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.
Oz,
I actually laugh at the Greens who have managed (self immolated??) themselves out of the biggest environmental issue going by their intransigent purity complex.
Republicans should simply advocate the most minimalist model: that is simply remove references to the Queen and make the Governor-General our formal head of state, without a name change.
GP,
There’s hope for you yet!
I like the sentiment of what you propose. However, I’d like an Australian title like Head Bunyip or the like.
Scorpio, in what particulars is that paragraph incorrect?
No 753
I would support that model because it means nothing actually changes in terms of how our system of government works. The Governor-General is our head of state at the moment, for all intents and purposes, notwithstanding the constitutional references to the Queen.
So why not just abolish the Queen but leave the Governor-General as is, with no changed ambit of power and certainly no pernicious bill of rights.
752
Which is what Turnbull proposed originally.
The snag that one hit was the appointment of the GG – the constitution has the GG appointed by the monarch.
That’s what the debate was about at the last republican convention.
No 756
Yes the GG is appointed by the monarch as a mere formality. It is the Prime Minister, as we all know, that effectively chooses and appoints the GG.
The thing is, if you call the head of state a president, people want to vote for the president. Just leave it as Governor General.
Italy and Greece have appointed presidents with super majorities required. There are separate debates here; one is how the president is selected the other is what powers they have.
An no matter how you dice it Queen Elizabeth II is Australia’s head of state not the GG, crypto monarchists love throwing in the red herring “GG is really head of state”.
GP that doesn’t address the central problem – who appoints the new head of state? It’s either an elective position, or it’s not. What’s your position on that?
Do you want the Constitution to state explicitly that the PM appoints the head of state?? That would indeed be novel.
GP some people want to elect the president. A national debate on what that means will I am sure move people away from this view.
Why not make the PM head of state? What’s the difference between that and having him appoint someone else?
Imagine a campaign that hammered the “Do you want a politician as you president? Cause that’s what you’ll get with an elected president”
[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.]
Please name all the other bills they met with the other parties with while drafting them…
We have a Parliamentary System. The PM is not elected directly, but through the Parliament. You also run in to the checks and balances issue.
[Please name all the other bills they met with the other parties with while drafting them…]
None, and that’s exactly the point. You take what YOU want to the parliament and then debate/negotiate/ammend. That’s what has happened with pretty much every bill in the current Senate. And it’s the reason why suggestions that this bill is already geared towards getting a Senate compromise, as opposed to Labor’s “real” position” are nonsensical.
I don’t understand your evidence for suggesting that it’s about passing it when it is very strongly opposed by anyone who is a position to pass it (Coalition/crossbenchers) and when they weren’t even consulted.
You only have to look at who was actually consulted to determine the real reason for the ETS being structured as it is, and it has very little to do with the Senate. Obviously viewing it objectively is difficult when people have such strong devotion to Labor, so it’s understandable that it’s hard to accept the core factors.
If the head of state is directly appointed and removed by the PM then you’re already contravening the idea of checks and balances.
Is it possible have a republic that avoids the charged word “president” altogether, remove any reference to the GG, and makes the PM the head of state?
Taling about head of state doesn’t invoke as much emotion as president, the masses would seethat term as yet another name for leader of the country…while the latter makes peope irrational 😛
It still continues to astound me that, half way through the parliamentary term, the opposition cant cobble one significant policy together? Are they for the ETS or against it? Do they want lower or higher targets? Are they behind economic stimulus? Or against? Or do they want a smaller one? Do they support trade with China? Are they for TPVs or against them? They are incoherent.
In an environment where the economy has gone from massive growth/ surpluses to recession/deficits, the coalition could potentially be reaping political benefits, but instead they are confused and without direction and will no doubt lament the wasted opportunity to form a credible alternative
All of these questions about the Republic were exactly what the last constitutional convention discussed.
Their answer was “President, elected by 2/3 of Parliament”.
Oz,
If we are looking for objectivity, then we are not looking at you.
Your self appointed moral superiority probably keeps your core factors warm at night.
Adam, this statement. Bacteria cannot evolve into virus’s and as well, antibiotics are ineffective against virus’s and so have no effect on virus evolution.
[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.]
766
Oz – you also have to remember that, when the original proposal was announced, noone realised that the Opposition was going to take a ‘don’t talk to us’ stand on anything.
So it was drafted with the aim of getting it through the Senate easily, with Coalition approval, on the ‘something is better than nothing’ basis.
Still think it’s a silly target, just sayin’.
[It still continues to astound me that, half way through the parliamentary term, the opposition cant cobble one significant policy together? Are they for the ETS or against it?]
Well according to the dead tree edition of The West – Colin Barnett is against an ETS.
The other error in the article is the assumption that factory farms *caused* the emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria. The first cases began to emerge in hospitals some 50 years ago, well before factory farming was common, and the bacteria themselves have probably always resided in the environment, in very small numbers. The idea that factory farms are an ideal environment for antibiotic resistant bacteria to thrive in is correct though.
The article did get one thing correct which most of the media and ‘experts’ haven’t yet bothered correcting – this flu pandemic is now thought to be caused by ‘just’ a swine flu, and not by a virus that is a genetic mixture of avian/human & swine flu, as was hypothesised early on (but not validated).
Scorpio, yes that is very sloppy wording.
I think the article’s general point – that factory farming of both pigs and poultry serves to create giant virus incubators – is still valid, despite this muddling of viruses and bacteria.
[So it was drafted with the aim of getting it through the Senate easily, with Coalition approval, on the ’something is better than nothing’ basis.]
I’ve always said that Labor and Liberal were much closer on this issue than any other political combination and Labor was always likely to seek to negotiate with them. Of course, many Labor diehards don’t want to accept Labor/Liberal convergence in this instance and have labelled the Liberals irrelevant as they don’t even believe in climate change.
I still don’t see how you can say that the ETS was structured in a way so as to be passed by the Liberals when the Liberals had no input on the process and dispute the fact that it’s structure simply reflects the interconnection between Labor and those with vested interests in polluting – who had a virtual monopoly on input.
[Oz,
If we are looking for objectivity, then we are not looking at you.
Your self appointed moral superiority probably keeps your core factors warm at night.]
Oz hasn’t actually made any moral arguments. He’s merely used facts to dispute other people’s assertions (such as 40% will ruin the economy, nuclear is the answer, the govts ets is a good idea). From what I can gather, Oz appears to be the only person on this board with a professional interest in this area, and is therefore a more valid source of information than many others here. It seems silly to ignore his knowledge because people don’t want to agree with it.
Adam, yeah, I accept that, but it demonstrates just how easily readers can be mislead by fundamental errors such as this and just how much damage it can cause if it is taken up widely.
Now we will have some fun with US politics, playing the guessing game. Justice Souter is retiring …..
[
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/30/souter-replacements-obama_n_194288.html
]
Rudd and Talcum having a singalong 😉 (Ruddy’s losing his hair)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwvfBOZ2N_4&feature=PlayList&p=FDEF02CE5B7C223E&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=2
J-D, 707
Selective quoting of my post and misrepresentation does you argument no favors. In fact you have shown Mr Bolt how to push an argument.
Most of out GG have been at the end of their “first careers” and have brought skills wit, compassion and understanding to the role of GG. Of the 16 GG since Isaac Isaac five were political animals though in the case of Isaac I believe he is more noted for his legal career. But here again you chose to ignore my qualification in this regard when I only mentioned two. If I was trying to present a history lesson it might be necessary to list them all.
However in 78 years since the first Australian GG we have had about 30% who were political animals. McKell and Isaac had other strings to their bow besides that of politician that served them well.
It seems to be nit picking in the extreme when you select general statements and examples and argue that they are not complete when it is not necessary that they be complete in the circumstances.
In you first point you ignored my comment regarding dud GG. I would agree with you the Hollingworth was not up to par and neither was Kerr. However, nothing you have written contradicts the point that we have been very wells served by non-politicians in the roll of GG.
It is also worth noting that where politicians have filled the role of GG the majority of their time in that role has been with a PM (and therefore the Government) of the same political colour. In view of our propensity to elect a Senate of a different political colour to the HoR I would think that the possibility that the directly elected GG could be of a different colour to the Government is a distinct possibility. This I would think could be a “road to ruin” with the Senate and the Head of State actively fighting against the HoR while trying to destabilise the Government.
In this country we have a history of political opportunism (again the Dismissal) and to dismiss it like you have is to ignore history.
I am not surprised that you are stumped for it is clear that you see the GG as some sort if super PM riding into the political battle like knight of old. I suggest that you read up on what the duties and role of a GG. Of cause the GG is the head of the Executive and should represent nation to itself and to the world. I believe (O, JD I am entitled to an opinion am I not?) the best example of this was Dean who in goods time and bad was able to express the feelings and aspirations being felt throughout the nation. I think it is the French who put it best – something like the Head of States reflects the spirit of the nation.
It is clear that if the GG represents the “spirit” of the nation they will contribute to all aspect of the nation just like the head of State anywhere. We have been lucky in that in political terms we have had a majority of holders of this office (over the last 78 years) bring no-politicians doing this very successfully and being non-politicians they have brought a fresh and different approach to the role.
By the way JD could I suggest a little less personal attack and more reasoned and sensible argument would help you case. So instead of nitpicking and ignoring parts that don’t suit you case how about addressing the main points.
If you see an Electoral College arrangement as being un-democratic say so. Don’t rant on about a history lesson.
[Oz hasn’t actually made any moral arguments.]
I have certainly attempted to avoid this.
Before anyone fires up, I have never (and will never) suggest that my statements on climate change/the environment/anything else are inherently more valid simply because they come from me.
But I have noticed in some cases that the question comes to “I have a gut feeling on this” vs. “Well this has been demonstrated to not be the case”. Rather than be stubborn and pretend that our “gut feeling” or “faith” is automatically correct, it would be good if we changed our minds once in a while based on evidence (which I do try to provide).
I don’t think I disagree with Oz on many “facts”. The main disagreements are on how parliament works. Maybe Adam is the right “professional” to listen to on that?
[Maybe Adam is the right “professional” to listen to on that?]
I should probably make it clear i’m not advocating that people only listen to ‘professionals’. Just that if you disagree with them, give more reason than he’s wrong.
Dario:
[Please name all the other bills they met with the other parties with while drafting them…]
Oz:
[None, and that’s exactly the point.]
Might be worth checking the diaries of a few ministers. I think we’d find they are meeting quite a few interest groups quite frequently. The interest groups call it lobbying, though the ministers might prefer ‘consultation’.
Furthermore, I do agree with Oz that a 40% reduction on GHG emissions on 1990 levels by 2020 is technically possible for Australia, especially as part of some international agreement. But it would be very hard and quite boring to try to justify this using “facts” on PB.
However, I don’t think it is politically possible for the government to say that.
Also, I am not convinced that a really sensible and fair approach to international GHG reductions would require Australia to make such a contribution. It is perfectly possible that in a sensibly organised world in 2025, there is a global reduction in GHG emissions but Australia is still a big quarry and (by the direct or indirect) effect of an international pollution reduction scheme, we get allocated a bigger allowance of pollution in exchange for greater reductions by those who ultimately consume our iron and aluminium.
Yo Ho Ho,
The tosh of those so enamoured with themselves, they will not see.
In the last page or so, according to Oz speak, I and Labor supporters are hypocrites, have a blinkered view and are defending polluting industries behind a shield of shallow nationalism.
Sounds like “professional” moral judging to me.
Dr Good, my comment on this yesterday was:
[If the government negotiates with the Coalition, they will be negotiating *down* from the existing bill – the result will be a weaker bill, but a bill that will certainly pass. If they negotiate with the Greens, they will be negotiating *up* – the outcome will be a stronger bill, but a bill that will probably not pass. Both approaches have benefits and risks. Which you prefer depends on whether you think it’s better to defeat a bad bill in hope of getting a better one, or whether you think the essential thing is to get a CPRS in place in the hope that it can be improved later.]
I’m not very happy about these choices, but on balance I may have to accept that the latter is more viable, if the Greens won’t budge from their 40% by 2020 position, which is clearly politically impossible, and maybe impossible to attain anyway. My preference is for 20 by 20, but the GFC has made the politics of this extemely difficult. There is no indication that the Coalition actually wants to negotiate with Labor on this. If I was them, I wouldn’t, I’d just leave Rudd to stew. We may well see both the Coalition and the Greens reject the current bill. Actually I wouldn’t be too upset if the current bill failed, although we’d look pretty silly at Copenhagen after all our talk. Turnbull would wear all the blame for blocking the bill, Rudd would win the next election, and then we could all come back in 2011 with a better Senate and try again.
[I think we’d find they are meeting quite a few interest groups quite frequently. The interest groups call it lobbying, though the ministers might prefer ‘consultation’.]
No, I know this, I was talking about political parties.
[I and Labor supporters are hypocrites,]
Nah, I said that bob1234 was most likely suggesting you were being hypocritical.
[defending polluting industries behind a shield of shallow nationalism.]
Is this not what you were doing? It is not moral pontification to find humour in the position of others.
Obama Orders Emergency Quarantine of Biden
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/obama-orders-emergency-qu_b_194300.html
Tres amusant
I don’t know why we think 40% is politically impossible? Is our electorate less concerned about climate change than England or the EU?
Unless we’re talking about the Senate, in which case 40% is going to be pretty close to impossible to navigate.
I think we should state our target in a similar position to the UK, 25-30% going up to 40% if we get a global deal. Use the time between now and December to work out in-depth the best mechanism to do that and iron out holes. If we don’t get cuts in that order at Copenhagen and it doesn’t look like there will be another go at it very soon than who cares what we do. If we do get a deal then use that to shoe-horn the parties that were previously against. If that doesn’t work than just wait till the election when The Greens have the balance of power and pass it then.
Of course this presumes that Labor actually wants a high target.
Morgan 59/41
Some people might call them interests that invest in the country, employ people and generate wealth for all.
Others call them polluters, want them driven from the discussion table and pine for us all to become cave dwelling neandrathals.
Nice morality. Lousy politics.
[I don’t know why we think 40% is politically impossible? Is our electorate less concerned about climate change than England or the EU?]
On balance, I think the answer to that is yes. Europe is not nearly as carbon-dependent, either for its domestic power or its export income, as Australia. We have probably the most carbon-dependent industrialised economy in the world. Disentangling Australia from carbon without reducing us to poverty and reading by candlelight, in the middle of a major recession, is a truly Herculean task, with enormous risks to employment in blue-collar jobs. The electorate is dimly aware of this. I never thought that Rudd’s win in 2007 had much to do with CC, as I said at the time in my debates with Possum.
ratsars @ 783
1. You brought history into the discussion, I didn’t. It’s not my fault if I know more about it than you do. Even now you are not saying ‘I don’t know what the historical facts are and I don’t care’. Instead you are continuing to refer to them and still getting them wrong. Out of 17 Governors-General starting the count from Isaacs (first Australian to be appointed), 7 were ex-politicians, which is 41 per cent, well over the 30 you state. (Or, if we look at only the 12 Australians, we find, as I mentioned before, 5 ex-politicians, which is 42 per cent.) McKell certainly had another string to his bow apart from politics — he was a boilermaker before he went into politics. But he had no public career apart from politics. (You are right that by the time Isaacs was appointed Governor-General he was better-known as a judge than as a politician, although he had a very active political career earlier.)
2. Every country has a history of political opportunism. This is not something which makes Australia different from other countries. Nevertheless, many countries manage adequately with a system with a parliamentary government and an elected president. As I said before, you are basing your objections on what you imagine would happen, while I think it makes more sense to look at the evidence of what actually does happen.
3. I remember hearing many people say how well Deane expressed the things which needed to be said on behalf of the country when he was Governor-General. I am willing to concede that point to you. The thing is, I don’t remember ever hearing anybody say that about any other Governor-General. I think Deane was the odd one out.
4. My number one concern, as I stated earlier, is to have a Constitution which says what it means and means what it says. I think a republic would be an improvement for this reason, whatever means we chose to select the President. I would prefer direct election to a parliamentary selection, but for me it’s a second-order issue.
Oz
What facts allow you to claim that the Greens would hold the balance of power in 2011, especially after an election in which the ALP has proposed a 40% by 2020 target.
The Liberals (with much corporate backing) would be like a renewed force in the election, with a huge boost to their arguments that the ALP will wreck the economy.
Generic Person @ 752
Here’s what section 2 of the Constitution says now:
So if we take out the references to the Queen, we have:
I don’t see how you expect that to work.
[Europe is not nearly as carbon-dependent, either for its domestic power or its export income]
I really don’t think how carbon dependent we are factors in to how people will vote when it comes to climate change. People have already expressed a willingness to adopt mitigation strategies even when it means an increase in costs. Australians are also acutely aware of the impact on climate change because they’ve seen the effect it can have first hand.
Kevin Rudd’s accepted the Bali declaration targets of 25-40% and didn’t cop any political flak. If Rudd says 25-40%, 40% on the basis of a global deal, and then we get a global deal in that order, they aren’t going to lose an election.
But again, this isn’t going to happen, because the stumbling block is not popular opinion but business influences on Labor/Liberal.
Greensborough Growler’s posts have just become a faint harking…