Essential Research: 58-42

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.

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.

927 comments on “Essential Research: 58-42”

Comments Page 14 of 19
1 … 13 14 15 … 19

  1. [Howard assessed that the dual Republican model would fail and that is why he allowed it to go to the people.]
    He also proposed that stupid preamble that even more people voted against than the Republic.

  4. [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.]
    Yes there is, because our Head of State isn’t an Australian and DOESN’T live here. That is a MISTAKE that needs to be fixed.

  5. No 645

    But that again neglects to acknowledge the failure of the Republican movement to come to an agreement as to which model they would support. It has been a convenient charade to blame Howard in order to disguise their own incompetence and indecision.

  6. [By the way I do not own any yachts.]
    1) Maybe if you were better at making financial decisions you would own some.
    2) Stop complaining about how the global financial crisis is personally effecting you.

  7. [But that again neglects to acknowledge the failure of the Republican movement to come to an agreement as to which model they would support.]
    And Monarchist morons have failed to explain why a democratic country should have an unelected and unrepresentative non-citizen as our Head of State in 2009.

  9. No 656

    1) A yacht is an unnecessary black hole into which my money will go and never return.
    2) I did not complain.

    Dear oh dear showson, must you be a constant purveyor of baboonery?

  10. [1) A yacht is an unnecessary black hole into which my money will go and never return.]
    I’m bored of you talking about your inability to manage your own finances.

  12. No 657

    Precisely because she’s unelected, unrepresentative and unbiased. That is what contributes to the stability of our country. It is not moronic. In fact, your increasingly desperate attacks are full of bitterness and jealousy.

  13. Most republicans are not indecisive. There are just two sorts of them: supporters of a directly elected president, and supporters of the system where a president is appointed by the PM.

    The only way that might get us a republic is to first have a vote (for or against) that at some fixed later date we will have another vote to choose between the two models of a republic.

  14. I’m reliably informed that the best two days of being a yacht owner is the day you buy it and the day you sell it.

    Running a yacht is like standing under a freezing cold shower tearing up $100 dollar notes. (allegedly).

  16. West Australians are capable of doing several things at once. Shortly we will shuffle to polling booths in our worn out shoes and rags, and face masks, and vote on whether we want to afternoon tea at the hottest time of the day next summer, or an hour later.

  17. No 664

    That’s about right. You’d have to use every day to make to expense worthwhile. I’d rather buy save the money and buy a presidential suite on the Queen Mary.

  19. [As any boat owner will attest, they are extremely costly to maintain.]
    B O R I N G!
    [Precisely because she’s unelected, unrepresentative and unbiased. ]
    WHAT!? You see nothing wrong with a DEMOCRACY featuring a head of state that isn’t elected, doesn’t represent anyone, and can’t be sacked under ANY circumstances, and isn’t a citizen who doesn’t live here? This seems to me to be completely in opposition to our democratic traditions.
    [In fact, your increasingly desperate attacks are full of bitterness and jealousy.]
    I’m jealous that I can’t vote for Australia’s head of state? Do you even know what the word jealous means?

  24. [Member for Lilley, christened Gilligan:]
    Stop being jealous of your Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia.

  26. Q&A was good. Barnaby was a country hick and an idiot as usual, Garrett the Labor man looked to be in the safe electable middle between the Greens and the Liberals on climate change, and Sarah Hanson-Young talked honest sense. I’m glad I voted for her at #1 below the line.

  30. On the Republic convention:
    Before nominations and voting had taken place for the convention, Howard said that the convention was to determine whether Australia should become a republic.
    After voting had taken place, and many delegates elected on a platform of opposing a republic, he announced that the convention would decide what sort of republic would be put to referendum.
    If delegates had been elected on the basis of their ideas about what kind of republic we should have, rather than on the question of whether we should have one at all, then the convention would have had a very different make up.

    Oh, and Phil Cleary and Ted Mack were contemptible. I was at a republic debate in Corowa, where they both assured the crowd that they could vote against the republic at the referendum because they (C & M) would make sure that there was another ref within the next couple of years.
    They assured the crowd that they would publically agitate for this until it happened.
    Haven’t heard a peep out of them since.
    Made me realise that independent politicians, by their very nature, HAVE to be populists.

  31. #662, Comrade Grand Prixk, the Motherland salutes you:

    [Precisely because the CCCCP’s unelected, unrepresentative and unbiased. That is what contributes to the stability of our country. It is not moronic. In fact, your increasingly desperate attacks are full of bitterness and jealousy.]

    The East is Red:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av_ZYpziyHk

  32. [Most republicans are not indecisive. There are just two sorts of them: supporters of a directly elected president, and supporters of the system where a president is appointed by the PM.]

    Um, no, the second alternative was a president chosen by a joint sitting of the two houses of federal parliament. What we have *now* is a situation where the functions of the head of state are carried out by a person who is the personal appointee of the PM – which was not of course the intention when the office of GG was created

  33. GP 675

    I’m not sure I agree with the analogy and think Wilson Tuckey would make a much better Gilligan. But to continue with it I presume that would make Rudd the Skipper, Lindsay Tanner as the Professor, Malcolm Turnbull as Thurstin Howell III, and former treasurer Julie Bishop as Mrs Howell. I’ll leave it to other bludgers to allocate the roles of Ginger and Maryanne.

  36. It’s no longer swine flu, it’s H1N1 flu which is a bit lame because there are lots of H1N1 flus. They should have called it Mexican flu which would be the most accurate but went all PC.

    [“Rather than calling this swine flu … we’re going to stick with the technical scientific name H1N1 influenza A,” he said.

    On Wednesday, Egypt began slaughtering its roughly 300,000 pigs as precaution, even though experts said swine flu is not spread by eating pork.]

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/30/swine-flu-gets-new-name-b_n_193772.html

  38. Dr. Good,

    [
    Dr Good
    Posted Friday, May 1, 2009 at 12:36 am | Permalink
    Most republicans are not indecisive. There are just two sorts of them: supporters of a directly elected president, and supporters of the system where a president is appointed by the PM.

    The only way that might get us a republic is to first have a vote (for or against) that at some fixed later date we will have another vote to choose between the two models of a republic.
    ]

    I would heartily support the idea you advanced in the second p. I’m on the far left of the Labor spectrum and the Republic is one of my main personal issues but I understand that in the mainstream it carries less weight. Any avenue forward that gets us to the endgame sooner wors for me 😀 . Perhaps an successful referendum could establish a R-date of 18 months forward and a secondary election 12 months on, 6 months out for the replacement model to the K or Q.

  39. TWTSTB, Polish history is one of the most intractable issues at Wikipedia. I tried to fix that and many other articles. But the Polish nationalists are absolutely fanatical and will not be deterred, so eventually I gave up. That’s one of Wikipedia’s basic structual problems – the fanatics always win in the end because the non-fanatics get bored and give up first.

  40. My number one reason for supporting a republic was well stated by Neville Wran: I want a Constitution that says what it means and means what it says. (A republic would be an important part of this, although only a part. Have you read the blessed thing? What about section 101, for example?)

    Australians are familiar with preferential voting. It seems an easy solution to me to give people a ballot paper with three options: monarchy; republic with a President chosen by Parliament; republic with a directly elected President. Get them to number in order of preference. We’d get a winner and then we could sort out the procedural details.

  41. GP Howard should squarely be blamed for the failure of the referendum. It could have been a YES/NO vote on a republic, then a vote for a model. The process was designed to put up a model (republic with 2/3 parliament election) that would fail.

  42. [Before nominations and voting had taken place for the convention, Howard said that the convention was to determine whether Australia should become a republic.
    After voting had taken place, and many delegates elected on a platform of opposing a republic, he announced that the convention would decide what sort of republic would be put to referendum.]
    So at that point all the Monarchists should’ve been politely asked to leave.

  43. Yes there are politicians stupider than Barnaby Joyce:
    [Commodore Frank Bainimarama said Australia’s defence force chief Angus Houston made the threat in 2006, shortly after the coup which brought him to power.

    “He woke me up early in the morning to tell me don’t ever do anything that will pit my troops against yours,” Cdre Bainimarama told Sky News.

    “It was a threat, he made a threat.”

    Cdre Bainimarama said he was affected at the time by a heavy night of drinking kava, but he thought Houston must have been drunk to make such a comment.]
    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25412976-29277,00.html

  44. [GP Howard should squarely be blamed for the failure of the referendum. It could have been a YES/NO vote on a republic, then a vote for a model. The process was designed to put up a model (republic with 2/3 parliament election) that would fail.]

    He at least did put it to a vote. We have received no commitments from the current government, not even for a plebiscite on whether we should have a republic, which could be held concurrently with the next election. I believe Howard always committed to holding a referendum during his second term of government.

    [So at that point all the Monarchists should’ve been politely asked to leave.]

    This presumes that monarchists should have no say in the future of the country if it is not to be a constitutional monarchy. I don’t agree.

  45. [I believe Howard always committed to holding a referendum during his second term of government.]
    That’s because he had to. Keating promised a vote if he won the next election, and Howard promised the same.
    [This presumes that monarchists should have no say in the future of the country if it is not to be a constitutional monarchy.]
    The Con-Con was to determine if Australia should become a republic, there were more Republican candidates by a 2:1 margin (even accounting that Howard appointed half of the delegates).

  46. Itep
    the point is they were elected on false premises – people voted them expecting them to have a say in whether or not we became a republic, not what kind of republic it was going to be – two very different things.

    If I told people I want them to put in tenders to do a feasibility study into a project and then tell the tenderers that I’m going to assess them on whether or not they can deliver the project, I’m asking for a very different set of skills to those I advertised for.

  48. Re 666,

    [
    West Australians are capable of doing several things at once. Shortly we will shuffle to polling booths in our worn out shoes and rags, and face masks, and vote on whether we want to afternoon tea at the hottest time of the day next summer, or an hour later.
    ]

    I’m shuffling off to a pre-poll location and will do this one before end of the day today ….

  50. AFL tips from the leading pollies (KR, MT, JG, JB) –

    all in for Collingwood
    KR one out for Hawthorn
    all in for West Coast
    both Labor in for Brisbane, both Lib in for Essendon
    men in for Port, ladies in for Adelaide
    JG one out for Richmond
    all in for Geelong
    JG one out for Western Bulldogs

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 14 of 19
1 … 13 14 15 … 19