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.
*mutters darkly*
701, you didn’t expect anything else did you? From the HS today ….
[
Sunday’s MCG game has attracted the unusuals, those punters who decided to place whatever is in their account on the Cats at whatever price.
“We’ve taken a bet of $4366 on Geelong at $1.03 and $2840 at $1.01, which basically gives you a small interest for the afternoon,” Sportsbet’s Phil Hannah said.
]
There seems to be much support for a Head of State that is directly elected.
I, for one, do not want a directly elected Head of State (though I do not want the Queen filling that role) and believe that it would be an ineffective step if we moved to appoint a Head of State in this manner.
Under the present arrangements the Head of State is the Queen however the “person” that really carries out the duties of our Head of Sate is the Governor General. As a general statement it can be said that we have been very well served by those appointed (not elected) to that position. They have been distinguished Australians who at the end of their careers have made a further very big contribution to our culture, political and social development. Very few were political animals (only Casey and Hasluck comes to mind however, more astute and older students of politics may be able to name others).
I think that it is safe to say that most would agree that there has only really been one or two duds since the first Australian (Sir Isaac Isaac in 1931) was appointed to that position.
If we have a directly elected Governor General I believe that there will be political tension between the positions of Head of Government (the Prime Minister of the day) and Head of State (The President – or whatever title is adopted). This in the extreme could lead to the situation where the Government of the day cant govern and we could potentially have events like the “Dismissal” (Whitlam/Frazer/Kerr) visited on us at regular intervals.
I also believe that if the Head of State is directly elected we will finds ourselves with only “old” politicians filling the role because those distinguished Australian that have been appointed up to now would be unwilling to go through the grind of an election and all it entails.
I don’t think it would be in our best interest if in the future we have, say, John Howard as our directly elected President and Julia Gillard as PM.
The proposal at the last referendum appeared to me to be a very reasonable compromise on this issue. I can understand those that are uncomfortable with the current system where the (de-facto) Head of State is appointed by the PM of the day with, little or no consultation with anyone. However, a situation where the Head of State is indirectly elected seems to me to satisfy all involved.
I believe that a joint sitting of out two federal houses acting as an electoral college and requiring a two-thirds majority satisfies the demands of a democratic system. If the USA can elect its President in a similar manner (i.e. via an electoral college) surly it is an indication of the democratic bona fides of such a system.
Andrew @ 691
ltep @ 694
zoomster @ 696
This is why I suggest a preferential ballot with three options–cuts through this sort of knot.
David Penberthy says Rann is Oz’s best Premier. He lists Rann’s achievements as the bikie laws, promotion of the arts and the Tour Down Under. And an ecomomy better than NSW. Can’t be much competition.
[CONGRATULATIONS South Australia – you currently have the best premier in the land. And whether you like him or not, you had better get used to him – the events of the past few days mean he’ll probably be staying in the job for a very long time.]
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25410584-5018816,00.html
705 – Congratulations Dio.
Ratsars @ 703
Well, Peter Hollingworth turned out to be at the end of his career, so you’re half-right in his case. But what big contributions can you think of that any of our Governors-General have made to our development–as Governor-General, I mean? I’m stumped.
Or, indeed, anybody willing to spend five minutes checking the facts can discover the political careers of Isaacs, McKell, and Hayden, making the total five out of the twelve Australians who’ve held the job, while five minutes more will reveal that nine out of the thirteen we imported from the UK had political careers there first. I think your definition of ‘very few’ must be different from mine. Perhaps what you meant is that recently it hasn’t gone to ex-politicians.
But wait–is that what happens in other countries which operate such a system? Why no, in general it isn’t. It’s about as unusual as having an appointed Governor-General sack an elected Prime Minister. So we have a choice between a judgement based on your ‘beliefs’ and one based, once again, on a little work checking the factual evidence. I know which one I’m going with.
More propaganda from the Daily Denialist. The hysteria from Big Coal continues. Rudd’s ETS is much too fast. Better to do nothing for a lot longer. And that 5% is way too much.
[AUSTRALIA’S electricity generators have warned the Rudd Government that power stations could face insolvency this year under an emissions trading scheme that forced such rapid change it risked “blowing up in their faces”.]
And Barnaby won’t vote for Rudd or Turnbull’s ETS because they are going to be too “tokenistic”. Does that mean he want a 20% reduction?
[The warnings came as the Nationals Senate leader Barnaby Joyce said there was almost no chance the Nationals would agree to emissions trading amendments being prepared by the Liberal Party in preparation for Senate negotiations over the Government’s “carbon pollution reduction scheme”.
“I think it is exceptionally, exceptionally unlikely that an alternative emissions trading scheme would be any better, any less tokenistic, than the Government’s emissions trading scheme,” Senator Joyce said. ]
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25411880-11949,00.html
So Barnaby is worried about what an ETS will do to businesses but doesn’t want one that is tokenistic? Hmm. Can someone explain to me if he is for or against an ETS?
[So Barnaby is worried about what an ETS will do to businesses but doesn’t want one that is tokenistic? Hmm. Can someone explain to me if he is for or against an ETS?]
He doesn’t believe in climate change and will use any trick in the book to have us do nothing.
Mike Rann is the nation’s best premier – http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25410584-5018816,00.html
lol dio, didnt realise you’d already posted it 😛
ltep
Exactly. He doesn’t care if his objections are contradictory and he’s so dumb he probably doesn’t even realise they are contradictory. Lots of farmers want something done about climate change, after all they are the biggest losers from global warming and droughts.
We now know where swine flu came from. And as usual, we have met the enemy, and he is us.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/our-hunger-for-cheap-meat_b_194165.html
Turnbull has taken us back to “reds under the beds” days according to Swannie. All we need now is for him to tell us to put our money under there as well 🙂
By the way who was it that said something like “can’t fit our money under the bed because the reds are allready under there”? Hawkie?
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/turnbull-damaging-china-relations-swan-20090501-apig.html
vera – yep
Thanks Bob1234
Juliem, we could both have wins this weekend, Malcolm has tipped us 😀
should be has NOT tipped us
Have faith you say:
[THE Rudd Government has given big polluters a break by allowing them a generous exemption from contributing to the nation’s mandated renewable energy target.
The backdown, aimed at trying to secure big industry support for the Government’s emissions trading scheme, was agreed to at yesterday’s Council of Australian Governments meeting in Hobart.
The exemption means it is likely households and lesser polluting industries will have to meet the increased cost of the move to more environmentally friendly energy.]
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/big-polluters-win-exemption-from-renewable-energy-20090430-aozw.html
720 Oz, if Labor didn’t need the support of the Libs in the Senate these moves wouldn’t be necessary.
Greens demonstrating their lack of political skills and immaturity.
“The Greens want the scheme to cut greenhouse gases by 40 per cent by 2020. The Government’s scheme will set a target between 5 and 15 per cent. It believes the Greens’ targets to be “economic lunacy”.
Senator Milne refused to yield yesterday and the Government has all but conceded its best hope of passing the legislation lies with the Liberals”.
When you argue all or nothing, be prepared for nothing.
Vera, will have to wait and see I guess. I’m not tipping my own team this weekend, no faith …. would rather go 7/1 and see them get the 4 points 😀
check your email on Monday, I’ll let you know how I go 😉
(I did pick the Swans)
I agree. 20% by 2020 is doable. 40% is not. If the Greens were willing to come down to 20, the government might be willing to go up to 20. But 40 is impossible in the current political/economic climate.
Oz
Rudd is just making his masterful legislation even more “balanced”. Let’s face it, there’s almost no difference between Rudd and Howard/Turnbull etc on this issue. Labor’s natural position would be to deal with the Liberals.
[Let’s face it, there’s almost no difference between Rudd and Howard/Turnbull etc on this issue]
I think that’s total rubbish. The only reason Rudd is having to compromise is to get it through the Senate. He would have proposed something quite different in the first place if he had both houses. Howard would not have bothered.
Dio and GB 705 /706
Maybe they just called Rann Australia’s best premier because the opposition is now looking so discredited that they can sell more papers attacking them than Labor?
To think that Milne is the likely next leader of the Greens – they all seem to forget about political reality in the federal sphere
Even Howard wanted an ETS, which would have been about as lame as Rudd’s. Turnbull can’t work out if his targets will be higher or lower than Rudd’s. Basically, Turnbull’s position is identical to Rudd’s and he’s scrambling to find a difference. He magically wants higher targets but less change to the economy. Labor is beholden to King Coal and the unions like the CFMEU which is close to the biggest political donor Labor has.
Personally, I’m not surprised or even disappointed to see this happen. It was inevitable from long ago. I always said that politicians wouldn’t solve climate change. Our only hope is that scientists do.
[He doesn’t believe in climate change and will use any trick in the book to have us do nothing.]
Much as Peter Reith and Tony Abbot – politicians both – told us po-faced that you couldn’t trust a politician to appoint the GG.
Come to think of it, with them as examples of “politicians”…
Adam 724
Well why doesn’t Rudd say that about 20%? It looks a lot better than 5%/15%. If you adopt a position as a negotiating tactic, then refuse to negotiate, not much happens.
the direct election republicans are the wreckers of the Australia ever becoming a republic, they have form back at the first referendum. This is what we’ll get if we ever have a directly elected president: I will be a political position, that’s what elected roles are, as a consequence the president will have a mandate directly from the people, this is very very powerful and can be invoked anytime as justification for an action; each major party will have their own candidate, one of them will win and if he/she is from the party not holding government you will have tension (remember the president will have a direct mandate from the people); I for one would never find and elected president from an opposing polictical party a “national symbol of unity or independence). You can go on all you like about codifying powers the stark reality is a directly elected president will be political.
The alternative super majority (ie forced bypartisan appointed president) will ensure that any president will be 1. acceptable across the politcal spectrum and most importantly derive their mandate from the parliament of Australia which (even though the dullard direct electionists refuse to concede) is the primary manifestation of the peoples will.
[Even Howard wanted an ETS, which would have been about as lame as Rudd’s]
No, he SAID he wanted an ETS. There is a marked difference.
If agreement on ETS is problematic, can we at least have a “no worse” strategy/policy? So things like new coal-fired power stations, extending the life of brown coal stations etc, are ruled out? That will at least start forcing research into future options, rather than all the money propping up current dirty industries.
Coudl Rudd at least consider higher targets for enhanced public transport and wind power in each state? Saying that the growth went to the instead of more coal power woudl be better than what we have now.
Speaking of delusionist rubbish in the Australian, there was a quite blatant misquote of economist John Quigan by Bill Kinninmonth, which he takes issue with in his blog:
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2009/04/29/oz-meltdown-quiggin-edition/
This is pretty deliberately misleading. Quiggan says “some idiots might think X but they are wrong” and the article says Quiggan says “might think X”.
“Labor is beholden to King Coal and the unions like the CFMEU which is close to the biggest political donor Labor has.”
The Greens got their $40,000 cut from the CFMEU before the last election, now if they had any principals they would have turned it down.
Vera
That doesn’t make the comment about the CFMEU false. Rudd has done a lot of good things so far, but the backdown on cliamte change isn’t one of them, and exposes his own internal conflicts.
Further on Oz’s point about the economic cost being exaggerated, here is a link to a US (MIT) study on the economic cost of cap and trade (ETS) schemes in the US. The cost in the US would vary from 0.5% now to 2% of GDP by 2050, even with an 80% cut in emissions. The study makes the crucial point that a cap& trade/ETS scheme generates revenue that you can use to create new jobs with. So it isn’t all loss. Bear in mind that the US relies more on manufacturing than we do, and has more to lose, then you can see how exaggerated the claimed harm from a 20% reduction is here.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w13176
[He would have proposed something quite different in the first place if he had both houses.]
This is more of the “faith” thing.
And it’s a complete crock. If Labor’s current position was actually about negotiating a bill through parliament then they would have actually met with The Greens/Coalition/Xenophon/Fielding whilst drafting it. They instead engaged with the polluting industries – meeting some companies more than 20 times.
The renewable energy target exemptions have nothing to do with the Senate. They didn’t meet with Senators before giving them out, they met with those industry representatives.
Diogenes –
I’m not particularly surprised either, though I had higher hopes I always suspected they wouldn’t be realised.
I’m more bemused at this idea that we should feel sorry for the Labor Party because it’s not their fault the Senate is as it is. The nexus between Labor (and the Liberals) and the big polluters is a far more influential factor.
Socrates my point was that the Greens are hypocrites, taking donations from the miners union
Oz,
The never ending lovely smears of the Greens against fellow Australians who have alternative interests or a different point of view. What a quality act.
Regardless of what the Government could have proposed regarding targets, the Greens would have adopted a contrarian “Not good enough” position.
It’s part of their modus operendi to never be happy and make hysterical unachievable demands.
[Socrates my point was that the Greens are hypocrites, taking donations from the miners union]
The donation was from the construction division.
I am opposed to private political donations from organisations or businesses, but putting idealism aside for a second, surely the more important question to ask is why would a mining union donate to The Greens? The Greens position on mining, particularly fossil fuels, is very well known and it would be assured that the union would know it before it donated. So could the reason be *shock horror* that coal workers are not as short-sighted as the executives who employ them and and understand that continuing to mine and burn coal is not sustainable and that The Greens are the only party who recognise this and propose to transition workers from emissions intensive industries to the “green sector” before it’s too late?
[The never ending lovely smears of the Greens against fellow Australians who have alternative interests or a different point of view.]
Pot kettle etc.
Stan S @ 732
Why would you expect Australia to be so different from every other country that uses this system?
Petty comments and a blinkered view from Greensborough Growler. I almost fell of my seat in surprise.
I actually laughed at your attempt to defend polluting industries behind a shield of shallow nationalism.
743 – Well Bob, that seems to be an admission that the Greens are either the pot or the kettle and that indeed there are “The never ending lovely smears of the Greens against fellow Australians who have alternative interests or a different point of view.”
This is quite a good article on the origins and development of the outbreak of swine flu but is spoilt by this statement here which is blatantly false and noticeable even to someone like me who is only briefly acquainted with medical science.
[How much harm will we do to ourselves in the name of cheap meat? We know that bird flu developed in the world’s vast poultry farms. And we know that pumping animal feed full of antibiotics in factory farms has given us a new strain of MRSA. It’s a simple, horrible process. The only way to keep animals alive in such dirty conditions is to pump their feed full of antibiotics. But this has triggered an arms race with bacteria, which start evolving to beat the antibiotics – and emerge as in the end as pumped-up, super-charged viruses invulnerable to our medical weapons. This system gave birth to a new kind of MRSA that now makes up 20 percent of all human infections with the virus.]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/our-hunger-for-cheap-meat_b_194165.html
No 691
A referendum cannot be a simple YES/NO question. It must propose a specific constitutional change.
[Well Bob, that seems to be an admission that the Greens are either the pot or the kettle and that indeed there are “The never ending lovely smears of the Greens against fellow Australians who have alternative interests or a different point of view.”]
I’m quite sure it was a comment of Greensborough Growler’s hypocrisy in that post rather than an “admission” of anything.
But sure, chalk up 1-0 on your imaginary scoreboard if you like.
J-D mainly because Australia’s political culture is specific to us, we have a very strong winner take all approach and very disciplined party political structures. And a lot of directly elected presidents have exective power too, something we should avoid in Australia.
Another problem with directly elected president is that it will narrow the field of candidates. You will need lots of money for the campaign (do we really want the richest to be president?) and many of the very best potential presidents will recoil from the whole thought of a campaign and all the agro that entails.