make Howard wish he’d never entered the fray. Everyone in the media said Beattie was going to lose in 2001 after Labor parliamentary members were guilty of corruption; instead, Beattie only won 66 out of 89 seats, to the Nats 11 and the Libs 3, (yes, 3). Its one of my three favourite political memories.
Brough should hold onto his seat BenC you are correct but if it is a landslide like some posters have argued Mal could be swept aside…he is a promising politician for the Libs.
If the council amalgamation issue has any impact it will be to restrict Rudd’s gains in QLD if they do have an impact and its hard to tell whether they will make the election a lot closer be interesting to see an individual courier mail poll for the State’s federal voting intentions to see whether the Government has made up any ground…
At the very least, I think Rudd will be holding 8 seats in QLD after election day(the 6 he has already, + the gains of Bonner & Moreton).
Glen, are you suggesting Labor could lose every seat in QLD, even Rudd’s?
Another question: if the majority of councils to be abolished were controlled by the ALP, would the Liberals & Nats be making half as much fuss? I wonder…………
Beattie on Agenda on Sky News says his internal polling shows the overwhelming majority of Queenslanders support council mergers.
If this is true, John Howard just shot himself in the foot. The other question is why should the rest of Australias taxpayers pay for this?
Do you? I don’t. The Queensland legislation doesn’t take away any of those rights, so the Commonwealth legislation doesn’t seem to me to be directed at defending any of them.
But I guess we won’t know unless it gets argued in the High Court.
Which, I suppose, is a possibility.
If Howard is so concerned about preserving democracy, why didn’t the public get a vote on his Industrial Relations policies?
Once again, the rodent is more concerned about his own electoral survival, and is desperately hoping the issue of council amalgamations will magically win him 25 QLD seats.
BV Says: Well, i would have to disagree – if the Commonwealth enacted a law outlawing such an act based upon the external affairs power….
There is nothing about a council that would qualify as an ‘external affair’. Like I said… there’s a reason why QLD has only one house of parliament. Joh kept on running into the upper house with supply, so he abolished it. the upper house that is.
But surely the High Court wouldn’t agree that the Commonwealth can do anything it likes as long as the Commonwealth _says_ it is doing it to enact a treaty. (Compare the judgement in the Communist Party Dissolution case: the Commonwealth can’t ‘recite’ itself into new heads of power.) So the High Court would still have to decide whether such Commonwealth legislation was in fact an enactment of a treaty–and in the example here, I don’t see how it would be. There’s no international treaty I know of guaranteeing a system of local government.
Evan of course not Rudd will probably get Moreton and Bonner and perhaps 2 others making Labor end up with 10 QLD seats…but if it has an impact it will deny Rudd a swag of seats he needs to win Government.
Evan the point the Coalition is trying to make is that the Coalition is the only party able to stand up to the States if A) they stuff things up or B) they act inappropriately…it is a part of the narrative they are trying to develop and trying to paint Rudd as weak and indecisive…whether this will work is another matter entirely but it is a part of the Coalition’s electoral strategy…lord knows they are trying desperately to hold onto their ‘blue’ state of Queensland especially hard considering Rudd is a Queenslander…interestingly once Latham took over the ALP lost Stirling and Hasluck so it points to the importance of leaders and where they are from.
The Legislative Council of Queensland was abolished by the Labor Government led by Ted Theodore in 1922, when Bjelke-Petersen was eleven years old.
[The Queensland legislation doesn’t take away any of those rights, so the Commonwealth legislation doesn’t seem to me to be directed at defending any of them.]
As I said above, the High Court has said that it will not judge the manner in which the Commonwealth seeks to enact a treaty as long as that is what it is doing.
So the Commonwealth need only seek to “cover the field” in the ares: for example, outlawing all fines and terminations of position which are based upon the requesting of plebiscietes concerning local government “so as to allow citizens “to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives” as protected under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
That would probably do it.
Historically the ‘outer’ states (essentially WA and Queensland, but occasionally Tasmania) have long been suspicious of any Canberra intervention. Some of these traditions are fading, but this one may still survive. Howard is playing high risk politics.
Qld and WA are likely to resent intervention. Even allowing for local govt amalgamation resentment Beattie vs Howard may well pan out in Beattie’s favour. Labor might only gain 6 Qld seats instead of 9 or more, but I wouldn’t bank on it. The biggest bites against Workchoices are also in provincial and country areas where a denial of employee bargaining power really does threaten economic security – ie they can’t just walk out if they don’t like the ‘take it or leave it’ employer offer.
It will be interesting to watch the movement of QLD seats on Portland and Sportingbet. As yet no movement either way in any seat today or over the past few days.
Portland and Sportingbet have ALP favourites in Bonnor, Moreton and Blair with a few seats such as Herbert, Bowman and Hinkler very close.
I think Rudd would see 6 seats as a bonus, he would probably bank on 5 of these.
[There is nothing about a council that would qualify as an ‘external affair’. Like I said… there’s a reason why QLD has only one house of parliament.]
The council itself isn’t the external affair – the treaty is. (Just as the Franklin Dam wasn’t an external affair, the treaty was)
Also – the Commonwealth could presumably seek to prevent the removal of a house of parliament if it wanted via the same method outlined above, were it to happen today.
My dated memories of studying constitutional law tells me that the Commonwealth can use their ‘external powers’ to intervene in state Government affairs to an extent- there are limitations to that power.
For example, correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t it because the NT only has the status of a Commonwealth Territory that Howard was able to go in, bump the NT Government over to the side with barely a whimper, and introduce his radical Indigenous Intervention plan ?
Something tells me he would not have been able to do that to a State Government.
Ironically, we now have a national state Labor Party situation. Theoretically, the 6 member states could collaraboratively act to make things difficult for the Commonwealth.
It would go against the unspoken convention of Australian political protocol (not law) for the States to take any advantage of their collaborative powers as much as it goes against Australian political protocol (not law) for a Commonwealth Government to stick their nose into state politics as far as JWH has on this occasion.
It sets a dangerous precedent which offers any Federal Government a precedent from which it could choose to obstruct or hold to ransom any future state Government right to govern in the areas a state Government is elected and entitled to govern , including council amalgamations.
The Coalition is probably acting on good legal advise, but very poor long term political advise and even poorer election strategy advise. Where are people like Graeme when you need informed legal and constitutional interpretations. I know, they are probably at work. LOL.
[But surely the High Court wouldn’t agree that the Commonwealth can do anything it likes as long as the Commonwealth _says_ it is doing it to enact a treaty]
That’s the question though – Sir Harry Gibbs has previously said you could substitute the word “anything” for “external affairs” in the constitution, such is its breadth.
And the way the High Court read the Corporations Power in the workchoices case (saying that the Court would not read any implied limitations into powers) means that this is MORE likely to be so today.
I’m not saying that the High Court wouldn’t knock down an absolutely outlandish law but i don’t think, given the history of Franklin Dams etc that there would be much chance of the court kocking out a law outlawing fines for councils holding votes/
Actually Rudd doesn’t necessarily need a swag of Qld seats to win the election. If you look at the pendulum only Bonner and Moreton are in the first 16. But that assumes Labor win all the other 14, which include Bass and Braddon (for which we awaiting a post-intervention poll), Hasluck and Stirling (dubious at best), Bennelong and Wentworth (about which I remain sceptical), and Solomon and Dobell (about which I have heard nothing recently). I regard only Bonner, Moreton, Kingston, Wakefield, Makin, Parramatta, Lindsay and Eden-Monaro as likely Labor wins in the first 16. So Blair, Herbert, Longman and Petrie are vital seats in my opinion. It will be hard for Labor to win without them. (On present polling Labor would win Boothby and Sturt – that would reduce the number of Qld seats needed. So would winning La Trobe, which now seems possible. But these are more speculative.)