Northern Territory election: late counting

227 comments on “Northern Territory election: late counting”

1. Still a lot of absentees left.

2. ALP insiders’quietly’ confident about Fannie Bay and surprisingly Fong Lim because of large numbers (>5-600) of absentees from ALP friendly areas to be counted after lunch today.

3. Rudd’s taking the NT result quite well and making the right noises.

   My question is about the up to 40% who did not vote. I assume voting is compulsory in the NT. Do all those people get fined and if so how much? Can you really fine 30-40% of the population?

   Poll a serious warning to Labor, says Rudd
   http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24159098-2702,00.html

4. the cleaner

   I was told the same thing re: Fong Lim this morning by somebody who probably knows what she’s talking about. There might be a touch of “wishful thinking” on her part but they are quietly confident.

5. Thanks the cleaner,
   I’ll just duck back to the cave and have a tofu burger and a bit of watermelon.
   Don’t mention the greens.

6. My advices is that the CLP expect to win Fannie Bay but don’t know what they are basing that on.

   Had some discussions today about CLP leadership and Carney seems to generate some distinct reactions. You either like her or hate her. Apparently she can have a bit of a nasty streak. Tollner is a bit the same – some like him some view him with contempt. Anyway you would have to be a fool to get rid of Mills given this result.

   For the ALP Chris Burns is quite a nice guy and maybe too laid back and easy going to take the job, but would be more engaging. Some made the comment that you had to be Greek to get to see Vatskalis or get anything out of him.

   If it is a minority government then I guess Woods would have to front up and be a minister – (DPI) Lands & PLanning?

7. This is a joke. This is the same size as a municipal council. they should have only 9 seats. Surely these people can’t have poltician paying jobs representing a couple of thousand people?

8. centaur,

   I agree with your sentiment, but they have to do the work of a State Govt. too. 9 MPs would struggle to service state issues. Your municipal council doesn’t run the hospitals/police/goal does it?

9. I agree, centaur07. But what else can you do? The NT spans a huge geographical area, and its a separate political entity. Somebody has to run the show, and 25 allows any NT government to have at least 12 members, rather than just 5 (if there were only 9).

   It could be worse; they could be a state! 😉

10. The CLP are confident because they think the postal votes, ie people who moved into Fannie Bay and went to vote in their old electorate by mistake are likely to be CLP voting.

    Whether it turn other that way and is sufficient in number is another question

    1 in 3000 people is a politician and that is not counting council, and federal (2)

    Poor NT, if they were in Sydney only 1 person would have been elected

11. This is true. The NT Govt has to provide the same services of a state from Darwin to Alice Springs. This is why the % of public servants in the NT would be much higher than other places, there is minimum size you can have to provide all the services of a state. And even if small in population they are not in terms of mining resources (and water).

    But the small population base does have influence on the standard of available political candidates.

12. The NT has in different periods in its past been administered by QLD, SA and the Feds, I believe.

13. If the CLP do get to form a minority government people like Bolt, Ackerman and Co and the OO peoples will be besides themselves with joy and will no doubt read the demise of Rudd and soaring to power of Costello. The question is who would be more senior? Brisbane mayor or NT Chief Minister? 🙂

    The CLP resurgence came on the back of being thrashed and being renewed a process the federal Liberals will need.

14. “I agree with your sentiment, but they have to do the work of a State Govt. too. 9 MPs would struggle to service state issues. Your municipal council doesn’t run the hospitals/police/goal does it?”

    State governments run hospitals??!! Quick, someone tell Iemma!

15. Why wouldn’t you run a bunch of dummy candidates and get in on a preferance flow.

16. TP

    It’s started all ready. Look at this drivel from Tirnbull in the OO. Anyone would have though Rudd was up for election in NT.

    “This is a big wake-up call for Mr Rudd,” Mr Turnbull said today.

    “This is an extraordinary swing and it underlines the disillusionment Australians are seeing and feeling with the lack of leadership from the new (federal) Labor government – a government that promised so much.

    “Last year Kevin 07 was everywhere, dripping with empathy, draping himself across petrol station forecourts, shopping centre aisles, promising to stop prices going up.

    “And all we’ve got is one watch after another, FuelWatch, GroceryWatch and who knows what the next watch exercise will be.”

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24160209-12377,00.html

17. Turnbull: “And all we’ve got is one watch after another, FuelWatch, GroceryWatch and who knows what the next watch exercise will be.”

    A: Nelson watching his back.

18. Centaur

    Just another example of too many jurisdictions, too many politicians and too many bureacracies. In the days of horse borne mail and bullock drays and telegraphs there were some good reasons for it. Now there are none. If we got rid of the states and territories we could save billions in running costs. However, there are too many snouts in the various troughs to make it likely that anything radical is likely to happen any time soon.

19. Can anyone hazard a guess who Woods would back to form goverment if it comes to that?
    Obviousy if a big enough bribe came from the ALP and he was conservative he would back the ALP (and vice versa).

    If no one offered anything, who would he back

20. Bert

    Woods was happily on the front page of the Territory paper a few weeks ago talking about his UFO encounter. Anything’s possible.

21. It would be tough for him.

    He by rights should be looking for minister for ‘Planning and Infrastructure’ since he is so vocal about it all the time. If he doesn’t look for something like that then he starts to lose credibility. Easier to throw mud than to catch it. He will discover Garretts dilema.

22. Democracy is about having a wide variety of snouts in the trough so the piglets of all can get something to eat.

    If Howard was the only person with a snout in the trough god help Australia.

23. Maybe he can be Minister for Extraterrestrian Affairs.

24. Federalism is supposed to be one jurisdiction doing A, and another doing B. Not both jurisdictions doing a little bit of A and a little bit of B. This is the problem with our federation.

    The idea is that we elect the federal government to take care of defence, foreign relations and the like, state governments essentially the rest, and local governments for municipal services.

    This is what we need ingrained in our constitution, not the abolishment of the states\. I shouldn’t have my federal politician, representing 100 000 people, listen to the problem of a bumpy road and secure federal funding for it — that’s the job of my local councillor, representing only 2 000 of us!

25. I’d be very surprised if Wood did anything but back the CLP: the man shows every sign to me of being like, say, Bob Katter crossed with Nick Xenophon…

    I’d be gobsmacked if Chris Burns was considered for the leadership – his past behaviour (things like his homophobic attacks on John Elferink) would seem to suggest that he’s a liability, and I’m a bit surprised he hasn’t suffered the same electoral fate as Len Kiely.

26. Dovif @10. I’m mystified by those remarks. The only voters moved into Fannie Bay were in Stuart Park, and they would have voted at the same booth as last time. Stuart Park school has long been a joint booth for both Port Darwin and Fannie Bay, and this time it was solely used for Fannie Bay. There was a new booth in the Darwin CBD, but it had never been used before. For what you say to be true, it would mean that in the past, Stuart Park voters have driven to Larrakeyah to vote and this time either continued to go there or voted in Darwin CBD.

    A note on turnout. Very badly reported this morning. The turnout on Saturday was 63%. Once all the declaration votes are included, it will be up to about 78%. The turnout in 2005 was 80%, so the turnout is not down that much.

27. How does the 2CP get calculated, specifically in Braitling? Is it whoever is coming 2nd when someone cracks 50%, or is the last candidate recursively removed from the contest with their preferences distributed?

28. The 2CP count in Braitling was done on election night between two candidates nominated before hand by the Electoral Commissioner. The count is done entirely to provide extra information on the count and is referred to as an indicative throw of preferences, as it is only done to provide an indication of the final result. It is not an official count of preferences.

    The candidates have to be nominated before hand because the count is done in multiple booths, and there is no guarantee the same two candidates will finish first and second in every booth. Occassionally the wrong two candidates are chosen for the indicative count, as has occurred in Braitling.

    The preference count will be done again at some point in the count, at which the final count in Braitling looks likely to be between the CLP and the Greens.

29. Boerwar,

    Getting rid of the states and territories would not save us a cent. According to a paper by the Australian Council for the Federation (http://www.caf.gov.au/), their existence actually saves us money: we are more than $4,000 per head better off because we are a federation.

    Australia is just one of 80 countries in the world with more than 10 million people, all of which have at least three tiers of government, as does every one of the 51 countries of more than 500,000 square kilometers. Think of the Russia, Canada, the USA, Brazil, China, India, and keep going – states or their equivalents are the norm. In fact, China has both provinces and prefectures between the national and local government.

    Even citizens of the oft-quoted United Kingdom have four (or, in some parts of the country, five) levels of government – the European Parliament, the UK Parliament, regional assemblies (elected in the case of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Greater London, unelected in the rest of the country) and unitary local authorities or, in some places, both county councils and district councils.

    If the states were abolished, thus making Australia unique among the world’s large countries, the bureaucracy would remain the same size, and the levels of decision-making would remain the same. The only difference would be the people would not get to elect those who made the decisions at the intermediate level.

30. Abolishing the states would require a referndum to pass in all 6 states, not just a majority. So any one state objecting to its abolition could reject the referendum. Dream on if you think you can pass that referendum.

31. “The idea is that we elect the federal government to take care of defence, foreign relations and the like, state governments essentially the rest, and local governments for municipal services.”

    Yeah, but who gets IR? Universities? Schools? Hospitals?

    I think states are the ham in the sandwich we don’t need any more. It’s silly to have Sydney and Dubbo, Perth and Broome, Brisbane and Cape York all under a single jurisdiction. Abolish the states; vastly expand local councils so they have some sensible boundaries (like greater Sydney); and let the federal government run the country.

32. Is an argument about abolishing the states really relevant here?

33. “Getting rid of the states and territories would not save us a cent. According to a paper by the Australian Council for the Federation (http://www.caf.gov.au/), their existence actually saves us money: we are more than $4,000 per head better off because we are a federation.”

    Who wrote that paper in support of Federation? The “Australian Council for the Federation”?? No vested interests here? 😉

34. Kakuru,

    If you read the paper, you may judge the argument.

35. I have just read an interesting essay by a historian about Federation, the essence of which is that the historical evidence shows that it was not any practical advantages which were the key motivating factor behind Federation: it was status-consciousness and vanity (the historian doesn’t use those terms, but that’s what it amounts to). This has given further confirmation to my view that Federation was a mistake. If I had the chance to wave a magic wand and get rid of one level of government, it wouldn’t be the States, it would be the Commonwealth. Of course there’s no chance of that happening, but as Antony rightly points out, there’s no chance of getting rid of the States either.

36. Antony, on what do you base your statement that abolishing the states would require the consent of all the states? The states were once sovereign entities under the Crown, but since the passage of the Australia Acts they exist only by virtue of the terms of the Constitution. The Constitution can be amended by the Australian people, to whatever extent they like, by the procedure laid down in s128.

37. Chris – I’m not against the federal structure per se, just (a) the current boundaries (which are historical relics) and (b) the current division of responsibility. Many of the federations you mention (though not all, including the US) have altered their state/provincial boundaries, and/or re-structured the balance between the separate tiers of govt. I say retain the Australian federal structure, but it needs some serious overhaul rather than just ‘tweaking’ around the edges.

38. Adam, read the second last paragraph of Section 128. It is a minefield open to interpetation. For instance, it could mean you abolish the states but you cannot change the state basis of Senate or House composition, or even Section 128, without the consent of all states. You also cannot alter the borders of the existing states without consent, which it wouldn’t take a lawyer to long to argue also means you cannot abolish the borders without consent.

39. Did I start this? Sorry if I did. The ALP will hold on in NT, and carpenter will get WA. The disorganised rable that are the conservatives will have to wait longer in the wilderness. So hahahahah. Surely NSW, surely VIC, surely TAS surely, surely surely somewhere!

40. Is there any news from the counting room?

41. Second problem. Entrenched provisions of State Constitutions. Can a Federal constitutional referendum to effectively abolish a state constitution over-ride the provision of a state constitution that requires the majority support of a referendum to pass? (Though constiututional lawyer Anne Twomey argues very persuasively that they are not entrenched.) As I said, dream-on those who want to abolish the states.

42. The body that would determine these matters would be the High Court. I doubt that in 2008 even the fairly conservative court we have now would hold that the Australian people do not have full sovereignty to change their own constitution. If it is within the power of the Australian people to abolish the Crown with respect to Australia – something that would have been held to be impossible 50 years ago – then it’s hard to see how it could not be within their power to abolish the states. The High Court has a consistent record of upholding the power of the Commonwealth at the expense of the states, and if they were asked to rule on the constitutionality of a bill for a referendum to abolish the states, requiring only the double majority specified in s128, I’m sure they would uphold it. (For the record I am opposed to abolishing states.)

    Re the consversation above: the exception to the observation about all large states being federations is Japan, which has a strong national government, and no tier of government between the centre and the prefectures, which have only limited delgated powers. Does this make Japan a better governed country? I don’t think so.

43. J-D: “This has given further confirmation to my view that Federation was a mistake. If I had the chance to wave a magic wand and get rid of one level of government, it wouldn’t be the States, it would be the Commonwealth.

    Oh thanks, J-D!! We citizens of NSW and Victoria have to bail out the Tasmanian Republic and its basket-case economy yet again, to prevent another military coup. Just another Pacific island intervention we have to fork out for! And don’t get me started on all those ricketty rafts heading across Bass Strait! 😉

44. Always comforting to know our constitutional framers had the wit to put the strength of law before the whim of men. (and what an interesting discussion!)

45. Chris Curtis @ 29

    ‘Australia is just one of 80 countries in the world with more than 10 million people, all of which have at least three tiers of government, as does every one of the 51 countries of more than 500,000 square kilometers. Think of the Russia, Canada, the USA, Brazil, China, India, and keep going – states or their equivalents are the norm. In fact, China has both provinces and prefectures between the national and local government.

    Even citizens of the oft-quoted United Kingdom have four (or, in some parts of the country, five) levels of government – the European Parliament, the UK Parliament, regional assemblies (elected in the case of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Greater London, unelected in the rest of the country) and unitary local authorities or, in some places, both county councils and district councils.

    If the states were abolished, thus making Australia unique among the world’s large countries, the bureaucracy would remain the same size, and the levels of decision-making would remain the same. The only difference would be the people would not get to elect those who made the decisions at the intermediate level.’

    For one thing, not all of those countries are federations. For another, different federal systems regulate relations between levels differently, and so do different unitary (non-federal) systems. The difference between federal and unitary systems isn’t the presence or absence of elected bodies at different levels, either. In Australia, local governments don’t have the status (in relation to the States) that State governments have in relation to the Commonwealth, but that doesn’t stop them having elected councils. India is a federation, but their system gives the central government the same power to sack state governments and take over direct control temporarily that Australian State governments have in relation to local government.

    In Australia, the boundaries between the powers of the Federal government and the powers of the States are, in principle, determined by a law (the Constitution), and any attempt to change those boundaries is subject to the threat of a court challenge. The same is not true of the boundaries between the powers of State governments and the powers of local governments. I think this is something which would be better left to be determined by the political process, not by legal processes. It would be better if the national government had total control of the distribution of functions. Whether it was still called a federation or not wouldn’t bother me.

    (As I said before, in my opinion it would be better if we weren’t joined as one country at all. But that boat’s sailed.)

46. Antony must be correct. Section 128 forbids the ‘diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of [a] State’ without majority support in that State.

    Isn’t the more relevant debate whether and when the NT is admitted as a State (nb no referendum at all needed there). And whether that will make it easier to pass referenda? Four from seven sounds easier than four from six, especially when the seventh is such a small population to swing. On the other hand it’s traditionally been a blokier region.

    How have NT electors voted in federal referenda since ’77? My vague memory of ’99 is they were more pro-republic than the rest of Australia.

47. ps Marquet’s case provides some guide: in constitutional law the term ‘amend’ was taken to include ‘abolish’. Adam’s argument would only hold true if the High Court had a v.progressive, even radical majority. Rudd could govern till he’s a hundred and we won’t see that day pass.

48. I stand by my argument. The Former colony of Tasmania is guaranteed 5 seats by the Constitution. Every state is guaranteed equal representation in the Senate. No ifs, no buts, Section 128 protects those provisions without support from the affected state. Then you just work through the rest of the clause and it a test beyond majority of voters in a majority of states.

49. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with three tiers of government. I haven’t heard too many people argue that NSW is over-governed, for example.

    Perhaps the problem is the disparity in size between the states and territories. It’s harder to justify the number of politicians in Tasmania, the ACT or the NT (though the latter does have a reasonable argument because of its geograpical size, asothers here have pointed out). I think it work quite well if we had five states – NSW (including ACT), Vic (incl Tas), Queensland, SA (including NT) and WA. That’s actually not much different to what we had at Federation.

    But, as Antony Green says, dream on…

    If Australians can’t even vote in favour at a referendum in favour of trial by jury, freedom of religion and local government – even though most Australians don’t think twice about accepting these things – they’ll never abolish a state or territory.

50. The Constitution is what the High Court says what it is at any given time. In the 1950s the Court would certainly have ruled the WorkChoices acts ultra vires, and would certainly have held that the Australian people did not have the power to abolish the Crown in respect of Australia. This is not a left-v-right issue. It’s a matter of centralism-v-states rights, and the Court has been consistently centralist for decades, regardless of who appointed the justices. I agree that this is not likely to happen, but I disagree that the power to do it is not there.

Comments are closed.