I had a paywalled article on the same-sex marriage issue in Crikey yesterday, which focused on the ways in which the proposed postal survey might skew the result to “no”. To that end, I obtained figures from Essential Research breaking down recent polling on the subject by age and gender, results of which are displayed below. This is based on 3061 responses obtained in June and July.
Further polling:
• The Seven Network reported yesterday that a poll of 700 respondents in Tony Abbott’s electorate of Warringah, which I presume was conducted by ReachTEL, found 69.7% in favour of same-sex marriage and 25.7% opposed.
• The Australian published further numbers from this week’s Newspoll on attitudes towards a republic, finding 51% in favour (steady since the last such exercise in January 2016) and 38% against (up one). Those number become 55% and 34% in the event that Prince Charles becomes king. As The Australian’s report notes, it’s actually the middle-aged cohort of 35 to 49 year olds that has the strongest net positive result, with the younger cohort on 45% and 37% and the older on 54% and 40%.
State matters:
• South Australia’s parliament has settled on a new electoral system for its Legislative Council that will abolish group voting tickets, leaving the Victorian and Western Australian upper houses as the last hold-outs. The new system will resemble that for New South Wales in that voters will be able to number as few or as many boxes above the line as they like. Below-the-line voters will be directed to number at least 12 boxes, but a vote will be formal with as few as six. This compares with a minimum of 15 preferences for below-the-line voters in New South Wales. The Liberals had sought to introduce a Senate-style model in which above-the-line voters were to be directed to number six boxes, but with any number being sufficient for a formal vote. However, Labor’s model eventually prevailed in the upper house.
• Two state by-elections loom in New South Wales, with dates yet to be determined. Nationals MP Katrina Hodgkinson is retiring after a parliamentary career going back to 1999, creating a vacancy in the rural seat of Cootamundra. While Labor is not competitive in this seat, the last by-election in a Nationals held seat, in Orange in November last year, was won by Shooters Fishers and Farmers. In the western Sydney seat of Blacktown, former Labor leader John Robertson is retiring, and in this case there seems little reason to doubt that Labor will be seriously challenged. Stephen Bali, the local mayor and a former organiser with the Right faction Australian Workers Union, would appear to be the front-runner for preselection. Antony Green has guides up for both: Blacktown and Cootamundra.
jena
Yep. Minority govt.
I thought it had been assumed there will be recounts for the Senate seats vacated by the Gs, on the basis they were ineligible for election when they nominated, and that this is to be the subject of orders by the HC, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns. Surely the same logic should apply to Joyce, Canavan and Roberts.
I guess the ever-reliable Antony Green will have the correct info…
alias @ #2088 Monday, August 14th, 2017 – 4:13 pm
No.
What a wing-dinger of a by-election that would be then. Huge scrutiny on all Barnaby’s dodgy dealings like moving the department to his electorate and the whole water scam.
Barney in Go Dau
briefly,
recounts only occur in the Senate.
In the House it would be resolved with a by-election.
Remember Jackie Kelly, she was ruled ineligible, sorted out her paperwork and subsequently won the seat again in a by-election.
Was her case ever referred to the HC?
Where is Antony Green?
You’d think the ABC would have him on!
Jen
Katter just might.
He issued Government a warning regarding support if they continued to bash unions some time back
LU
Not by an order of magnitude.
briefly @ #2095 Monday, August 14th, 2017 – 4:18 pm
The Senate is different to the HoR with single member electorates.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/you-failed-goodbye-secret-expulsions-pushing-thousands-out-of-state-schools-20170814-gxvotf.html
alias
A wholesale campaign on ethics.
What a bun fight!
WoW! A full on political crisis for the Coalition
Talk about “never a dull moment”. Between US politics, British politics, NZ politics and this, I’m completely knackered.
They go to the next person in line don’t they? Like they were talking about doing with Malcolm Roberts in the senate? So this won’t bring down the government. An LNP schill will take his place. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.
That damn Bill Shorten always getting so bloody lucky.
Lower house is seat based and has by-elections.
Senate is ‘state’ based therefor a vacancy can be filled by another from the same state.
Blanket Criticism @ #2113 Monday, August 14th, 2017 – 4:28 pm
You are totally and completely wrong for reasons previously stated.
BC
You’re wrong. Barny isn’t a senator.
During QT, Pyne cited a number of Labor MPs who had apparently declined to supply documentary evidence to prove their electoral validity (so to speak) .. Is Labor really completely sure about all of them? And if so why don’t they disclose?
The Libs were praying for a distraction to save their ‘face’ from the ME debacle.
Careful what you wish for????
For those that missed it.
Lower House seats can change sides due to by elections no casual vacancy as in Senate.
CT
A great way to get a Federal ICAC up.
Alias – they have the documentation but will not show the press for other privacy reasons.
Labor would not have even touched this if any member was even remotely vulnerable.
Pyne was trying the ‘birther’ tactic – “show the media otherwise we won’t believe you”
Danger in doing that is like when they dared and dared over the non-existent letter about Gillard.
ALP tacticians aren’t that stupid.
The Senate is different as there is no mechanism to hold an election for a single Senator, so if they were ineligible they perform a recount normally electing the next on that Party’s ticket, whilst a casual vacancy is filled through a nomination by the relevant Party.
In the House it’s different as each Member represents a defined area so holding a by-election is no problem when any vacancy occurs.
Kelly was referred, that’s the only way that she could have be declared ineligible and a by-election called.
Anybody got the Burke SSO?.
Simon Katich @ #2039 Monday, August 14th, 2017 – 3:36 pm
Woohoo – best of a magnificent bunch, SZK
Thanks Jenauthor. . but I’m interested in the precise Labor process. Is it the case that the machine people saying to a prospective candidate: “We need you to make sure you have no citizenship, or entitlement to citizenship, of any other country through parents or grandparents etc?” Or do the officials actually oversee the checking process?
In other words is it possible there might be the odd stray Labor MP who answered “yes I’m in the clear” to ALP officials, but actually that is not the case?
alias @ #2105 Monday, August 14th, 2017 – 4:24 pm
But presumably moving the department into the electorate would play well within the electorate itself.
Hiya. Long time no see.
This is current open thread?
@Bemused
Righteo.
@DQ
I assume you’re being sarcastic. You’re far less cynical than me if you think this dual citizen clusterf**k is the result of luck and not incredibly dedicated investigative work from individuals with partisan interests. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but it’s interesting that one Australian political party in particular isn’t facing questions over dual citizenship.
As for the ME debate which has also taken it’s toll on the LNP, that’s a result of long term strategy championed by Shorten since shortly after taking over leadership of the Labor party and the LNP sabotaging themselves. Of course the fact that it would divide the party and invite stalling was foreseen, but the extent to which the LNP would allow themselves to be divided and make themselves look incompetent has been a wonderful surprise.
Luck has little to do with what’s currently happening imo.
I heard today that all ALP candidates are scrutinised back to grandparents.
alias @ #2126 Monday, August 14th, 2017 – 4:37 pm
Zoomster has offered informed comment on this topic and would know more about it that anyone else on PB as she has been through it.
Fair point AR
alias,
Zoomster has written on the Labor application process a number of times and she mentions enquiries shes had from head office asking questions about her heritage and and what proof she has that she’s not in contravention of the Constitution.
So the Labor process does seem quite rigorous.
Looking at the Commonwealth Electoral Act, S 360 provides….
COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT 1918 – SECT 360
Powers of Court
(1) The Court of Disputed Returns shall sit as an open Court and its powers shall include the following:
(i) To adjourn;
…..
(v) To declare that any person who was returned as elected was not duly elected;
(vi) To declare any candidate duly elected who was not returned as elected;
(vii) To declare any election absolutely void;
…..
(2) The Court may exercise all or any of its powers under this section on such grounds as the Court in its discretion thinks just and sufficient.
(3) Without limiting the powers conferred by this section, it is hereby declared that the power of the Court to declare that any person who was returned as elected was not duly elected…..
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cea1918233/
The CoDR has the power to declare vacancies, to invalidate or validate elections, to order recounts or by-elections…or not….as it sees fit…..I’m not sure why a vacancy in the Senate should be treated differently from a vacancy in the House.
Blanket Criticism,
Not cynical, I receive all my political knowledge from Fairfax Newspapers, and they always point out to me Shorten’s remarkable good fortune.
😉
Still they come.
Briefly .. perhaps it’s more a matter of convention? That both sides have accepted the best solution for Senate is casual vacancy but by-election for HOR? In other words, the court makes the ruling as to the election outcome and the parties have agreed by convention on how to proceed from there? I’m just speculating here.
Martin B
Yes, but you have to be nippy to catch up. William is very busy these days!!
briefly @ #2134 Monday, August 14th, 2017 – 4:46 pm
The Senate has multi-member electorates aka states and territories and parties run multiple candidates, so a recount will usually return a member of the same party.
A re-count in the HoR would return the opponent of the member who had been disqualified.
This is a vast difference.
briefly,
they are treated differently because they are elected differently.
But Bemused, Briefly legitimately asks the question: where in the legislation is this distinction formally made?
Oh, I just realised something about the Solar Thermal plant.
Weatherill says the power it produces is for the SA government – making the governments power 100% renewable. And, Frydenberg a few months back promised over $100m for the project. Did Frydenberg realise he was subsidising the SA governments power bills and improving Jay Weatherills budget bottom line?
alias @ #2141 Monday, August 14th, 2017 – 4:51 pm
I am not going to read the whole act to provide you with the technical reason.
I know what happens in practice and I know the practical reasons why.
Bemused.. I demand that you read the whole Act! Please do so at once Sir! Otherwise: pistols at dawn!
Antony Green weighs in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T0hw1f-SHM&feature=youtu.be&a
Put me in the “government won’t fall (yet) camp”.
*If* the HCA rules Joyce ineligible (likely) and the LNP lose the subsequent by-election (somewhat less likely) then Katter’s support on confidence-and-supply will be enough. But he and the Xers will be able to hold the Government to ransom. So, early election…
A half Senate can’t be before Aug 2018 and a House only looks awful. (Unless they think they’ll lose in which case it would spike Labor’s guns, but they don’t ever think they’ll lose.) So, DD again…
The Senate has actually just established a DD trigger with the plebiscite bill. But it might be a little awkward to pull that trigger given that the Government is (likely) achieving its stated purpose through another means. Might provide the opportunity for the GG to refuse a DD for the first time.
Good times, good times.
Any thoughts / speculation on who the Labor candidate will be in the Division of New England by-election?
If Labor really doesn’t have a high hope of winning, maybe a high-profile LGBTI candidate would do some good. Make the ME issue front and centre again. What’s Ian Thorpes political leanings? He’s from Sydney.
There’s a reason I am not in charge of making these decisions.
alias
Briefly .. perhaps it’s more a matter of convention? That both sides have accepted the best solution for Senate is casual vacancy but by-election for HOR?
There is this info. Whether or not there would be a by-election in New England will depend on whether the election was “absolutely void”.
Any person returned who is declared by the court not to have been duly elected ceases to be a Member of the House of Representatives—in fact the decision means that the person has not been a Member. Any person not returned who is declared to have been duly elected following consideration of an election petition may take his or her seat in the House of Representatives. If any election of any Member is declared absolutely void, then a new election is held.
Since the establishment of the Court of Disputed Returns there have been 50 cases of the court being petitioned in connection with a seat in the House of Representatives, including 13 of similar intent lodged after the 1980 general election. The court has ruled the election absolutely void in six cases and the Speaker (or Acting Speaker) has issued writs for new elections to be held. …
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice6/Practice6HTML?file=Chapter3§ion=12&fullscreen=1#footnote171
Anne Twomey was just interesting on SKY re Joyce.
In the process of investigating she found she herself was a NZ citizen.
She said MT & Brandis are concentrating on merely one point in 44 where she explained further points that might negate Mal’s confident assertion in parliament.
The question of the process followed in the case of HoR §44 ineligibility is not theoretical, it has happened before: Cleary in 1992 and Kelly in 1996.