As dawn breaks, debate in the Senate over reform to its own electoral system grinds on. The chamber is in the process of signing off on a series of government amendments that will allow for optional preferential voting below-the-line, with voters to be directed by the ballot paper to number at least 12 boxes, but actually being allowed to get away with as few as six. For those wanting a thread for discussion of Senate reform apart from the freewheeling hubbub of the main threads, here you go.
It’s all an evil conspiracy by the dreadful Greens, who have completely abandoned their principles on SSM and safe schools and, led by a modern day Quisling in a polo-necked top, have cried “George Christensen and Cory Bernadi forever.”
Meanwhile, those selfless, principled heroes Conroy and Dastyari are fighting to the death for the inalienable rights of pro-gun and homophobe parties to gain Senate seats with 250 primary votes each.
It’s a vital battle for the future of democracy everywhere.
You know it makes sense.
dfjndkjfpklfjf[e0ofrj
Apologies for that above – I was testing my keyboard and accidentally hit enter.
shea
I thought you were summarising the Senate debate.
First prize for feeble contributions to this debate must go to Ms Van Badham writing in The Guardian. It takes a special type of lack of self awareness to publish an article entitled “Everything you don’t understand about Senate voting reform (and are afraid to admit)” which demonstrates that the author doesn’t understand the difference between surplus votes and a transfer value.
Second prize goes to all of the ALP senators who have been recycling arguments put forward by coalition senators against Whitlam government electoral reforms in 1974-5, probably without realising it.
@Michael
What’s a good source for reading up on the debate on Whitlam’s proposed electoral reform?
Raaraa: There’s no single published treatise on the subject. Actually the best source is probably Hansard. I lived through it, so don’t tend to go to secondary sources. People forget how many of the 1975 DD triggers were electoral reform Bills.
Meher Baba, you neglected to mention the fact that these apocalyptic reforms will ensure a permanent Coalition majority in the Senate, regardless of such minor details as their overall performance at any election. Conroy even borrowed Joe Hockey’s calculator to figure this out.
” permanent Coalition majority in the Senate”
My limited observation of untrammeled right wing governments in Australia is that they have a short life. For some reason their reasoning processes do not connect with reality. In the absence of a moderating influence such as the need to persuade minor parties they are likely to crash and burn.
The only question in my mind is the amnesia that seems to afflict the average voter.
It’s a pretty piss poor effort from both from Labor and the Greens. I can understand the cross-benchers tactics and will miss Ricky Muir (imagine, a politician who used to have an actual job), but this SSM tomfoolery has left a very bad taste in my mouth.
Voting system should be voted on by the people.
Can anyone explain to me how the majority bloc (Coalition + Greens) have the numbers to pass this bill but not to end the filibuster and bring the vote on?
why the great rush to get the reforms now.
An all night sitting still going on, anyone would think it was a matter of urgent importance that can’t wait.
But an election is due until October, seven months away.
SSM is more important as it is linked with the safe schools program and the plebiscite.
the approach of the lnp to the safe schools program foretells the sort of campaign that the lnp the ACL et al will unleash eith public funding in a plebiscite.
this will unnecessarily divide australia in hate campaign fomented by the lnp.
not to mention the $500 million cost that could be better spent elsewhere.
@Shiftaling 11*
Greens could bring it to a vote if they wanted to, but don’t want to be seen to ‘gagging debate’.
“The bill has the numbers to pass, but the government doesn’t want to gag debate”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-18/marathon-senate-sitting-continues-live-blog/7256720
Katharine Murhy over at the Guardian is asked a question:
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2016/mar/18/senate-sits-through-the-night-to-consider-voting-reform-politics-live
[54m ago
08:41
On twitter, reader David Lamb asks me this.
Q: Obviously a huge amount going on, but can you articulate what Labor hopes to achieve by pressing debate on a foregone conclusion?
Utterly reasonable question.
Labor wants voters to take away two messages from this filibuster:
They want to draw attention to the change to the voting system, a change which they argue will wipe micro-parties out of the senate and benefit the Coalition in perpetuity.
And they want to establish in progressive voter’s minds the Greens giving the Turnbull government a smooth take-off ramp for a double dissolution.]
Debating the merits of the bill? Not really. Theatrical antics setting up the memes that will be used during the election campaign…Talking Monty Python, colonoscopies….
How befitting to the farce senate debate has become.
[Voting system should be voted on by the people.]
now theres an idea, a plebiscite on the voting reforms.
the voting reforms were not part of the lnp or griberal (or probs more appropriately gruberal) policies at the last election so why not put it aside now and take it to the next election or to a plebiscite
Boris, 15
The Greens did support this in 2013. They’ve been supporting it since 2004, and had it as one of the conditions of supporting a Gillard government in 2010 (although it was not legislated on).
They want to draw attention to the change to the voting system, a change which they argue will wipe micro-parties out of the senate and benefit the Coalition in perpetuity.
And it is a change that has not been presented to the voters before!
And they want to establish in progressive voter’s minds the Greens giving the Turnbull government a smooth take-off ramp for a double dissolution.
a grand gruberal coalition that puts changing the senate votes to disadvantage independents as a crucial issue ahead of all other issues facing Australia!
thanks airlines
did not realise it was previous green policy.
1st I heard of it was in this parliament and probs first most voters have heard of it.
if ti was such an important issue to require all night sittings ahead of so many other issues I thouhht it would have been more prominent in polices taken to an election.
I agree they should take it to an election or legislate for it to take effect after the next election
My understanding is that the ballot paper will instruct people to number at least 6 boxes.
Is this different for DD?
The Greens may have a sound mandate but it does seem capricious of the government to rush it in with an election timetable in mind
Why didn’t the Greens decide they wanted to support this earlier?
Here’s some laughs:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/aliceworkman/all-night-long#.jt2DOAZ3Q
37 Things That Happened During The Senate’s Insane All Night Bender
[Why didn’t the Greens decide they wanted to support this earlier?]
they have stars in their eyes.
The LNP is talking to them when previously they just yelled at them.
They are swooning and going faint at being noticed.
Same happened with howard and meg
(from main thread)
My only objection to the new Senate voting system is the way that it is being rushed for the political convenience of the Government, without time for proper review or rollout. If it was needed for the next election, it should have been done a year ago.
The risks of a stuffup are big.
The Greens wanted to support this earlier – the ALP had agreed and then changed their minds and the Liberals then decided they wanted to go ahead. Probably left it late because once they announced they were going with the changes they knew they would get no cooperation from the cross bench in getting government business done
MayneReport: Here is the now unlocked @crikey_news story on Senate reform after we sat through the 4 hours of committee hearings https://t.co/h5owwJ1BfO
So it is this, a sensible and Labor-approved voting reform, that warrants an all-night filibuster, but not, you know, literally anything else.
Good to know.
I do agree the timing is less than ideal – this should have been voted on a year ago – but the most important thing is that no election takes place with the farce of GVT ever again. Fortunately, kicking and screaming notwithstanding, no federal election will.
For those interested in the likely impact of these changes Anthony Green and Kevin Bonham have done some extensive calculations on what the impact would have been in 2013 on their blogs. Impact not necessarily all that favourable to the Coalition – minor parties are still likely to get elected.
shiftaling@21
The government must have rushed it for political reasons, but the reform has been discussed on for the last 2 years with submissions from members of the public. Xenophon and the Greens had to put the government in order to get most of the JSCEM report into the new proposal and not the truncated model they suggested earlier.
cud chewer@22
They couldn’t move it without the numbers. They had to rely on Labor or the Libs on moving with these reforms.
This is the first opportunity they have to move along with these reforms. It is obvious that the Libs are using this opportunity for their own Senate agenda but from reading the current proposed amendment, I can’t see it being loaded. How they use it, though, might be.
cud chewer@20
The people will have to number 12 boxes in a DD.
Unless they’re in a Territory, then it’s only 2. Or if there are less Senate groups than there are the number of available seats.
How dare the Greens try to impose democratic principles on the Senate. How else can they remain unrepresentative swill unless Senators can be elected by 0.5% of the vote? So what if 25% of the vote only gets you one spot? Suck it up, Xenephon! For the sake of political aparatchiks and number crunchers everywhere, let us hope these “reforms”, get defeated.
25
The main problem, for the government, with passing the legislation further away from the election is that the Crossbench would be furious with the Government earlier and make it hard for the Government to pass other legislation. Putting this legislation through with the minimum minimum time before holding a DD is really the only politically practical way of the government doing this.
The AEC has said it needs 3 months and it will get them.
There is also no opportunity to try out the new system in only one or two jurisdictions without an House “Only” election when the territory senators would be up for election and then holding a half-Senate election later.
I am left with the impression that Dastayari and Conroy are fools.
These reforms in most cases HELP Labor. It is utter twaddle to suggest otherwide.
The only senators who lose by these reforms are FF Bob Day (how very dad!!), DLP Dee Madigan (too bad so sad), LDP gun lover Leyholm and Ricky – a sad loss but remember he could just as easily have been Ivan Milat elected as a car enthusiast (four wheel drive kind).
PUP candidates are NOT, I repeat NOT, I repeat NOT disadvantaged. Any party with a profile able to get say 3-5% of the vote stand to GAIN. GET it GAIN. So will Greens, so will Labor.
What is labor trying to achieve by drawing this out? Any ideas or is there a chance they can defeat the reforms by changing the Green’s minds.
Socrates, o wise one. Maybe it was just blind luck, but you’ll never get a more representative and diverse Senate than the present one.
Stand by for teams of hacks voting the party line (just as is happening with the major groups right now).
[ 1h ago 00:44
In this division, Leyonhjelm has been appointed teller for the ayes. It’s a short count. Bob Day, Ricky Muir, Dio Wang, John Madigan. No sign of Glenn Lazarus and Jacqui Lambie, as we’ve reported, has pulled up stumps.
Nick Xenophon is voting with the Greens, government and Labor. I believe this amendment was about optional preferential voting in the House of Representatives.]
[What is labor trying to achieve by drawing this out? Any ideas or is there a chance they can defeat the reforms by changing the Green’s minds.]
To chuck some mud on the Greens & to curry favour with any cross-benchers that’ll remain after the inevitable DD.
Australian Senate
✔
@AuSenate
The Senate is now dividing on the motion to adopt the report from the committee of the whole
1:01 PM – 18 Mar 2016
These reforms will not help Labor. All the advertising coming up to the election will be about numbering six above the line and a small amount of adds saying that voting for just one will still work or this message will be tacked onto the end of the voting for six above, it will get messy and confuse people. The labor party are talking of Eight hundred thousand informal votes and that will cruel them. The Greens and Coalition are confident there voters will understand the new system the Labor Party is not, hence the tantrum.
I think this is going to make the main parties try harder. I hope it leads to more middle parties as people deliberately try to leave the main parties last or off their ballots. is this a form if hare clark? if so, that system seems to throw up more progressive and diverse governments. maybe mal thinks he can be the PM he wants to be with a more progressive senate?
the labor right hate the greens because many of them are old labor left and the right thought they’d beaten them. they don’t want to have to govern with the greens, even if they helped make Gillard our best left-reforming PM since gough. but they are gunna have to and so are the libs. this is good for australia – micro RWNJs to lose control.
Steelydan: No above-the-line, and almost no below-the-line, vote that was formal in the current system will be informal in the new system. Talk of large numbers of informal votes is bollöcks.
(The only below-the-line votes that are formal now but won’t be formal in the new system are those that numbered at least 90% of boxes but made a sequencing error in the first 6 entries).
I predict zero enthusiasm from Labor for returning to the current system after one election under the new system.
caf@43
After submissions from Green, Bonham (and was it our WB too? I can’t remember now), BTL now only requires numbering up to 12, though 1 to 6 will be accepted as formal.
If someone insists on numbering all the boxes though, I think the old rule still applies, i.e. up to 3 sequencing errors. Please correct me on this if I am wrong.
I don’t think that the AEC will publicise that there is a vote saving measure for fewer than 6 votes, any more than they did that a vote of 1-2-3-3 was a formal vote back in the day.
Raaraa: From what I’ve seen I think the first 6 preferences all have to be correctly sequenced to be formal (below the line) now.
Yes, though still better than the 50 – 120 BTL numbering sequence.
Steelydan@41
Provide a link/ substantiation that ‘The labor party are talking of Eight hundred thousand informal votes’.
Show us where Labor said this.
dave – well google led me to this:
…
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/senate-voting-reform-will-cause-surge-in-informal-votes-labor-warns-20160221-gmzhp4.html