I will use this post to provide ongoing commentary of late counting in doubtful seats over the coming days/weeks.
UPDATE (27/3/07): Christian Kerr points to a slow count in today’s Crikey:
The ever-protracted count for the NSW Legislative Council election is likely to be even slower this time, with the Australian Electoral Commission refusing to authorise any more overtime for the AEC staff engaged for the count. There have been unprecedented levels of cooperation between the AEC and the NSW electoral authorities this election, but after just two days of preparing for the Upper House count over the weekend, the AEC has gone into a panic about the likely level of overtime, and has literally ordered its workers to take a “rest”. Counting will now finish each day at 5pm, with no approval for overtime to complete the count. With Easter imminent, this delay is likely to push back the announcement of the Upper House results substantially. The NSW Electoral Commission is understood to have expected the AEC to finish the Legislative Council count by Wednesday. The AEC told staff that the Electoral Commissioner has been informed that he will have to adjust his timetable. No amended timeframe for the conclusion of the count was suggested. A major outcry from furious Government, opposition and minor parties about the delay in finalising the count for the Upper House count in 2003, marred by slow counting and a total meltdown in the computer software used for calculating the results, saw new procedures adopted for the 2007 election. Efficiency was supposed to have been increased by the use of AEC staff in the count.
Legislative Council
| Roy Smith (Shooters) | 83,320 | 0.61 |
| Trevor Khan (Nationals) | 57,727 | 0.43 |
| Arthur Chesterfield-Evans (Democrats) | 50,335 | 0.37 |
| Janey Woodger (AAFI) | 46,332 | 0.34 |
| Robert Smith (Fishing) | 45,460 | 0.34 |
Sunday 3pm. I’m not doing too well here – I now realise the Legislative Council Summary figures I was just getting excited about have been little changed in the past week. They tell us of 3.3 million votes out of roughly 4 million in total, including 293,240 "other" votes that include (I believe) both informals and below-the-lines. The progressive totals figures show us the destination of 13,566 out of a probable total of about 80,000 below-the-line votes; from these the Democrats have polled 5.6 per cent and the Coalition 17.2 per cent, bearing in mind that not all of these votes will stay within the party ticket. Using these figures to extrapolate the as-yet-uncounted votes, I have the Democrats with a fractional lead over the Nationals’ Trevor Khan, but the margin is far too close (and the method far too crude) for anything to be stated with confidence.
Saturday 11pm. Okay, turns out all that effort on the previous entry was wasted. Because as well as the daily PDF file update, the NSWEC also has on its main page a different count with 3,278,467 votes. This includes 293,240 "other" votes, which probably means about 200,000 informals plus yet-to-be-counted below-the-line votes. There would be about 700,000 further to come. These figures show that the Shooters Party are home, while the gap between the Coalition and the Democrats has narrowed considerably. If the Coalition’s share continues to decline at the same rate as it did between the 1.9 million count and the 3.3 million count, the outcome will be very close indeed.
Saturday 10pm. A further 765,023 votes have been added, bringing the total to 1,938,396 out of a likely 4 million. This has resulted in a significant shift in the aggregate vote from the Coalition (down from 35.4 per cent to 34.4 per cent) to Labor (up from 40.4 per cent to 41.4 per cent). If there was reason to think that trend would continue, Labor’s number 10 candidate Barry Calvert might still be out of the hunt. However, aggregate lower house figures (Labor 39.0 per cent, Coalition 37.0 per cent) suggest that won’t be the case, even when taking into account the Coalition’s traditionally lower vote in the upper house (33.0 per cent against 35.0 per cent in 2003). In the meantime, the drop in the Coalition vote has reduced their surplus over the seventh quota from 0.78 to 0.56, almost enough to return the Nationals’ Trevor Khan to twenty-first place, with the Shooters Party up from 0.53 to 0.55.
Friday 8pm. The NSWEC has published a group and candidate votes report, based on the results of 1,168,246 group votes and 5,127 below-the-lines. The totals in 2003 were 3,721,457 and a bit over 70,000. Ben Raue says the two combined suggest the Nationals’ Trevor Khan has moved up a spot from 20 to 21; if this continues, the final spot looms as a race between the Shooters Party (0.53 quotas), Unity (0.35), the Democrats (0.35) and AAFI (0.30), with the Fishing Party slowly but surely headed for the exit (don’t let the door hit your arse on the way out, Bob Smith).
Friday 3pm. Props to Upperhouse.info for pointing out the following message from the NSWEC: "Legislative Council progressive totals will be provided daily in this directory from the evening of Friday 30 March 2007".
Sunday 5pm. The raw numbers at present look straightforward enough: Labor 9, Coalition 8, Greens 2, CDP 1, Shooters Party 1. However, Stephen L in comments cautiously offers that the Democrats (and perhaps also AAFI and the Fishing Party) might do well enough on below-the-lines and preferences to stay in the hunt against the Nationals’ Trevor Khan, eighth Coalition candidate and Poll Bludger fan.
| Greg Piper | 12,913 | 30.3 | 18,656 | 50.1 | ||||
| Jeff Hunter | 17,294 | 40.6 | 18,550 | 49.9 |
Wednesday 2am. One more change of lead in the final strait has given Greg Piper a 106-vote win after the full distribution of preferences.
Monday 2.30pm. Another 940 absent votes have produced yet another change of lead, Jeff Hunter now ahead by 65 votes. Antony Green notes in comments that the closest outcome in modern times was the Liberals’ eight-vote win in Coogee in 1973; this was overturned on a legal challenge, and Labor won the ensuing by-election by 54 votes.
Monday 1.30pm. The lead changes again after the addition of 496 further absent votes, which have put Greg Piper 44 votes in front.
Friday 5pm. In an exciting late-count development, Greg Piper has done very poorly from the addition of 1,988 absent votes (23.7 per cent compared with 30.7 per cent overall), which have turned Labor incumbent Jeff Hunter’s 272-vote deficit into a 22-vote lead.
Thursday 10pm. More than 3000 postal votes and about 700 further pre-polls added; still no absent votes. Greg Piper’s lead has changed little, from 263 to 272.
Wednesday 9pm. Excellent account of today’s slow progress from Sally McEwan in comments, along with informed talk of deep Labor pessimism.
Tuesday 4.30pm. Very good call yesterday from Sally McEwan – the second batch of pre-polls has been very similar to the first, barring a slightly higher primary vote for the Liberals. This boosted Greg Piper’s lead by 243 votes; however, 122 "Dec Inst" votes have reeled him in slightly, going 59-15 in Labor’s favour. Piper’s lead is now 263, but with well over 5000 postal and absent votes pending, it’s still too close to call.
Monday 11.30pm. Sally McEwan corrects my previous description of Carey Bay as a conservative area: "Carey Bay pre-poll is different from Carey Bay conservative lakeside waterfront booth … The remainder of the pre-poll votes will favour Piper in the same proportion or greater".
Monday 10pm. Partial pre-poll results have been posted, 999 votes out of what scrutineer Sally McEwan says is about 2000. These votes are "a mix of Cooranbong and Carey Bay", which is to say they include the much touted Seventh Day Adventist community, along with another conservative area. As expected, these votes have strongly favoured Greg Piper, whose 158-vote deficit has turned into a lead of 64. This sounds a little disappointing from Piper’s perspective, because the remainder of the pre-polls will presumably be strong for Labor. Next comes about 3000 absent votes and 2250 postals – these differed only slightly from the polling booth results in 2003, though Labor’s vote was notably a little lower and the "others" a little higher.
Monday 2.30pm. Looks like those Dora Creek votes for Piper stayed missing – his tally there has gone from 533 to 508. No word yet on pre-polls.
Monday 4am. A scrutineer at the count, Sally McEwan, says in comments she can "confirm the expected advantage to Independent Piper from the pre-poll votes from Cooranbong". These votes "will be counted and distributed tomorrow". McEwan also reports that "24 or so Piper votes" from the Dora Creek booth are "missing", "leading to extra State Electoral officers being called from Sydney for a reconstruction of the Dora Creek booth tomorrow".
Sunday 5pm. Labor incumbent Jeff Hunter leads independent Greg Piper by 158 votes. That would normally be difficult to close, given Labor’s organisational efficiency with respect to pre-poll and postal voting. However, Lake Macquarie has the quirk of the Seventh Day Adventist community at Cooranbong, which produces a big flow of mostly conservative pre-poll votes due to its observation of the Sabbath on Saturday. In 2003, Labor polled 795 votes (34.2 per cent) to the Liberals’ 1173 (52.4 per cent) on pre-polls, compared with overall totals of 54.9 per cent and 30.7 per cent. Pre-polls accounted for 5.1 per cent of the total vote; also still to come are the less quirky absent (7.3 per cent) and postal (5.3 per cent) votes. The latter might go a little better for Labor than last time, as consciousness of their danger might have resulted in a better organised postal vote campaign.
| Craig Baumann | 17,894 | 42.5 | 19,375 | 50.1 | ||||
| Jim Arneman | 17,544 | 41.7 | 19,311 | 49.9 |
Wednesday 2am. The margin widened to 64 votes after completion of the full preference distribution.
Friday 3pm. The notional preference count has been completed, and it points to a 19-vote Liberal victory. However, a "proper" preference count will now follow, and these can turn up anomalies. For example, the primary vote recount cut Chris Baumann’s vote by five votes and Jim Arneman’s by six (UPDATE: And more pertinently, as Geoff Lambert points out in comments, there were variations of up to five votes at individual booths).
Thursday 10pm. Absent and postal votes are now coming in at a fair clip, and while it’s still extremely close, the trend has been with the Liberals. Antony Green’s regular updates show how Labor candidate Jim Arneman’s lead narrowed and then disappeared in late afternoon counting, with the Liberals’ Chris Baumann currently ahead by 56 votes.
Tuesday 8pm. Not much progress today: polling booth re-check completed and 213 "Dec Inst" votes added, increasing the Labor lead from 76 to 86.
Monday 10pm. Either Port Stephens has had an extraordinarily high number of section votes, or the pre-polls have been entered on the wrong line – I will assume the latter. There are 1,244 of them and they have tipped the see-saw back towards the Liberals, whose deficit has narrowed from 153 votes to 76. However, the 2003 figures suggest Labor should do better on absent and postal votes. Slow progress on the polling booth re-check for some reason.
Monday 4am. The Daily Telegraph reports confident noises from a Liberal scrutineer, as "many votes were exhausting because of a decision by the Greens not to preference Labor". Conversely, the Australian Financial Review reports that "Labor strategists are sounding increasingly confident".
Sunday 5pm. Labor’s Jim Arneman was 153 votes behind the Liberals’ Chris Baumann at the close of counting last night, but is now 111 votes ahead. Pre-poll and postal figures from 2003 are probably no guide, as the seat was less fiercely contested last time.
| Jodi McKay | 12,951 | 31.2 | 13,793 | 50.7 | ||||
| John Tate | 10,003 | 24.1 | 13,430 | 49.3 | ||||
| Bryce Gaudry | 8,774 | 21.1 |
Friday 9.30pm. Those two-candidate figures quoted in the Herald have now been posted on the NSWEC site.
Thursday 10pm. Yesterday, the Newcastle Herald told us that "an Electoral Commission notional distribution showed Ms McKay on 13,793 votes and Cr Tate on 13,430". Today it reported that "preliminary counts show that Cr Tate would gain more than 2000 votes on McKay once preferences are distributed". On present indications, that would leave him about 700 votes in arrears.
Tuesday 2am. The NSWEC reveals nothing of the two-candidate preferred count that has evidently been conducted between Jodi McKay and John Tate, but the Sydney Morning Herald reports Tate conceding he is 700 votes behind. Morris Iemma is claiming victory.
Monday 4am. Yesterday’s recheck of first preferences from polling booths has increased Tate’s tally by 18 and reduced McKay’s by 12. The aforementioned Anthony Llewellyn says: "having reviewed the results in total now, my guess is a McKay win over Tate by around 500 … Gaudry will not pull ahead of Tate (of this I am now very confident)". The Sydney Morning Herald reports Labor "has become more confident".
Sunday 5pm. Still anybody’s guess as far as I can see. There is a 2.6 per cent gap between John Tate (24.1 per cent) and Bryce Gaudry (21.5 per cent), which might be closed with preferences from the Greens (11.2 per cent), who directed to Gaudry. Last night’s NSWEC notional preference count assumed Gaudry rather than Tate would finish second; if that is so, Labor’s Jodi McKay will win quite comfortably. If not, the race between McKay and Tate will come down to unpredictable preference flows. Last night, reader Anthony Llewellyn provided a preference breakdown from a booth at which he was scrutineering: if this is applied consistently, Tate emerges ahead with 12,792 votes to 12,327 (not counting preferences from the CDP and three other independents, who collectively account for 915 votes). However, Llewellyn also spoke of better preference flows for Labor at other less conservative booths.
| Pru Goward | 16,994 | 39.9 | 18,632 | 51.3 | ||||
| Paul Stephenson | 10,544 | 25.3 | 17,657 | 48.7 |
Thursday 8pm. Paul Stephenson has conceded defeat after being buried by absent and postal votes, widening the lead to 975. This entry, and the figures above, will not be further updated.
Tuesday 2pm. A further 670 pre-polls have gone rather better for Goward than the previous two batches, increasing her lead by 10 votes. Even better for her are the 154 "Dec Inst Votes" (declaration and/or institution?), which have run 70-31 in her favour.
Monday 10pm. I was mistaken to say all the pre-polls were in – it was in fact only about half. The newly added second batch was not quite as bad for Goward as the first, but it still cost her another 40 votes or so.
Monday 2.30pm. Pre-polls are in (all of them, or almost all), and they are surprisingly poor for Goward – she has polled 35.7 per cent compared with her 39.8 per cent of ordinary votes, while Paul Stephenson has 30.6 per cent compared with 25.1 per cent. If preferences follow the same pattern, this will narrow the gap by 134 votes to a little over 300. In 2003, pre-polls were 5.6 per cent of the total – still to come are absents (8.8 per cent), postals (5.6 per cent) and a few others (0.7 per cent).
Monday 4am. Yesterday’s recheck of first preferences from polling booths appears to have unearthed 38 extra votes for Stephenson and only one for Goward. It appears that Goward is better placed than it seemed on election night due to an across-the-board increase in "plumped" voting (numbering one box and then exhausting) at this election.
Sunday 5pm. An updated count (polling booths only) has seen Pru Goward’s lead after preferences increase from 311 votes last night to a fairly handy 455. Talk of the Labor candidate beating Paul Stephenson into second place on preferences has faded.
| Frank Terenzini | 14,819 | 39.7 | 16,741 | 50.9 | |||
| Peter Blackmore | 10,093 | 27.1 | 16,157 | 49.1 |
Friday 9.30pm. The NSWEC has finally unveiled its notional Labor-versus-independent two-candidate preferred, which shows Frank Terenzini a comfortable 584 votes ahead. That wraps it up for my coverage of this seat.
Thursday 10pm. This count has stayed on ice for some reason, at least as far as the NSWEC website is concerned, but the ABC reports Labor is more than 1,000 votes ahead.
Tuesday 2pm. Very slow progress in the count, but Morris Iemma has claimed victory for Labor.
Monday 4am. The Sydney Morning Herald reports Labor "has become more confident".
Sunday 5pm. As with Newcastle, this is one that will depend on preference flows we don’t know about yet because the notional count was Labor-versus-Liberal, rather than Labor-versus-Peter Blackmore. For what it’s worth, the primary vote figures (Blackmore 27.1 per cent, Labor 39.8 per cent, Liberal 20.1 per cent) are similar to those Pru Goward faces in Goulburn (Paul Stephenson 25.0 per cent, Liberal 39.9 per cent, Labor 22.4 per cent). The difference being that Blackmore will need a strong flow of preferences from the Liberals, while Stephenson will need them from Labor. Can anyone suggest if supporters of one party or the other are more dutiful with respect to how-to-vote instructions?
| Dawn Fardell | 17,158 | 41.9 | 19,270 | 50.9 | ||
| Greg Matthews | 17,518 | 42.8 | 18,590 | 49.1 |
Wednesday 8pm. With most postals and about 600 absent votes now in, any remaining doubt is now gone. Fardell’s lead has now widened to 680 votes, or 0.9 per cent. No further updates will be added to this entry.
Tuesday 4.30pm. Pre-poll figures are now up at the NSWEC site, and they tell a different story to the Financial Review – 2318 for Dawn Fardell and 2177 for the Nationals, widening Fardell’s lead to a surely unassailable 521.
Tuesday 2am. It falls to the Australian Financial Review to inform us that "two-thirds of the pre-poll votes have been counted, according to the returning officer. The results have favoured Nationals challenger Greg Matthews, who garnered 1495 of the pre-poll votes on offer while 1453 went to incumbent independent Dawn Fardell". These results are yet to appear on the NSWEC site. However, this makes only a modest dent in what had been a 401-vote lead.
Monday 2.30pm. Re-checking of polling booth first preferences has now been completed, giving a 42-vote boost to Dawn Fardell. Most notably, 37 votes have been deducted from the Nationals at the Forbes booth.
Sunday 5pm. Independent candidate Dawn Fardell leads Nationals candidate Greg Matthews by 401 votes. The precedent of 2003, when then-independent member Tony McGrane did somewhat less well on non-ordinary than polling booth votes (from a near identical vote total to Fardell’s), suggests this could yet narrow.
542 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11 » Show All
Oh I know, but I guess it cuts both ways. Labor don’t reflect kindly on that accord either.
The issue with regards to cutting public servants is that Debnam made stupid comments such as cutting back the spin doctors that included anybody putting out information to the public. Whilst I agree there is certainly people employed to paint a positive spin on issues (hello this has been happening everywhere for decades), he also (previously) attacked any staff in public education or media. In some cases these positions were directly related to community safety such as informing the public about immunisation etc. The real problem is that the opposition didn’t do their homework and really work out where savings could be made.
Also for the public service bashers, per head of population the NSW public service is considerably smaller than it was 30 years ago.
There is this big push around the country to reform public service into clusters and amalgamate corporate services. This ends up creating more jobs than it saves. It just amazes me the stupidity of it all.
Anyway, Debnam was on a hiding to nothing helped very much so by an ill informed National Party Leader Mr Stoner (another mental giant)
I understand that this is a little off topic but I just get so sick and tired of the constant public service bashing. Do I think some should go? aure there are still some deadwood but all in all decent people doing their best.
Ok, off the soap box now:)
What planet do you live on James,
300,000 public servants in NSW and 60,000 people who actually pay tax in NSW (land tax) and for most people a once off payment of stamp duty when they buy a home.
What a sick joke
Its the ALP’s fault that they didn’t like what happened when the accord broke. They expected the Greens to accept a crucial broken promise and were surprised when the Greens did what they did.
Hi has anyone done a comparative analysis between the upper-house and the NSW Senate vote by lower-house district? Its worth noting that Colin Barry cam from Victoria and whilst there he was also heavily criticised. But in comparison to Steve Tully he is a doctor of electoral management the lateor being a junior janitor.
Ben Raue:
I think Mackerras is right on the money that if Labor wins the election, they will win Eden-Monaro. Bennelong on the other they will not win.
Can anyone offer a plausible explanation as to why and how the Labor Party could lose the seat of Tweed – of all people to a Nationals candidate ? I am in absolute shock !!!!
Aah DaveC…
Its nice to see that Greens supporters are still pushing their wannabe-Whiggian version of history about the Tasmanian Labor Green Accord.
The truth is the Greens pulled out of the Regional Forest deal after they had agreed to a compromise but then decided they could extract more concessions.
In so doing they cost Tasmania a very good government and one of the most decent Premiers it has ever seen (Michael Field). A government which is largely credited with cleaning up the economic mess of probably the worst Government Tasmania has ever seen, the Gray Government (don’t believe me, check out the Green aligned website McGunns.com which says pretty much the same about Robin Gray).
Of course, Labor in Tas had the last laugh. After vowing “never again” with the Greens and watching the Liberals go through the same experience they were elected in a landslide in 1998 and have not looked back since.
In any other State they would be looking at to at least 2014 in Government but there is the issue of the Hare-Clark system which is single handedly responsible for the rise of the Greens in Australia.
Despite the comments criticising the media in NSW for not giving the Greens a go – they definitely should have done better at this election. Both major parties were on the nose and Climate Change is definitely a major issue.
The Greens however have met a ceiling in their vote having not progressed significantly at any State or Federal poll in years. Sure they can organise a good result at a by-election occasionally but its mass elections where it counts.
Why? Possibly its the Greens “holier than thou” attitude. Or possibly the lack of discipline.
Its hard for a big slice of mainstream public to take a Party seriously when it says it preferences Labor because of its “slightly better stance” on issues like worker’s rights and climate change.
Its also hard to take the Greens seriously when time after time they leave themselves open to criticism (fairly or otherwise) on their drugs policy.
I think the Labor Party in NSW may soon realise what the was realised some time ago in Tasmania that dealing with the Greens is not such a great thing. Not since Richo’s deal in the 80s have Green preferences actually mattered tremendously and we all know what happened in the last Federal Election when Labor tried to woo Green voters.
The fact that the Greens hierarchy cannot exert some pressure on local branches for preferences will also eventually turn Labor off. In the Hunter the preferences of the Greens look likely to cause the loss of one Labor seat in Lake MacQuarie and have also endangered the campaign in Newcastle.
The rationale stated on the Greens own website for its preference reccomendation in Newcastle is quite interesting:
Newcastle
…
Newcastle Greens have decided to recommend a preference for Bryce Gaudry only. We are making no preference recommendation for either John Tate or Jodie McKay.
…
As a party committed to grassroots democracy, Newcastle Greens share the concern of many ALP members that Mr Gaudry’s removal by Sydney ALP powerbrokers is the thin end of the wedge and the selection of celebrity candidates in this manner is an affront to democracy.
Newcastle Greens believe Mr Gaudry is the candidate most likely to support Greens’ positions and policies.
John Tate has constantly opposed Greens’ initiatives, policies and positions during his time as Lord Mayor.
Jodie McKay was parachuted in by ALP power brokers against the will of the majority of local branches.
Ms McKay has an untenable position on the continued expansion of the coal industry.
One is left with the impression that the Greens members in Newcastle were more interested in internal ALP politics than their own Party.
Tate also supports the coal industry and wanted to cut the rail line. He has always been supported by those who are pro-business which translates into anti-worker so far as he could get away with it in a Labor leaning seat. He has also been a thorn in the side of the Newcastle Greens on Newcastle City Council. Handing him the State seat of Newcastle ensconces him in his reign and he would probably have stayed on as Mayor a la Clover Moore. A bad loss at either the hands of Gaudry or the ALP would have been damaging to his long-term political future in the City.
I can’t seriously believe that the Newcastle Greens thought that not preferencing McKay and the ALP over Tate was preferable but more importantly not a good strategic move.
It will be interesting to see how the Greens fare in the upcoming Federal Election. This is potentially their best chance to “break-through” by making climate change a mainstream issue. If the Greens can’t manage to secure a Senate seat from all or most of the States this time around (like they keep threatening to do) the assessment will once again that they have peaked in their following.
anonymousie said “Shame The Greens aren’t in a position to do the same for Tripodi, Obeid or Costa.
If the Greens could do something about them I am willing to bet that they would have no worries about being invited into an ALP coalition!!”
With no real organisation, local press coverage, or many booths staffed, GRNs did quite well in Fairfield polling a solid 6% which is an increase on last time and above average of the western Sydney seats. They can’t actually seek to unseat Obeid and Costa, a country member, as they are members of the Legco and the GRNs would have to form a ALP faction and purchase body armour in order to deny them pre-selection for a winnable spot.
they would need a sherman tank, not just body armour.
Alex Turvey Says:
March 27th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Can anyone offer a plausible explanation as to why and how the Labor Party could lose the seat of Tweed – of all people to a Nationals candidate ? I am in absolute shock !!!!
The answer is a combination of factors including:
1) A good hardworking local candidate who turned up to everything, including the opening of a letter;
2) Distance from Sydney…the residents of Tweed look as much to Brisbane as Sydney for their news.;
3) A good hardworking local candidate who turned up to everything, including the opening of a letter;
4) Some strong local issues such as the Murwillimbah Rail line closure and some planning issues that put the locals well and truly off-side; and finally
5) A good hardworking local candidate who turned up to everything, including the opening of a letter;
Alex, running in a counrty seat (and I include coastal country seats) is different from the city. The presence of strong local media can work enormously in favour of the incumbent, but if there are shortcomings then there is nowhere to hide. I think in this case it was strong local factors that saw the seat change hands.
Obviously I declare my membership of the Nats. Anyway, its almost 5.00 am and I’m off to a meeting in Sydney!!!
Trev
Hugo
Howard said he was not going to introduce the GST, because the Labor party was launching a second scare campaign to win another election (even through labor brought in the Sales tax, without ever campaigning on it, which is a GST on selected good, and it was brought in by……….Paul Keating)
He then got into government, went to an election proposing to introduce the GST and won the election. The GST have been one of the best tax in this country, and is part of the the tax system of almost every country in the world, and was first introduced by … Labor.
I do not see the advantage of collective bargaining, study have been done in the State and in Europe that shows unionise workforce slows wages growth. There was a study in the state, when comparing two companies in the same industry, one has a unionise work force, one rewards staff base on performance and productivity. In every instance the reward base company is more competitive and more profitable, the staff work harder and are paid more than the unionise staff and staff morile is higher.
It is not difficult to explain, if you are in a union, you do not need to work hard and will still get pay increase, so you are rewarded for doing nothing.
Union and collective bargaining worked well in the 1940s to increase living standard and wages, but have little value in the work environment in 2007. Back last century, labor was immobile, today companies can shift head quarters easily and people from overseas can come to work in Australia easier, what All unions is doing is making their member not competitive with the rest of the world, and eventually make sure their member lose their job to India/China (see motor vehicle industry).
Unfortunately for Australia, the Labor party (once the reform party which I supported), will try to win another election base on lies. I see Kevin Rudd today saying that he supports free markets ….. I cannot fathom how he could say that on one hand, and is supposedly going to rip up work choices on the other hand.
dovif don’t be dumb. Keating just increased the sales tax rates after ‘93. Sales taxes had existed for a long time. Also, you can’t generalise the impacts of a unionised workforce by comparing two companies – sample size?
I’ve heard that there are studies that suggest that collective bargaining leads to greater productivity growth, which is the basic economic argument in favour of people being able to collectively bargain.
I reckon if people want to bargain collectively, they should be able to. If they want to do individual contracts, they should be able to. If nothing else, unions can negotiate on their members’ behalf, so to say that “they have little value in the work environment in 2007 is just nonsense”. Many people don’t want to negotiate their own work contracts. I don’t.
“Can anyone offer a plausible explanation as to why and how the Labor Party could lose the seat of Tweed – of all people to a Nationals candidate ? I am in absolute shock !!!!”
From memory, the Nationals have mostly held this seat and Labor only marginally held it in ‘99 and ‘03, so I’m not that surprised the Nats won it.
I’m not sure where you’ve got your figures from Dovif – every study I’ve seen suggests that employees get considerably better outcomes in union orientated collective agreements, and as Sacha points out, there is a wealth of evidence suggesting that productivity gains are greater under collective arrangements.
On another, but related, point, it is interesting to note that employment growth was bigger after Labor introduced unfair dismissal laws in 1994 (around 4%) than it was after Howard abolished it (around 2.5%).
Hugo,
The Left controlled the NSW Liberal party from around 1986 to 2002. To put their failure down to being “highjacked by the right” is nonsense. The reason why they were beaten soundly is because they had a lousy media performer as a leader and because they simply tried to get into an auction with the incumbent government who had the public service behind them. I never heard anyone say they wouldn’t vote for the Libs because they were too right-wing but plenty say they wouldn’t vote for them because they didn’t stand for anything.
John, I think you might be confusing voters who take an interest, with voters who don’t know or care about politics. The former are always calling for political parties to “believe in the something”, whereas the latter are scared off by ideology. No prizes for guessing which group is bigger.
Hugo
The last one I heard was commissioned by the State government of NSW and released by some employees of the State rail Authority. It compared the productivity of State rail (a unionise work force) against a lot of international rail system like Hong Kong’s MTR, Tokyos Subways (a non-unionise work force).
It showed the productivity of NSW state rail is the worst in the world and is worst than those of Moscow and Argentina. Sometimes rail drivers work only 3 hours in a 8 hours shift. This would explain why state rail loses money. (under these condition, it is not hard to show big improvement under trade off 5 hours of work out of 8 would be a 66% increase in productivity!)This would also explain why we pay so much for our public transport. I am not saying everyone who is part of a union is lazy, I am saying that if there is no incentive in the workplace, there is no efficiency.
Guess what this report will mean for the employees of state rail, Morris Iemma needs money at the moment. The State rail employee might have great conditions at the moment (ie working 3 hours out of
and the Unions have to be thanked for that, but how many will lose their job? Maybe Morris can blame it on Workchoice.
dovif, how can you extrapolate from rail systems to businesses in general?
CityRail has no end of problems, and I’ll admit that a degree of workplace reform would probably improve its general performance, though of course, the problems surrounding infrastructure and funding are much more serious ones for Sydney’s rail company. Most of Sydney’s rail network was built over a hundred years ago, whereas those in Hong Kong and/or Tokyo are much more recent (in the last 40 years). Consequently, your comparison is a rather fallacious one.
However, I suspect, Dovif, that you and I will never agree on this (on any?) topic, and other bloggers will no doubt be grateful if we don’t trade conflicting statistics on workplace productivity
RE: Anthony Llewellyn’s comments about the Newcastle Greens
>>One is left with the impression that the Greens members in Newcastle were more interested in internal ALP politics than their own Party.
I am not a member of the Greens, but am a Newcastle environmentalist, and I can tell you that if the Newc. Greens had preferenced the ALP they would have faced a serious backlash from their core constituents (greenies) because the NSW ALP Govt. has such bleak environment policies. In particular, they have no credibility on climate change because of their refusal to address coal.. but there is lots more. Not giving their preferences to Labor is the best decision they’ve made all year.
I had a look at the NSW electoral commission site earlier today.
It looks like the Independent will win Lake Macquarie.
Labor is probably going to hold Miranda – 400 votes ahead.
Labor 90 votes ahead in Port Stephens – that one will go down to the wire.
Anthony Llewlyn’s anti-Green rant misrepresents the histrory of the Green-Labor accord. However, in the interests of keeping this site on psephology rather than issues I’ll restirct myself to this:
“The Greens however have met a ceiling in their vote having not progressed significantly at any State or Federal poll in years.”
At the South Australian state election held just over a year ago the Green vote nearly tripled, only a small part of which can be attributed to running in more seats. The Qld election last year saw an increase of over 1% in the vote, although perhaps Anthony does not consider this significant. The last federal election saw an increase of over 2%.
None of this demonstrates that our latest votes will not be our highest, but it is interesting that our critics seem to so badly need to misrepresent the facts to make the case.
Latest figures on the ABC website (up this afternoon) suggest that Labor will retain Newcastle, Port Stephens and Miranda, the Libs will retain Goulburn (welcome to the Bear Pit, Pru!), and independents will win Lake Macquarie and retain Dubbo.
Nonsense Hugo. Since when does Port Stephens appearing on a page labelled ‘Still in doubt’ with the words ‘ALP ahead’ somehow translate into ‘Labor will retain’. That is entirely your interpretation. To be exact, we currently give Port Stephens a 59% probability of being won by Labor and Liberal 41%. We don’t mark seats as likely until the probability reaches 95%, and we don’t give them away until 99%. Apart from Newcastle, the seats you list above are all still listed as ‘In doubt’, and while Miranda, Dubbo and Goulburn are almost ready to disappear from that list, both Port Stephens and Lake Macquarie remain seriously in doubt. However, having fixed a preference formula problem, Newcastle is given away to Labor.
But to clarify that, I’m going to have the words ‘Still in doubt’ put on the predicted line of all seats we haven’t given away.
I think you’re being a little harsh on me, Antony. I did use the word ’suggest’ after all. But your point is taken – I won’t verbal the ABC site again!
I suppose I spend half of my time after every election fending of questions like “So you are saying Party A is going to win this seat” with the answer, ‘No, I’m saying at the moment Party A is ahead”. People have such a binomial view of what a prediction means. I still remember one senior journalist asking me how ‘Still in doubt’ qualified as a prediction.
In reply to Trevor Khan:-
Obviously I declare my membership of the Nats. Anyway, its almost 5.00 am and I’m off to a meeting in Sydney!!!
Trev
Trevor- are you Trevor Khan no 8 on theCoalition Upper House ticket? Were you elected ? Are you off to the National Party Meeting on Wednesday 28th?
Finally – when is the next letter opening to be held in Tweed?
There must have been alot of exhaustion, or very tight preference flows, for Labor to win Newcastle with 31% of the vote.
OK, now the probability for Dubbo has just ticked to 96% on the latest count, which means it is almost certainly an Independent Retain.
Any word on how Port Stephens or Lake Macquarie are shaping up?
I think Labor will retain both. That’s just my gut reaction, but am more than happy to defer to more reliable and mathematical means of determining of who’s ahead and who has the greater chance of winning.
Labor might retain both, but on the declaration vote trend of 2003, they won’t. But if the declaration vote trend is different, they could retain them. The result is in several thousand sealed declaration vote envelopes. Only time will tell.
Hi Antony
What is the normal amount of people (%age wise) who fail or forget to vote?
i.e. with 78% of votes tallied would we expect another 12% or perhaps 17%?
State election turnout should be around 91-93% of the vote. Federal election turnout is usually 94-95%, partyl because it is higher profile, but also because the AEC put more effort into cleansing the roll for Federal elections.
Edward, I obviously don’t live on the same planet as someone who thinks that the number of people who pay land tax should equate to the number of public servants in NSW. I think your coalition colours are showing though. Maybe you consider a few more points like the number of NSW residents paying GST and income tax maybe and something even more radical like the number of people who actually live here. By the way, it is 280,000 not 300,000.
I can imagine the number of police and nurses around using your methodology. Lets stick to the facts huh?
GST goes totally to the States. Since Federation NSW has contributed more because it pays for the smaller States. Its just spin to say NSW is ripped off on GST.
Income Tax goes totally to the Feds.
Payroll Tax, Land Tax and Stamp Duty pay for State Government, therefore only about 60,000 people actually pay for the State Government. That may be a comforting thought but if you sting those people too much they stop investing their capital and put it into something else which isnt taxed like the share market. That’s exactly what has happened in NSW because people buy land (other than a home) in the hope of capital gains or to develop it.
So if you want those people to invest/spend their money they have to get a decent rate of return. In NSW there is a capital strike which means the State Government has to do something to give them an incentive to spend.
Ultimately some of that 300,000 or 280,000 are going to get it in the neck. Its foolish in the extreme to claim there is no inefficiency, for example NSW is the only state with an roads and traffic authority, yet no other State Government has seen fit to recreate it. That’s about 2000 people there alone.
Of course, promise, never, ever the State Government re-elected is not going to cut the public service are they? They should offer Centrebet odds on that.
Update added for Dubbo, where Dawn Fardell is home and hosed. Couple new figures in for Newcastle, but not worth commenting on – by all accounts Labor will hold on.
SEO in Newcastle has announced it will not release any more updates on the count from this seat, as it is so close, if that makes any logical sense.
In Lake Macquarie, a far more interesting, close, and glamourous seat (when will the likes of Antony Green see the water and the trees?) counting did not take place today, as the absentee votes arrived by truck.
There are literally a truck load of these, far more than anyone anticipated, and up from 2003.
I repeat my comment that the ALP asked for 4000 postal vote signatures to be compared with the postal vote application signature, and only a couple of handfuls were knocked out. About 20 paid young ALP members were called from Sydney to scrutinise the result, with minimal outcomes, and spent the afternoon lying on the floor between the squash courts of the counting office and playing soccer outside, after the check was completed quickly by 10 extra SEO staff.
The ALP scrutineers, with former member for Swansea, Don Bowman (who declared the finished pre-poll count “a sickening trend”), joining former member for Wallsend, John Mills, were given a list of suburbs in Lake Macquarie where Independent Piper polled very well, and queried the signatures on postal votes from voters in these suburbs such as Cooranbong and Sunshine, which in the end yielded minimal results for their efforts.
It should be noted that these postal votes contain an unusually high number of SDA voters, who might usually vote pre-poll, yet voted postal due to an error in the SDA church bulletin about the availabilty of pre-poll voting in Cooranbong.
The postal votes will be counted tomorrow, and there is idle chatter of the incumbent ALP member conceding after 400 votes have been counted.
Edward,
I do actually understand that GST and income tax is paid to the feds, but it is expected that it will be returned to the State in the form of service provision. I didn’t suggest that the proportion of distrubution is wrong, although it is very antiquated but I think only really provides a unfair advantage in QLD.
In my orginal email I didn’t say that there is not efficiencies to be made and they will be. I actually support reforms that ensure that the average punter is getting value for his taxes (wherever the are derived). My point is that the Libs simply didn’t do there homework and work out where those savings can be made and not simply put the whole public service in the same catagory.
As far as land tax goes, Peter Debnam’s showcase of the battlers being ripped off was very good at illustrating the land tax issue. I actually think the tax is fundementally unfair but it is a complex argument. Part of the reason that property is so expensive in Sydney is the investor market utilising negative gearing and quite rightly trying to improve their lot in later life. If they were not in the market, houses would be significantly cheaper and more first home buyers could afford to buy.
There is plenty of arguments on both sides and to be honest I don’t know the simple answer but all things that are done have a ripple effect.
As for the RTA, I have no idea what the other states do as far as road management but if it is more effecient then bring it on!
re Anthony Llewellyn’s comments on the Greens and their vote
The Green vote is still rising in the inner city areas of NSW. I note that (Sydney aside) Marrickville, Balmain, Vaucluse, Heffron, Coogee & Maroubra all saw the Greens improve their vote. Marrickville now has a Green vote over 30%, Balmain just under, Vaucluse and Coogee both over 20% Heffron just under. In 3, maybe 4, seats Greens will be in the 2pp. This is a long way from the 3.0% in 1999 (and 11% & 7% in Marrickville and Port Jackson respectively).
So I don’t think the ‘natural ceiling’ has been reached. I do think that the nature of the Greens is slowly changing, and while local branch autonomy is still jealously guarded by a number of branches, there is a broader sense of acting more strategically in such decisions.
As to Tasmania, well yes, Robin Gray’s Govt was atrocious, but I also think your view of Accord history is as ‘coloured’ as anyone else’s. What I find unconscionable on the part of Libs/ALP was the change to the Tas electoral system specifically aimed at the Greens – this is changing the rules because you don’t like another team, rather than for reasons fo improving democracy, electorate access to MP’s or decision making etc. Whatever it was dressed up as it was not based on principle. This isn’t to say that all parties don’t act pragmatically at times, and that sometimes they just simply get it wrong, but then I wasn’t the one to bring up Tasmania.
I am, however, interested in what people make of the results in the Illawarra, where both Campbell and Hay got swings to them on primary’s (10% in Hay’s case), and McMahon in Shellharbour got a small swing to her overall, along with 4% in Brown in Kiama. There had a been a pre-election thought that the Illawarra might abandon the ALP, with the demographic & industrial changes occuring, but this didn’t eventuate. The only thing I can think of is that (and here I’m leaving the 1/2 Sydney-1/2 Illawarra seat of Heathcote out) is that with a dip in the Green vote and an influx of sea-changers, the ALP vote has been propped up this time round. Hay was also part of a nasty factional fight/deal in 2003 which would have softened her vote then, which might then have returned, but Campbell hasn’t as far as I’m aware done much for the Illawarra to warrant an increase in his primary (other than become the Minister for the Illawarra…)
Sally, re Newcastle, I presume you mean no more 2CP counts. Can’t see why they wouldn’t release any more primary counts, and they have been doing so this afternoon.
Great description of the count in Lake Macquarie by the way. Just shows why I always tell people to vote pre-poll rather than postal.
Thanks Antony
Stewart J – good post.
I took a look at the 2003 and 2007 results in Marrickville and Balmain [the two best chances the Greens have of getting a lower house seat]. In Balmain in 2007 the Greens only increased +0.3% to the Dems -0.4% On face value, it seems this time around the Greens have taken the Dems share. [This has been happening for a while.] But an increase of 16% and 21% in 2003 of M and B respectively is hard to point out where it came from. Perhaps the Greens have ‘reached their ceiling’ in Balmain. In Marrickville ‘07 the increase so far is +3.7% OTHers from last time was -3.9% so basically the Greens took the missing vote. What seems to be happening is the Greens taking other minor parties [Dems] and Indeps vote. To the whole ceiling idea, it will be 2011 in these two seats to see whether their ceiling has been reached and if there is actually a growing core or… it was due to the continual demise of the Dems translating into votes and the lack of Indep candidates in some electorates. What happens if we add more independent candidates? That will give us the true result of the ceiling theory. I guess Fed ‘07 we’ll have to wait, but for Marrickville and Balmain it’s 2011.
Hi Politics_Obsessed.
The Greens had competition in Balmain from Jane Hyde, who had the endorsement of the Climate Change Coalition. There were plentiful young people in light-green CCC shirts at booths in Balmain. I think Rochelle Porteous’ primary vote would have been a bit stunted by that. (Not to mention the bad drugs policy stuff. That would have hurt too.)
I don’t think the Balmain results will ever say anything about whether the Greens have peaked, be it in inner-city electorates or state-wide. The Greens had the advantage that there was no sitting member. Even Sandra Nori had SOME personal vote, I’m sure. Verity Firth will develop a personal vote in the next 4 years making Balmain a much harder prospect.
You don’t think it’s possible that the Greens vote could be affected by ordinary political trends, such as the fact that Labor’s new candidate in Balmain, clearly better than Sandra Nori, may have helped them out, whereas (just a theory) Carmel Tebbutt having been around since the by-election didn’t have the same effect.
Also, Marrickville having had a by-election, thus more attention from the Greens and on the Greens in the area could have been the reason why we did better in Marrickville.
As regarding a “ceiling”, I could appreciate that we’ve reached a point in the inner west seats where it is really hard to win each extra vote. But when you consider our position, a relatively small turnaround in the vote could result in a Greens MP, and an incumbent Greens MP would totally change the character.
And speaking as a Green living in Western Sydney, there’s no way we’ve gotten close to any sort of ceiling out our way, and there’s many other places where the same can be seen.
The level of organisation in Western Sydney has been very weak in the past, but is becoming much stronger, and has the potential to get much stronger in the years before the next state election. I reckon we have very good chances of breaking through onto Bankstown, Parramatta, Liverpool, Fairfield, Camden and Wollondilly councils in 2008. We won’t break through in all of them, but all of them have good chances. At the moment we have very few councillors in Western Sydney and that is a big factor. So there is no way we have reached a ceiling in terms of our vote. It’s much harder now, we benefited from the collapse of the Democrats and now are having to work as hard for every vote as any party does.
Antony Green Says:… we currently give Port Stephens a 59% probability of being won by Labor and Liberal 41%. We don’t mark seats as likely until the probability reaches 95%, and we don’t give them away until 99%.
Love to see how you calculate these probabilities Antony. Of course, on sampling probability stats alone (i.e. all ballots at all stages of the count are being drawn from a uniform population), the “probability” of NOT winning when one has, say 50.5% of the TCP and with 90% counted, is a ridiculously small number (like 10^-200).
I imagine one could come up with a number representing the probability of a particular different TCP %age in the REMAINING votes, based on how the “remaining” has performed in the past and how it has varied. In general, the non-booth TCP seems to be about 2.6% better on average for the Coalition or Conservative Independents, than it is for the booth vote.
On this basis, there is really only 1 seat where such an effect could change the “pre-existing” result- and that-of course- is Port Stephens. But the “remaining” vote is shrinking and the “ask” is getting bigger.
Ben, I think you’re quite right with that analysis. Verity Firth is intelligent and presents well and is definitely an improvement on Sandra Nori. Which is why I think 4 years of her will be bad for the Greens, she will develop a personal vote – though she’ll have to be careful balancing her own opinions with that of the electorate’s and her party’s.
Another thing is that the Liberal candidate was actually very well-prepared and campaigned hard as well. Those seeking a protest against Labor had a decent Liberal candidate to go towards who wasn’t directing preferences that might have otherwise gone to the Greens.
Cheers Edward O for your post – but the point of that Jane Hyde was an indep [two jane doe's in one seat] was my discussion of whether the indeps have helped the greens enough. But I agree Balmain will be harder to win. Which is why I’m looking toward Marrickville. Is it possible Carmel will resign in 2011 after ditching her ministerial commitments? Then again, the Greens didn’t win the by-election when she was transferred in and get less coverage at general elections so they probably wouldnt get in. Nevertheless, a good seat to watch next election should Carmel pull the plug.
I’m not sure if I understand what you mean – whether the indeps have helped the greens enough?
One, I’m not sure they have at all, in some places. Two, why should they?
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11 » Show All