Counting has concluded for the Currumbin and Bundamba by-elections of a fortnight ago, with Laura Gerber retaining Currumbin for the Liberal National Party by a 1.5% margin against a 1.8% swing to Labor, and Lance McCallum retaining Bundamba for Labor by a 9.6% margin ahead of second-placed One Nation (UPDATE: Make that a 1.2% margin in Currumbin and 9.8% in Bundamba). As noted previously, the flow of Greens preferences to Labor in Currumbin was relatively weak, though not quite decisively so. Deep within the innards of the ECQ’s media feed, it says that Greens preferences were going 1738 to Labor (72.8%) and 651 (27.2%), though this can’t be based on the final figures since the Greens received 2527 rather than 2389 votes. Had Labor received 79.17% of Greens preferences, as they did in the corresponding federal seat of McPherson last May, the margin would have been pared back from 567 (1.5%) to 215 (0.5%).
I have three tables to illustrate the results in light of the highly unusual circumstances of the election, the first of which updates one that appeared in an early post, recording the extent to which voters in the two seats changed their behaviour with respect to how they voted. Election day voting obviously fell dramatically, as voters switched to pre-poll voting and, to only a slightly lesser extent, outright abstention. What was not seen was a dramatic increase in postal voting, which will require investigation given the considerable anecdotal evidence that many who applied for postal votes did not receive their ballots on time — an even more contentious matter in relation to the mess that unfolded in Wisconsin on Tuesday, on which I may have more to say at a later time.
The next two tables divide the votes into four types, polling places, early voting, postal and others, and record the parties’ vote shares and swings compared with 2017, the latter shown in italics. In both Currumbin and Bundamba, Labor achieved their weakest results in swing terms on polling day votes, suggesting Labor voters made the move from election day to pre-poll voting in particularly large numbers, cancelling out what had previously been an advantage to the LNP in pre-poll voting. This is matched by a particularly strong swing against the LNP on pre-polls in Currumbin, but the effect is not discernible in Bundamba, probably because the picture was confused by the party running third and a chunk of its vote being lost to One Nation, who did not contest last time.
In other COVID-19 disruption news:
• The Northern Territory government has rejected calls from what is now the territory’s official opposition, Terry Mills’ Territory Alliance party (UPDATE: Turns out I misheard here – the Country Liberal Party remains the opposition, as Bird of Paradox notes in comments), to postpone the August 22 election. Of the practicalities involved in holding the election under a regime of social distancing rules, which the government insists will be in place for at least six months, Deputy Chief Minister Nicole Manison offers only that “the Electoral Commission is looking at the very important questions of how we make sure that in the environment of COVID-19 that we do this safely”.
• After an initial postponement from May 2 to May 30, the Tasmanian government has further deferred the periodic elections for the Legislative Council seats of Huon and Rosevear, promising only that they will be held by the time the chamber sits on August 25. Three MLCs have written to the Premier requesting that the elections either be held by post or for the terms of the existing members, which will otherwise expire, to be extended through to revised polling date.
• The junior partner in New Zealand’s ruling coalition, Winston Peters of New Zealand First, is calling for the country’s September 19 election to be postponed to November 21, which has also elicited positive noises from the opposition National Party. It might well be thought an element of self-interest is at work here, with Peters wishing to put distance between the election and a donations scandal that has bedeviled his party, and National anticipating a short-term surge in government support amid the coronavirus crisis. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern may be softening in her opposition to the notion, saying earlier this week it would “depend on what alert level we are at”. There has regrettably been no polling of voting intention in New Zealand in two months, although the government recorded enormously encouraging results in a Colmar Brunton poll on handling of the pandemic in New Zealand and eight other countries, conducted last week.
Blobbit @ #1739 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 5:51 pm
They would die of boredom in a week. So actually, you may be on to something here … 🙂
Boerwar says:
Monday, April 13, 2020 at 8:52 am
‘Bucephalus says:
Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 9:01 pm
Anyone want to stop Rice growing in Australia now?’
Most rice grown in Australia is grown by peeps who either own general security irrigation licences or who buy on the water spot market. They could buy high security water licences but have made a commercial decision not to do so. This works well in years when there is average or above-average rainfall and the storages are full. They get very, very cheap water, thus maximizing their profits.
BUT. General security licences are actually low security licences…. they are at the tail of the queue. During a prolonged drought there has NEVER been annual allocations against general security licences.
The market is driving high security water licences into standing crops such as citrus, stone fruit, almonds, olives and grapes. Rice competes poorly against cotton and against fresh vegetables.
In other words, putting irrigation water into the market is doing what was intended: to the extent that water is an input cost, it is driving production into higher value crops.
What the rice growers are doing now is trying to distort the water market in four ways.
1. They are trying, de facto, to turn general security licences into higher security licences – but without having to pay for it. The Morrison Government’s ‘creation’ of additional ‘general security’ irrigation water by paying South Australia to desalinate water was a crap policy stab at this. They compounded the policy lunacy by restricting the ‘new’ water to lower value fodder crops. This was intended to keep the dairy lobby happy. (Irrigation dairy was collapsing at the same time as the rice paddies were dry and for exactly the same commercial reasons.)
2. Secondly they are trying to politically force pushing some or all of the MDB Plan environmental pool into the irrigation pool.
3. Thirdly, they are seeking to manipulate the spot market in water by, for example, putting a cap on the water price.
4. Fourthly, they are making public statements about there not being enough rice ‘and other staples’ to feed Australians. De facto, they are threatening Australians with starvation.
p
I have to go and eat now. Will get back to you after din dins.
“AirBNB is banned if I’m not mistaken.”
Bit of it’s ok for someone to go live in their country mansion for a few months, why shouldn’t I be able to do the same in a rental?
(It was a bad call by Andrews)
Player One @ #1743 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 5:54 pm
Labelling people who are abiding by the rules, which are working, as ‘idiots’ is a non-sensical comment.
Greensborough Growler @ #1571 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 2:31 pm
I agree. An excellent article.
Rex Douglas @ #1755 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 5:57 pm
As others have pointed out, Rex – the rules ban non-essential travel.
Travelling to a holiday home is definitely “non-essential”.
Boerwar @ #1734 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 5:51 pm
Around 3% of Australians own a holiday home
—————————–
I would be surprised if its really that low but for many it might be more a matter of convenience to not owning one when you can rent a place or stay in a caravan park.
Blobbit @ #1751 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 5:57 pm
Banning ‘holiday’ rentals makes social distancing easier for regional home owners. Common sense decision by Andrews.
Player One @ #1754 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 5:59 pm
How many people have been fined for travelling to their holiday house to isolate ?
Rex Douglas @ #1761 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 6:01 pm
I don’t know. Do you?
yabba @ #1756 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 5:59 pm
Thank you for your post.
“Banning ‘holiday’ rentals makes social distancing easier for regional home owners. Common sense decision by Andrews.”
Sure. Just prove that you’ve rented it for 3 months. How would that be different?
Or can we only trust the people rich enough to have a holiday house to do the right thing.
Andrews was wrong to say people can go to their holiday homes.
Rex Douglas @ #1759 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 5:59 pm
So it is ok to holiday if you own your holiday house, but not if you rent it?
Player One @ #1759 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 6:02 pm
I haven’t read of any.
Rex Douglas @ #1766 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 6:05 pm
So what was your point?
Blobbit @ #1761 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 6:05 pm
Not everyone who owns a 2nd home is rich. They might have built and owned the 2nd home many yrs ago.
I hope envy isn’t the reason some here are whining …?
Good question, let’s ask them 🙂
………………………………………………………………….
French police in Cote d’Azur turned away 10 holidaymakers who arrived in the country on a private jet from the United Kingdom, according to local media reports, while three helicopters waiting to whisk them to a luxury villa in Cannes were sent back to their bases and handed fines
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/france-turns-away-private-jet-bound-luxury-villa-coronavrius-2020-4?r=US&IR=T
Player One @ #1764 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 6:06 pm
That travelling to a holiday home is not banned.
Interesting tidbit..
If the infection happened interstate and the source was never identified, shouldn’t it be accounted for as an unknown local in state where the person was infected? Otherwise what you’re doing is hiding cases of unknown source.
Player One @ #1762 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 6:05 pm
Appears so.
lizzie @ #1768 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 6:07 pm
I am not so sure about this. The Coronavirus doesn’t appear determined to kill all life on the planet. The IPA, on the other hand …
CC
My reading from John Daley and his associate’s article leads to the following:
(a) the statement that the government officials are hedging was an auspicious and presumptuous beginning. Isn’t the National Cabinet and those advising them closely observing what is happening in advance of making a decision?;
(b) I didn’t really see any strong statement by Daley to suggest that the current course being adopted should be diverted from.
“Rex Douglas says:
Monday, April 13, 2020 at 5:56 pm
Wrong again.
Rex,
I am perplexed.
Maybe you are referring to rules in another state (Victoria perhaps?). For me, NSW is that to which I refer.
I have found these references, but I know there are others
https://travel.nine.com.au/latest/coronavirus-can-i-still-go-to-my-holiday-home/2ed3c0b5-780a-43f7-b4f3-4509258b1b8c
and
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-10/the-rules-of-driving-during-coronavirus/12132208
So if you are in Victoria, then yes, you can go to your holiday house that you own.
But I don’t think you should for reasons I, and others, gave.
But in NSW
You absolutely can not.
Quite rightly, too!
Rex Douglas @ #1773 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 6:09 pm
And your justification for this inconsistency is … ?
Rex
That is true because i knew a guy that was a builder and in the 1980s he brought a small plot of land near Rye on the Mornington Peninsula and built a small cottage on it for his summer holidays.
Blobbit @ #1764 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 6:05 pm
It certainly castrated a simple message of “stay at home”.
An interesting situation arising with agent based modelling gaining credibility as cud chewer linked to earlier. Here is a link to explain agent based modelling as opposed to the traditional SEI(A)R compartment modelling: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01003-6
I know that various countries are using phone location data to monitor movements. Does anyone know the utility of that info fed that into an agent-based model?
Player One
No, you’re right. The virus needs a host for survival.
“October 02 2014 Finding No. 5847 Topic: Press Release Country: Australia
Melburnians are twice as likely as the rest of the country to have a holiday home, the latest data from Roy Morgan Research shows.
1 in 20 Melbourne residents (5.0%) have a holiday home, but among the rest of Australia the overall holiday home-ownership rate is just 1 in 40. In fact, nearly a third of all Australian holiday home-owners live in Melbourne.”
Player One @ #1774 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 6:11 pm
Dans justification is all that matters. The rules are working so he is right.
Rex Douglas @ #1769 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 6:07 pm
Try not to be an idiot, Rex. The virtue of how someone came about having a holiday home is irrelevant. The danger posed to the community in general by people undertaking unnecessary travel is the issue.
Rex
“Appears so.”
I think you were aware I wasn’t asking a question about “the rules” but contrasting the absurdity of the position of allowing long term stays in someone’s holiday home but banking a similar length stay in a rental.
Anyway, falling back on “the rules day it’s ok” is the same argument multinationals use about not paying tax – they’re just following the laws.
Does that make either ok?
It’s Time @ #1776 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 6:12 pm
They ARE staying at (their second) home.
Blobbit @ #1782 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 6:12 pm
Well if you live in Melbourne that is more incentive to have somewhere else to be.
Sorry Rex. Could I just take that statement of yours and ask a follow-up question
If “Dans justification is all that matters. The rules are working so he is right.” Then does it follow that you agree with the following statement “Scott’s justification is all that matters. The rules are working so he is right”?
What is good for the goose is good for the gander? In fact, do you agree with all the leadership in the National cabinet regardless of political persuasion now?
Beijing tightens grip over coronavirus research, amid US-China row on virus origin
Hong Kong (CNN)China has imposed restrictions on the publication of academic research on the origins of the novel coronavirus, according to a central government directive and online notices published by two Chinese universities, that have since been removed from the web.
Under the new policy, all academic papers on Covid-19 will be subject to extra vetting before being submitted for publication. Studies on the origin of the virus will receive extra scrutiny and must be approved by central government officials, according to the now-deleted posts.
A medical expert in Hong Kong who collaborated with mainland researchers to publish a clinical analysis of Covid-19 cases in an international medical journal said his work did not undergo such vetting in February.
The increased scrutiny appears to be the latest effort by the Chinese government to control the narrative on the origins of the coronavirus pandemic, which has claimed more than 100,000 lives and sickened 1.7 million people worldwide since it first broke out in the Chinese city of Wuhan in December.
Since late January, Chinese researchers have published a series of Covid-19 studies in influential international medical journals. Some findings about early coronavirus cases — such as when human-to-human transition first appeared — have raised questions over the official government account of the outbreak and sparked controversy on Chinese social media.
And now, Chinese authorities appear to be tightening their grip on the publication of Covid-19 research.
A Chinese researcher who spoke on condition of anonymity due to fear of retaliation said the move was a worrying development that would likely obstruct important scientific research.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/12/asia/china-coronavirus-research-restrictions-intl-hnk/index.html
“Dans justification is all that matters. The rules are working so he is right.”
To quote someone, we won’t know for two weeks.
(Actually I doubt it’ll have much effect. But from a policy consistency point of view, it was crap.
And allowing people to go buy a jigsaw was no worse, but someone was pilloried for saying that)
“They ARE staying at (their second) home.”
How do you practically police that? They could just be going down for the weekend.
Is Rex really Peter Whish-Wilson?
shellbell
I see nothing wrong in pointing out that the government and in particular the CMO are being less than transparent. For example, in an interview a couple of days ago, the CMO was dismissive of elimination and instead of saying “yes that’s a worthwhile cause, but difficult”, he instead ventured into spin and bullshit, by answering “if we did eliminate the virus then we would need to maintain closed borders for some time to come”. Daley rightfully points out the broken logic in this spin (just as I did).
I frankly don’t trust the National Cabinet, shellbell. There are plenty of good people in this Cabinet. There are plenty of sensible advisers. There is lots of good data. But the fact is, that they are not transparent and its not clear at all if they have seriously considered elimination. The fact that it is independent researchers that are doing the modelling for elimination is pretty damn scary. The government should have asked this question weeks ago: “What would elimination look like? How can we tell when we arrive? How would more aggressive testing hasten elimination?” None of this has come from the National Cabinet, so far as I’m aware.
Let me remind you that the National Cabinet actually ignored the advice given by experts to proceed to the present level of restriction, for some time – until there the Premiers rightfully revolted. The CMO is quite definitely part of the problem as are his political masters.
No of course not. But the danger that Daley correctly points out is that if your entire mindset is suppression and not elimination there is a very real danger in easing restrictions a week too soon.
Rex Douglas @ #1787 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 6:16 pm
Really? No stop for fuel? No stop at the grocery store or bottle shop? No walk down the beach or park to check things out? No little tour of the area because it is a little holiday? No little party to meet up with old friends? Yeah, sure.
Have we just entered Bizarro world? What is the Green policy on holiday homes?
“Our estimates for the effective reproduction number in Australian states. Good news is we have clear evidence that it is (well) under 1. Methodological details and further analyses to come.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/j_mccaw/status/1249592269977423879
“Griffsays:
Monday, April 13, 2020 at 6:22 pm
Have we just entered Bizarro world? What is the Green policy on holiday homes?”
Something something ALP. Something Albo something.
We are all entitled to a holiday home:
https://www.themercury.com.au/news/coronavirus/greens-senator-peter-whishwilsons-east-coast-getaway-has-angered-locals/news-story/d3c4b8473fb45d397e2c420690bd4dda
Rex Douglas @ #1787 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 6:16 pm
C’mon, Rex. You are not this stupid. What’s going on? Are you just annoyed that your hero made a mistake?