Click here for full federal election results updated live.
My system today called Bass and Wannon for the Liberals and Wentworth for Allegra Spender, the latter being the first gain called for the teal independents, although I don’t doubt there will be four and probably five to follow. Postals continue to be added in large numbers, although they will start to diminish henceforth. As noted below, one of the biggest developments today arose from rechecking. Tomorrow we are apparently see numbers from electronic-assisted telephone voting added, which is exciting because I have absolutely no idea about their partisan tendency and how many there will be.
The latest from the three seats that could potentially push Labor over the line to a majority:
Brisbane. Kevin Bonham’s post-count post suggests the AEC is conducting an unusual indicative three-candidate preferred count to determine which out of Labor and the Greens will drop out and deliver the seat to the other. However, I’ve heard no official word on this. Based on the preference distribution in 2019, my earlier assessment was that Labor would need a buffer on the primary vote to hold out against preferences to the Greens from Animal Justice, and even to some extent from the right-wing parties, more of whose preferences went to the Greens than Labor (though a great deal more again went to the LNP). However, as with one or two of my other early assessments, this may have failed to fully account for the substantial increase in postal votes this time, which are being true to form in being weak for the Greens. Labor now leads the Greens on the primary vote, but it will need to further boost the margin if my surmise about preference flows is borne out.
Gilmore. Labor had a very handy boost of 382 votes in rechecking that was mostly down to the Gerringong booth, where the two-candidate figures had been entered the wrong way around. This apparently put Labor in the lead briefly on the raw count, but the Liberals recovered it when a small batch of postals favoured them 701-521, with Andrew Constance currently 104 votes ahead. Postals will no doubt continue to favour Constance, but the bulk of them are now out of the way. Still to come are declaration pre-polls, which should break about evenly; absents, which should boost Labor by maybe 300; provisionals, which should add a couple of dozen for Labor; and electronic-assisted votes, which I continue to have no idea about.
Lyons. This is the first result I’ve looked at where the second batch of postals was observably different from the first, going 1024-910 to Liberal compared with 2966-2857 to Labor. If the outstanding postals break like the latest batch, Labor’s current lead of 703 votes will be cut in half. That makes it very close, but there is no specific reason to expect the other outstanding votes will move the dial in either direction.
Elsewhere, Labor continues to be buried on postals in Deakin, the latest batch breaking 3715-2584 to the Liberals. Yesterday I asserted that outstanding postals should add around 1000 to Michael Sukkar’s lead, but this batch alone adds to 1131. From here Labor will need stronger than anticipated absents and/or declaration pre-polls, and/or for the enigma of electronic assisted voting. I would personally call Menzies for the Liberals now even though my system doesn’t yet have it past the 99% threshold, yesterday’s postals having broken 3715-2584 in their favour.
After a quiet day in Curtin on Monday, a second batch of postals were added that favoured Liberal member Celia Hammond 4464-2950, a similar proportion to the first batch. This suggests the outstanding postals will bite a further 1000 or so out of independent Kate Chaney’s 1842 vote lead. However, the Liberals were relatively weak on absent votes in the seat in 2019, and there’s little reason to think out-of-division pre-polls will be particularly favourable to them.
Arky: “You don’t get to bring a bill on the floor of the house to debate just because you’ve got 2 people.”
Some people really have no idea how parliament runs. It’s weird.
‘Cronus says:
Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 8:02 pm
I’ve noticed a couple of people posting that if the ALP fails this term then voters will return to the Coalition. I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the new political paradigm, there are now real alternatives (Independents/Greens/Teals).
The concept that the perceived failure by one major party automatically results by default to the election of the other major party is outdated. It is based on old assumptions and it seems people are still struggling with this new reality.’
====================
Agree. The proviso is that there is enough concentrated cross-preferencing to force change. I am not aware of a single Teal or Greens who got in on primaries, for example. Similarly, I believe that all the Labor gains needed preferences to succeed.
Unless the Liberals agree to back it?
Which goes to show how stupid the thinking is. The Teals have no incentive to grandstand
Arky says:
Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 8:02 pm
“what happens if 2 teals move a bill in the HoR legislating 60% emissions target ? Will Labor vote it down ?”
Who let them do that?
You don’t get to bring a bill on the floor of the house to debate just because you’ve got 2 people.
If the government doesn’t want to bring a bill on the government won’t bring the bill on.
_______
As Boerwar writes:
Burke is already talking with Haines on ways of improving the working of the House. No Greens needed.
sprocket_ says:
Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 8:02 pm
Upnorth, I’m liking the cobber
My army mate is the only other person I know who uses this term.
中华人民共和国
He would be a top digger, cobber.
Mavis
Do tell.
BB had a cure that involved using a power drill to drill through his toenail to enable him to soak his feet in some solution or other that fixed the problem.
Lars – I would have had you down as one who thinks it is better to be feared than loved.
Samantha Maiden
Further to this, the Liberals candidate in Fowler was Courtney Nguyen. She provided much more detailed information on the form including renunciation documents. https://t.co/en2QGJOo3H
On subs
AE
“In my view we need a partner for a concurrent build – 2 to 4 boats built overseas whilst we get our ducks in a row to build our first four in Adelaide. We are only really looking at America or France as viable partners for that.”
BC
“I don’t think the US has the capability to build any submarines for us. Aren’t they only able to build two at once, and so fully tied up with their own requirements? I’m not sure about the British or the French.”
There are arguments both ways against all three potential SSN builders (French, UK, US). The US has the most capability but also the most subs already on order.
In each case, it may be in Australia’s interest to pay to slightly expand their SSN manufacture capability, so that they can fit in a couple for Australia to start.
The critical question will not be dockyards but who can most quickly supply the reactors, which we cannot build. I have no idea who that is, and I doubt anyone who knows is allowed to say.
One thing though, it would be good for the SSN task force to make some more substantial public reports on major decisions as they are made, rather than at the end of the 18 months.
Secrecy only works in aid of Defence, not Australia, in hiding any failures and program slippage. Industry would benefit greatly from early advice of decisions, so that Australian firms can know who to partner with to get local work. Otherwise those with inside information stand to make billions. Hence it was the way of the Liberal government. With competitive bids to supply a known item, we might actually get some price savings.
This is still the largest, most valuable sub contract in the world. Defence should not underestimate Australia’s bargaining power to get another national supplier to fit us in. I doubt the US will do that, but France or UK might.
‘The Revisionist says:
Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 8:06 pm
Unless the Liberals agree to back it?
Which goes to show how stupid the thinking is. The Teals have no incentive to grandstand’
========================================
I will fix that for you. The Teals are politicians. They have every incentive to grandstand.
Never seen nor wil see Harry Potter but some may know who Tanya is refrring to:
“Senior federal Labor MP Tanya Plibersek has made a stunning sledge at the appearance of Coalition leader-in-waiting Peter Dutton, comparing him to a Harry Potter villain.
With Queensland-based Mr Dutton expected to take the reins of the Liberal Party after its election annihilation at the weekend, Ms Plibersek told Brisbane radio 4BC: “I think there are a lot of children who’ve watched a lot of Harry Potter films who’ll be very frightened of what they’re seeing on TV at night, that’s for sure.”
Host and former state Liberal National MP Scott Emerson replied: “What, you’re saying he looks strange, looks odd?”
Ms Plibersek replied: “I’m saying he looks a bit like Voldemort, and we’ll see if he can do what he promised he’d do when he was last running for leader, which is smile more.”
It comes a day after West Australian Labor Premier Mark McGowan branded Mr Dutton an “extremely conservative” “extremist” who “doesn’t fit modern Australia”.
https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/federal-election/listen-tanya-plibersek-compares-peter-dutton-to-voldemort/news-story/8bb2c281e058ed37a23d7ac6bb9d6642?amp
B.S. Fairman says:
Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 8:08 pm
Lars – I would have had you down as one who thinks it is better to be feared than loved.
____________________________________________________
https://www.ddr-museum.de/en/blog/archive/i-love-i-love-all-all-humans-erich-mielke-biography
Peter Dutton does look a lot like Voldemort. Cartoonists recognise it.
“Boerwarsays:
Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 8:09 pm
‘The Revisionist says:
Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 8:06 pm
Unless the Liberals agree to back it?
Which goes to show how stupid the thinking is. The Teals have no incentive to grandstand’
========================================
I will fix that for you. The Teals are politicians. They have every incentive to grandstand.”
They’ve got every incentive to provide a moderate and reasonable function though.
You can add “prove they will serve the regions” to the ABC’s extra requirements for a labor Government.
That’s a bit of a poor comment from Tanya. Referring to someone by how they look in public discourse is pretty poor form. She will probably regret it.
Remember, the Victorian ICAC in public submissions has stated that they will move on from the “low hanging fruit” referred to it by the Victorian Parliament (along with tape recordings)
So by inference, the same subject matter but different players (so not the ALP which is already the subject of hearings including public)
So who could the other players be?
The Victorian Division of the Liberal Party has conducted an internal review (by the solicitor practice which employed Sukkar) and found no wrongdoing by either Kevin Andrews or Sukkar
The internal review has not been made public – and neither has the Terms of Reference
Bastiaan and his wife resigned their positions within the Victorian Division
These matters are all on the public record – including who was employed where (noting relatives can be employed in the offices of other MP’s which was the case here)
Politicians love “framing”. Certainly ScoMo did – didn’t do him much good in the end.
Once peeps decide on a change – it doesn’t matter what the framing is , no matter how hard a party tries it.
Labor can “frame” Dutton all it likes – if Albo fails in this term peeps will over look it and vote for Dutton.
‘The Revisionist says:
Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 8:15 pm
“Boerwarsays:
Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 8:09 pm
‘The Revisionist says:
Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 8:06 pm
Unless the Liberals agree to back it?
Which goes to show how stupid the thinking is. The Teals have no incentive to grandstand’
========================================
I will fix that for you. The Teals are politicians. They have every incentive to grandstand.”
They’ve got every incentive to provide a moderate and reasonable function though.’
————————
Agreed. They ran on civility and dignitas. They should, and can, deliver on those.
‘Wranslide says:
Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 8:16 pm
That’s a bit of a poor comment from Tanya. Referring to someone by how they look in public discourse is pretty poor form. She will probably regret it.’
========================
I agree. I don’t like it at all.
”
ltepsays:
Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 6:58 pm
“ The purpose of that clause is to ensure that the loyalty of the member of Parliament is to this country only.”
So are you suggesting Dai Le has loyalty to Vietnam?
”
That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that it also depends on what the country of origin of the immigrant thinks about that immigrant i.e. if their rules are written in such a way that the immigrant is considered the citizen of the country of origin then the immigrant has to relinquish that citizen. It doesn’t matter whether the immigrant knows it or not. Ignorance is not an excuse. They have to check their status with the country of origin and relinquish that before they contest for parliament. That is what we came to know from the Court cases of s44.
Samantha Maiden
Further to this, the Liberals candidate in Fowler was Courtney Nguyen. She provided much more detailed information on the form including renunciation documents. https://t.co/en2QGJOo3H
That’s what a serious candidate’s paperwork should look like.
It’s totally shit that candidates have to jump through those hoops. This is a candidate who knows they are no chance at all. But the law is they must. Just waving it off and calling legitimate questions to demonstrate you’re not disqualified under s44 ‘smears’ don’t cut it.
Tricot says:
Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 7:29 pm
“Lars…your comment about a ‘conditional mandate’ is unadulterated rubbish.”
Again, this is another outdated concept, the mandate. Given that it’s plausible we’ll never again see primary votes above 40% and even as low as the high twenties as is the case in Europe, it’s just misunderstanding what has just happened. There are now multiple electable options. 30% is the new 40%.
Boerwar:
It was an ad accompanying Quaser’s post, fungal nail recovery almost assured? Little wonder that most were seduced by Morrison’s spool in 2019.
M
Footrot Flats redux?
sprocket_ says:
Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 7:42 pm
“On reflection, there is only one take away from this election.
The Liberal Party of Menzies and Howard is destroyed. The remnants may as well bend the knee to Barnyard and the Queensland banjo players.”
Banjos replacing ukuleles.
Here is what the AEC says on S44 (below). Ball is in Labor’s court (no pun intended) to challenge Dai Le in the High Court if they think they have grounds. If they go – then Dai Le will need to prove her bona fides.
If a candidate has completed the answer to the questions asked on the nomination form, has answered the mandatory questions in the qualification checklist about being qualified under the Constitution, and has paid the relevant deposit, the AEC is legally required to accept the nomination.
The Electoral Act does not provide the AEC with the authority to conduct checks on whether intending candidates may be disqualified by the operation of section 44 of the Constitution. This is particularly the case given the complexities of the operation of the five grounds for disqualification that are contained in section 44 of the Constitution and the short timeframe between the close of nominations, the declaration of nominations and the commencement of early voting.
Any disqualification of a candidate due to the operation of section 44 of the Constitution can only be determined by the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns after an election.
There is no grey in s44 as interpreted by the HC.
If you want to be a rep in the House or the Senate get your s44 act together.
If you can’t do that, then you have no business taking a quarter of a million dollar a year to pretend you can actually run a country.
Dutton is unelectable as a PM.
The Liberals have failed to observe the size of the travesty of the Morrison masquerade.
A FICAC will help nail the coffin inaccurately named Liberal.
Is anyone missing Morrison ?
As someone who’s lived in an indie seat for 9 years now, grandstanding is ALL they do.
They have to – they can’t deliver.
It’s going to be an extremely expensive Penny Wong trip through the Pacific – maybe even cost $1b?
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/penny-wong-and-wang-yi-in-pacific-face-off-as-beijing-targets-12-nations-20220525-p5aofb.html
True dat zoomster.
Tanya looks tired 😛 KK for Sydney! Third time’s a charm.
”
ltepsays:
Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 7:12 pm
“ It doesn’t matter what you think, I think, or we think. It matters what the high court thinks.”
Not relevant to what the law should be, which can be controlled by changing it.
”
It can only be changed by referendum.
ratsak says:
Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 8:21 pm
Samantha Maiden
Further to this, the Liberals candidate in Fowler was Courtney Nguyen. She provided much more detailed information on the form including renunciation documents. https://t.co/en2QGJOo3H
That’s what a serious candidate’s paperwork should look like.
It’s totally shit that candidates have to jump through those hoops. This is a candidate who knows they are no chance at all. But the law is they must. Just waving it off and calling legitimate questions to demonstrate you’re not disqualified under s44 ‘smears’ don’t cut it.
中华人民共和国
Looks like you are actually considered a Vietnamese Citizen if born there until you renounce. My wife, who was born in Singapore, had to renounce her Singaporean Citzenship in writing to the Singapore High Commission in Canberra (Singapore not allowing dual nationality) and had to pay a fee.
The candidate nomination form is an offical Commonwealth Document. Ignorance of the Law is no excuse. The person in question should have ticked the correct boxes and provided proof. If she sits and it is later proved she has breached s44, I’m given to undertstand that any private Citizen can take legal action seeking financial redress.
Didn’t Labor’s initial candidate for Hughes (I think) have to stand aside as he couldn’t get the correct paperwork in time?
LVT: “Here is what the AEC says on S44”
What does the high court say?
Wranslide at 8:16. Never happen to a woman, would it?
Who said:
“Just 17 months ago, I stood here, and from this place and from this city I asked you to choose for Australia a new team, a new program, a new drive for equality of opportunities. You gave us a clear MANDATE to go ahead with our program for the next three years. For 17 months we have driven ourselves to carry out your MANDATE, to carry out the program I placed before you. Now the government you elected for three years has been interrupted in mid-career.”
Pi says:
Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 8:38 pm
LVT: “Here is what the AEC says on S44”
What does the high court say?
________________________
Google it, mate!
LvT quoting someone from the 70’s is on par with someone in the 70’s quoting someone from the 20’s. Times change.
What does the high court say?
In this particular case we don’t know, because they haven’t considered the case.
But it’s starting to look like we can make some reasonably good guesses…
Maiden doesn’t seem like she’s going to drop it.
Dr Bonham thinks Labor might squeak home in Gilmore…
Wednesday: All the currently held postals have been thrown bar a few hundred and Constance is only leading by 114. From projections last time I’d expect him to drop about 250 on absents, 50 on dec prepolls, 50 on provisionals and then there are the mysteries of COVID votes. As against that, maybe he gets 50 back on postals but he is currently projecting to nearly 200 behind, outside the automatic recount margin. He therefore probably needs absents or dec prepolls to be unusually strong for him to win.
@ Lars – it doesn’t need the Labor Party to ask the question of the High Court – it can also be an individual (Private Citizen) or the House itself. The AEC can ask the AFP to examine if a law has been broken ie the LNP Candidate for Lilley and his questionable enrolment.
Here is an interesting but unsuccesful referral by a Private Citizen
“Crittenden v Anderson (1950)
The 1949 election of Mr Gordon Anderson in the electorate of Kingsford-Smith was challenged on the grounds that Mr Anderson was a member of the Roman Catholic Church and–by extension–therefore obedient or allegiant to the Papal State. Justice Fullagar did not allow the challenge, finding that it was s. 11626 and not s. 44(i) of our Constitution which is ‘relevant when the right of a member of any religious body to sit in Parliament is challenged on the ground of his religion’.27”
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters/Inquiry_into_matters_relating_to_Section_44_of_the_Constitution/Report_1/section?id=committees%2Freportjnt%2F024156%2F25931
ratsak says:
Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 8:45 pm
What does the high court say?
In this particular case we don’t know, because they haven’t considered the case.
But it’s starting to look like we can make some reasonably good guesses…
Maiden doesn’t seem like she’s going to drop it.
______________________
I’m going to break my usual rule against explanations.
The Labor Party has to lodge an objection in the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns to the return of the writ in Fowler electing Dai Le. Sam Maiden’s learned opinion counts for nought.
I think there is a time limit on it. Presumably Labor has to work out – do they think Dai Le is ineligible and do they want to go to the Court of Disputed Returns? Do they find a “Labor friend” to challenge Dai Le’s eligibility in the High Court (Disputed Returns) ?
1. Would be embarrassing to challenge and lose
2. Challenge and win – do you really want a by-election? Would you win? Do you run KK again?
Dutton looks and acts like Voldemort. It’s an easy mistake to make.
I’m sure Tanya will be completely across the Liberal Leadership as soon as the dust settles. Until then, perhaps there’s a tiny space for a little levity.
Some legal beagles have dug up Ho Chi Minh’s citizenship law
My take on Dai Le: the first relevant citizenship law seems to be Decree No. 53/SL signed by Ho Chi Minh on October 20, 1945. Article 7(1) provided that Vietnamese citizens would lose their Vietnamese Nationality if “they have been naturalised in foreign countries” 1/n
Dominic Villa SC
Wong’s visit may be too late. Perhaps the SW Pacific is gone, consequent upon successive Con-governments treating them like poor cousins, the lapping comment of Dutton most likely the final straw. Had he stayed in the QPS, he may’ve reached the rank of senior sergeant, but even then he would’ve been promoted way beyond his ability. The next three years are going to be interesting, due in part to the incremental demolishment of this abhorrent man.
Lars
Your own explanation, referring to a ‘friend’ being able to object, contradicts your second sentence.
It doesn’t have to be the Labor party.
And – as anyone who has paid the slightest attention knows – you can refer a sitting MP at any time (Barnaby, for example, had already served a couple of terms).
sprocket_ says:
Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 8:54 pm
_________________________
Don’t forget “acts against the socialist fatherland ” too which could exclude you from citizenship sprocket.
I reckon its the sort of term the ALP could put in (in a non gendered way) in its Rules too!
Lars Von Trier says:
Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 8:50 pm
ratsak says:
Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 8:45 pm
What does the high court say?
In this particular case we don’t know, because they haven’t considered the case.
But it’s starting to look like we can make some reasonably good guesses…
Maiden doesn’t seem like she’s going to drop it.
______________________
I’m going to break my usual rule against explanations.
The Labor Party has to lodge an objection in the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns to the return of the writ in Fowler electing Dai Le. Sam Maiden’s learned opinion counts for nought.
I think there is a time limit on it. Presumably Labor has to work out – do they think Dai Le is ineligible and do they want to go to the Court of Disputed Returns? Do they find a “Labor friend” to challenge Dai Le ?
1. Would be embarrassing to challenge and lose
2. Challenge and win – do you really want a by-election? Would you win? Do you run KK again?
中华人民共和国
Not correct – this action does not need to be taken by the ALP.
The new Member for Fowler may be in trouble viz this interpretation, if she cannot provide renunciation documentation:
“Re Gallagher
2.62
Senator Katy Gallagher lodged her nomination as a candidate for election to the Senate on 31 May 2016, and was returned as a senator on 2 August 2016. Ms Gallagher was a British citizen by descent until 16 August 2016. Ms Gallagher had applied for renunciation of her British citizenship prior to nomination. On 1 July 2016 further documents were requested by the United Kingdom Home Office, and provided by Ms Gallagher.
2.63
Ms Gallagher argued that she had taken ‘all reasonable steps’ to renounce her citizenship and therefore fell within the exception to the requirements of s. 44(i) established by Sykes v Cleary.
2.64
The High Court held that the exception to s. 44(i) requires two preconditions; first, that the foreign law operates ‘irremediably to prevent an Australian citizen from participation’, and secondly, that the person has taken all steps reasonably required by the foreign law to free him or herself of the foreign nationality.52
2.65
In Ms Gallagher’s case, the foreign law of Britain did not operate to irremediably prevent an Australian citizen from ever achieving renunciation of citizenship. Therefore the constitutional imperative that gave rise to the implicit qualification in s. 44(i) was not engaged. The High Court held that Ms Gallagher was disqualified under s. 44(i).
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters/Inquiry_into_matters_relating_to_Section_44_of_the_Constitution/Report_1/section?id=committees%2Freportjnt%2F024156%2F25931