Click here for full federal election results updated live.
The count failed to progress yesterday in many of the seats I rate as in doubt, but my system yesterday called Lingiari for Labor and Bradfield for the Liberals. It is clear Bennelong won’t be far off, with the second batch of postals reducing the Labor lead at the same insufficient rate as the first. That will leave Labor needing one further seat to get a majority, which might (or might not) be provided by Lyons, Brisbane and Gilmore, on which we are today none the wise.
The fresh two-candidate count in Cowper has dispelled any doubt that Nationals member Pat Conaghan will hold out against independent Caz Heise, whom he leads with 53.2% of the two-candidate vote. I’m projecting that come down to around 52-48 when the two-candidate count has caught up with the primary votes. The fresh count in Ryan records a slight lead for the LNP with about 12% completed, but this is because the booths counted so far lean conservative. My projection of a 2.6% winning margin for the Greens is based on the fact that preferences in the booths added so far are breaking nearly 70-30 in their favour. It is by the same logic that an 11.2% Greens margin over the LNP is projected in Griffith.
New batches of postal votes further shortened the odds on Liberal wins in Deakin, where Michael Sukkar has opened a 55-vote lead; Menzies, where the Liberal lead increased from 624 to 1748; and Sturt, where it increased from 723 to 982. My projection that Labor will ultimately win a squeaker in Deakin fails to properly account for the clear trend on postals, about 40% of which are still to come. That should add around 1000 votes to Sukkar’s margin, only about half of which Labor is likely to recover on absents. I should acknowledge though that I have no idea what the electronic assisted voting results have in store, which will include those in COVID-19 isolation, but my best guess is that they will be few in number.
From the Vietnamese Citizenship Act:
Chapter II – DETERMINATION OF VIETNAMESE NATIONALITY
Article 5 – Vietnamese nationality.
A person has Vietnamese nationality if he/she belongs to one of the following categories:
(1) by birth;
(2) admitted in Vietnamese nationality;
(3) readmitted in Vietnamese nationality;
(4) having Vietnamese nationality in accordance with an international treaty of which Vietnam is a signatory;
(5)having Vietnamese nationality in other cases as provided for by this Law.
Article 6 – Nationality of children.
(1) Children whose parents are Vietnamese citizens have Vietnamese nationality irrespective of their place of birth in or outside the Vietnamese territory.
https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b5200.html
C@tmomma says:
Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 8:59 pm
The loosest of unit @ #1075 Tuesday, May 24th, 2022 – 8:55 pm
Dai Le may have an s44 issue
Freaking Lol!
______________________________
Sorry to disappoint c@t, refugees from the Republic of South Vietnam didn’t get citizenship as of right in Communist Vietnam. You cannot be a citizen for the purposes of s44 of a former State.
S44 really has to be tidied up. It reflects a late 19th century view of citizenship and of conflicts of interest.
You could change it in a few ways:
– change it to mean in effect “if you can vote you can get elected”. This is what I favour.
– accept evidence of applying for renunciation other citizenship – don’t wait for the wheels of a foreign country’s bureaucracy to come around.
– allow members to take steps to renounce other citizenship within a reasonable time once elected. Ditto for “office of profit…”.
Jaeger @ #921 Tuesday, May 24th, 2022 – 6:30 pm
What caught my eye are the closing statements:
The need to emphasise that they were “genuinely interested” in getting to Australia looks a tad defensive. I would have thought that having risked their lives and all their savings, and then some, you’d think it pretty obvious they were a bit more than “genuinely interested”, in fact desperate. That genuineness is even in play sounds mighty like it’s open to question.
Bilko at 8.53 re credit card surcharges…
I marvel at the brazen capacity of the business sector to screw consumers.
Card transactions involve a few to the retailer – but the also massively increase the number of sales made when compared to a world in which cards don’t exist. The benefit to retailers majorly outweighs the fee cost, but no, they add a surcharge – which I think we could guarantee more than covers the fee they pay. So, they make a profit on the card transaction too!
FFS, can people stop with the Dai Le / section 44 bullshit? It’s a ridiculous provision – interpreted without a shred of common sense by the High Court – that contributes to the embarrassing whiteness of our Parliament.
mj says:
Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 9:14 pm
_______________________
Acts against the Socialist fatherland?
“FFS, can people stop with the Dai Le / section 44 bullshit? It’s a ridiculous provision – interpreted with no common sense by the High Court – that contributes to the embarrassing whiteness of our Parliament.’
I agree, noting also that the BBC has been commenting about the Australian parliament being much more white and out of alignment with demographics than the equivalents in the UK, Canada and NZ. Not to mention that the optics of using s44 against a Vietnamese refugee would be very bad and likely to lead to her reelection with an increased majority. Better to select a capable and articulate local person such as Tu Le to run against Dai Le next time.
Is there going to be a pre-selection in Fowler?
Steve777 says:
Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 9:14 pm
S44 really has to be tidied up. It reflects a late 19th century view of citizenship and of conflicts of interest.
You could change it in a few ways:
– change it to mean in effect “if you can vote you can get elected”. This is what I favour.
– accept evidence of applying for renunciation other citizenship – don’t wait for the wheels of a foreign country’s bureaucracy to come around.
– allow members to take steps to renounce other citizenship within a reasonable time once elected. Ditto for “office of profit…”.
,
—–
I’ll trade s44 for all of the above if we also include that there should be a rule that makes it illegal for any elected member to ever be a citizen of any other country ever again. If you’re going to be sit and vot eon the laws of Australia, you better be all in.
Toby Esterhasesays:
Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 9:17 pm
FFS, can people stop with the Dai Le / section 44 bullshit? It’s a ridiculous provision – interpreted without a shred of common sense by the High Court – that contributes to the embarrassing whiteness of our Parliament.
–————————————–
I agree it’s ridiculous, and it should be put to a referendum for constitutional amendment. As far as I’m concerned if you are enrolled to vote you should be able to stand for Parliament.
It will interesting to see if someone challenges her on those grounds in the High Court. Private citizens should take note that the people who challenged Frydenberg lost their house (or at least spent a lot of time outside the Glenferrie Coles getting signatures to try and save it).
I reckon that a straw person can be found to challenge however. I am not sure it is the Labor party’s best interest to race back to the polls there. Certainly they need to find a better candidate.
Cronus at 8.57 re Space Farce…
Pretty sure ‘Pigs in Space’ was a Muppets thing.
Captain Kremmen, along with the voluptuos Carla, was however, a feature cartoon on the Kenny Everett Video Show…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShCCSF9m-7M
For some reason I’m thinking of an episode where Carla enters the ‘Voluptutron’…dang it, google won’t find it!
Oakeshott Country says:
Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 9:22 pm
Is there going to be a pre-selection in Fowler?
_________________________________
More importantly who is going to be named Home Affairs Minister next Wednesday?
@BS fairman:
“ Gilmore Update: With all but 56 postal votes (& whatever else is still in mail system) counted, Constance leads by 143 votes.
There are 2,127 absentee votes, 760 provisional votes and 3,671 pre-poll declaration votes to go.
Last election absentee votes went 57% to Labor, provisional 64% and pre-poll declaration 53%. A lot of provisional votes are discarded during the process.
So it might be a squeaker. So close that it squeaks.”
So, let’s assume that pre-poll declarations break even (being generous to Constance) and the other 3,000 odd absentee/provision votes break 55/45 to Labor. Let’s also assume that Constance is also 200 ahead after all the postals are counted (but before declaration, absentee and provisionals are then counted). Phillips probably still wins by 100 votes or so?
S-44 works on lack of evidence!
As I understand it :
1) When the North took over – they gave citizenship to those left from the South
2) If you fled (like Dai Le) you were considered to have committed an act against the socialist fatherland and had no right to citizenship
3) Vietnam doesn’t recognise dual citizenship, so if you took out Australian citizenship any Vietnamese citizenship was forfeit.
Still Labor should try it – would go down a treat with the very large Vietnamese population in Fowler.
You have to remember it is not up to the government alone to challenge, absolutely anyone in the electorate can bring a case. So I suspect someone will even if it is just to make a name for themselves. As for her deserving to be there; As the saying goes “Deserves got nothing to do with it”.
During the campaign I couldn’t find one thing on what Labor plan to do with the Jobnetwork gravy train. ie Sarina Russo.
Steve777:
Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 9:14 pm
[‘S44 really has to be tidied up. It reflects a late 19th century view of citizenship and of conflicts of interest.’]
What, by via referendum? From memory, only 8 of 44 have got up. Or perhaps you’re suggesting judicial activism? – the instant section having little or no wriggle room.
Part of me thinks that if we look hard enough there’s probably be another couple of people in the parliament now with issues around s44.
In other electoral news. Council elections in Tassie look like they are about to become compulsory. The Alderman were all up in arms about it on the news. Looks like the junkets over.
@ Andrew_Earlwood
The AEC site is best to keep track of how many postals (& absentees etc) still to count. I note that as of now they still haven’t added the 4th batch of Brisbane counted postals to the website, so maybe they’ll leave that to the morning. So you can take out maybe 2200 from the 15694 postals still to be processed (plus whatever scraps come in the post late in the piece – potentially another 2800 but my guess is it would be less than half that)
A bit of an unknown is how many of those get rejected at preliminary scrutiny – so the postal vote is ruled invalid for whatever reason (I think often because there’s no witness signature on the envelope) before there’s a chance to count it. That’s currently running at over 10% but has been dropping over time so may go lower.
“Gilmore Update: With all but 56 postal votes (& whatever else is still in mail system) counted, Constance leads by 143 votes.
There are 2,127 absentee votes, 760 provisional votes and 3,671 pre-poll declaration votes to go.
Last election absentee votes went 57% to Labor, provisional 64% and pre-poll declaration 53%. A lot of provisional votes are discarded during the process.
So it might be a squeaker. So close that it squeaks.”
I mean, IF those percentages came through again my back of the envelope calculation is that you could chuck out ALL the provisional votes and Labor still gains 517-518 on the absentees and pre-polls and wins by several hundy, so there’s margin for error there. It looks to me like the ALP should now be favourites? Last time around there were 223 formal provisional votes too from which the ALP gained 63.
Lars – So according to your logic, She does not have a case to answer for S44. And I think you are right.
She might have a case to answer for making a false declaration when standing, failing to explain this as She did have citizenship but then lost it due to fleeing.
The NSW parliament next sits on 6 June, will there be a joint session to fill the senate casual vacancy?
“Xiarongsays:
Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 9:21 pm
“FFS, can people stop with the Dai Le / section 44 bullshit? It’s a ridiculous provision – interpreted with no common sense by the High Court – that contributes to the embarrassing whiteness of our Parliament.’
I agree, noting also that the BBC has been commenting about the Australian parliament being much more white and out of alignment with demographics than the equivalents in the UK, Canada and NZ. Not to mention that the optics of using s44 against a Vietnamese refugee would be very bad and likely to lead to her reelection with an increased majority. Better to select a capable and articulate local person such as Tu Le to run against Dai Le next time.”
Oh no, the BBC has been writing articles about Australia focusing on our racism?
Seriously, it is not fcking hard. If you are going to run for Australian parliament you need to renounce any foreign citizenship.
Hopefully she gets S-44ed and Tu Le beats her in a byelection and Fowler is neatly back into the fold of team Red.
Gilmore: There are about 1100 postal vote that yet to turn up. Many will not and some will turn up with a Monday postmark so they don’t get counted. So there are some to go, but not a lot.
They should review Sabrina Russo as part of a federal icac
Ms Dai Le is duly elected. I would not have voted for her but that’s democracy. I do not believe that she set out to deceive. If there is some obscure technical issue with regard to her citizenship and some private individual wants to challenge her eligibility, well, that’s their business. They should receive no help from the public purse, the Government, the Labor movement or deep-pocketed Labor friends. In this case, the “what would Abbott / Morrison do” test shouldn’t be applied.
What we should do is have a referendum to tidy up Section 44 to reflect 21st century realities.
BS Fairman – It would depend on when Dai Le fled in relation to the date of the decision of the unified Vietnamese state to give citizenship to the South Vietnamese.
If she fled before – she would have become stateless upon the fall of South Vietnam. If it was after she would have lost Vietnamese citizenship by the act of fleeing (ie committing an act against the socialist fatherland).
If Pauline Hanson fails to get re-elected, do you think she will convince Malcolm Roberts to stand aside for her? And will the Queensland parliament fill the casual vacancy with her if requested?
B S Fairman at 9.35 re Dai Le
I don’t want to victimise a boat-person, but I am curious.
If Dai Le ‘made a false declaration’ what are the consequences of that? Crime? Misdemeanour? Administrative slap on the wrist?
Does ‘making a false declaration’ invalidate one’s candidature or even disqualify one from running at all?
I also think anyone forcing a by-election may be unwise: if Dai le is eligible to run, she may romp home.
Would Labor be humble enough to give Tu Le preselection in the event Dai Le was disqualified? I doubt it.
The fact that people are even sniffing around s44 speaks to the inability to learn the lesson of Dai Le’s victory.
The loosest of unit says:
Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 9:39 pm
They should review Sabrina Russo as part of a federal icac
_______
I don’t know about any of that, but she had accumulated wealth of $267 million on the back of this system and surely it must end.
I agree with Steve.
If the previous S44 by-elections are any indication, Dai Le would probably easily win the rematch. Especially if Labor were seen to have been involved in bringing on the by-election.
“ Oh no, the BBC has been writing articles about Australia focusing on our racism?
Seriously, it is not fcking hard. If you are going to run for Australian parliament you need to renounce any foreign citizenship.”
_________
Two points:
1. In any s.44 induced by-election, I reckon Dei Le would smash it in, if the history of such by-elections is any guide.
2. WTF is the Beep going on about? Most aspiring federal politicians who run foul of s.44 have a claim to citizenship in some white-bread Anglo country like Britain, NZ or Canada. Aspiring politicians from a non anglo background seem to have less trouble: probably because they lack the sense of entitlement of the Anglos.
@The Revisionist
It *is* hard. Or at least, not as easy as simply shouting at people to renounce any dual citizenship. How many times now have we seen how hard it is? People completely unaware they have dual citizenship because of a foreign country’s law. People being unable to renounce it in time – or at all! – because of a foreign country’s bureaucracy. Katy Gallagher was a good example of both!
Snappy – I think it is a stat dec. So it would carry all the penalties of perjury.
it’d be simple to just go republic rather than clean up s44. Though it may be easier to win referendums after the voice.
Quickly rewrite the constitution, and of course put in some vague tests for the ages along the lines of
new S44 for the republic: “the man under 35 or woman under 28 who can run faster than a 17 hands horse over the distance of 1 furlong may be awarded the horses weight in gold and barley and is able to be the PM every other month for no less than two day with a tenure that will last until the next eligible man or woman is able to prove they can run faster than an eligible horse a the easter show.
–The Gender o the man or women is not biologically determined, but the winner must dress as the PM in the matching gendered attire as that which they won the race in.”
I’m serious people, if we don’t write some goodies in the next constitution then were really going to be kicking ourselves when everything runs so orderly.
When Russia was banning all the Australian politicians a couple of months ago, I jokingly suggested that they instead should have given everyone Russian citizenship because Section 44 would then have kicked in.
mj at 9:24 pm says:
> I agree it’s ridiculous, and it should be put to a referendum for constitutional amendment.
That would be an easy referendum loss. It’s widely supported in the broader community (if not so much amongst the chattering classes).
Re Mavis @9:44.
”What, by via referendum? From memory, only 8 of 44 have got up. Or perhaps you’re suggesting judicial activism? – the instant section having little or no wriggle room.”
Yes, it is actually surprising that a constitution written in the 1890s still continues to function so well over 120 years later with so little change. But parts are definitely getting a bit creaky, S44 being one of the creakiest. So a referendum with bipartisan support should be the way to go.
Now I don’t know whether it is possible for the Courts to reinterpret S44 to mean something more sensible. A lot of change has been accomplished that way. If so, a legal challenge should be supported by the Government. However, that’s not an area in which I have any expertise.
B.S.Fairman: “Snappy – I think it is a stat dec. So it would carry all the penalties of perjury.”
Which first requires mens rea; intent. Ultimately one may be disqualified without having been convicted of a crime. Now if they INTENDED to do it, aka commit a crime, different outcome. That requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Prime Minister Albanese
It’s quite good isn’t it?
Sounds solid.
Honest Bastard @ #1139 Tuesday, May 24th, 2022 – 9:54 pm
Yep. The people don’t want to elect those they perceive to have ‘divided loyalties’ to govern Australia.
B.S. Fairman @ #1129 Tuesday, May 24th, 2022 – 9:41 pm
Yes to the first. Don’t know about the second. Wouldn’t we be back to a Vince Gair situation though if they refused? Not a good look.
Albanese looks much more prime ministerial than I had ever quite imagined he would. I think it’s got a lot to do with his innate aura of humility yet quiet confidence.
Pi – True. I think she could claim it was a mistake more than anything else.
But as I said before if there is potentially a case to be tried in relation to this matter in the High Court, I am sure someone will attempt it. It won’t probably be the Labor party or government.
Also it is interesting that the Vietnamese government is happy to get rid of citizens but the Chinese government attempts to claim all people of Chinese heritage.
C@tmomma,
Honest Bastard,
I gotta agree, the simplest way to reform it would be to make it not possible to have duel citizenship ever again if you’re elected.
Americans have their, “you gotta be born there rule” and no one in their right mind would think to suggest changing it.
And as far as the Brits. whilst he BBC may report on the diversity of the British parliament, lets see how well they treat Sadiq Khan when he eventually runs for British parliament. Sadly I don’t think the Murdoch press will be to gentle.
Frankly the thing that staggers me about Dai Le is she is a conservative.