So much trouble in the world

Upheaval in conservative politics in New South Wales over abortion law; a pickle for Labor in Tasmania over a vacancy in state parliament; and suggestions of a looming state by-election in Victoria.

In New South Wales:

A row over a bill to decriminalise abortion is prompting murmurings about Gladys Berejiklian’s leadership just five months after she led the Coalition to an impressive election victory, with tremors that are being felt federally. The bill was introduced by independent MP Alex Greenwich, but its sponsors included the Berejiklian government’s Health Minister, Brad Hazzard. It was headed last week for passage through both houses of parliament, before Berejiklian bowed to conservative outrage by pushing back the final vote in the upper house by nearly a month. Claiming credit for this concession is Barnaby Joyce, whose high-profile interventions have angered his state Nationals colleagues, most of whom support the bill (prompting Mark Latham, who now holds a crucial upper house vote as a member of One Nation, to tar the party with the cultural Marxist brush). Following suggestions the party room had discussed expelling him from the party, Joyce said he would go of his own accord if four of them publicly called for him to do so. It doesn’t appear that is going to happen, but if it did, the government would be reduced from 77 seats in the House of Representatives out of 151, costing it its absolute majority on the floor.

In Tasmania:

Labor MP Scott Bacon’s decision to end his state parliamentary career, citing family reasons, represents an unwelcome turn of events for an already understaffed state opposition, owing to the manner in which parliamentary vacancies are filled under Hare-Clark. This will involve a “recount” (as officially known, though “countback” is the generally preferred term for such procedures) of the votes that got Bacon elected to his seat in Denison (which is now called Clark), either as first or subsequent preferences. The procedure is open to any unsuccessful candidates from the previous election who care to nominate, among whom is Madeleine Ogilvie, a former incumbent who was defeated in 2018 – possibly because progressive sentiment had been alienated by her social conservatism.

The problem for Labor is that Ogilvie has since parted company with the party, to the extent of running as an independent for an upper house seat in May. If she wins the recount, and no reconciliation with the party is forthcoming, there will be nothing to stop her sitting as an independent, reducing Labor from ten seats to nine in a chamber of 25. As explained by Kevin Bonham, we can see from the 2018 results that this will produce a “first preference” count in which 33.1% of the vote goes to Madeleine Ogilvie and 28.4% to Tim Cox, a former ABC Radio presenter who ran unsuccessfully, and has confirmed he will nominate for the recount. More than half the remainder went to candidates who are not in contention because they’re already in parliament, so it will assuredly be one or the other.

In Victoria:

John Ferguson of The Australian reports the Liberals have been conducting internal polling for former party leader Matthew Guy’s seat of Bulleen, prompting speculation he will shortly quit parliament. The Liberals retained the seat with a 5.8% margin even amid the debacle of last November’s election, and the polling is “believed to show the Liberal brand holding up”.

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.

2,112 comments on “So much trouble in the world”

Comments Page 2 of 43
1 2 3 … 43

  2. Peg
    You have asked repeatedly what my views are on the birthing tree issue.
    Here they are.
    There will always be some degree of conflict between different values.
    While I don’t understand the details in this case, in the broad the conflict here is between Indigenous values and non-Indigenous values having to do with ROI, value for money and social benefit.
    Ultimately the resolution of values conflict is political.
    Ideally there would be frameworks for addressing values conflicts that enables some degree of resolution.
    Ideally these frameworks, processes and trust would be in place before values conflicts arise.
    Ideally these frameworks and processes would be mutually agreed.
    Ideally organisations and individuals would be attuned to all values that might be at stake in any development.
    Ideally there would be standing for Indigenous values holders.
    In relation to the birthing trees some or all of these ideal situations appear to be lacking.
    Bottom line is that for these processes to work all values holders will lose some of the time.

    The bottom line alternative is that all roads go where the governments want them to go OR all Indigenous values are protected 100% all of the time. Unless there are pure projects with 100% agreement by all citizens then there will always be values conflicts and there will always be loss of some values. Put simply, there is no black and white.

    So, the frameworks and the processes and the trust having failed, the birthing trees issue is being played out in terms of political conflict which is bad for all concerned. Everyone seems to have boxed themselves into irreconcilable corners.

    Once that happens political players start grandstanding, manipulating and leveraging political brownie points and truth and trust go by the board. Lose lose. Once that happens irrelevant considerations start being raised and these cloud the issue. Of the many irrelevant considerations raised in relation to the birthing trees, two come to mind. The age of the trees is irrelevant. What is relevant is what Indigenous stakeholders put on the table in relation to their values. Secondly, whether the Indigenous views were previously ‘written down’ is irrelevant. For Indigenous stakeholders what matters is what they put on the table. (Both these considerations are white projections, BTW.) Similarly, it is what non-Indigenous stakeholders put on the table that matters in the resolution of these matters.

  3. Will Four Corners reveal who asked Witness K to swear the affidavit in the Timor/Australia litigation?

    Was it Collaery? If it was, did he suggest independent advice might be a good idea before K did so?

  4. @guytaur

    You raise a good point, although I have observed that our politicians are more socially conservative than the Australian electorate as a whole. I get a feeling a lot of politicians live in a bubble, which makes them unaware a lot of the time, what the the reality in the broader electorate.

    Because in Australia there is broad public support for issues such as reproductive rights, marriage equality and LBGTQI rights.

  5. Australians who drive electric cars will soon find it easier to recharge, with the federal government ploughing $15 million into a network of ultra-fast charging stations on major highways.

    The Morrison government’s Energy Minister Angus Taylor will announce the funding on Monday, as construction begins north of Brisbane on the first of 24 fast-charging stations to be built by start-up Evie over the next year at a total cost of $50 million.

    It’s the Lib lies that really disturb me.

    Mr Taylor was criticised during the federal election campaign for sharing a Liberal Party advertisement that ran on Twitter, deriding then Labor leader Bill Shorten’s statement that electric vehicles could be charged in eight to 10 minutes.

    The ad claimed that in fact, “electric cars will tend to charge between about eight and nine hours overnight”.

    Labor’s climate change and energy spokesman Mark Butler described this at the time as “total hypocrisy” given the Coalition had spent millions of dollars encouraging Australians to use the vehicles, with its MPs routinely spruiking the technology.

    https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/new-fast-charging-network-for-electric-vehicles-20190825-p52klp.html

  6. I have been told that I have an Indigenous Birthing Tree on our land. It is safe as there is already a road nowhere near it.

  8. Tristo

    I believe that the average politician, on an above average income with lots of perks, is out of touch with the average wage earner.

    I write with authority because there was a short period when I was well paid. So relaxing! Easy to forget the other side.

  9. Tristo

    Yes. The electorate is a lot more liberal than politicians and media keep telling us. An example is One Nation. Despite the use of racism as their number one agenda they keep falling at hurdles on the social contract.

    Those workers that vote for them because they are burning down politics as usual do it despite the racism. They know that Hanson can only block government legislation.

    Thus the voting patterns. These fearful voters are not following logic or policy like we are. When their fear is not ruling them they really are part of the fair go.

    Labor as the major progressive party has to overcome the fear with hope. The Obama approach of Yes We Can.
    That means offering real hope. Shorten was right in that approach. Where he failed was by having tax cuts he let the LNP change the narrative to fear

    Andrews Rudd Hawke Whitlam all won by offering hope to replace fear.

    Edit: it’s also why the Green New Deal has resonated around the world. It’s a solution offering hope to replace the fear associated with climate policy

  10. c@t
    One of the interesting issues here is that to most of the early colonizers the female Indigenous environment was virtually invisible.
    Hindmarsh Island and the Birthing Trees are, to a tiny extent, redressing a large historical imbalance.

  12. Tristo

    Sorry I forgot. Trump also offered hope. Like the LNP campaigns raising demons so he can say he is the only one that can fix them. It’s false hope to replace the fear created.

    Labor can win by offering real hope

  21. I’m waiting for the scoop that Trumps cray cray pronouncements and flip flops on tariffs etc. is a deliberate strategy to manipulate markets for benefit of some players.
    You know it makes sense.

  25. Victoria:

    It has already been reported that Trump’s companies stand to benefit handsomely from any interest rate cut. No wonder he’s been demanding the Reserve Bank cut rates.

  26. BINGO!

    Eric Garland
    @ericgarland
    ·
    6h
    We’ve had FOUR YEARS to get that Trump is just the sideshow who says stupid things while NATO’s enemies are making real strategic moves.

    Maybe we could figure out he’s not dumb: he’s just a Mob employee. Always has been.

  28. You will all be relieved to know, no doubt, that I have now seen a video of Trump and Johnson descending the stairs and they were not, repeat not, holding hands. Trump’s balance on stairs appears to have improved. 🙂

  31. Fess

    As per above tweet I just posted. He got it in one. Trump has always been a mobster.
    Hence why I am thinking that part of his cray cray act is put on. He is taking a leaf out of the mobster hand book.
    Having said that. There are some weird movements he does now with respect to how he walks and moves his hands. If that is not put on, it can be an indication of something more serious going on health wise.

  34. Josh Frydenberg will suggest boardrooms that prioritise short-term shareholder returns above long-term investments are hurting national productivity rates

    Businesses aren’t making long-term investments because they have low expectations for long-term profit opportunities. They see that consumer demand is stagnant and will not increase under current fiscal policy. It is the government’s responsibility to ensure that the wages share of national income is high and that workers receive wage rises that reflect average labour productivity growth. The government has failed to do that. It is up to the government to ensure that public services, infrastructure, and research and development are fully funded to the level necessary to mobilize and develop all of the talent in our population. The government has failed to do that, too. The government keeps blaming the central bank and businesses for problems that can only be solved by fiscal policy.

  35. Vic:

    A number of commentators over the weekend have noted the crazy is escalating, pointing to last week as perhaps the craziest of his time as president.

  36. Oh Tim. Tim Tim Tim.

    Would never have happened if it were a NSWelshman captaining. Tim is the first non NSWelsham (either born in, played for or residing in) captain of the Australian test team since……

    Kim Hughes.

  38. Nicholas says:
    Monday, August 26, 2019 at 10:32 am

    ….The government keeps blaming the central bank and businesses for problems that can only be solved by fiscal policy.

    I hadn’t noticed any blame being assigned to anyone other than Labor, unions, environmentalists, teachers, universities, scholars, immigrants, the public sector and the unemployed.

    Rather, the Lib-Libs have been taking credit for a ‘strong economy’.

    It is however absolutely correct that the State sector has to lead. This will not happen while the State machinery is in the hands of Reactionaries. Possession of State power by the Reactionaries is not about to change. It will never change as long as division persists in reformist opinion and political strategy. The authors of division are partly responsible for the repression of labour, the dissolution of social justice and the destruction of the environment perpetrated by the Liberals. Get used to it. The evidence is this will not change.

  39. ‘Rather, the Lib-Libs have been taking credit for a ‘strong economy’.’
    And Labor has been yelling from the rooftops how this just isn’t true…..oh, wait…..

  41. Labour repression will only get the market system so far. Eventually repression will fail to deliver economic progress. We’ve passed that point some time ago. There is an implicit law of diminishing returns to repression. It has kicked in. We need to restore the labour share of the economy in both direct and indirect income terms, increase the capital intensity of the economy, especially of urban economies while investing in our intellectual and creative sectors and in the environment.

    But we won’t. Rely on it. This will not happen. As long as the State is in the hands of the Reactionaries the economy will languish. None of the things of which we are capable will be achieved. It has been ever thus in Australia.

  45. I thought he only moved to Sydney when he retired?

    Dont think so. Could be wrong.
    Doesnt matter. Proves he is a NSWelshman at heart.

    Not that I have anything against Kim Hughes. Awesome batsman. Clever captain. He was cruelly taken down by a South Australian and assisted by some sandgropers who didnt stick by him.

  47. Brexit
    So Stokes did it. He dared to hope. Against the odds he single-handedly lifted the British mood. It occurs to me that his effort will be used to support the idea of British stubborn individualism and the dogged rhetoric coming from the British PM. PM Johnson fancies himself as the hero of an embattled UK. And I rather fancy that no-deal Brexit just got a lot more likely. Release the cricket metaphors.

  48. @guytaur

    I don’t know if a Green New Deal can be marketed successfully in Australia. Since anti-enviromentalist sentiment is considerably stronger in Australia than in many other Western countries.

    Unless a economic depression occurs, with a major decline in demand for fossil fuels, essentially destroying the coal and gas industries.

  49. Forget about new political parties. There is not enough time left for one to arise in a sleepy nation like Australia. And a Labor/Green merger is also unlikely – they are too ideologically incompatible. There is only one real chance for Australia to reduce its GHG emissions in time to do any good, and that is that one or the other of the major parties adopts a coherent climate policy.

    And I predict that whichever of them does so will win the next election “in a canter”. In case you missed it from BK’s morning links, this is what the next election – and every election after that – will be about …

    How do scientists tell the people that their children are growing into a world where survival under a mean temperatures 2C above pre-industrial levels may be painful, and in some parts of the world impossible, let alone under 4C rise projected by the IPCC?

    Did you catch that last bit? Not 1.5 degrees. Not 2 degrees. But 4 degrees. The IPCC – renowned for continually underestimating the severity of the crisis in every previous report – will likely be predicting in their next report that we are heading for temperature rises that are considered by many to be unsurvivable.

    Atmospheric levels of CO2, methane and nitrous oxide have reached a combined level of almost 500 parts per million, intersecting the melting threshold of the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets and heralding a fundamental shift in the state of the terrestrial climate.

    https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/the-amazon-fires-and-the-dilemma-for-climate-scientists-20190825-p52kiq.html

Comments Page 2 of 43
1 2 3 … 43

Leave a Reply

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