Newspoll’s no-show this week suggests last fortnight’s poll may not have portended a return to the familiar schedule. Amid a general post-election psephological malaise, there is at least the following to relate:
• The great pollster failure was the subject of a two-parter by Bernard Keane in Crikey yesterday, one part examining the methodological nuts and bolts, the other the influence of polling on journalism and political culture.
• Richard Willingham of the ABC reports former Corangamite MP Sarah Henderson is having a harder-than-expected time securing Liberal preselection to replace Mitch Fifield in the Senate, despite backing from Scott Morrison, Josh Frydenberg and Michael Kroger. According to the report, some of Henderson’s backers concede that Greg Mirabella, former state party vice-president and the husband of Sophie Mirabella, may have the edge.
• The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has invited submissions for its regular inquiry into the 2019 election, which will be accepted until Friday, September 2019. Queensland LNP Senator James McGrath continues to chair the committee, which consists of five Coalition, two Labor and one Greens member.
• Daniella White of the Canberra Times reports Labor is struggling to find candidates for next October’s Australian Capital Territory election, said by “some insiders” to reflect pessimism about the government’s chances of extending its reign to a sixth term.
• The Federation Press has published a second edition of the most heavily thumbed tome in my psephological library, Graeme Orr’s The Law of Politics: Election, Parties and Money in Australia. A good deal of water has passed under the bridge since the first edition in 2010, most notably in relation to Section 44, which now accounts for the better part of half a chapter.
Given how it has worked out for Queensland it is probable a good thing the senate is here to stay.
Why is it that instead of coming up with new and possibly interesting ideas, there is a preference for regurgitating old ideas as panaceas for societies’ ills?
Moreover, even if (as would indubitably be true) the old ideas are the best, how is this somehow a “progressive” position?
Finally, how much do we hate the Romans?
Bucephalus:
[‘Tristo – watch out for the Black Helicopters- you’re on the list.
Police State – oh FFS.’]
Tristo has every right to be concerned, under the regime of Dutton, his underling Morrison:
[‘While this may sound like something from a faraway dystopian land, digital rights experts warned that Australian Border Force has similar powers to confiscate and inspect the content of travellers’ digital devices with little public oversight.’]
For a Tory, you’d do better with the Murdochrazy, Sky after dark. That said, at least you’re a foil.
https://thenewdaily.com.au/life/tech/2019/07/03/travellers-rights-surveillance/
Frednk
True but I don’t think its about perfection and I think Australia will become a republic, I think when the Queen passes then it will become a live issue, lets just hope the Republicans are better prepared this time.
frednk:
I take it you’re unfamiliar with the nature of the QLD upper house.
There is no possibility that a house constituted as was the QLD upper house would have acted as any sort of brake on the activities of Mr Bjelke-Petersen. Instead the cover provided by such a house would have reinforced those activities, and may well have prolonged them past 1987.
Tristo
How about a two thirds majority of the HoR to elect the HoS and a simple majority in the HoR to dismiss. The incumbent would need to have wide appeal to get elected but would have no greater or lesser tenure than the PM. Both would only continue while they retained the confidence of the house.
Mexicanbeemer
I supported the original proposal.
An appointed GG only has the power given to him by the constitution.
An elected GG is constrained by the constitution.
I think Trump highlights the difficulty with the latter proposition.
“…I think Australia will become a republic, I think when the Queen passes then it will become a live issue, lets just hope the Republicans are better prepared this time.”
It’s not inevitable. In recent years in Australia, opposition to the Republic, like opposition to action on global heating, disdain for the language of inclusion and opposition to “political correctness”, has become one of the main virtue signals of a conservative in good standing.
Dear Erica Abetz says that whistleblower’s don’t come with clean hands. Erica’s almost an intellect.
E. G. Theodore says:
Wednesday, August 14, 2019 at 8:29 pm
…
I take it you’re unfamiliar with the nature of the QLD upper house.
…
So your saying Queensland needed a more robust upper house.
There would have been options other than abolish.
https://www.pollbludger.net/2019/08/14/various-stuff-thats-happening/comment-page-6/#comment-3234667
I don`t think anyone would suggest that a completely unreformed Queensland Legislative Council would be a good idea. An elected Queensland Legislative Council, elected by full adult franchise using proportional representation, would be the way to go.
The Governor-General has a vast range of powers according to the Constitution. The Governor-General is restrained by convention, the power of the Queen to dismiss the Governor-General and (in very extreme and very unlikely circumstances) the possibility of revolution.
A bit of light, sad relief:
https://thenewdaily.com.au/life/tech/2019/07/03/travellers-rights-surveillance/
The worst and most ineffective kind of restraint. 🙂
All hands on deck covering the pitch in Galle
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/19430/game/1192873/sri-lanka-vs-new-zealand-1st-test-icc-world-test-championship-2019-2021
Tom the first and best says:
Wednesday, August 14, 2019 at 8:48 pm
The Governor-General has a vast range of powers according to the Constitution. The Governor-General is restrained by convention, the power of the Queen to dismiss the Governor-General and (in very extreme and very unlikely circumstances) the possibility of revolution.
And we missed the opportunity to have what the GG can and can’t do clearly defined, oh well, not enough people cared enough.
Oh, stuff:
This is the link; I blame you, Shellbell, remembering we have a duty not to be boring:
https://www.bing.com/search?q=edith+piaf+non+je+ne+regrette+rien&form=APMCS1&PC=APMC
“The Governor-General is restrained by convention” until he decides he isn’t.
When the Queen passes, Australia wont have a HoS, the GG will fill the role until Australia accepts Charles, history tells us that during that window Australia could choose to just appoint the GG as HoS before holding a referendum to decide.
The succession is automatic as defined by a law that requires all 7 sovereign Parliaments in Australia to change it. There is no gap to exploit.
Teenagers in Ohio are somewhat different to ours..
BOARDMAN, Ohio — A six-month investigation into an 18-year-old in Ohio has resulted in his arrest on charges of threatening to assault a federal law enforcement officer.
The investigation started in February, according to WJW, when agents found online comments from the teen supporting mass shootings.
According to court documents, the user posted a threat to assault federal law enforcement officers writing, “…shoot every agent on sight,” in a discussion about the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco in 1993.
Agents met with Justin Olsen, who gave written consent for a search of his car and bedroom, according to a probable cause warrant.
On August 7th, agents report they found 10,000 rounds of ammunition, camouflage clothing, camouflaged backpacks, 15 rifles and shotguns and 10 semi-automatic pistols.
Olsen faces one charge for the threat posted online.
Steve777:
“The Governor-General is restrained by convention” until he decides he isn’t.
_____________________________________________________________
Well, those who were of age, politically informed at that time knew it was a usurpation of power – a coup – plain & simple.
TomTF&B
The law might say that but Charles does not become king until he is crowned, so between the time the Queen goes off to met her ancestors and the holy oil touches Charles head there is no actual monarch.
This is why on more than one occasion in English history we have seen people make moves on the throne at the expense of whoever was expected to be crowned.
Guns don’t kill people, people writing nasty things kill people?
briefly says:
Wednesday, August 14, 2019 at 7:37 pm
Completely agree on abolishing the Senate.
“Well, those who were of age, politically informed at that time knew it was a usurpation of power – a coup – plain & simple.”
And there’s nothing to stop it happening again. The only reason that the 1975 situation has not recurred is that the “extraordinary and reprehensible” circumstances then applying haven’t recurred. And what are “extraordinary and reprehensible circumstances”? I checked this in the LNP-Newscorp dictionary. They are:
– Labor is in power
– Labor trails badly in the polls
– The Right can muster a Senate majority
– Supply bills need to be passed
About 3 nanoseconds after these conditions are met we’ll have another crisis. Whoever the GG is at the time will have the 1975 precedent. Further, if he/she was appointed by a previous Coalition Government, he’ll be a right wing stooge who can be depended upon to do the “right” thing.
How are things looking, Mr ‘Strong Economy’?
Bucephalus:
[‘Completely agree on abolishing the Senate.’]
Now, how would that happen? Please, as if Tasmania, WA, SA would agree to that?
briefly says:
Wednesday, August 14, 2019 at 7:52 pm
“The Senate should have been the chamber that faced the people, not the House.”
The Senate did face the people.
Having only a Senate election would have been silly because if returned in the same composition or more opposed to the then Government it wouldn’t have resolved the impasse – and that’s why there’s a double dissolution and then a joint sitting.
Conservative?
If the Senate wasn’t there the 2014 Budget and much other Abbott vandalism would have passed.
Gosh are peeps talking about abolishing the Senate? Can’t imagine why outside of partisan reasons.
Personally I’m glad for that upper house check and balance even if it means good legislation gets voted down.
frednk:
Not really -too complex. The Senate was irrelevant prior to 1948 (?), and became relevant by accident. Introduction of the estimates process strengthened its role as house of review, and that is rightly (in my view) appreciated by the people.
The whole problem in QLD was the system of malapportionment, shamefully introduced by the ALP in 1948. Had that not been done, no Joh. Hopefully the lesson has been learned: dicking around usually backfires.
My ideal Senate would be 100 Senators. No state entitlements, with a quota of 1%.
Bucephalus:
You really have a problem with sustaining the arguments you posit, and when you can’t, you merely move on to another outlandish topic.
Confessions
Amongst other things, being a “conservative” in 2019 Australia apparently means a belief in making major changes to the Constitution on the basis of slight inconvenience (easily surmounted by competent governments) and/or one’s feeling being hurt.
Queensland and NZ survive without houses of review.
The voters get to review performance.
It’s a constitution, not a TV show. Novelty is not a pressing concern. There are certain ideas that will always be relevant. Our constitution provides no protection for economic and social rights and almost none for civil and political rights. That is a major defect.
In 1975 the conditions existed for a double dissolution but this was purely coincidental. The Senate acted as it did in order to insist on an election for the House. This was its demand in withholding supply. Fraser and the Liberal Senators were able to procure the dismissal of the House by doing a deal with Kerr. A half-Senate election was due but this had nothing to do with the conflict between the two Houses.
In the usual course, as things stand it is possible for the Senate to withhold Supply and provoke a House election without itself also being dissolved. This is a grave weakness in the constitution – a weakness exploited by Withers and Fraser in collusion with Kerr.
At the very least the Senate should be deprived of the power to withhold Supply. This would mean no democratically-elected House could be forced to an election by an obsolete Senate majority….a process that necessarily requires the Crown to involve itself in political struggles. This weakness really afflicts the whole Parliament and all its constituents – the Senate, the House and the G-G.
Mavis Davis (AD) says:
Wednesday, August 14, 2019 at 10:00 pm
I wasn’t aware that there are rules here.
You might have noticed that I’m not here all the time – I actually have a productive life away from here.
EG Theodore:
Being a ‘conservative’ in Australia today doesn’t mean a whole hell of a lot anymore. I use the term ‘reactionary’ for a reason.
Nicholas:
Seems to work mostly OK, theoretical defects notwithstanding
E. G. Theodore says:
Wednesday, August 14, 2019 at 10:01 pm
I have wanted to get rid of the Senate for over 30 years.
Let Governments govern like Queensland gets to and let the people pass judgment.
Nicholas says:
Wednesday, August 14, 2019 at 10:05 pm
I’m glad that our Constitution doesn’t get into those things. It is mainly an Administrative document and should remain so.
The operation of the Senate means Labor will most likely never be able to govern effectively again. The Lib-kin will use their numbers in combination with the Lib-Libs to defeat Labor, even though they may command a majority in the House.
Labor achieved many great things during the 20th century, defeating the Class Enemy in order to do so. If the Lib-kin had been in existence in the 1940s, the 1970s or the 1980s they would have combined with the Lib-Libs to frustrate Labor, as they have done ever since they gained a share of the Senate. The Senate is institutionally anti-Labor.
Everything Trump Touches Dies, even his own tariffs!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/13/trump-finally-acknowledges-his-tariffs-could-hit-consumers/
Briefly
If well led, Labor will have no trouble at all
briefly says:
Wednesday, August 14, 2019 at 10:15 pm
Alternatively the ALP could position itself politically where it will get enough support to have majority.
Bucephalus
My comment (EDIT: about inconvenience and feelings being hurt) wasn’t aimed specifically at you (though I agree it would inevitably create that impression, and apologise), and agree that a view held consistently over 30 years is worthy of respect. However, no matter how long held it can never be a conservative view.
Of course I believe that all state upper houses should abolished (not being a conservative I am unrestrained from holding such a view). As it was said at the time:
The (post 1940-something) Senate is different, in the it operates as a house of review, and does that diligently (particularly since the introduction of the estimates process) and largely uncontroversially.
Were the Senate to be abolished, it is inevitable that people would turn to the courts for review (to a much greater extent than they do now, which is already far too much). As we see from the example of the United States that process (a process amusingly called “relitigation”) will turn out to be a complete disaster (far more trouble than the Senate) partly because for quite proper reasons (rightly conservative reasons, in fact) judges are appointed by the executive and cannot be removed.
There seems to be a few Sandgropers here tonight, so you might be interested in this fascinating case which involves Two Rocks, some developers, the WA government and sea level rise due to the reality of Climate Change:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/developers-forced-to-plan-for-new-coastal-suburb-shorelines-170-metres-inland-20190813-p52gko.html
At least one government is taking the issue seriously.