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.
I’d like the president to be elected by secret ballot by the parliament like Germany does. They also give state parliamentarians a vote on it, which we could too. If the people vote for the president then that gives him/her a mandate to do stuff. I don’t like to see too much power concentrated in one person (another reason why I don’t like the PM appointing the President). We could directly elect the president and change the constitution to give the roll absolutely no power, But what a useless waist that would. Maybe we could also elect ‘The Ultimate Champion of Superior Wonder’, equiped with absolutely no executive powers too. Maybe we could go to the polls to elect Miss Australia too.
Viva the Republic!
No 851
Or maybe we can ditch the whole idea of a Republic because we don’t need one. The Queen has virtually no real power over Australia. The scaremongerers will point to s59, which is obsolete (and hasn’t been used in 300 years), but the fact is that for all intents and purposes, the Governor General is our head of state. And the role has been exclusively given to Australians for decades.
Why on earth should the captain of one team in the political game get to appoint the umpire? The fact that the PM appoints the GG now is not an argument. That was *not* the intention of the framers of the Constitution, and that’s one of the serious deficiencies in our present system that needs to be fixed, as you would be the first to proclaim if Rudd appointed Phillip Adams as GG. That suggestion will never fly, so try again. You have three choices: (a) retain the monarchy, (b) have a directly elected president, (c) have an indirectly chosen president.
Dear GP
I posted a comment directed to you at um 406 I think. (something ’06 anyway). Its about inheritance taxes. What’s your stance?
Sincere Regards, The Heysen Molotov
c, give me c. Secret ballot vote by either a joint sitting of parliament or in a big hall with all state MP’s too. Just gotta make sure no bombs go off.
How about a joint session of parliament agreeing on a short list of, say, five candidates, all of whom must be approved by a two-thirds majority, which list is then put to the electorate for a vote? Just throwing it out there.
No 854
Inheritance taxes are thievery.
Adam
The article accurately represents a large body of thought which has been around to quite a long time. The antibiotic error is pretty inexcusable and makes you wonder how much the journo is regurgitating something he has poorly understood.
The arguments make good sense but the evidence isn’t all that good yet. Lots of people argue that it’s more the large numbers of humans and animals living in close proximity on the edges of the new poorly sanitised mega-cities like Mexico City, Dhaka and Mumbai that provide the real breeding ground. I bought a book on emergent diseases to read this weekend. I hope it tells me a bit more. I’ll let you know.
[taxes are thievery.]
Yes we know of your philosophies GP.
[ as you would be the first to proclaim if Rudd appointed Phillip Adams as GG.]
As would you, since you share a similar dislike for him.
[The fact that the PM appoints the GG now is not an argument.]
Of course it is an argument. It’s been happening for decades. Our entire constitution is premised on convention, so I don’t see why you see that codification is necessarily an issue.
In fact, the republic is the least of our worries. If anything, focus should be made on constitutional reform of the federation which most Australians agree is not functioning properly. Vertical fiscal imbalance is an issue and the growing centralisation of power in Canberra is another problem.
Since GP is in favour of cartels and monopolies that rob the public and subvert free markets, it’s hardly surprising that he’s also in favour of untaxed inherited wealth, which creates a lazy and corrupt aristocracy rather than the meritocracy which makes capitalism work best.
[If anything, focus should be made on constitutional reform of the federation which most Australians agree is not functioning properly. Vertical fiscal imbalance is an issue and the growing centralisation of power in Canberra is another problem.]
I agree that the federation has broken down, mainly because of the ruthless centralism of the Howard government. The states should either be given real responsibilities and allowed to raise the money to pay for them, or they should be abolished. At the moment they’re just a source of wasteful bureaucracy, irresponsible parochian politicians and unnecessary duplication.
For an extensive look at secret ballots in parliament I direct your attention to “A Chariot of Fire: Secret Ballots in Parliament”, written in 1992 by Basil Smith who ran for the Australian Democrats but later became convenor of a Secret Ballot Party (according to the blurb). On its front cover there is a cartoon, the balding man says “What! No Parties? No lobbies ether?”. I think its an idea with lots of potential. Parties couldn’t form coz you wouldn’t know how they voted (id assume those who propose a bill would have to be open in their support for it, embarresing if it got 0 votes). More importantly lobbies would have less power. But, and its a big BUT, how does the voter know that the person they elected IS actually representing their views? I’d say we should have the secret ballot in parliament for procedural matters, standing orders and the like. I’m yet to be convinced it would be good for determinging laws or budgets, but do see some merits. Its just so radically different to anything that has ever been done anywhere (to the best of my knowledge) that one can’t help but get cold feet a bit.
[If anything, focus should be made on constitutional reform of the federation which most Australians agree is not functioning properly. Vertical fiscal imbalance is an issue and the growing centralisation of power in Canberra is another problem.]
I agree with the sentiment, if not the direction you’d apparently take. While we’re at it, let’s address the third tier of government as well.
It’s about time that these issues were incorporated into the Australian Republican Movement’s agenda for constitutional reform as part of a comprehensive republican model.
The Heysen Molotov, secret ballots fall down in at least one fairly significant respect: if the electorate doesn’t know how their representatives vote, how are they to be held to account at an election?
Fortunately, modern technology comes to our aid. If secret voting was conducted using a simple ‘yes, no, abstain’ system of buttons at the seat of each representative, logging the results electronically in a secure database, and the results of this were released at the declaration of writs, then representatives would have some measure of freedom but remain accountable as well.
After all, preselections are completed well before the declaration of writs. It would take some pretty strong provocation for a party to disendorse a sitting member on the basis of voting against party lines, particularly if such a vote was a matter of conscience and popular in the particular electorate.
For an extensive look at secret ballots in parliament I direct your attention to “A Chariot of Fire: Secret Ballots in Parliament”, written in 1992 by Basil Smith who ran for the Australian Democrats but later became convenor of a Secret Ballot Party (according to the blurb). On its front cover there is a cartoon, the balding man says “What! No Parties? No lobbies ether?”. I think its an idea with lots of potential. Parties couldn’t form coz you wouldn’t know how they voted (id assume those who propose a bill would have to be open in their support for it, embarresing if it got 0 votes). More importantly lobbies would have less power. But, and its a big BUT, how does the voter know that the person they elected IS actually representing their views? I’d say we should have the secret ballot in parliament for procedural matters, standing orders and the like. I’m yet to be convinced it would be good for determinging laws or budgets, but do see some merits. Its just so radically different to anything that has ever been done anywhere (to the best of my knowledge) that one can’t help but get cold feet a bit.
Parliamentarians would vote how THEY thought best, not how party cadres thought. When there was a vote on whether Fielding or Mr X should be on a committy by secrot ballot the senators voted how they wanted, not along party lines. Those who genuinely wanted Mr X voted for Mr X those who genuinely wanted Fielding voted for Fielding asnd those who genuinely couldn’t give a stuff voted for Humphry B. Bear and Costello. Democratic!
[Our entire constitution is premised on convention, so I don’t see why you see that codification is necessarily an issue.]
On the one hand you say Australia is a peaceful and prosperous nation BECAUSE OF OUR CONSTITUTION, and then on the other hand you say that our constitution is premised on an elaborate set of conventions. Only one of these statements can be true.
I think leaving so much of our political system to convention is DANGEROUS, because it means that sometimes politicians, or entire parties, can IGNORE the system’s conventions, such as the chain of events in 1975, starting with Joh appointing a non-Labor senator, and Fraser instructing his senators to block supply.
If conventions are so important G.P., Whitlam would’ve never been dismissed. But conventions, unlike LAWS and written down parts of the constitution can’t be contravened without revue. Conventions can be broken as soon as a political party chooses not to abide by them.
[can’t be contravened without revue.]
I meant they CAN be contravened without revue, such as being challenged in the High Court.
[Since GP is in favour of cartels and monopolies that rob the public and subvert free markets, it’s hardly surprising that he’s also in favour of untaxed inherited wealth, which creates a lazy and corrupt aristocracy rather than the meritocracy which makes capitalism work best.]
and creates a conflict with his belief that the rich are rich because they made better economic decisions than the poor. Poor GP must be making himself sick with these internal contradictions.
[Parliamentarians would vote how THEY thought best, not how party cadres thought. ]
We don’t elect politicians to vote as they think best. We elect them to carry out the policies of the party we vote for in the election. Voters have a right to know how their MPs vote, and votes in Parliament should be case in public so that voters can see what their representatives are doing.
[Voters have a right to know how their MPs vote, and votes in Parliament should be case in public so that voters can see what their representatives are doing.]
Do you think there should be more secret ballots? The Senate uses them for appointing members to committees for example, which in effect produces conscience votes.
[Since GP is in favour of cartels and monopolies that rob the public and subvert free markets, it’s hardly surprising that he’s also in favour of untaxed inherited wealth, which creates a lazy and corrupt aristocracy rather than the meritocracy which makes capitalism work best.
and creates a conflict with his belief that the rich are rich because they made better economic decisions than the poor. Poor GP must be making himself sick with these internal contradictions.]
On the other hand I acknowledge that one of the incentives for people to work and invest and create wealth is so that they can pass that wealth to their children. So I am not in favour of confiscatory death duties. I’m in favour of a moderate inheritance tax that allows for some recycling of wealth.
Adam says:
[Since GP is in favour of cartels and monopolies that rob the public and subvert free markets, it’s hardly surprising that he’s also in favour of untaxed inherited wealth, which creates a lazy and corrupt aristocracy rather than the meritocracy which makes capitalism work best.]
Amen to that, brother.
Bule, interesting point. That would pretty much erase MOST of my concerns.
Adam in Canberra
[We don’t elect politicians to vote as they think best. We elect them to carry out the policies of the party we vote for in the election. Voters have a right to know how their MPs vote, and votes in Parliament should be case in public so that voters can see what their representatives are doing.]
I agree that under the current system we vote for parties, not people, but that doesn’t neceserily mean its the best system, which is what I of course want. No damage done exploring the possibilities then.
I think Bule’s idea about the voting record coming out with the writs would cover some of your concerns. However the media would go nuts just as the election is being held so maybe politicians would vote very cautiously.
[Poor GP must be making himself sick with these internal contradictions.]
A lot on the right are like this, they believe in certain falsehoods as if they are members of a religious cult. G.P. displays a lot of them, e.g all taxation is theft, economic success is simply a reflection of how hard someone works, ANY redistribution of wealth is thievery, arguing for equity means that you are conducting class warfare.
It is as if these things are taught by wrote in Young Liberal clubs around the country. They are like a caricature of the worst aspects of Reagan / Bushonomics.
one idea, though I haven’t properly thought through all the implications would be for secret ballots for committe apointments from both houses and for procedural matters, standing orders, silly little motions and the like. This could however be time consuming if they have to write on a piece of paper all the time so it could be electrical.
[I agree that under the current system we vote for parties, not people, but that doesn’t neceserily mean its the best system, which is what I of course want]
I prefer the American system, to be in a political party you say you are a member of that party, end of story.
I love the fact that they are politico – sometimes they vote for their electorate’s interests, sometimes they vote on what they think is best for the country, sometimes they vote for their conscience, sometimes for their own self interest. I think that is a great system, whereas in our system, the decisions are made in the party room as a whole, rather than each member coming to their own conclusion.
I appreciate the U.S. system would produce chaos if it was adopted in the House of Reps. But look at what happened this week in the UK parliament? A heap of Labor members crossed the floor, and even more abstained. But that didn’t actually kill off the government.
[This could however be time consuming if they have to write on a piece of paper all the time so it could be electrical.]
Keating was going to bring in electronic voting if he won in 1996. It should be brought in now, it would speed up parliament. Divisions take too long.
Is there any way to work out what the 3 party prefered vote was? Greens got 7.6% primary but after preferences how many put them above ALP/Coalition? 9%ish? Of course 2pp doesn’t work in Kenedy or Melbourne and 3pp would be much worse since Greens didn’t come third everywhere but just as a guestimation? What about 4pp, or is that just getting silly 🙂
[I love the fact that they are politico – sometimes they vote for their electorate’s interests, sometimes they vote on what they think is best for the country, sometimes they vote for their conscience, sometimes for their own self interest. I think that is a great system, whereas in our system, the decisions are made in the party room as a whole, rather than each member coming to their own conclusion.]
The one redeaming feature of American “democracy”. Could it be possible to have such very weak parties and a multi-party system? + proportional representation of course 🙂 🙂 🙂
Interesting little debate going on about Boswell’s contribution to political debate this week.
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2009/05/01/boswell-ballistic/
If they dont have electronic voting systems in the British House of Commons i dont want it in our Parliament!
I’ve always thought it was stupid that we used the American lingo to name our houses of Parliament we could have at least had what the Canucks have which is a House of Commons and a Senate.
Glen
[If they dont have electronic voting systems in the British House of Commons i dont want it in our Parliament!]
Spoken like a true conservative, spoken like a true monarchist. Hail the mother country!
I am not of brittish descent and a good deal of people I know have no brittish ancestry and I am sick of seeing the Queens face at the CWA or Lionsclub or Freemasons or RSL (I was only there to get directions on how to get away from there)
We took parts of the US and British systems – which is sometimes why we are referred to as a “washminster” system.
We have commoners in both houses. Its just they’re outnumbered by the Turnballs and the Rudds.
I take it then Glen would support removing the Senate’s power to block supply, since the House of Lords lost this power in 1911. In fact the Lords can’t block any legislation, only delay it for a few months. This is one area in which we might well copy the British, eh Glen?
We’ve moved past climate change for today and I don’t want to bring it up again but I’ll just respond to this;
[I accept that some minor changes to electricity usage can make a difference, such as using energy efficient globes, not leaving things on stand-by and so on. Will such measures be sufficient to achieve 40%, or will there need to be more, like not using air-conditioners as much, reducing use of other electrical appliances and so forth? The latter would appear to me to run close to being perceived as entailing a reduction in living standards.]
Changes to electricity usage will not give us a 40% reduction in emissions. It is one part of what we need to do. To pre-empt suggestions that I want “people to live in the stone age” I purposefully did not use figures showing power savings if we stopped using air conditioners etc. as frequently as we do (even though I think we should). Rather, I focused on things like simply using energy efficient appliances. Most studies suggest that something as simple as this can reduce household energy emissions by 20%. There’s an Australian one that says that “a reduction in energy use of 50 percent should be quite possible with no loss in amenity.”
http://www.ccsa.asn.au/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=196
The “living standards” discussion is a red herring anyway because home appliance use is only a small part of household emissions. One fifth of Australia’s emissions are from households and half of those due to transport. While I think it’s important that we don’t waste energy in our homes, that’s not where the big cuts are going to be made.
[I take it then Glen would support removing the Senate’s power to block supply, since the House of Lords lost this power in 1911. In fact the Lords can’t block any legislation, only delay it for a few months. This is one area in which we might well copy the British, eh Glen?]
We’d have had WorkChoices far earlier if this was the case.
Yes, and the sooner Howard had passed WorkChoices the quicker he’d have been put out of office.
One last quick thought on the issue –
Lights and appliances in households account for about the same percentage of total CO2 emissions as aluminium smelting (employs 5000).
[If they dont have electronic voting systems in the British House of Commons i dont want it in our Parliament!]
FFS! Why do we constantly need to tug the forelock and do what the U.K. does? We are an independent country, we make our own decisions about how our system works. I mean the U.K. doesn’t have a Senate, but that didn’t stop us from having one.
No 861
Inheritance taxes actually are abject thievery since the Government would be double dipping – the wealth has already been taxed throughout the life of the deceased.
No 862
It was Howard that set forth the dawn of centralisation – it was Sir Isaac Isaccs in the Engineer’s case.
[aluminium smelting (employs 5000)]
…and brings in $5.7bn a year in export earnings. (Details, details.)
It was Howard = It wasn’t Howard in 892
[Divisions take too long.]
Yes, but divisions are the only time that Turnbull and Hockey will get to try out the PM’s chair.
[Yes, and the sooner Howard had passed WorkChoices the quicker he’d have been put out of office.]
Crystal balling again?
Isaccs = Isaacs in 892
If Howard had had a Senate majority in 1996, he would have passed something like WorkChoices in his first term. He nearly lost in 1998 as it was: WC would have driven the “Howard battlers” straight back to Labor, just as it did in 2007.
No 877
Keating thought parliament was a waste of time full stop.
That said, electric voting is useful but the member must be present in the chamber to do it. No remote voting.
Adam he already did enough reforms on the waterfront to keep himself happy.
Adam do you support the House of Lords System it would help your side out not having to go radical by giving in to the Greens??