Grattan says:
JOHN Howard now appears seriously under threat in his seat of Bennelong, according to Liberal sources. As the Government is hit by more bad polls, the Prime Minister’s electorate, where Labor’s Maxine McKew is challenging, is considered by Liberals to be in greater danger than Malcolm Turnbull’s Wentworth.
Author: William Bowe
William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.
View all posts by William Bowe
However a half-Senate election cannot be called at will. In the absence of a DD, the terms of the Senators elected in 2004 will not expire until 30 June 2011, and a half-Senate election cannot be called any earlier than 1 July 2010.
Martin,
I thought you could call a half-senate election at any time, but the consequence was the subsequent re-election for those senators was then always out of step with the HOR election?
So that after July 1 2008, if Labor won, they could call a helf-senate election for those senators that were elected in 2004 for anytime after that? Please correct me if I am wrong!!
‘Seen as’ is ambiguous. ‘Seen’ _by whom_? Adam referred to ‘the entire population of Australia’. You refer to ‘overwhelming public support’. Those are two different things: you are probably (literally) right, and Adam probably (literally) wasn’t. Even in the 1950s I would bet that there were _some_ people in Australia who objected to the White Australia Policy as racist, and by the 1960s (when Calwell was leader) I would bet there were significantly more.
Please note, since the discussion may raise hackles, that so far as I am concerned, this is not about condemning Calwell, or the supporters of the White Australia Policy, or the Australian population, or the bulk of it, or indeed anybody. I’m not much into condemnation. But I stand by the assertions of fact I have made.
My pleasure. You are wrong. Martin B is exactly correct. The proposal made by WhoGivesaRats appears to be based on exactly the same mistake as yours.
Section 13 of the Constitution [note that the references to a ‘dissolution’ of the Senate relate to what we call ‘double dissolutions’, a term which does not appear in those words in the text of the Constitution]:
As soon as may be after the Senate first meets, and after each first meeting of the Senate following a dissolution thereof, the Senate shall divide the senators chosen for each State into two classes, as nearly equal in number as practicable; and the places of the senators of the first class shall become vacant at the expiration of three years, and the places of those of the second class at the expiration of six years, from the beginning of their term of service; and afterwards the places of senators shall become vacant at the expiration of six years from the beginning of their term of service.
The election to fill vacant places shall be made within one year before the places are to become vacant.
For the purposes of this section the term of service of a senator shall be taken to begin on the first day of July following the day of his election, except in the cases of the first election and of the election next after any dissolution of the Senate, when it shall be taken to begin on the first day of July preceding the day of his election.
Martin B,
I stand corrected and maybe over the years I have missed some changes to the electoral laws but I was under the impression that your assertion applies if the elections to the house of reps and the senate are to be kept in sync.
Now I know that since Whitlam’s/ Frazer’s DD the elections in 75 the Senate and the HoR have been in sync but this does not mean that they have to be.
In support of my erroneous understanding of this matter was the dismissal of the Whitlam Government in 75.
On the 18 May 74 the Whitlam Government was elected
On the 13 December 75 the Frazer Government was elected following the dismissal on 11 November.
One of the options opened to Whitlam prior to the dismissal was a half Senate election and Whitlam was actually on his way to advise Kerr of this when Kerr got in first and dismissed him resulting in a DD election.
The time between the election of the senate and the subsequent aborted half senate election would have been approx 18-19 months and well within the time limits outlined by you.
However, following you post I did a little more research and found this article that supports your argument.
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2001-02/02rn38.htm
What this does is make Senators a protected species while those in the HoR are sitting ducks. It also results in the Government of the day being held to ramson by a hostile Senate without those Senators, obstructing the Government’s programme, putting their Seats on the line short of a DD.
Ben C
That was my impression as well but the link above supports the views put forward by Martin B
Thank you for your interest and comments.
Thanks J-D, I appreciate the correction.
I voted for Hawke back in ’83 so a change of government wont worry me.
Living in SE Queensland however sees us reeling from a lack of water, gridlocked roads, a poor health service and questionable education standards.
We have had a labour govt. for years.
I can’t get excited this time around. The different parties are as bad as each other.
About what happened with the Whitlam Government:
The election of May 1974 was a double dissolution. That meant that the terms of the Senators elected then were treated as running from the previous 1 July (1973). That meant that half of them would have terms expiring on 30 June 1979 and half of them terms expiring on 30 June 1976. And that created the requirement for a half-Senate election in the year beginning 1 July 1975. The exact timing within that year could have been determined by the Government (but of course the 1975 double dissolution made all that moot).
There were some further intricacies in that situation, but as they are of purely historical interest I won’t go into them.
JD is presumably referring to the fact that the control of the Senate had been engineered by two casual vacancies on the ALP side one of which was not filled (by NSW) and one of which was filled by an anti-Whitlam candidate (Qld).
These two casual vacancies would have been filled at the suceeding half-senate election and take their places immediately, so even though most Senators elected at a half Senate election in late 75 wouldn’t take their seats until July 1 1976, Whitlam had reasonable prospects of regaining control of the Senate (on the Supply isue, since the independents had voted with the government) immediately.
The araldite that has kept rodent attached to the seat beyond his welcome is turning to acid and is about to burn the old bugger’s bum off.
Swordfish (August 28th, 2007 at 12:14 pm),
I spent 33 years as a teacher. I never met any “cultural Marxists†in Victorian education. I did meet one teacher who claimed to be a Marxist (non-cultural variety), but he was too intelligent for me to believe him.
I think on balance that Labor’s IR Policy is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. It may not please everyone in its transition stage, but I see its major attribute as a clear intention to allay community fear, experienced not only under the Work Choices legislation.
Cynicism in some quarters over the extant nature of existing AWA’s seems to me to reflect inadequate analysis of the policy and failure to appreciate the difficulties inherent in unravelling Work Choices. Julia Gillard Lateline 28/9/07.
I await a response to my email to the ALP asking whether there is anything in the policy (or even Work Choices) in principle to prevent an individual and employer from renegotiating an existing AWA.
Understood, of course, that fear and a sense of powerlessness under the existing legislation would impede an individual or collective approach to an employer exercising disregard for appropriate conditions, recompense or adherence to proper safeguards in the workplace.
Whatever the response to my email, surely contracts can be renegotiated? Contracts are not set in impregnable cement,are they? People are free to seek a different job, knowing under Labor that they need not be subject to an unreasonable AWA.
Under Labor policy, it looks to me that implementation of the safeguards, protections and the Commission will much reduce the element of fear in the workforce. It seems too that the smaller employer has nothing to fear, if exercising reason, fairness and perhaps even Howard’s precept of mutual obligation. The more militant unions may have reason to be annoyed, but not fearful. Some in Big Business may stamp and pout. I fear they are shamming.
Fear has become Howard’s constant weapon. What he seems not to realise is that fear whipped up and exploited in respect of refugees, terror realities or possibilities, Mersey Hospital and now even Unions has a transitory effect.
Not transitory is fear under Work Choices. Nor is it diminished in contemplation of what may come if he is afforded a mandate, as he would claim, in the event of re election. Not confined to Work Choices.
Fear though, is something few of us enjoy as an ongoing experience. The natural response is a wish to be free of it.
Sadly, some employers have received the Howard fear factor as a signal to create it in the workplace.
Release from fear and a return to fairness is, I believe, the signal Kevin Rudd intends to send. And not only in the workplace.
This is the message it would appear the polled and others are hearing and heeding.
Crikey
As Rudd says, labor’s IR policy returns balance to the workplace, both the unions and the employers have laws to respect and both have laws to follow and adhere to.
The NSW vacancy _was_ filled, with the ‘politically neuter’ Mayor of Albury, Cleaver Bunton. Senator Bunton did consistently voted with the Government in the 1975 supply crisis, so his appointment did not directly affect what happened then, but it could be interpreted as a precedent for the Queensland appointment of A P ‘Pat’ Field, who did _not_ support the Government.
Under the current provisions of the Constitution, persons appointed to casual Senate vacancies serve the full balance of the terms of the
Senators they were appointed to replace, but that has only been true since the 1977 amendment requiring that casual vacancies be filled by somebody from the same party. Under the original provisions, still in force in 1975, persons appointed to casual vacancies served only until the next half-Senate or House of Representatives election, and the successful candidate at that election would then take the seat immediately and the position would therefore be voted on at that election even if the normal six-year or three-year term had not expired. An example: Senator Shane Paltridge of WA died in 1966. Reg Withers was appointed to fill the casual vacancy, but not for the full balance of Paltridge’s term, only until the next election. That election was the 1966 House of Representatives election. No half-Senate election was due then, and hence none was held, but there was an election for one Senate position in WA. Withers was beaten at that election by Labor’s Lawrence Wilkinson, who then served the unexpired balance of Paltridge’s original term.
Thus, if a half-Senate election had been held in 1975, it would have resulted in the immediate replacement of Bunton and Field, even though the Senators elected would otherwise not have begun their terms until 1 July 1976.
1975 was also the first year in which the Territories were entitled to Senate representation, so a 1975 half-Senate election would have produced the first Territory Senators, who would have taken their seats at once, not waiting until 1 July 1976.
marky marky says Says:here we have the labor party having to cow towel
This isn’t a criticism. Just letting you know that the word is ‘kowtow’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowtow
Adam,
Way back at #357, you referred to the 1969 election, and mentioned Labor gaining Corio. It’s a pedantic point as it was a gain compared to 1966. However, the seat went Labor at a 1967 by-election, won by Gordon Scholes, occasioned by the retirement of Sir Hubert Opperman who became a diplomat (Ambassador to Malta, iirc). Oppy, the former champion cyclist had barely survived a challenge by Bob Hawke in 1963. Scholes was one of several Whitlam by-election successes which were crucial building blocks for his reputed campaigning prowess, and for his defence in intra-party stoushes.
You also mentioned some of Labor’s surprise gains in ’69. Riverina was due to Al Grassby, who had been a State Member in the area. He achieved swings of close to 20% to win his State seat, and then Riverina. Forrest was a fluke based on DLP hostility to Defence (?) Minister Gordon Freeth’s musings which suggested he wasn’t phased about Soviet warships in the Indian Ocean. Phil Robins has previously mentioned something about the circumstances of Norm Foster’s victory in Sturt – which was virtually owned for the Liberal and Country League (that was the SA formulation of the conservatives) by the Wilson family father and son. I don’t recall PR’s detailed story, but at the time, with Dunstan on the rise, SA was very favourably inclined towards Labor.
My speculation on Arthur Calwell’s “racism”* is that his statements on the subject became progressively more strident because of his hostility to Whitlam, for whom abandonment of the White Australia Policy was an important theme policy. Arthur, of course didn’t write “Labor’s Role in Modern Society”, although it is pretty clear that Graham Freudenberg did his usual brilliant job of articulating his principal’s political position.
I think a lot of you ALP and Lefty types have missed the point re Bennelong. Whilst I’m sure the polls don’t look too good for the Libs right now, at the end of the day, voters will need to make a choice…
Will Bennelong residents vote for a socialist from the ABC?
Will they choose an untried celebrity over someone with experience who has delivered for the electorate?
Will they opt for a candidate who says very little about what she’ll do for the electorate if elected?
I’d argue that if Mckew seriously wants to win this seat, she will need to make inroads into the blue ribbon suburbs within the electorate that Bennelong Resident talks about…..Putney, East Ryde, Epping & Carlingford. I see that she has a few posters up around these suburbs now but she’ll need to do much more than that to win the seat. She obviously has Ermington, West Ryde and Gladesville locked up but to win the seat, Labor will need to carry booths in the blue ribbon suburbs to claim it. The residents in the “blue” suburbs are generally those of an older generation who can remember what happened to Australia last time the ALP were in power. What focuses these people is the issue of the economy and the country’s overall economic future, not the lefty/socialist issues that McKew is campaigning on.
For example, her two forums were only attended by the faithful and other Lefty types – she basically had no swingers at them and certainly no one from the substantial Asian community within the seat.
I was doing my shopping at North Ryde yesterday and noticed that Howard’s people were out there campaigning so the Libs obviously have a plan to retain the seat, as opposed to the s%^& mentioned above