The last two-party preferred count for the lower house is complete, leaving the Coalition with a national two-party preferred total of 51.53%, which is exactly the result that was projected by the opinion polls, albeit for the wrong party. The Australian Electoral Commission website continues to record that 288 declaration vote envelopes remain unprocessed, of which 234 are in the seat of Kingsford Smith, but I suspect that may just reflect tardiness in keeping these numbers updated.
We should also have the last Senate result finalised this morning, that being in Victoria, where a result of three Liberal, two Labor and one Greens is assured. Counts were finalised yesterday in Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia. To complement previous efforts for New South Wales and Tasmania, I offer the following displays showing how the preference distributions proceeded. In each case they record where the votes stood after the election of candidates with full quotas at the start of the count, and also in the final stages, where three seats were decided in Queensland, and two were decided in Western Australia and South Australia.
First up, Queensland, where the result was three for the Coalition (Paul Scarr, Susan McDonald and Gerard Rennick, all newcomers) and one apiece for Labor (Nita Green, also a newcomer), One Nation (Malcolm Roberts, returning after falling foul of Section 44 and having his seat pass to Fraser Anning, whose own party proved uncompetitive) and the Greens (Larissa Waters, another Section 44 casualty who had already returned to the Senate after her successor, Andrew Bartlett, agreed to make way for her ahead of the election). Queensland was the one state where the result was not clear long in advance, although in the final analysis it wasn’t really all that close. The Coalition won two seats straight off the bat and Labor one, leaving Green, Roberts, Waters and Labor’s second candidate, Chris Ketter, in the mix for the last three. There never seemed much doubt that the fourth seat would go to One Nation and the fifth to the Coalition, but Labor might have hoped the dual miracle of a strong performance in late counting and unexpectedly strong preference flows could have given Ketter the last seat at the expense of Waters. In fact though, Ketter trailed Waters by 52,767 votes (1.8%) at the start of proceedings, which widened to 78,681 (2.7%) by the end, with Waters doing predictably well out of preferences from Animal Justice and Help End Marijuana Prohibition – although she didn’t quite make it to a quota.
Now to Western Australia, which has returned three Liberals (incumbents Linda Reynolds and Slade Brockman, and newcomer Matt O’Sullivan), two Labor (incumbents Patrick Dodson and Louise Pratt) and one Greens (incumbent Jordon Steele-John). Reynolds, Brockman and Dodson were elected off the bat; O’Sullivan got most of the way there when the 1.4% Nationals vote was distributed; and Pratt and Steele-John were always going to get there late in the count ahead of One Nation incumbent Peter Georgiou.
South Australia produced the same result as Western Australia (and indeed New South Wales and Victoria, if the Coalition is considered collectively), the three Liberals being incumbents Anne Ruston and David Fawcett, and newcomer Alex Antic; Labor returning incumbent Alex Gallacher and newcomer Marielle Smith; and the Sarah Hanson-Young retaining her seat for the Greens. The top two on the Liberal and Labor tickets were elected off the bat; Hanson-Young made a quota after the third Labor candidate and the Help End Marijuana Prohibition candidate dropped out; and Antic stayed well clear of One Nation throughout to take the last seat.
The overall picture in the Senate was summarised here a few weeks ago – all that’s different now is that the “likely” qualification can be removed from Queensland.
Update: Victorian Senate result
The Victorian result was finalised this morning (Wednesday), producing the anticipated result of three seats for the Liberals (incumbents James Patterson and Jane Hume, and newcomer David Van), two for Labor (Raff Ciccone, who came to the Senate after filling a casual vacancy in March, and Jess Walsh, a newcomer) and one for the Greens (incumbent Janet Rice). The chart below follows the same format as those above, and shows that this was not a close run thing. The Coalition and Labor both had two quotas on ticket votes, leaving two seats to be determined through the preference distribution. Labor’s third candidate, incumbent Gavin Marshall, was never in contention, and his exclusion pushed the Greens to a quota with Van, Derryn Hinch and One Nation still in the count. One Nation then were excluded, leaving David Van well ahead of Hinch to take the final seat, without making it to a quota.
citizen @ #1045 Friday, June 21st, 2019 – 7:28 pm
Wow are Australia’s legal fees so outrageously high that a professional and elite sportsperson earning millions of dollars every year cannot afford them?
My partner just asked has Georgina been named SA Governor… 🙂 nothing would surprise me.
As only as FitzSimons cant put it:
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/as-a-good-christian-man-folau-s-word-should-be-his-bond-20190621-p5201s.html
Confessions
Australia is a neo-liberal paradise.
Even the rich need to crowd surf.
In the next few years the courts, armed forces and the taxation systems will be sold to an accounting firm.
MPs have been sold years ago but when put up for auction Parliament may get a desultory bid.
Who would offer much for a house of full of voluntarily powerless parasites?
Blobbit @ #1050 Friday, June 21st, 2019 – 9:35 pm
I’m sure that’s not what happened. Nobody “went after” Folau through his employer. His employer went after him of its own volition. Because his employment contract included a clause about not doing this shit. And because he had previously done similar shit and been warned not to do it again.
In a normal workplace if your employer warns you not to do something because it violates your employment contract and then you go and do it again anyways, you lose your job. Folau shouldn’t receive any special treatment in this regard. His employer has every right to “go after” him for being a shitty worker who doesn’t follow company policies.
Clauses that restrict what employees can say in public in order not to bring disrepute upon their employer are pretty run-of-the-mill (especially when the employee explicitly agrees, under formal legal advice, to the employment contract, and is well remunerated for doing so).
Mavis Davis @ #1043 Friday, June 21st, 2019 – 9:27 pm
I think he is and I also heard that his father funnels Israel’s earnings, probably as charitable donations from Israel to the church, through the church, which is, of course, an entity that doesn’t pay tax!
QED.
Now THIS is fucked and is being done in the name of the Evangelicals choice for US President:
Looxury! At least they weren’t forcibly removed from their parents and lost in the system.
What a great couple of lines:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/19/opinion/trump-2020-rally-orlando.html
Kate:
Correct – this is not Folau, I and Rugby Australia regarding Free Speech, but instead it is Church of Folau, E and Rugby Australia in a tawdry dispute over an asset.
The best outcome now would be for Israel Folau—saved by grace, through faith—and this now probably means he walks away from all of it.
“His employer has every right to “go after” him for being a shitty worker who doesn’t follow company policies.”
And
“Clauses that restrict what employees can say in public in order not to bring disrepute upon their employer are pretty run-of-the-mill”
Indeed. Culture wars, so I should desist but it’s Friday night. Gotta live on the f’k’n edge and all.
Should this be the case? IDK – are we ok with people being sacked for striking, or posting on Twitter that they think Dutton is a stinking potato?
Or that their employer is a bit of a cock?
Next time Gina says we should get paid 50c a day, should she be able to sack someone who says that’s a bit stupid, if their contact says it can?
Let’s face it, ole GG was a bit of a bully boy at times. Yet I miss his insightful commentary, his repartee. Come back GG, all’s forgiven, despite the election result.
The tax office plans a crackdown on investment property tax rorts as a growing number of people top up their loans, then claim deductions on cash being used for new cars, holidays or to pay down other debt.
Karen Foat, ATO assistant commissioner, said targeting investment properties “is a top priority” after analysis revealed 90 per cent of rental deductions contained an error.
Ms Foat said audits scrutinising rental deductions will double this year.
The ATO warning comes as financial pressure increases on an estimated 2.2 million investment property owners from falling property values, over-supply and rising vacancy rates in every capital city, according to analysis by Domain.
“Cash-strapped investors could be borrowing more than required to supplement their investments or lifestyle with ‘cheap money’ that they can claim as a loss and offset against their other income,” William Buck tax services director Todd Want.
Mr Want warned that many borrowers used their loan account like a regular bank account, with deposits and withdrawals for a variety of private, investment or business purposes.
“If you have a loan that you use to buy an investment property, but then you draw down on the loan and pay for a holiday or car – the purpose of the loan is now partly investment and partly private, meaning that only some of the interest on the loan is likely to be tax deductible.”
More than 650,000 borrowers, many of them investors, with loans totalling more than $230 billion are attempting to refinance by either extending their existing loan or switching from their interest only to principal and interest loans, according to investment bank Morgan Stanley.
Thousands of others are attracted by cheaper rates, special discounts, cash incentives and free loan processing from lenders aggressively expanding their loan books.
Another focus will be investors who make one-off deductions for repairs or additions to an investment property that need to be claimed over several years.
Dear Holden Hillbilly:
Thanks for alerting us at 22:30 hours of our impending doom.
Diogenes
I am interested to know how and why you think Folau’s contract or any contract might breach the Constitution.
The Constitution after all is a statute which prescribes the way we are governed, nothing more, nothing less.
Folau’s contract has nothing to do with that.
The High Court has ruled that there is an implied freedom of political communication. I suppose it could be argued that Folau was acting politically. We will see.
Israel Falau can get stuffed.
‘Catprog says:
Friday, June 21, 2019 at 8:55 pm
>The Greens have now lost seven elections in a row with the end result being 1 seat out of 176 seats in the House which determines the government of the day.
How do you get 176 seats from a 151 seat house?’
Those thieving Coalition bastards!
If you look at the actual post of Folau about those with sin going to hell doesn’t actually mention anything about gay people. His post was in response to a meme that mentions hell awaits ‘thieves, liars, atheists, fornicators, adulterers, drunks and yes homosexuals’. That might actually make a big difference.
nath:
What part of the difference between “free” and “being paid $4m” do you not understand?
E. G. Theodore
says:
Friday, June 21, 2019 at 10:55 pm
nath:
The High Court has ruled that there is an implied freedom of political communication. I suppose it could be argued that Folau was acting politically. We will see.
What part of the difference between “free” and “being paid $4m” do you not understand?
__________________________
I’m not understanding what your point is.
Although I deplore his views, looking at Folau’s actual post leads me to think he will probably win a court case.
nath @ #1067 Friday, June 21st, 2019 – 10:47 pm
Sure, and another freedom we all have is the freedom to agree not to exercise certain freedoms in certain ways in exchange for money. As Folau did.
Blobbit @ #1062 Friday, June 21st, 2019 – 10:25 pm
You mean, should contract law be a thing? Yes, it should.
And should people be able to agree in a contract to not do certain things that they’d normally have a right to do, in exchange for mutually agreed upon compensation? Yes, they should.
And should people who willfully breach a contract face losing their benefits under that contract? Yes, they should.
Oh, you’d better believe that’ll get you fired if they find out about it. Even if your contract doesn’t say you can’t do that.
If it says that, and if they’ve enjoyed some benefit under the contract for agreeing to that term, then sure.
I gather an innocent American drone was on its way to a Pentecostal Service when it was deliberately shot by Iranian Police, even though the innocent American drone was not even black.
The US is outraged and may have to napalm 1,000 civilians co-lateralily. If co-lateral targeting is successful, any deaths or injuries by US actions will be soley caused by the Iranians.
In shock (to no one) news the Australian LNP and ALP supports any co-lateral deaths as necessary because an American told them it was.
Sure, and another freedom we all have is the freedom to agree not to exercise certain freedoms in certain ways in exchange for money. As Folau did
______________________________
Sure, but when those certain freedoms include religious and political freedoms which are in the constitution it augurs for an interesting process and conclusion.
Nath:
Mr. Folau is a contractor who receives consideration including $4m for a set of services that include (inter alia) being a “spokes-winger” for the other party (Rugby Australia). He does not have free speech whilst that contract is in force. This is simply a fact: Mr Folau was being paid (in part) for his speech, has accepted that offer, and the inseparable consequence of his thus being paid is that his speech is not free, no matter what anyone says. This consequence does not originate from Rugby Australia imposing any sort of restriction on him; instead it originates from and is the inevitable result of Mr. Folau offering up his ability to speak freely as a tradable commodity, and mutually acceptable terms (including a restriction at that later point) being reached.
It is a conflict between freedom of contracting and freedom of speech, and the former should win (and does so in the Bible, incidentally). Of course there are enough idiots around that the result might be delayed, perhaps for a long time.
nath @ #1076 Friday, June 21st, 2019 – 11:09 pm
If Rugby Australia were a government agency, then maybe. Since it isn’t, no, not at all.
“If it says that, and if they’ve enjoyed some benefit under the contract for agreeing to that term, then sure.”
So, we’re all good signing contracts that remove any right to strike. Apart from illegal acts, is there anything we like to stop people from contracting out of? Minimum wage maybe etc?
It’s a pretty libertarian view to put contact law above all other considerations.
EGT. Unless the High Court rules that what Folau did was protected under the religious and/or political expression of the constitution. You are not on the High Court, so therefore your view is irrelevant.
exactly blobbit, the High Court can squash any contract it damn well wants to.
a r , im not sure that being employed or not being employed by a government agency means anything in this situation.
Also, when the Anti-Discrimination aspect comes into it, its going to be an all round shit-fight of competing rights and discrimination. Should be interesting.
nath
Nor do I accept your asinine legal logic (imported from the United States) regarding irrelevance of everyone excepting the occupants of the High Court “seats”. This (and that) fundamentally misunderstands such Courts’ role.
_________________________
well they are the body that will rule on it all, so bad luck if you don’t accept what they say.
Blobbit:
That is why there is (for example) a limit on salary (138k, I believe) beyond which one loses statutory rights in relation to unfair dismissal. The limit may be wrong, different limits should apply in different cases, and previous investment by employees in their skills should be taken into account to determine a net limit (doctors are in this category), but the concept that there are such limits is sound. The idea of someone who was paid $700k per annum mounting a claim for unfair dismissal is pathetic and disgusting.
Nath:
I see that the Colossus of Pollbludger—who likes to give the impression he is Fighting the Man*—has gone to water.
*Or at least the Finger.
nath @ #1081 Friday, June 21st, 2019 – 11:20 pm
Of course, if the High Court ‘squashes’ Folau’s contract he’s still fired. 🙂
Blobbit @ #1079 Friday, June 21st, 2019 – 11:19 pm
Yeah, that’s a pretty obvious one. You can’t contract out of the minimum wage because there’s no way you could be legally compensated for waiving your right to the minimum wage. Any legal compensation for such an arrangement would have to satisfy the minimum wage and in doing so, would breach the contract. 🙂
There has to be just and mutually agreed compensation for the terms that are arranged. Folau got this to the tune of several million dollars.
Indeed it is. We are all of us free to choose which rights we value and which we don’t. Nobody can force anybody to sign a contract. If you value your right to religious freedom/expression more than having a few million dollars, then don’t sign a multi-million dollar contract restricting it. Walk away and enjoy your freedom to say whatever hateful things about gay people you feel like. Nobody can stop you.
None of us get to have our cake and eat it too. If you tell someone you won’t do something if they pay you $5 million, then don’t do that thing. Or do that thing, and give the $5 million back. Don’t be all like “haha suckers, I’m gonna do that thing I promised I wouldn’t and keep the $5 million too, so fuck you!”.
Fair is fair. Folau’s wankery is not.
“Nobody can force anybody to sign a contract”
Yeah, no. That’s the rights aren’t for paying 5 bucks am hour and a 70 hour week. There are laws protecting those things now, but they’d argue, as you just have, that we should be free to contact our of that.
On the being a limit where unfair dismissal doesn’t apply – that I wasn’t aware of. Seems odd, as it would pretty much mean every professional is in danger of being unfairly dismissed.
I think the Folau case will come down to whether he was an employee and if he was did his employer discriminate against him on religious grounds?
I just think it’s an interesting case. I may have missed it, but I wonder if there has been talk from anywhere about Folau breaking the anti-discrimination law against gay people.
It could be that Folau wins against RA on discrimination against his religious beliefs but also faces action for discrimination against gay people. We need more lawyers on PB. It’s over my head really. All I know is that the High Court will have the final say.
blobbit:
Actually, the various ineluctable rights (minimum wage, unfair dismissal protection below $138k, limit on unfair dismissal damages and so on) are there to support and promote fair contracting, which requires a genuine meeting of minds, amongst other things. One cannot claim that there has been a meeting of minds whilst standing on the other party’s throat.
It’s not interesting to discuss the deceitful and false theory of contractor advanced by some people who call themselves libertarians, except to observe that “hornswagglers gonna hornswaggle”
But—except on the Rugby field—no-one’s got their feet on Mr. Folau’s throat.
Blobbit:
If a professional acts professionally, (for example) by refusing to sign off on an unsafe design and is sacked on the basis of the inconvenience caused then the dismissal is likely to be unlawful, not unfair. No limits.
The Constitution does not prescribe freedom of religion. It simply describes (s116) that the Federal Government cannot start a religion or prohibit religious practices.
But state governments are not similarly restricted by the reach of s116.
nath:
We need less, not more, forum shopping, statute shopping and indeed any other shopping, except for the shopping Mr. Folau actually engaged in in his contracting. Namely he freely shopped his free speech to Rugby Australia and they accepted his offered price. A key point is he did his shopping freely, which is not the situation faced by a minimum wage earner.
“But—except on the Rugby field—no-one’s got their foot on Mr. Folau’s throat.”
I’m probably going to leave this I think. I’m not that interested in the particular case. The rugby chap is paying the victim here, so I can’t help feeling a little schadenfreude at the outcome.
I still can’t say I find much comfort though in the argument that it is reasonable to curtail an employee’s ability to talk about matters unrelated to their job through their contact.
I can believe it’s legal and that it’s common practice. I’m just not convinced that is right.
(By the by, I’ve learnt that I needed not worry about unfair dismissal, as it seems those laws don’t apply to me. I better not attend any climate change protest marches then, given who I work for)
“dismissal is likely to be unlawful, not unfair. ”
Indeed in that example. What about (though I shouldn’t whatabout) being dismissed for taking a position that’s only tangentially related to your employment.
If I attend a LGBTIQ march, is my employer free to dismiss me, on the basis that some of our clients may not support that?
Blobbit:
It depends (as it always does).
If your employer is “Gay Conversion ‘Therapies’ ‘R Us” or somesuch and you are their public spokesman, then quite possibly yes.
Otherwise likely no.
Blobbit:
You are right that “matters unrelated to their job” might be important, but that’s not the case here.
Instead the driver for Rugby Australia (who has oversight over all Rugby, at all levels, including junior rugby) is vicarious responsibility in relation to teenage Rugby players who think they are probably gay and in extreme cases commit suicide due to being prevented from reconciling their nature and the game they love playing. This relation between teenagers, sport and sexuality is a very strong relation.
http://johnmenadue.com/jack-waterford-the-leaking-tap-cherchez-le-pezzullo-haters-7-june-2019/
This kind of journalism, all too rare in our mainstream media, is what should be winning Walkley awards.
Also take a look at Robert Fisk’s view of the Iran-U.S. stoush. Amazing journalist, just keeps keeping on, like Jack Waterford, at an age when most others have retired.
Why Fisk has not been awarded an OBE or knighthood, unless he refused them, is a mystery to me. Sir Nick Faldo and Sir Andy Murray and not Sir Robert Fisk?