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.
“Has any Australian federal opposition leader installed immediately after their party lost government then gone onto to become PM?”
Late on the party, but as noted, never happened, at least if “installed” means first time.
On the other hand, the last five PMs to have won from opposition were all installed as Opposition Leader for the first time *during* the term of parliament [Ok, sure, Fraser technically didn’t win 1975 from Opposition but YKWIM] and before that you have Whitlam whoo won on his second election.
So “one term governments” remain unusual but “winning in one term” is not exactly so.
[“I’m trying to be as polite as possible. He’s made a whole range of comments about Victoria,” Mr Andrews said.
“You guys need to remember this. It wasn’t that long ago when these people were running around saying we’re all going to get murdered by an African gang and we couldn’t go out for dinner.”
Mr Dutton has faced attacks from Labor premiers as well as criticisms for running a campaign of fear over national security during the election.
West Australia Premier Mark McGowan went as far as to say on Monday that Mr Dutton would not be a fit prime minister.
“He’s an extremist, and I don’t think he fits with modern Australia at all,” Mr McGowan said.
“He doesn’t seem to listen, he’s extremely conservative and I actually don’t think he’s that smart. As opposed to Scott Morrison, who is a clever guy, I don’t pick up that Peter Dutton is fit to be prime minister.”’] – news.com.
Yes! And against all the evidence, Dutton will prevail, for about 12 months.
Gaby Hinsliff (UK Guardian) on how our Populist PM was beaten and how it may inspire others:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/23/australia-election-results-right-boris-johnson-scott-morrison
Looks like I might need to swap my percentages around for Gilmore and Brisbane.
That last batch of postal was very good for Phillips. I was expecting Constance’s lead to be about double this once the postal were all counted. Very unlikely to get near that now.
Labor should reasonably easily cover any deficit on the remaining votes.
Brisbane though is much tighter than I’d expected on the reported ajp prefs. Not out of it, but we’ll need some better postal batches probably.
BTW nice to have you drop back into the Bludgerverse for a visit Mr Bartlett.
“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:”
I’d ditch most of it. I can’t stand the dual citizenship barrier (doesn’t stop people sitting in UK, US, German parliaments) and the ‘Office of profit’ is anachronistic yet unclear. ‘Treason’ seems reasonable except that it’s not really a common thing.
But even if you wanted to keep the effect of S44, just drop the words “of being chosen or” and so make it a requirement for sitting, not standing. Anyone actually elected can sort themselves out.
Cat – The situation would actually be more akin to what happened in Tasmania in 1987. Don Grimes quit as a Labor Senator in April 1987 and John Devereux was put forward but the Tasmanian parliament refused to appoint him. As the Liberals said at the time ‘we can choose only a person who is a member of the same party but we are not bound to accept the nomination of the party concerned’.
It didn’t matter too much, because the DD happened in July and Devereux was elected. He later ratted on the party over forestry issues.
BK @ #1048 Tuesday, May 24th, 2022 – 8:16 pm
Hah. First I laughed. Then I wondered. Then I remembered. He doesn’t care. It’s as likely he’s simply trying on a new costume. (I’ll enjoy it while it lasts.)
Thanks for that, BSF. 🙂
I also seem to vaguely remember that Malcolm Roberts has stood aside for his dear leader once before?
It may be a good result if Labor doesn’t get 76. Some may understand?
Mavis @ #1159 Tuesday, May 24th, 2022 – 10:16 pm
I think it would be the best result for Labor in the long term if they didn’t.
I didn’t know this but it sounds good:
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/chalmers-back-to-treasurer-s-office-with-same-issue-ahead-inflation-20220523-p5ansh.html
Phillip Lowe, watch out!
Martin – Let’s work backwards:
Abbott – No
Rudd – No
Howard – No
Hawke – No. He wasn’t even opposition leader when the election was called.
Fraser – No.
Whitlam – No
Menzies – No
Curtin – No
Lyons – No
Scullion – No
Fisher – Yes. He was opposition leader between 1913 and 1914 during one year government of Cook.
We have the answer – We just have to look back over 100 years.
“You have to remember it is not up to the government alone to challenge, absolutely anyone in the electorate can bring a case. ”
That’s not really true. The HCA in Alley v Gillespie basically set aside the Common Informers Act and so it is only a determination of the Court of Disputed Returns or a referral from the relevant house of parliament that can trigger Section 44 proceedings now.
Weirdest new idea of the week.
https://xkcd.com/2622/
(Though I’m sure it’s not new to some.)
Ha. That’s gold Late Riser.
xkcd is the stuff of scripture.
Tony Abbott was our first “post-truth” leader…
I’ll start watching parliament again now and Insiders. Stopped watching while the Libs were in.
Martin B:
Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:11 pm
Smart suggestion, but how?
There’s only one way to amend a paramount Act: by referendum.
The only other possible way is by judicial activism, and you won’t get it with this bench of black-letter High Court judges.
You may’ve identified the problem; not the solution.
This,”They should review Sabrina Russo as part of a federal icac”
It’s disgusting that the Tories turned the unemployed into a commodity from which to derive profit.
Dutton has been in since 2002, and been in govt for most of that time…
Surely he will be called on by a federal icac.
“Martin – Let’s work backwards:”
[Scratch Abbott – sorry – my mistake in wording]
“Rudd – No
Howard – No
Hawke – No.”
Yes, I was agreeing that the statement was true, just noting that these people were OL for less than a term when winning the election, and Rudd and Hawke in their first go as OL. So it’s a little bit sensitive to how you word the statement.
Has an OL won in a term after being immediately installed after an election loss? No
Has an OL won in a term or less? Yes
Referendums are not hard to win, they are just hard to win *if there is any organised political opposition*.
If you could get a minimal reform to S44 that ALP, Lib, Nat, Greens all were happy with it could pass.
“Fisher – Yes. He was opposition leader between 1913 and 1914 during one year government of Cook.”
But not Opposition Leader for the first time then, again, depending on precisely what you mean by the wording.
Martin – You were correct. After a party has lost government their leader directly afterwards has never gone on to become Prime Minister for over 100 years. And pre-1910 politics in Australia doesn’t count.
Just back on to the Macnamara count…now that I have had a moment to have a look at it
In percentage terms, currently Labor is ahead of:
The Greens by 2.48%
The Libs by 3.23%
So an aggregate of 5.71% in total (remembering both need to get ahead of Labor after the final votes and then preferences)
In 2019, 6.62% of the vote went to other candidates. In total the Greens (1.61%) and the Libs (0.86%) reeled in 2.47% on Labor through the distribution of this 6.62% (Greens with the donkey flow)
In 2016, 7.41% of the vote went to other candidates. In total the Greens (2.09%) and the Libs (0.12%) reeled in 2.21% (Libs with the donkey but a very heavily left skewed minor candidate set)
In 2013 Labor got more preferences than Libs or Greens (Labor had the donkey and the sex party was a big vote winner)
So this year you have 8.89% with only 1.72% sitting with the AJP and the rest with RWNJs and a donkey independent flow going to the Liberals.
It is possible that a strong performance for the libs in remaining, postals, absents and preference flows for the Libs to get passed Labor. It is simply not possible for that to happen AND the Greens get pass Labor.
Not possible. It should just be called
Today Australia passed seven million total Covid cases since the pandemic began ≈ 27% of the population. The number of daily new cases does seem to be declining again.
B.S. Fairman –
Martin B –
My interpretation of what B.S. Fairman was saying is that anyone (I assume any eligible voter in the electorate, or other entity with standing?) can raise an issue in the window following the AEC returning the election results which would then be heard by the Court of Disputed Returns.
Abbott was the post truth prototype.
I’m sure the Republicans learnt more from his example of how being completely lacking in any quality normally associated with leadership and not needing your statements to have even a tenuous relationship to reality are no barrier to (short term) political success than Morrison ever learnt from them.
Jack Ofalltradessays:
Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:27 pm
I’ll start watching parliament again now and Insiders. Stopped watching while the Libs were in.
———————————
Yeah I’ve kept watching Insiders but Parliament was becoming too much. I’m hoping with the election of more crossbenchers who are there because of all the stunts and shenanigans they will be a good influence and there will be a less discordant atmosphere. Will be good to see more people asking actual questions on behalf of their communities as well.
Sorry ratsak, but Reagan had that slot filled long before it was a twinkle in any Murdoch minions eye.
It is notable that no Australian government has decided to hold a referendum in 23 years (Republic was the last). And no referendum has passed since 1977. So the proposed Indigenous referendum will be first in a long time. And there is no guarantee it will pass either, the double majority rule is a real pain (majority of the voters and majority of the states…. 4 out of 6….).
Late Riser @ Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:24 pm
Oh Dear. I am a just a simple person.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMiKyfd6hA0
Yes, High Court = Court of disputed returns. Same same, but same.
It is sobering to consider that the last referendum to succeed did so a very long time before the advent of social media. Given how historically difficult it’s been to get a referendum up at the best of times, it’s fair to pose the question: Could any referendum succeed in the social media age?
B.S. Fairman @ #1179 Tuesday, May 24th, 2022 – 10:44 pm
But a majority of states are now Labor.
“My interpretation of what B.S. Fairman was saying is that anyone (I assume any eligible voter in the electorate, or other entity with standing?) can raise an issue in the window following the AEC returning the election results which would then be heard by the Court of Disputed Returns.”
Ok, fair enough, and what follows is speculation from a bush lawyer, but I suspect that a petition from a rando elector, not supported by any actual candidates, challenging an election purely on a Section 44 matter would not be taken up by the CDR on the basis that the House itself should refer the matter if it were serious.
Martin B:
Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:33 pm
[‘Referendums are not hard to win, they are just hard to win *if there is any organised political opposition*.’]
Since 1901 only 8 of 44 referenda have got up, and they’ve been fairly uncontroversial (save for ’67) as, for instance, the retirement age of federal judges. It’s very hard even if all political parties opted for change. I’m afraid that constitutional change is nigh on impossible. Pepys.
How long did Federal Opposition Leaders lead before becoming PM?
Albanese – 3 years, one full term
Abbott – 4 years, one and a bit terms
Rudd – 1 year
Howard – 1 year
Hawke ~1 month, never sat in Parliament as Opposition Leader
Fraser ~ 8 months
Whitlam – 6 years, two full terms
Menzies – 5 years, ~ 1½ terms
… that’s far enough.
Turnbull served as Opposition Leader for about a year (2008-09) before being turfed out without facing an election. He became PM while in Government some 6 years later (2015).
Revisionist,
Which is why I haven’t bothered worrying about it since Sunday. Others who are perhaps putting reputations on the line are maybe being more cautious, and fair enough. But it’s a retain.
For me the story of this election is without doubt the Teals. if they had stood in more seats they would have won more.
Next election they will increase their numbers in the lower house, in fact majority government will be impossible.For an old school leftie like me this is a horrible development.
The professional managerial classes know have their own party that allows them to feel good about themselves, as they ruthlessly pursue their class interests while hiding behind a veneer of enviromentalism.
“Could any referendum succeed in the social media age?”
As above, no if you’ve got any significant force campaigning against, but if you have something relatively uncontroversial, sure.
Which is not great for those like me who would like to see substantial change, but we can at least tidy up some of the more atrocious parts.
Bernard Keane reckons Marise Payne will retire soon. Will that provide an opening for Andrew Hirst?
Section 44 is a disgraceful provision that simply works to make Parliament less inclusive and less representative. There’s the dual citizenship bit of course (and remember, it even goes so far that if you are “entitled” to dual citizenship you are ineligible). The fact that we effectively require a loyalty test from the nearly 50% of the population that is eligible for dual citizenship – requiring of them a major sacrifice not asked of the other 50% – goes a long way to explaining why our Parliament remains so white.
And it’s not just dual citizenship that is prohibited – public servants, discharged bankrupts and those convicted of crimes carrying a penalty of more than a year’s gaol are also ruled out. The effect of this is that it is the courts that end up deciding who can and can’t stand for Parliament, rather than the people, who really should be the only arbiter in a democracy.
Section 44 should be entirely removed, or at the very least amended with the phrase “ or as the Parliament should decide”, which would allow Parliament to legislate away restrictions as it sees fit.
The SSM Plebiscite was essentially a Referendum and it passed with flying colours. It all depends on the subject. The Indigenous Voice to Parliament, enshrined in the Constitution, should pass too.
Voodoo Blues, I have strong agreement with your first two paras and commend your realism given the sentiments you express in your 3rd para (which I don’t share).
@alias : “Could any referendum succeed in the social media age?”
The marriage equality vote got a majority in EVERY state, so yes. (I’m aware it was neither compulsory nor a referendum but it’s the best example we have).
I think a s44 referendum could get bipartisan support and pass. It has been a problem for both majors AND the Greens.
I am less confident about a Voice referendum with Dutton and News Corp hell bent on describing it as a boondoggle giving Indigenous people More Say Than You, Yes You There. Yes even after the election we just had.
I am not convinced that the average voter sees the point even if sympathetic. Not for a constitutional change. I think the argument has a loooong way to go to get there. Interest in symbolic gestures in general seems to me to be at a low ebb.
C@tmomma,
They government would be wise to phrase question in consultation with the greens and teals and anyone else who’ll help. And they should also not fund the negative case, and pass a big bag of cash to fund the yes case.
It would be a disaster for the country for that vote to fail.
We really should be able to change our constitution by Parliament. I would suggest via a super majority in a joint sitting of both Houses, say ⅔ or ¾. To effect that reform would of course require a referendum but it makes sense.
Should we ever adopt that process (unlikely), we should still keep the referendum as an alternative route to constitutional change.
The parallel between a referendum and the same-sex marriage plebiscite is interesting.
I suppose I would fear that the forces of destruction would, among other seeds of fear, make much of the notion that voters inclined to say “yes” in a referendum would be messing with the nation’s foundational document.
As opposed to giving a heads-up to Parliament on how they ought to legislate.
south @ #1195 Tuesday, May 24th, 2022 – 11:00 pm
To that point, divisive Indigenous politicians like Lidia Thorpe and Jacinta Price, should pledge to work with the government to get the referendum approved.