Morgan’s latest fortnightly face-to-face poll shows a one point narrowing in the two-party gap from 60-40 to 59.5-40.5. Labor is down one point on the primary vote to 50.5 per cent while the Coalition is up one to 36 per cent. Elsewhere:
• Not sure how much of this is news, but there’s a lot of good stuff on the Western Australian Electoral Commission site: veteran academic Harry Phillips’ 149-page Electoral Law in the State of Western Australia: An Overview; Isla Macphail’s 388-page Highest Privilege
and Bounden Duty: A Study of Western Australian Parliamentary Elections 1829–1901; and comprehensive survey data on various aspects of the September state election.
• AAP reports that Jennifer Huppert, a lawyer with the firm Maddocks and “long-time Labor moderate”, has been “unanimously endorsed” by Labor’s national executive to replace Evan Thornley in the Victorian upper house region of South Metropolitan. A “senior Labor source” quoted in the report says “Ms Huppert was the Premier’s pick, chosen from four women candidates selected by Federal MP Michael Danby and state Treasurer John Lenders”. The Herald Sun earlier reported that “a list of six names – four women and two men – had been submitted to the Labor Party’s national executive”, with the Left-aligned Laura Smyth named as frontrunner.
• Rick Wallace of The Australian reports that a looming split in the Right of the Victorian ALP could produce “another round of bloody winner-takes-all preselections replete with branch-stacking, brawls and backstabbing”. The next Victorian opinion poll will be interesting to observe, given the stresses the present heatwave has placed on Melbourne’s infrastructure.
• Malcolm Mackerras muses on the recent history of by-elections and upper house vacancies in the Canberra Times.
• Annual financial disclosure returns for 2007-08 can be viewed at the Australian Electoral Commission site (UPDATE: … from Monday – thanks to Ruawake for pointing that out).
A couple more… I can go on…
Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Australians Working Together and other 2001 Budget Measures) Bill 2002
Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Disability Reform) Bill (No. 2) 2002
Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Disability Reform) Bill (No. 2) 2002 [No. 2]
Marriage Amendment Bill 2004
Migration Legislation Amendment (Further Border Protection Measures) Bill 2002
Migration Legislation Amendment (Further Border Protection Measures) Bill 2002 [No. 2]
National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits—Budget Measures) Bill 2002
Sex Discrimination Amendment (Teaching Profession) Bill 2004
Superannuation (Surcharge Rate Reduction) Amendment Bill 2003
Trade Practices Amendment (Small Business Protection) Bill 2002
Trade Practices Amendment (Small Business Protection) Bill 2002 [No. 2]
Workplace Relations Amendment (Codifying Contempt Offences) Bill 2003
Workplace Relations Amendment (Compliance with Court and Tribunal Orders) Bill 2003
Workplace Relations Amendment (Secret Ballots for Protected Action) Bill 2002
Workplace Relations Amendment (Secret Ballots for Protected Action) Bill 2002 [No. 2]
Workplace Relations Amendment (Termination of Employment) Bill 2002
Workplace Relations Amendment (Termination of Employment) Bill 2002 [No. 2]
Oz
My point is that the Govt. you know the guys with the Majority in the HoR, be it Labor or Liberal, have eventually managed to get their legislative agenda passed.
All the Senate has done is delay the inevitable. At a cost approaching a billion dollars per year.
I repeat, what Govt. legislation has not eventually passed the Senate in the past decade ?
Keep in mind, those are only bills that were negatived. Many more will have had amendments made to them that will have solved a lot of real life problems.
Not to forget the Senate committee process being really quite good at focusing on legislation, letting people get their voices heard and, in some case, highlighting problems in legislation that need to be fixed. Governments quite often take these recommendations on board.
Wiiliam
Apologies my reference to loser was ltep’s former persona of Lose The Election Please.
ltep
How many of those bills eventually passed?
The Parliament of Australia enacts:
1 Short title
This Act may be cited as the Trade Practices Amendment (Small Business Protection) Act 2002.
Yep it passed.
Because every government wins a Senate majority sooner or later.
[Because every government wins a Senate majority sooner or later]
Hopefully that doesnt happen for the current one
William
That is exactly my point – every government wins a Senate majority sooner or later. So eventually every Govt. gets its legislative agenda passed.
Is this worth the billions of bucks it took to play games in the Senate? Why not just hold the current Govt. to account if they pass dodgy legislation they get voted out?
The electorate keep the B’s honest, not the Senate. 🙁
ruawake
The electorate can only gets the chance to keep the bastards honest every three years, and even then they only get a choice between two sets of bastards.
Finns
Was it something I said ❓
Would the Liberal Party have lost the last election if they did not have a majority in the Senate?
[All the Senate has done is delay the inevitable. At a cost approaching a billion dollars per year.]
What we should do is kick out all the politicians except one. They all vote on party lines in the HOR anyway, so what’s the point of having more of them? That would save an enormous amount of money.
[Because every government wins a Senate majority sooner or later.]
Did Whitlam?
Just out of interest has anyone heard any more news on electoral reform?
MHW
(who never understood the whole “misleading party names” thing – Liberals for Forests weren’t misleading – their policies were Liberal in every way, except on the environment)
[Did Whitlam?]
Yep but it required a joint sitting of both houses. 😛
[Yep but it required a joint sitting of both houses. :P]
Eeer, that’s not a Senate majority. That was a majority in a joint sitting of the parliament. When did Hawke and Keating enjoy Senate majorities?
Is Bishop in danger of being dumped from her position after her channeling of Reagan and advocacy of trickle down tax cuts, otherwise known as voodoo economics. Turnbull and Bishop are becoming large target for the government when parliament resumes. Surely some of Bishop’s party are getting nervous over her ongoing weak performance in her shadow portfolio.
[Reagan and advocacy of trickle down tax cuts]
Trickle down tax cuts has been described as when the rich piss on you.
Ruawake makes good points re the senate, even Whitlam got all his bills following the DD and his govt was only brought down by supply being refused, not any other legislation.
The senate is good for hearing greviances and objections to bills but this could be done just as well in the reps.
[The senate is good for hearing greviances and objections to bills but this could be done just as well in the reps.]
Only if the Reps was reformed to allow it hear any such grievances or objections. And why would the government listen to them anyway if they had a majority?
Are there really people who come to this site who don’t understand that a Senate majority will be a once in a century event after its enlargement in 1984? Incredible.
[When did Hawke and Keating enjoy Senate majorities?]
Never – but what legislation did they fail to get through the parliament?
The cost of having the Senate is trivial in the overall scheme of things.
I reckon it’s a pretty good idea to have one, on the whole. We don’t want to have an elected dictatorship.
Got an Australia Card in your wallet, Ruawake?
[… a Senate majority will be a once in a century event…]
Big call William.
Make it 50 years then. The assertion that every government will enjoy a Senate majority at some point is the dumbest thing I have seen argued on this site in quite some time.
The Australia Card was not defeated by the Senate.
The Hawke government was returned, but still without a Senate majority. The Australia Card bill was reintroduced in September and a vote in the Senate was planned for 7 October. During that period, a retired former Deputy Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department, Ewart Smith (1920-1991), pointed out in letters to newspapers that the Australia Card bill was unworkable because the implementation date was not part of the legislation, and would have to be a matter of a separate regulation. Even if the bill had been passed – whether by the usual process or in a joint sitting – and given Royal Assent, the opposition parties could still have combined to disallow the regulation, thus preventing the act from ever being implemented. John Stone, a former Secretary to the Treasury who had been elected in July as a National Party senator from Queensland, contacted Smith, confirmed the detail, and brought this information to the attention of his party. The coalition embarrassed the Hawke government by bringing the matter to light during Question Time on 23 September. After acknowledging that, even if passed, it was likely the bill could not be implemented, Hawke decided to abandon the Australia Card bill.
😛
If they wanted to save money they could get rid of the Democratic henchmen. You know, those bullies of the black rod. Surely, technology has moved on from banging on doors.
And the separate regulation to which you refer would have been impossible because why?
Ruawake –
http://www.anu.edu/people/Roger.Clarke/DV/OzCard.html
“During 1985-86 the Federal Government developed a proposal for a national identification scheme. Following increasing public concern about the scheme’s implications, the Australia Card Bill was defeated in the Senate in November 1986. ”
“On 2 April 1987, the Australia Card Bill was rejected by the Senate for the second time.”
Diogenes
Your #282 unfortunateley is a lite feather slap to Obama , with th rest of blog soothing generality words as if such overt Obama/Dems protectionism is not too bad
At risk is $500 million of our Steel exports alone Amost evry Country in th world has condemnd this latest proctionism Bill as gross Trade discriminaton I thought
I’d thought i’d get similar condemnation from Obamamaites not a fluffly feather , and from th bleachers SILENSE indeed This is not a re-ref of US electon ,we ar into adverse protectioniuist policy as reality policy that I’d pre talkd about for months that this guy was a reel trade protectionist & youse just not then interested Well we ar at th now now , th realtiy of that protectonisms & it will hurt We need to hope it gets trashed 100% Th potential econamic consequenses of this ar greater than GFC on us , and indeed othr Countrys
You say
“1.Fair trade doesn’t exist anywhere.”
Wrong , World trade operates within some unfair practises hense WTA negotiatons (that US & EU ar selfishly holding up improving)….
So your ‘soothing’ statement hides that this Obama/Dems protectonist Bill wuld compltely destroy any reasonable levels of inter World trade & create at best a lite depression , so now stop soothing copying Obama’s “blank blank’ delivery
“2. Economic common sense is an oxymoron”.
Suppose ‘ozymoron’ is a qualifcaton of comonsense …you cann’t qualify , because that Inter Country trade relyies on ‘balanse’ of each Country’s restrictons , So your ‘soothing’ statement hides that this if you throw it dramatic out of kilter like a merry go around you just fall off And World inta trade colapses done & econ system disntergates with Woirld poverty & unemployment increasing , avoiding that over balancing is calld reel econamic commonsense
So your ‘soothing’ statement this time did sounded good , but only as …oxy someting
“3. The financial well-being of Oz etc is not Obama’s job to protect”
err , then why stick up for someone whose Bill will econamicly devastate our own oz country …ie if you’re saying its ok for Obama as an Americon to selfishly look after USA and stuff th rest of th world , then apply th same principal yourself !… stick up for oz against Obama to look after oz Just say without qualification that th protectonism Bill stinks , without qualifcation , it hurts oz too much
Finaly , th Bill will get ‘spun’ as waterd down as it will hurt US via retaliation just as much , but protectionist executon will now occur iresepctive of ‘spin’ against our oz intersts Such gross protctionism is not just wrong its completeley wrong wrong , and so buter cupping can make it look for Obama/Dems ‘not too bad’
357
Because every government wins a Senate majority sooner or later.
Maybe I misunderstood?? 😉
Oz, the Australia Card Bill was the trigger for the 1987 double dissolution, and thus could have been passed at a joint sitting.
ruawake
The Senate voted it down to force a DD. But incompetence was the final nail in it’s coffin.
BTW I think we were bloody lucky to avoid an Australia Card Mark II under Howard with the threat of terrorism as a pretext. He certainly mused about it a few times. The bill would have been the “You are an UnAustralian Terrorist Sympathiser and Welfare Fraud if You Oppose This Act”
Okay, that’s actually quite funny, in a Joseph Heller kind of a way. Well done.
I had something to do with Nick Bolkus at the time. May I suggest he was not going anywhere after. 😉
For those who need to know about Voodoo economics……
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzLNc7IZU14
So it was a DD trigger but it was never defeated in the Senate? How does that work?
I’d forgotten most of that detail ruawake but a similar story is here:
http://austlii.edu.au/itlaw/articles/GGOzcard1-Lessons.html
[So it was a DD trigger but it was never defeated in the Senate? How does that work?]
Maybe it wasn’t re-introduced in a joint sitting?
Looks like the war of words between Bligh and Palmer is heating up, can only help Bligh.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/bligh-not-intimidated-by-mining-magnate-20090201-7uqp.html
Oz, the legislation was defeated in the Senate; it became the trigger for the DD; it could then have been passed, but before this could happen it became apparent that further regulation would have been required which the Senate could have blocked, so the government abandoned the whole thing. By that time there was a huge public revolt against the idea anyway, which for some reason there hadn’t been before the election was held.
Peter Garrett was a very effective catalyst for the post-election anti-Australia Card campaign. I always felt his timing in this respect had a lot to do with the fact that Midnight Oil’s Diesel and Dust came out in August 1987.
Castle the Liberals only hold two seats in Brisbane and with Nicholls pushed to the front leading the charge against democratic principles, they might get their representation halved. It would be funny if Flegg was the only Liberal left after this dustup.
Whooa, proper psephy arguments going on. Very informative, too. But just dropped by to say thank you for earlier heads up about antipsychotics , lithium and heat related deaths. State and national action will ensue.
Steve: That depends on whether they manage to not stuff up their preselection in Indooroopilly. Much as I’d like to see the Greens win a seat over in Qld, that one’s a gimme for the Liberals. Uh, I mean LNP.
Steve
Strange co-incidence, ABC had a program on tonight, Speers and Hitler, not that I’m drawing any paralells. But Bligh may have to be careful, I thought that a lib pollie had to pay compo after making similar remarks about a union bloke running for a labor seat in NSW, may have been Roberston?
Packer backed Howard in 98 but it was more of a backhander by saying he didn’t feel that labor had spent enough time in opposition.
Thanks William.
[It would be funny if Flegg was the only Liberal left after this dustup.]
Pity they are now the LNP as even if he was the only lib he may still have had trouble securing the leadership.
OZ
Th Australia Card legislation WAS gonig to introduced after th DD in 87 , but th damn thing did not even hav a comencement date So Govt could hav introduced it , Senate would hav then rejeted it , then at a DD joint sitting th Bill wuld hav passed it and lol we had a Austrlia Card approved….but could never start as there was no start date , like reel bright
Now to get th date put in required a separate Senate approval again and , that date commencement date bit wuld hav ben rejected by Senate
So Govt then wasn’t goin to hav a SECOND DD , especialy as polls had then shown about 60% against by then , why 60% was just irational
Hah, the best article of the year.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/01/2479451.htm
“Ms Bishop said during an interview on Sky News the package should include wide ranging tax cuts.
“Broad and sweeping tax cuts that will increase the tax base and increase tax revenues,” she said.”
Bowen asks how tax cuts increase revenue.
“A spokeswoman for Ms Bishop says tax cuts will lead to more economic activity, which will broaden the tax base and increase revenue.”
Good clarification, spokeswoman. I hope this gets picked up and shredded in the papers tomorrow.
“But Mr Bowen says Ms Bishop has lost all credibility.”
Again.
HSO
Here’s a Medical Alert that New York’s Office of Mental Health Sent out last year to all their mental health program directors during a heat wave. It’s even got a pdf of a patient brochure all about heat illnesses.
Medical Alert – Increased Risk Of Heat Illness To Persons Taking Antipsychotic Medications
http://www.omh.state.ny.us/omhweb/heat/