Preferential treatment

Some brief insights into the horrid mess caused by our system of mandatory Senate preference dealings.

In a spirit of providing a new post every day during the campaign over and above things like the Senate of the Day entries, today I offer the following scattered assortment of bits-and-pieces relating to contentious preference deals.

• The biggest headline-generator has been the Wikileaks Party, whose most contentious choices have involved a New South Wales ticket which places the Greens behind both the quasi-fascist Australia First and, more consequentially, Shooters & Fishers, and a Western Australian ticket which has the Greens behind the Nationals. Responding to an immediate backlash on social media, the decisions were put down to “administrative errors”, which appeared to involve paperwork being lodged by activists with different ideas about strategy from the party executive. Three of the most noteworthy critics of the arrangement have been Julian Assange’s Senate running mate in Victoria, academic and ethicist Leslie Cannold, who resigned complaining that the party’s democratic processes had been bypassed (albeit that this happened too late to affect her inclusion on the ballot paper); Julian Assange’s mother, Christine Assange, who said that if she lived in Western Australian she would vote for Scott Ludlam of the Greens, who has been the strongest parliamentary supporters of her son’s cause; and Julian Assange himself, who apologised for having “over-delegated” such matters to persons evidently less capable than himself. For all that, the preference arrangements have conferred tactical advantage on the party in some cases, such as in Western Australia where it will be fed preferences from Family First, the Katter and Palmer parties, and a lengthy list of smaller concerns.

• Four parties in Victoria remarkably failed to lodge preference tickets, which among other things offered a potent insight into the closeness of the relationship between them. This was further delved into by Andrew Crook at Crikey, who noted the same personages at work behind the Liberal Democratic Party, Stop the Greens, the Smokers Rights Party and the Republican Party. A source quoted by Christian Kerr of The Australian put the non-lodgement of the tickets down to matters having been “thrown into chaos as it became clear Labor would do a deal with the Greens”. This came as bad news to the Sex Party, which had dealt its way into a national arrangement with the parties concerned that also involved One Nation. To those angered to discover that the party had done Pauline Hanson a good turn in her bid for a New South Wales seat, the party weakly responded that “you have to put these lunatic parties somewhere”, while failing to acknowledge that in Hanson’s case “somewhere” was number 10 out of 110, ahead of Labor, the Coalition and the Greens.

• The complex of preference harvesters and opportunists willing to make deals with them has gifted Pauline Hanson with what occasional psephologist Polly Morgan describes as “an incredibly favourable preference flow”. However, Hanson faces the stumbling block that the Coalition have her placed last, so unlike other parties to the arrangement she does not stand to benefit from the surplus after the election of their third Senator, which in the context of the current election could be substantial. Indeed, Hanson’s candidacy may end up doing the left a good turn, as other right-wing candidates with the potential to be elected with help from Coalition preferences could instead get excluded at an earlier stage of the count by virtue of their failure to overtake Hanson. Should Hanson not poll quite so well as that, there are a range of potential scenarios for a seat to go to a micro-party. The most likely contender could be the Liberal Democrats, who have had a lucky break in being drawn as “Group A” on the enormous Senate ballot paper. Experience suggests this will substantially boost the number of votes they get from those confusing them with the Liberal Party, the Coalition ticket being a lot harder to locate (“Group Y” out of a listing the continues all the way out to “Group AR”).

• Labor has made the highly unusual decision to place the Liberals ahead of Andrew Wilkie in Denison. It presumably did so in the expectation that its preferences would not be distributed, the weakness of the Liberals in the electorate meaning the final count will most likely be between Wilkie and the Labor candidate, Jane Austin. However, the weekend’s ReachTEL poll of 563 respondents cast at least some doubt on this, showing the Liberal candidate leading Austin 23.1% to 18.0%. Wilkie’s position nonetheless appears strong enough to ensure his re-election regardless of how preferences are directed.

• Labor has entered a preference arrangement with Katter’s Australian Party in Queensland in which the latter will receive the former’s preferences for the Senate ahead of the Greens, in exchange for which the latter will direct preferences to Labor ahead of the Liberal National Party in Hinkler, Herbert, Flynn, Capricornia, Forde and Petrie. This could well entail the high price of having KAP Senate candidate James Blundell elected ahead of the Greens, a prospect that would be pleasing to an incoming Abbott government. As Steven Scott of the Courier-Mail reports, it has also caused some not unpredictable dissent in the KAP.

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.

1,340 comments on “Preferential treatment”

Comments Page 27 of 27
1 … 26 27

  1. Z
    Are you Meguire Bob in drag?
    The tax free threshold, after low income rebate, is effectively 16k or so. Why do you keep repeating 18k back to 6k? It currently isn’t 6k effectively, it’s 16k+!!!!!

  2. Mick77@1298

    Nite all. I go to bed disappointed that betfair is still sitting at ALP $19.50 when it earlier broke through to $21 which is Fran’s level to jump in.

    Like mod lib you chicken off when the heat goes on.
    Bye bye loser 😉

  5. Mick77@1301

    Z
    Are you Meguire Bob in drag?
    The tax free threshold, after low income rebate, is effectively 16k or so. Why do you keep repeating 18k back to 6k? It currently isn’t 6k effectively, it’s 16k+!!!!!

    Because idiot the ALP will reduce it to 6k.
    Do you get that? FFS.

  6. [The Coalition Party are the ones who want the tax free threshold returned to $6,000.

    It was Labor who made it $18,200.]

    There are absolute truths, half-truths and absolute lies.

    This one is a half-truth. Labor did indeed increase the tax-free threshold to $18,200, but the Coalitions Tax-Free threshold was actually closer to around ~$16,000

    How could that possibly be! you demand… well it was a little thing called the Low Income Tax Offset which offset your tax by $1500 for low income earners under Howard but has been reduced to $445 under the new Labor scheme.

    This meant if you owed $1500 in tax as a low income earner you didn’t pay a cent, hence your real tax-free threshold was $16,000

    I know this will do your little Labor brain in but thems the facts

  8. Thanks davidwh, just read.
    Music to my ears:)
    ALP supporters- enjoyed reading & laughing at your attempts to justify your argument with your usual dillusional spin!

  9. zoidlord,

    As explained the actual Tax-Free Threshold was actually $16,000 under the Coalition.. except it used an offset rather than a direct tax bracket.

    And I’m yet to see any evidence from the Labor hacks the Coalition plans to reduce the current Labor Tax Free Threshold level

  10. And Henry alls others idiots
    [Because idiot the ALP (sic) will reduce it to 6k.]
    Henry – read ST’s post. I’m off to dream of the post 7/9 Labor s**t fight.

  11. Not very polite of you Henry!
    Bit of a gutless reply when he has gone offline!
    Again, another abusive attack by a lefty when challenged!

  12. Mick77@1310

    And Henry alls others idiots

    Because idiot the ALP (sic) will reduce it to 6k.


    Henry – read ST’s post. I’m off to dream of the post 7/9 Labor s**t fight.

    And you don’t have a clue do you?
    Sweet dreams princess.

  13. [ It’s not the ALP that is reducing the tax free threshold, it’s Coalition Party ]
    back to 6,000 from the current 18,000 is it really true? While cutting billionaire miners taxes and paying Lawyers and Journo’s 75,000 dollars to have a baby? bloody hell someone call The Australian

  14. Ok, having just watched lateline, Andrew Leigh and Penny Wong did in fact say – in TV interviews – that they had opposition policies costed, though I’m not sure of the timing.

    So they’ve over-egged their attack on Coalition costings and had it backfire on them because it made the bureaucrats uncomfortable that things were heading towards “politicisation of Treasury” territory :P.

  18. Sean Tisme@1309

    zoidlord,

    As explained the actual Tax-Free Threshold was actually $16,000 under the Coalition.. except it used an offset rather than a direct tax bracket.

    And I’m yet to see any evidence from the Labor hacks the Coalition plans to reduce the current Labor Tax Free Threshold level

    It is labor that will reduce the tax free threshold to $6,000. What part of that do you not understand?
    Under the idiot Abbott it goes back to $18,000.
    Are you stupid?

  20. Sean, the evidence of the Coalition’s plan to reduce the tax-free threshold came out of Abbott’s mouth, in his budget reply speech.
    Or do you share my view that nothing Abbott ever says can be taken seriously?

  28. [ Over the past seven years Prime Minister John Howard and Treasurer Peter Costello have repeatedly cut support to the poor and vulnerable, and spent taxpayers’ money buying votes. This government is the highest-taxing, highest-spending government in our history. Government spending has jumped from 32 to 38 per cent of gross domestic product while it has been in power. But at each budget it has cut services to the poor.
    Over the past seven years Prime Minister John Howard and Treasurer Peter Costello have repeatedly cut support to the poor and vulnerable, and spent taxpayers’ money buying votes. This government is the highest-taxing, highest-spending government in our history. Government spending has jumped from 32 to 38 per cent of gross domestic product while it has been in power. But at each budget it has cut services to the poor.

    This year’s budget is the latest instalment. People earning more than $85,000 are getting tax cuts in the form of the superannuation surcharge changes, and the baby bonus will pay high-income women up to five times as much as low-income women. Yet this government has no reservations about cuts for the disabled and to poor people’s access to medicine.]
    is that really the government Abbott keeps harking back to as a blueprint for what he intends for the future? Fark.

  30. Is it worth turning the TV on for? I normally don’t bother watching if it’s Tony. I find Emma a very good journo and interviewer. Tony thinks he is.

  34. The press don’t understand what happened David.

    They did cost it: just not the coalition’s version. Since the coalition didn’t submit any.

    No one has checked if the coalitions version is right or wrong.

    The budget office is just pointing out the two may have different assumptions. It doesn’t blow anything out of the water.

    Except stupid reporters. Lets see the coalitions version and see who’s right! My money’s on PBO

  35. david @ 1327 agreed.

    Hey Mod, wakey wakey, you can gloat now :P.

    Well, it doesn’t necessarily mean Rudd is “dead”, but it removes that avenue of attack. They should stick to pointing out obvious contradictions in Abbott’s various positions rather than this he-said, she-said stuff.

  37. Antony Green fails to mention Wikileaks Party chances of success in WA and Victoria. #Bias commentary from His ABC

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-29/preference-deals-could-benefit-micro-parties-at/4920822

    In WA Wikileaks can win with 2-3% of the vote

    In Victoria Assange can win if the ALP surplus plus the Greens vote falls below 14%

    In NSW Sex Party can out-poll the Greens on preferences

    The solution is simple Allow preferential voting above the line.

  38. In WA Wikileaks can win with 2-3% of the vote

    In Victoria Assange can win if the ALP surplus plus the Greens vote falls below 14%

    In NSW Sex Party can out-poll the Greens on preferences

    The solution is simple Allow preferential voting above the line.

    Increase the Senate deposit to $5,000 per candidate and give a refund of one candidate’s deposit for every 4-5% not the whole group The Greens run six candidates and are pushing to elect just one.

    Remove the Droop Quota make it pure proportional not semi-proportional

  39. KB – Earlier post, the betting odds reflect the polls which have the Coalition clearly ahead (with the exception of Essential Research). If the polls tighten expect the betting odds to tighten accordingly

  40. Tim Colebatch TheAge

    http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/microparties-may-help-family-first-win-seat-20130829-2stmy.html

    Correctly highlightes that Family First can out0poll Liberal parties Helen Kroger in Victoria. We determined this last weekend

    What he has failed to recognise is that Wikileaks is also in a position to out-poll the Greens in Victoria and more so in Western Australia on a 2-3$ support

    Whlst Hanson looks like she could get up in Queensland the fact is the other minor parties diverge before they get to her and their vote is locked up with bigger players. The Clive Palmer and Bob Katter factor play an important roll and will take votes from Pauline Hanson who will not poll above 1.5% let alone anywhere near 4%. if anything Hanson will top up either Palmer or Katter Party The main party to risk losing a seat in Queensland is the Greens

    I have not written off Assange in Victoria. Wikileaks is well placed n terms of preferences they just need to peg back the Green vote to be in the race. There is a noticeable media cone of silence surrounding Wikileaks Party. Antony Green ABC in particular has failed to report on Wikileaks policies and chances of Success

    In Western Australia Wikileaks chances are the best. With just 2% Wikileaks Party can out poll Senator Luddy to win a seat from the WA Greens Party. The Green vote has slumped in WAS from 15$ to below 9%. If 50% of this vote flows to Wikileaks then Wikileaks can be elected in WA

Comments Page 27 of 27
1 … 26 27

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *