Tasmanian pollsters EMRS have produced a survey of state voting intention from 1002 respondents which provides all kinds of bad news for Premier Paul Lennon. Support for Labor is down to 33 per cent from 39 per cent at the previous survey in March (and from 49.6 per cent at the March 2006 election), while the Liberals are up to 42 per cent from 37 per cent (31.9 per cent at the election). The Greens are steady on 22 per cent (16.2 per cent at the election). Worse still, a question on preferred premier has Liberal leader Will Hodgman on 39 per cent against 17 per cent for Paul Lennon, who is barely ahead of Greens leader Peg Putt (14 per cent). The agency has gone against its usual practice in failing to break the results down by electorate. Apple isle pundit Peter Tucker has more.
UPDATE (26/5/08): Lennon quits.
I think Labor will get alot less green preferences than in the past. I think those liberal supporters out there should be careful what they wish for as Lennon might end up getting rolled if this keeps up.
Scotty, Tassie uses a complex proportional voting system, thus 2PP is irrelevant. If this result were the election outcome, Greens would hold balance of power, with Libs having more seats than Labor.
Yes. But what happens when those greens reach their quota and dont have enough for a second mp? i did not mean to imply anything about the 2 PP before and if you look again i said nothing about that. Do preferances matter in the senate? Yes.
Hare Calrk is complicated, and I don’t profess to know it in detail. But here goes.
Firstly, for any candidate who scores a quota in their own right, they are declared elected and their surplus (that vote over a quota) distributed at a fraction according to the second preferences.
Then the candidate with the lowest primary votes is excluded, and preference distributed at full value. This exclusion from the bottom goes on until five candidates have a quota.
With regards to Scotty’s query at #3, the quota is not with the party, it is with the individual candidate. Party quotas are published for information, but can be misleading. But, generally, there is a strong flow of preferences along the party ticket. So, using Scotty’s example of the Greens totaling over a quota, the preferences of the remaining Green candidates are distributed like everyone else’s. Tasmania has partial preferential voting where electors are required to mark at least five preferences, but can stop there. The three major parties always nominate at least five candidates per seat, so their supporters can mark 1-5 down the party ticket and not need to go further to other party’s candidates. In cases where the ballot paper cannot be distributed further because the elector has chosen to limit their numbering, then that ballot exhausts.
More here http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/tpl/backg/HAElections.htm.
Just as well the next Tasmanian election is not due until 2010. Can Labor survive?
Peter Tucker
Yes it does appear very complicated and i do not pretend to know all the details. And im sure you would proably know the most here. I was suggesting more about the voters themselves and to not expect things as previous Tasmanian elections necesarily.
“Tasmania has partial preferential voting where electors are required to mark at least five preferences, but can stop there.” Am guessing this will probably increase a littel also. But this is specualtion on my part. Im not commenting on what i think the results of this would be.
Peter (or any other Tassie locals out there),
How likely do you think it is that the Greens would support a minority Liberal government if the Libs got more seats than Labor? Or would they oppose it for ideological reasons? That is, would the Liberals need to score a majority in their own right (pretty unlikely from their current position) to win government?
And is Paul Lennon really that unpopular, and any insight as to why? He thumped the Libs in 2006 so he can’t be that unelectable.
these figures understate the labor vote & overstate the liberal and green vote
however the quota for a seat in any one of the 5 multi member electorates is
1/6 ie a little over 16.% …. these figures suggest a hung parliament
what becomes interesting then is who governs
the Field minority government was a disaster
would either labor or liberal wish to govern in minority? I suspect not
“And is Paul Lennon really that unpopular, and any insight as to why? He thumped the Libs in 2006 so he can’t be that unelectable.”
Perhaps because of the pulp mill ?
Glenn @ 9
May i introduce you to our two previous deputy premiers
http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,23367026-921,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,23510598-921,00.html
There have been alot of problems comming from the education department, we have some of the crappest internet in the country. They are increasing the price of electricity a fair bit.
http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,23663910-3462,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,22846935-3462,00.html
http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/tas/content/2006/s1978083.htm
Well Scotty. Your power price is going up because your now importing coal generated power from the mainland. You had a state electricity commission that was building dams so you could have cheap renewable energy, but that was brought to an end by the greens. Yet the greens have a large percentage of the vote.
Not much seems to change in Tassie. A generation or so back it was the HEC running the show and the uncharismatic ” Electric Eric” Reece danciing to their tune.
Now we have Gunns calling the shots, and Lennon jumping to oblige.
If anything I might’ve preferred the former. Some pristine forests and lakes were shamelessly wrecked or threatened but at least there was no release of chemicals or woodchipping.
Lennon unpopular? He has the most revolting moustache this side of John Boulton. Surely that is excuse enough to dump him.
In my opinion, Lennon’s the worst of the Labor premiers. Even though I’m a Labor supporter, I won’t be sorry to see him go.
Charles,
The Tasmanian power system is not as simple as you describe. The state buys coal fired power from the mainland when it is cheap to save its stored water, but also sells hydro-power back. With a national grid, it is all about the timing of power and it’s spot price. Like the Snowy Hydro, the Tasmanian system does a lot of futures trading in back-up power, making money out of being able to turn its plants on and off quickly and reliably.
Tasmania has two types of power plants, constant flow plants which provide most of the power when rain is plentiful and generally power the grid, and the storage systems that generate power in the drier summer season from stored water. The vast increase in storage systems with the Gordon and Pedder schemes was developed after the droughts of the 1960s hit the state’s power supply.
In winter, when the rain is plentiful, Tasmania has excess power and sells it to the mainland at peak times and does well out of it financially.
The dams the Greenies stopped were further stored water systems. You can’t use those dams to generate power all the time. Dams like Lake Pedder don’t actually generate power, but are used as storage systems to maintain the level of dams that do generate power. But building more and more dams to provide security of supply comes at a huge financial cost, as Tasmania found out in the late 1980s as it struggled with the debt from building too many dams that didn’t generate income.
#13 Lord D
I concur, just because one is a Labor voter doesn’t mean we should have to accept rubbish like Lennon (and Iemma). The other state premiers are OK tho.
William,
Can I suggest that you consider starting a thread on the Australian Joint Standing committee on electoral Matters – 2007 Federal Elections
The committee is currently reviewing the 2007 Federal Elections.
The Parliamentary web site can be found Here
One of the Issues I have placed on the agenda is the need to review the method used by the Australian Government in calculating the Australian Senate Surplus Transfer value and the method used in counting the ballot
The method of calculating the Surplus Transfer value MUST be based on the value of the vote and not the number of Ballot papers (See submission)
The other option I would like to see adopted is a reiterative counting system where the count is restarted on the exclusion of candidates the count continues until all vacant positions are filled without the need for further exclusions.
The current system was designed in the early 20th century to facilitate a manual count. With the use of electronic computerized counting it is possible to review the system used to ensure that the count reflects accurately the one vote one value principle and true proportionality of the ballot. The current system has serious errors built-in to the system that distorts the value and results of the election.
Hopefully the Joint Standing Committee will address these issues and adopt the recommendation contained in my submission.
This issue not only e3ffects the senate election but also other multi-member public elections as most tend to adopt the Australian Senate system. the distortion in the counting system currently used is more prevalent in those election where above the line party voting is not used. Ideally this should Abe address prior to the 2008 Victorian Municipal elections. Tis review is also of interest to State elections (Including Tasmania)
I would welcome any constructive discussion and debate on this issue
A specific thread of that kind would not generate much interest (at least, not at this stage) – those wishing to comment on any aspect of federal politics can do so on the federal polling threads. Please keep state threads on topic. Thank you.
Lennon to quit!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/26/2255131.htm
What’s the new guy like?
He’s going to quit on 17%, but Nelson still hangs on when he’s in single figures!
Anyway, I’ve just moved to Tassie, and having tried to dip my toes in the political climate down here in the last few weeks, I can say that it’s probably the first time I’ve ever felt I wouldn’t mind seeing the Liberals elected. I don’t know if I should feel that way, I just can’t help feeling they couldn’t possibly be any worse than the Lennon government.
(Posted from a 40kbps dial-up connection because, 15 minutes from Hobart, it’s the only internet connection I have short of putting a whopping great satellite dish on my roof.)
My guess is he’s a Gunns lovin’ politician
One assumes that the Libs are equally pro-Gunns, based on past form – can anyone with a bit of Tasmanian knowledge enlighten us as to where the Libs (and the likely new Labor leader) stand with respect to Gunns?
One positive: Lennon going is a sure sign the pulp mill is dead in the water. ANZ would be mad to fund it at this point.
Is this Labor’s first 3rd generation premiership succession?
Blair S. Fairman @ 19
He is comparitvley young at 40 and to ambitious for his own good. Was the education minister and focused more on becoming premier then he ever did on his brief period as minister. Very smug!
THe pulp mill will go ahead. Nobody cares about that anymore except for people on the west tamar and a rabble of protesters. It will NOT be an issue at the next state election. Other than the mill, which i agree was handled badly, Lennon was a more left wing, progressive premier than any other Labor premier around the country. Easily. And if you don’t know anything about this government except the pulp mill then you shouldn’t make a comment.
The Lennon government was the same as all the recent Tassie Governments, running favours for mates. They need to leave all of this old, semi-corrupted politics behind. I’ll be interested to see if Bartlett tries to reinvigorate/overhaul Tassie politics or follow the same old tune.
Ummm… Blackbird at 25 – … On one hand I totally disagree. I think anger about the pulp mill is still widespread. Not just on an environmental level, but also as a planning and due process issue. I’d wager that there are more folk pissed off about it from the second stand point than the first, but that doesn’t mean that the first doesn’t hold true. A minority can be right.
On the other hand, I totally agree. Lennon, when at work for the state and not for Gunn’s, has done some sterling work in indigenous affairs and ended up, for all his old Grouper tendencies, to be socially progressive. Problem was that he was stymied by the fact the it all appeared to be window dressing for a none-too-pretty shop.
PB at 22: who knows what Bartlett will do… while he’s not of the left, he has left/independent backing (Singh, O’Byrne et al) The only thing I really know about him is that worked in IT for a while and is sure to have all the answers on really, really, super, important, life-changing issues like download speeds…
I’m also wondering if there is going to be a reshuffle?
There’s such a wealth of talent in the 13 possible people for the 8 or 9 ministries… just take a look at Brenton Best, Graeme Sturges…
Stuart, Im not saying that a minority don’t want a pulp mill or that they’re wrong for opposing it. Indeed i think most people would be happier if it didn’t go ahead. However, i do not think it is the burning issue for these people that it is for the Greens. Come election time they will be much more interested in hospitals and schools (same old, same old). Also, I think that there is very little prospect for the mill not to go ahead at this stage. Its really all over guys.
Point taken, Blackbird. I reckon most would be happier if it didn’t happen too, so it just feels like a waste and shame and a travesty if it does! This is why a sizeable number of people will still fight it to the bitter end… myself as one of them… Can totally see that when it comes to voting, though, there are other issues around yes?
Well, goodnight (here in Newfoundland) – what an eventful evening!
stuart S @ 28
You forgot the parliamentary secretaries !!!! 😛
I agree with Stuart 25. I don’t pretent to know anything about Tasmanian politics but I think it is still valid to comment on the pulp mill. Besides, as a mainland taxpayer I make a substantial contribution to the Tasmanian economy every year.
The Gunns funding saga confirms a suspicion I was trying to find out months ago – whether the mill ever made economic sense. Tasmania has a long history of politicians being so desperate to generate jobs that they will trample over environmental legislation for any project. The Franklin dam was also a good example – they were basically building in “on spec” to supply power to industries that may (or may not) have shown up. If it went ahead it might have been a huge debt around the necks of the State for almost no gain in employment.
The trouble is they don’t realise that when developers want normal assessment processes set aside, half the time its because the projects are turkeys that should never happen. Do they actually realise what wine and tourism in the Tamar are worth to the economy? Pulp milling doesn’t even generate many jobs per dollar, because there is almost no value adding.
OK. So I patently haven’t gone to bed – watching Predator on cable… sad, sad me.
Quick Appraisal:
David Bartlett: Premier
Lara Giddings: Deputy Premier
Ministers:
Paula Wreidt
Michelle O’Byrne
Jim Cox ……. for the meantime
David Llewellyn
Michael Aird
so that’s 7 with Ministerial experience for 9 (is it?) ministries and x many parliamentary secretaries (but in the Tasmanian parliament, hell, isn’t everyone a parl sec?)
Bryan Green (disqualified)
Steve Kons (disqualified)
Michael Polley (Speaker)
so that’s 10 Labor members
Heather Butler..?
Brenton Best..? (little chuckle)
Lisa Singh …? (too far left – maybe arts and environment in the new regime?)
Graeme Sturges…?
Alison Richie…?
Doug Parkinson…?
Lin Thorp… ?
Takes us to the grand total of 17 members (+ a new one in the by-election), two of whom are disqualified through incompetence, one is disqualified by virtue of being speaker and I dare say a good 4 of those last 7 are disqualified by virtue of being totally clueless.
Time to revert to a 35-seat house… maybe even 7 seats of 5?
The pool is patently too shallow.
Thanks for letting me get that off my chest.
Stu
On the whole Gunns thing, I note there was a story a few days ago about the ANZ getting cold feet on funding the mill: http://business.smh.com.au/anz-quiet-on-gunns-funding-20080522-2h52.html
Now, the ANZ aren’t saying they wont, but they’re not saying they will either, so I’d be assuming that if the ANZ funding doesn’t come through then the mill is at least on the backburner if not terminal. There was another related story concerning this: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/ANZ-to-decline-Gunns-funding-EV38F?OpenDocument
This story notes the small drop in Gunns shares.
As to what will happen at the next election? I almost expect that there will once again be minority government in Tasmania. The issue for either major party is; can they live with it? Both major parties agreed to change the electoral system in 1998 to try and stop this happening, but this may come to nought. What next? Threats of going to the polls repeatedly until the electorate gets it ‘right’?
Jim Cox will probably leave in july… after the super comes in… so we need 3 new ministers. The best one’s for the job would be Lin Thorp, Doug Parkinson and Sturges or Singh. We really need to increase the size of parliament… 35 in the assembly and 20 in the LC. 7 to a seat in the HoA and i would hope that we could finally have simultaneous LC elections with HoA. Perhaps that would get rid of some of those faux ‘independents’.
I don’t presume to know the ins and outs of the pulp mill debate but I will say that it seems almost certain to go ahead, which means that the business case, as assessed by some excellent financial minds from a number of sources, is strong. I just watched Lennon’s resignation speech on Sky and the point he made about value adding also made a lot of sense. Funnily enough, it was one of the Greens’ main arguments about Tasmanian forestry until not long ago. I understand Blackbird’s sentiments. The Tasmanian Greens always have a Big Issue running. The mill (and Gunns) is the latest, it often seems to me. Unfortunately for the level of debate, Tasmanian environmental issues have a way of becoming totemic on the mainland, out of all proportion to their relative importance. They appeal to certain old and harmful prejudices, in part. It’s no coincidence that the mainland seat this issue was perceived to have the greatest play in last year was Wentworth.
Recent levels of popularity aside, I think Lennon has been a fine Labor Premier, with some impressive progressive policy achievements to his name. In my view the Bacon/Lennon Government vies with the Field Government (until it was destroyed by the Greens) as the greatest Tasmanian government of the modern era in terms of policy achievement. As a result, Tasmania’s position on a raft of social and economic indicators has improved both absolutely and (more tellingly) relative to the other states. There is now a palpably renewed sense of self confidence that I have noticed myself on travels back down there (I left about a decade ago when the feel was much bleaker). The state’s population is growing again, for example.
Electorally, both Bacon and Lennon managed to bring back voters who had been tempted by the crude cultural warfare of the Tasmanian Liberals under Gray and Groom (following a majority government strategy championed by Field after the Greens demonstrated their complete irresponsibility in 1991). With the support of those voters, they made genuine social and economic reform a priority and made real, measurable progress. I think much of the criticism of Lennon in particular has been unfair, although I applaud him for facing reality in a way that other leaders haven’t. That says good things about him to me. I’ve never really understood what the particular charge against him is with Gunns – it never seems very specific to me. There’s no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Lennon thinks a pulp mill is a good idea. I tend to think he will be proved right. Let’s not forget, too, that Tasmania protects a far larger proportion of its forests than any other state. Australia’s biggest problems with forest destruction have always been elsewhere.
Socrates, i didn’t mean to say that one shouldn’t comment on the pulp mill. Just refrain from trying to make out as though that single issue can possibly give you an impression of the overall job performance of the government. I find it so hard to believe that Labor oriented people could possibly say they would vote for the Libs at the next state election given the Tas governments record in having the most progressive social and environmental record of any state government in the country.
As to the next election, almost everyone thought there would be a minority government before the last election. Centrebet had Labor maintaining a majority way out at $9 at the start of the election, narrowing to just $1.85 at the opening of the polls. With the huge shake up that is underway right now in the government it would be very hard to make a prediction about the next election right now.
Molesworth, you may be perfectly correct to say that the mill’s business case has been assessed by some excellent financial minds. However, given what’s happened on world finance markets in the last six months, and the resultant severe tightening of credit, I suspect all the numbers are being done again before any bank lends the amount of money required, or indeed before the board of Gunns would sign on to borrow that amount. Just think of the difficulty Bunnings recently faced in financing its takeover of Coles.
Fair enough point Antony – that sounds right. I have to admit, I hadn’t really given much thought to how the last six months might change things, in spite of the posts referring to it above.
There was fairly reliable information doing the rounds quite a few months ago that ANZ was going to pull the pin on funding for the mill anyway – a combination of it being economically unsound per se, fear of consumer backlash, and the sudden uncertainty in the world economy.
Do not be surprised at all if you find that ANZ announces that they are not funding it based on either a finding that it is inconsistent with the bank’s investment principles somehow (politically correct answer) or that it is no longer a responsible investment given the economic outlook (true answer).
And mainlanders have just as much interest in Tasmania’s forests as Tasmanians. Apparently more, in fact, perhaps as a result of the effective media blackout in Tas. I live in SA, the desert state – we would kill to have beautiful forests like Tasmania, and yet some idiots in Tasmania want to chop theirs down and sell it to the Japanese.
Frankly Tasmania has given every impression of being unable to govern itself responsibly and is an excellent advertisement of why the old federation is looking very frayed and ragged around the edges and why the modern variant of westminster democracy needs a radical overhaul to restore accountability and transparency.
My god.. i mean my god. Where do people get this crap about tasmanian democracy, accountability etc going down the toilet? Our system of election to the lower house is the most open and accessible of any state and this has allowed parties like the greens much greater access to the parliament and public debate. This is a good thing, but its also why a lot more criticism of government gets into our media than in other states. As for forestry, so much of our forests are conserved and we have very good forestry practices managing the rest of them. I have extensively walked all of the WHA which conserves 20% of the state and am a keen supporter of Tasmania’s National Park system, all of which was instituted by Tasmanian Labor Governments.
Blackbird
While you may have a point that it is being exaggerated you have gone to far the other way. Parliament has never been the same since they shrunk it (in an effort to get rid of the greens).
The government was/is crooked and incompetent. That thing about Richard Butler was a disaster. And our mate Bryan green is lucky not to be sitting in a prison cell. Let’s not even get started on Kons bad shredding habits.
Patrick, another fair enough point about mainlanders having just as much interest as Tasmanians in protecting Tasmanian forests. You’re right to sort of point out that comparisons between states don’t always tell the whole story too. And like I said, I don’t know the mill debate in detail (although I did understand that old growth forests weren’t going to be used). I suppose what I was trying to get at is that the criticism of Lennon from mainlanders seems to be tied overwhelmingly to an assumption that the Tasmanian Government (and, implicitly, everyone else including both major parties at a federal level) backed the mill for nefarious purposes when I don’t believe that to be the case.
Blackbird@41
While a proportion of Tasmanian old growth forests is conserved, this is no argument to allow more of Tasmania to clearfelled. And lets be clear – clearfelling is NOT best-practice forestry. In NSW Bob Carr promised in the late 90’s to end logging of old-growth forests – didn’t happen, BUT for what its worth he created more national parks than his Liberal predecesors. In WA Gallop made an election promise he DID keep (ending old-growth logging in south-west WA) which arguable won him an election (and I don’t mean just because of Greens preferences). However, that still doesn’t mean that logging practices in either WA or NSW are best practice – or even reasonable practice.
For me the point isn’t that the ALP is better than the Libs on forestry policy – thats almost a given – but that management of forests is not at best practice, and in a range of other issues (and here I go back to Fields) they are only as good as the Libs.
This is the same hatchet argument as charles used above on dams and energy – the issue is more complex than “the ALP saved tree’s” and that somehow this makes them an excellent government. Let us not forget the manipulation of the electoral system to engineer out a significant minor party (the Greens) in 1998. Their agreement to that was a smack in the face of democracy, and was ultimately about being able to divide government (and power) between themselves and the Libs.
Molesworth
Sorry to flog a dead horse (and lets hope that the Gunns mill is seen for the dead horse it is) but the Gunns Mill has NOT been assessed as strong by “some excellent financial minds”. Both the environmental assessment, and the subsequent Tasmanian government assessment started with the assumption of accepting Gunn’s assumptions on financial viability. They assessed its impact on the local economy. Surprise, surprise, if you asume that the mill is viable then it is good for the local economy! But that proves absolutely nothing. See this Canberra Times editorial which lays out the problems quite well:
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/reading-into-the-pulp-mill-fictions/132119.aspx
The only independent review of the economics of the pulp mill was by Dr Peter Brain of the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research (NIEIR) and he condemned it. NIEIR were commissioned by the Tasmanian Greens. Nevertheless they are highly reputable in this field and their report makes all assumptions transparent. Dr Brain concluded that, although there were many uncertainties, the most likely outcome of the mill was a net outcome on the local economy of – $300 million. i.e. it will destroy more jobs than it creates! See http://www.google.com/search?q=nieir%20gunns%20pulp%20mill%20economic%20evaluation&sourceid=mozilla2&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
I am not speaking against Labor in Tasmania generally (progressive), or its environment (beautiful), or in favour of the Liberals there (who are even more narrowly libertarian). But the Gunns deal stank. The whole process was set up to reach a pre-determined conclusion.
The shredding of the document by Kons was not illegal or ethically questionable in any way. That was entirely his pejorative to do so… who cares. The problem was that he misled parliament when the greens asked him a question about the incident. He said he hadn’t shredded the document when he had. However the question was asked without notice and in a contorted fashion months after he had shredded the document (not an uncommon practice in a ministers office). Nonetheless he was stood down. As was Green. Im not saying the TAS government has been perfect, but there’s really been nothing more seedy in their actions than those of the Brumby/Bracks, Beattie/Bligh, Iemma/Carr, Gallop/Carpenter etc, etc, governments. As for the mill, as much as its proponents might be blind to its cons and even viability there can be absolutely no doubt about the clouded minds of its detractors who immediately discard any positive assessment – Chief Scientist Peacock – and clutch at any substandard evidence to support there doomsday theories.
Seriously can Tasmainia be considered a State. Its popoulation is the same as an Inner Urban municpality. Tasmainia is over represented and over governered. Maybe, if someone had the balls, they would serious advocate reducing the number of municipal regions to five and or abolish the state altogther (Maybe offer it to New Zealand and create the South Eastern Island Sate of Australia)
Edward St John @ 23
It looks like Tasmania has gone through a number of successive Labor premierships …
From 1934 to 58 there were 6 successive Labor premiers (5 individuals) and from 1972 to 1981 there were 4 successive premiers (4 individuals). Just got that from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premiers_of_Tasmania
Cheers
Blackbird
My concern was with the economics of the mill, not the science. Hence Peacock’s finding is in my view beside the point.
Blackbird, your impartiality shines through.