Labor’s two-party vote from Essential Research has a five in front of it for the first time since January, dropping two points to 58-42. The report also finds Kevin Rudd’s position on asylum seekers is favoured over Malcolm Turnbull’s by 45 per cent to 33 per cent; the Labor Party is thought better to handle immigration and border security by 46 per cent against 34 per cent; the government’s handling of climate change has 45 per cent approval and 30 per cent disapproval; “total concern” about employment prospects has risen 5 per cent since February; and approval of the government’s handling of the global financial crisis has steadily decreased from 63 per cent to 56 per cent since October. Most interestingly, 41 per cent believe the government would be justified in calling an early election if its “financial measures and other legislation” were “opposed” by the opposition, up from 38 per cent in February.
Other stuff:
• Submissions on the federal redistribution of Queensland have been published. Featured are minutely detailed proposals from the major parties. Interestingly, both Labor and the LNP want new electorates straddling the Warrego Highway between Ipswich and Toowoomba. However, the LNP’s proposed seat of Killen (in honour of Gorton-to-Fraser minister Jim) extends northwards from here, while Labor’s proposed Theodore (in honour of Depression-era Treasurer and party legend “Red Ted”) ambitiously sweeps around Boonah and Beaudesert to the Gold Coast hinterland. The LNP submission interestingly calls for Leichhardt to be drawn into Cairns and its Cape York balance to be transferred to Bob Katter’s electorate of Kennedy. Veteran observer Adam Carr says: “I don’t know why the parties bother with these submissions. They commissioners never take the least bit of notice, in fact they seem to go out of their way not to do what either of the parties want them to do.”
• If you feel like making a suggestion for the New South Wales federal redistribution, submissions are being received until May 1.
• The Liberals are complaining about the high number of people who are incorrectly enrolled, as revealed in the Australian Electoral Commission’s answer to a parliamentary question. The average error rate was 3.5 per cent, mostly involving failures to update enrolment following changes of address. Liberal Senator Michael Ronaldson creatively notes this is “greater than the margin by which 33 seats were decided at the last federal election”. His line of logic has failed to impress Bernard Keane at Crikey.
• Dig Possum’s booth result maps.
• I recently had occasion to discuss Malcolm Mackerras’s concerns with New Zealand mixed-member proportional system, in which I noted its similarities and subtle differences with Germany’s election system. In doing so I erroneously stated that mid-term vacancies in German electorates are filled not through by-elections as in New Zealand, but by “unelected candidates from the party’s national lists”. In fact, the lists are not national, as Mackerras writes to explain:
My recent article in Crikey on the forthcoming by-election for Mount Albert in New Zealand seems to have created a minor confusion. Trying to limit my number of words I allowed you to write this précis in your Poll Bludger blog: “New Zealand’s Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system is modelled on Germany’s, but departs from it in that vacated constituency seats are filled by unelected candidates from the party’s national lists – which New Zealand was obviously loath to do as it would randomly match members to electorates with which they have had no connection.” That is not quite right so I had best elaborate. Germany is a federation whereas New Zealand is a unitary state. In Germany there are no national party lists – there are Land party lists. A German Land is what we Anglos would call a state or province. Consequently if, for example, a constituency member for a Munich seat were to depart he/she would be replaced by the next unelected candidate of his/her party on the Bavarian list. Since New Zealand is more like a German Land than Germany as a whole I contend that any logical New Zealand MMP system would allow Labour’s Damien Peter O’Connor automatically to become the member for Mount Albert, rather than put the Labour Party to the cost of a by-election it might lose. O’Connor was, for several years, the member for West Coast-Tasman until he was defeated by the National Party’s candidate at the November 2008 general election. Since constituency members switching from the North Island to the South Island (and vice versa) is so common in New Zealand I can see no reason why O’Connor should not automatically become the next member for Mount Albert.
So, how did the present situation arise? It all goes back to the Royal Commission Report in December 1986. Because of my interest in these matters I took sabbatical leave in New Zealand for that semester so I could be there when the Report was published. I was shocked by it. The feature which most shocked me was the number of howlers I found in the Royal Commission’s Report. Among them was this recommendation on page 44: “Vacancies caused by the resignation or death of a sitting constituency member would be filled by a by-election as under the present system. List members would be replaced by the next available person on the relevant party list.” No further elaboration. No discussion as to why New Zealand should copy Germany in so many other ways but not in this way.
So I set about to find out how the Royal Commission could have written that howler, along with the others. The explanation I came up with (which I am convinced is correct) is that when Royal Commission members visited Germany they never thought to ask the German experts as to how Germany actually fills its vacancies. Meanwhile the German hosts did not think to inform their New Zealand visitors about this feature of German law. Both sides assumed their position to be self-evident. The difference is that the Germans actually understood their system. The New Zealanders never did – so the Royal Commission recommended to the people of New Zealand that they should vote for a system which the Royal Commission did not understand. That 54 per cent of New Zealanders actually voted for this ratbag scheme is easily explained. The issue of electoral reform was overshadowed by unpopular economic reform. The Business Roundtable was far too influential in economic policy making under both Labour and National governments. When the Business Roundtable asked the people of New Zealand not to vote for MMP the popular reaction was to say: “If they say vote against it that is the best argument to vote for it.”
Meanwhile John Key, now Prime Minister, promised during the election campaign that there would be another referendum on MMP. No details were given. So I took the liberty of seeking an interview with him to press my proposal which is that there should be two referendums. The first would accompany the next general election and be indicative only – the kind of legally non-binding vote which we in Australia would call a plebiscite. At that referendum, to be held in conjunction with the November 2011 general election, the people would be offered the choice of two alternative systems. The winner of that would then run off against MMP at a referendum to be held in conjunction with the November 2014 general election and that, of course, would be legally binding.
The two alternative systems would be the Single Transferable Vote (STV), what we in Australia call Hare-Clark. That is the one for which I would vote if I were a New Zealander – or a British Columbian for that matter. The other choice would be the Mixed Member Majoritarian (MMM) system, known in New Zealand for many years as Supplementary Member. That is quite simple to explain. The basic structure of MMP would stay. Every elector would get two votes, one for a constituency candidate, one for a party. The party list seats would be distributed proportionally between the parties. Under such a system by-elections would be quite logical because that would be a mixed system, not one of proportional representation. I have no idea which of STV or MMM would win in 2011. I am in no doubt, however, that the winning system of 2011 would easily defeat MMP in 2014.
Shows On,
Sometimes being creatively derivative makes a point.
[Sometimes being creatively derivative makes a point.]
And other times it doesn’t.
ShowsOn, popularity for the monarchy is growing, even amongst young people. Rudd will be dead and buried before we ever have another republic referendum.
Speaking of being derrotively creepy, welcome back GP.
[ShowsOn, popularity for the monarchy is growing, even amongst young people. ]
Wrong.
[Rudd will be dead and buried before we ever have another republic referendum.]
Do you want to bet one of your yachts on that?
[ShowsOn, popularity for the monarchy is growing, even amongst young people. ]
No doubt young people who were born and educated during the Howard Era, hence the decline in student radicalism since 1996 when they started becoming the “Me” Generation.
[ShowsOn, popularity for the monarchy is growing, even amongst young people. Rudd will be dead and buried before we ever have another republic referendum.]
Oh good grief
MSNBC.com reporting that Chrysler will file for bankruptcy.
[MSNBC.com reporting that Chrysler will file for bankruptcy.]
I am overcome with surprise.
[MSNBC.com reporting that Chrysler will file for bankruptcy]
Wow, I thought GMH would be first
Apparently the government is going to use the bankruptcy to force a shotgun marriage between Chrysler and Fiat.
Poor Fiat.
I thought that Senator Hanson-Young did quite well on QANDA tonight.
She even said anti-viral unlike everyone else who was following Senator Joyce`s mess up.
[Apparently the government is going to use the bankruptcy to force a shotgun marriage between Chrysler and Fiat.]
I believe that has fallen through, they are filing for bankruptcy because they couldn’t arrange a deal with Fiat.
Loved Tony calling Barnaby Rainman hahahahaha 😀
[But the filing will not mean the halt of operations or liquidation for the troubled 85-year old automaker. Instead, the administration expects to use the bankruptcy process to join Chrysler with Italian automaker Fiat.]
http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/30/news/companies/chrysler_bankruptcy/index.htm?postversion=2009043009
[I thought that Senator Hanson-Young did quite well on QANDA tonight.]
She certainly looked like a fool on the Republic
She actually argued quite well on the republic but the Idea of a yes/no plebiscite with no model is a bit of a waste and we should go straight to the drafting and preferential choice of model stage.
The 1999 proposal was rather badly written.
Garrett dominated throughout and was certainly the Alpha particpant. Jones gave him deferential fawning treatment. Certainly the audience were chanelling through Garrett. However, placing him strategically between the Green and Joyce was very advantagious to Garrett and Labor.
I’m Labor, but this was a hatchet job to the Opposition.
No 617
Yet over half the delegates at the 1998 convention supported the model that was eventually voted upon in the referendum, as did most of the media at the time. It became convenient for Republicans to then blame Howard because the result wasn’t in their favour:
http://www.norepublic.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1870&Itemid=4
Tom, you can’t have a preferential referendum. There has to be a bill proposing a specified change to the Constitution. The proposal in the 1999 bill was what the majority of the Convention wanted. Do you know a better way to come up with a proposal?
I’ve never blamed Howard or the media for the referedum failing. I’ve always blamed Phil Cleary and his fellow ratbags who couldn’t get what they wanted at the Convention and so spat the dummy and treacherously supported the monarchists.
No 611
Actually Daimler lost more from Chrysler than Fiat could hope. It’s a pretty good deal for Fiat because it gives them access to the US distribution network to relaunch Alfa Romeo and Fiat cars to that country and they picked it up for a pittance.
[She actually argued quite well on the republic but the Idea of a yes/no plebiscite with no model is a bit of a waste and we should go straight to the drafting and preferential choice of model stage.]
Hardly. Pushing a Republic in the middle of the GFC is lunacy. She is a fool.
I did not say preferential referendum I said “preferential choice of model stage” which would be a preferential plebiscite on which model to put up in the referendum. This is not a new idea.
Adam,
Agree about Cleary. However, Howard exploited the division to get the result he wanted.
[She actually argued quite well on the republic but the Idea of a yes/no plebiscite with no model is a bit of a waste and we should go straight to the drafting and preferential choice of model stage.]
I think the point about accepting that there’s a few things that take clear priority like climate change and the economy but not treating the Australian public like idiots who can only deal with one issue at a time is important – and it goes for a lot of things, not just the republic.
Further to my no 622
Cerberus Investment Bank who purchased 80% of Chrysler shares from Daimler last year certainly made a poor investment or were highly incompetent in securing the restructuring required.
The government and people of Australia are capable of thinking about more that one issue at a time.
No 625
Rubbish. Republicans lost because they couldn’t decide what they wanted. That’s hardly Howard’s fault.
Tom @ 628,
True,
Men allegedly think about sex every 30 seconds.
[Hardly. Pushing a Republic in the middle of the GFC is lunacy. She is a fool.]
Oh come on, the country shouldn’t shut down because of the state of the economy. No other country is and we’re constantly being told that we’re in a better situation! And as Tony Jones pointed out, according to the Treasurer we’re most likely to be out of a recession (with above trend growth to boot!) by the next election.
The US is in a much more dire financial situation than us but they’re managing to reform huge parts of how they run the country, at a much greater cost than us becoming a republic, and by extension, their society itself. So why can’t we?
The 1999 model was badly drafted. For example under said model the President and Prime Minister could sack each other simultaneously and cause a constitutional crisis.
[I did not say preferential referendum I said “preferential choice of model stage” which would be a preferential plebiscite on which model to put up in the referendum. This is not a new idea.]
I didn’t say it was a new idea, but it’s not the time for it
[The proposal in the 1999 bill was what the majority of the Convention wanted. Do you know a better way to come up with a proposal?]
Have a constitutional convention with 100% of the delegates randomly chosen off the electoral roll weighted relative to state / territory / city / rural breakdown.
Then they have to propose two models to the government.
[Oh come on, the country shouldn’t shut down because of the state of the economy]
Who said anything about shutting down the country? A Republic is a luxury, not a need. It can wait, and it will.
No 635
Given how stoic the Queen has been, she is likely to outlive Rudd. 🙂
No 634
Not a bad idea. But no expensive plebescites.
GP,
Howard supported the existing system.
The referendum question that was put allowed the divison of the pro Republican vote.
The pro Republicans duly danced the tune of divison.
Result is that Howard got what he wanted. I am not actually critical of Howard. Just observing he manipulated the situation to his advantage. ( which is a legitiamte).
In my comment at 624 I was pointing out that Adam was trying to paint me as erroneously calling for a preferential referendum when I was not.
I was addressing the “”now is not the time because of the GFC” argument in my post at 628.
It’s funny how similar the current pseudo-republican position is to certain monarchist arguments.
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.
If you’re a republican you believe that it is “broke”, and you want to change it.
Your position is that it’s broke but we will wait to fix it. I don’t see the logic in accepting that there’s a flaw with our system of governance, being in a position to kick off the process to rectify it and then saying “No.”
I do not consider this to be the same as a “luxury”. A luxury is not something that provides a solution to a problem (a republic referendum/plebiscite), it’s something superfluous.
No 638
How on earth did he manipulate the situation? The question was put according to what the convention then supported.
That the Republicans were an indecisive rabble is not Howard’s problem.
[The government and people of Australia are capable of thinking about more that one issue at a time]
Just because they are capable does not mean they should
No 640
The Republic debate has always been superfluous because our system of government is one of the most peaceful and stable in the world, also producing a quality of life comparable to the Scandinavians.
There is no inherent need to spend an egregious sum of money on another Republic debate.
[How on earth did he manipulate the situation? The question was put according to what the convention then supported. ]
By stacking half of the convention with politicians, instead of letting members of the general public decide.
The deliberative poll showed conclusively, that once people know we have a constitution, and know what it SAYS, they support a republic by at least a 2:1 ratio.
[There is no inherent need to spend an egregious sum of money on another Republic debate.]
And yet the Howard government had a lazy $200 million available to waste on political advertising.
GP,
The Howard Government decided what the question put to the public would be.
Howard assessed that the dual Republican model would fail and that is why he allowed it to go to the people.
[The Republic debate has always been superfluous because our system of government is one of the most peaceful and stable in the world]
The assumption that we won’t be peaceful and stable just because we have an Australian Head of State is completely absurd. Either we are peaceful and stable BECAUSE of the Queen, and thus we can’t have an Australian head of state, OR the Queen doesn’t do anything within our political system, and thus there would be no problems changing to a different one with an Australian Head of State.
No 644
Ah, I sense another futile debate on s59, which, as you well know, is otiose.
[Ah, I sense another futile debate on s59, which, as you well know, is otiose.]
I bet you three of your yachts that you are wrong.
No 646
I did not say that we won’t be peaceful and stable under a Republican model, but the point is that there is no need to go through the needless expense. An unbiased, inactive head of state has served our purposes well.
No 648
ShowsOn, as Adam will agree, you were, and remain, completely wrong on s59.