• Two comments on this site regarding the government’s Queensland council amalgamations gambit deserve wider exposure. Electoral law authority Associate Professor Graeme Orr anticipates legal hurdles for the proposal that the AEC conduct plebiscites over the head of the state government (UPDATE: Graeme clarifies this point in comments):
The Feds can appropriate money for broad purposes, so I assume they will try to package any legislation to enable this as purely a matter of bespoke expenditure (like the Hospital ‘intervention’). But legislate they must: the AEC currently has several functions under the Electoral Act, but none of them involves holding plebiscites, let alone on state issues. How the Feds will be able to override the clear State legislative prerogative to determine Council activities is unclear. Councils are created by State law, and can only act within that law. It may be Howard is just goading Beattie to go further and appear undemocratic, by restricting Councils abilities to co-operate with the AEC. Or it may be Howard will just pay the AEC to run some half-baked plebiscite across Qld on election day, that says ‘do you approve of council amalgamations’.
Anthony Llewellyn detects the influence of recent practice in the United States, where ballot initiatives have been used as a ploy to mobilise voters on polling day (also noted earlier by Optimist). The most famous example was a 2004 initiative providing for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, which was seen to have given the President a boost in the crucial swing state of Ohio.
• PortlandBet is running a blog noting developments in its comprehensive federal electorate betting market. Of particular interest is a shortening of odds on Labor’s Sid Sidebottom in Braddon after the government announced its Mersey Hospital intervention, famously described by indiscreet Tasmanian Liberal Senator Stephen Parry as “a disaster”. Taken in aggregate, the agency’s electorate-level odds point to a result of 75 Coalition, 73 Labor and two independents.
• Sydney residents of a particular political persuasion might like to note a free presentation from 6pm on Monday from US poll maven Vic Fingerhut, who boasts “four decades’ experience in polling for progressive political parties and unions”. Fingerhut will discuss “the anti-WorkChoices campaign in the context of other international campaigns, including the campaign against Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America” (not a successful campaign so far as the 1994 congressional elections were concerned, but you can’t win ‘em all). Presented by the Walkley Foundation and the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (whose card-carrying members include me), those wishing to attend must RSVP by Friday. More info here.
201 Comments
Hey William, when is that Vic Fingerhut event? You’ve said the time, and the date to RSVP but it don’t say what date the event is held.
Sorry Ben, it’s on Monday. I’ve now cut all that detail and provided a link.
If the result turns out to be 75 Coalition, 73 ALP, and 2 independents, would that mean the government would be returned? Is that the most likely scenario?
Thanks for this William. Perhaps the lawyers can run interference and prevent the conflation of local and federal issues?
I’ve a had a few more hours to think about this (piece coming out in the Canberra Times tomorrow and maybe elsewhere). Howard can cash up the AEC to run all sorts of ballots: even for bridge clubs. Probably still needs a 1 page piece of legislation to confer such functions on the AEC.
What he can’t do is legislate to require Councils to participate, or people to vote. There just doesn’t seem to be any constitutional power to oblige anyone to do anything, as opposed to enabling legislation and dipping into a hollow log of current appropriations.
In short, at best these will be fairly meaningless straw polls.
Beattie on the other hand can go either of two ways. (1) appear even more undemocratic by punishing councils/councillors who formally engage in such polls. or (conversely) (2) backflip and organise compulsory plebiscites under rules set by Qld Parliament.
* In the event of a 75 / 73 / 2 Parliament, neither side could form a majority government (unless one side could persuade someone from the other side to become Speaker), and we would be off to the polls again.
* Genius Howard seems to have forgotten that while his Mersey Hospital stunt may gain some votes in Devonport, it will assuredly lose votes in Burnie, which will be shafted. Burnie (see my map http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/2007seats/braddon.shtml) is more of a Labor town than Devonport, and also has a long-running sense of grievance against Launceston and Devonport. (These things matter in Tasmania.) There are thus more votes for Labor to win there than there are to lose in more middle-class Devonport. That’s why Parry (who is based in Burnie) called the decision a disaster.
When I say “In the event of a 75 / 73 / 2 Parliament, neither side could form a majority government,” that assumes that Windsor and Katter supported Labor. If they supported the Coalition then of course they would have 77 votes. But Windsor and the Nats hate each other so much I’m sure he would take pleasure in putting them out, and Katter would probably go along (though he is totally unpredictable).
Graeme, during the 1994 council amalgamations in South Australia, the AEC conducted a ballot for Wakefield Council on whether it should amalgamate. Now, I presume that the Council paid, and the AEC can conduct sundry ballots if paid. So it might be possible for the government to pick up the tab for such an election done on a commercial basis. But by this method, the councils would have to get the AEC to conduct the ballot. And once the councils are amalgamated with the passage of the bill, I suspect that is much less likely.
Thanks for the background Antony. Yes, most local government acts provide for Councils taking indicative polls on a range of issues. And yes, under section 7A of the Cth Electoral Act the AEC is already empowered to offer electoral ’services’ for a ‘reasonable’ fee: just like PriceWaterhouse and the other accounting firms that run private elections for companies. Under the almost unlimited appropriations power, Howard can just reach into a hollow log and provide councils with the AEC’s fee.
But Beattie is threatening fines for councillors who seek to organise such plebiscites, and could legislate if needed to ban councils asking for such a plebiscite.
In which case I surmise Howard would need to formally legislate to ensure voluntary ballots go ahead. No problem if he is determined to plow ahead with this folly/clever stunt: Barnaby will back him 100% on it. (And setting them on federal election day guarantees a high turnout even if the ballots were honest and said ‘not compulsory/indicative only’ like some overblown online poll).
But the Feds only legislative power would be to give the AEC an ad hoc, voluntary function in this regard. Such a function may only be valid where it is sufficiently incidental to its existence (which owes itself to the federal electoral power and possibly external affairs). I doubt the Feds have any power to trump State law restricting what councils/llors can get involved in. But as others have said, Beattie might be wiser to compromise than to put on bigger jackboots.
ps – ironic that Howard as Leader of the Opposition in 1988 helped scuttle the Constitutional Alteration (Local Government) Bill that would at least have entrenched local government under the federal constitution.
The NT Statehood referendum in 1998 was held on same day as Federal election. I do not know under what power or Act, and whether it was under Territory or Federal legislation.
Given the Electoral Commission and Commissioner has some statutory independence, I think any attempt to legislate forcing the AEC to hold a referendum might produce a little outburst of independence. The Commissioner does have several years to run under his contract.
I note some have referred to Herbert as one seat where the mergers could be critical. I find that hard to believe. I don’t believe that voters are going to get het up about Townsville and Thuringowa being amalgamated. The boundary between the two councils makes no sense whatsoever.
Antony,
What seats do you believe that the outcome may be affected by the council amalgamation vote?
Since when does anything in Queensland have to make sense?
A cartographic marathon. Now you too can know how they voted in Useless Loop.
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/2007seats/kalgoorlie.shtml
Remind me not to have this idea again.
I’d have to check on the basis of the NT referendum. Section 394 of the Cth Electoral Act prevents State/Territory polls on federal polling day except with the authority of the GG. (Nb the Feds have total power over the Territories, so it wouldn’t have been a problem for them to organise the statehood referendum in any way they wished).
The rule against mixing State and Federal polls is a fair principle, and one that Howard’s proposal insults.
My guess is that the plebiscite stunt is designed to shore up a 3rd Senate seat, especially for the Nats. I’ve not been following the psephology, but I’d guess of the winnable Qld seats for Labor, only Blair, Longman and Hinkler would take in many regional Shires.
I always know the result in Useless Loop. It is always one of the first booths in in Western Australia.
Yes, Antony, but you know everything. I was talking to (relatively) ordinary folk.
OK smartypants, without looking: in which Kalgoorlie booth did Labor poll 1 (one) vote?
I think Labor has been looking longingly at Leichhardt and Flynn as well.
At the risk of boring everyone but Antony, after a quick scan of legislative databases, I’d say the NT Statehood Referendum was formally run by the NT Chief Electoral Officer (as he was then known) under their Referendums Act. But with background agreement with the Cth and AEC resources effectively running it. And the GG’s approval for the dates to coincide.
My guess is the seats with the most heat will be Leichhardt (Douglas), Wide Bay (Noosa), Flynn and Capricornia where some of the the central Queensland amalgamations are, and Petrie (Redcliffe). Other angry areas like Toowoomba are in very safe seat.
If Howard could arrange for these local council plebiscites to be held on the day of the Federal election, the assumption seems to be that the Labor vote would suffer and the Coalition vote would benefit.
There is a historical counter-example (going back a long time). In 1933 WA voted to secede from the Commonwealth by an over 2 to 1 margin, yet they also voted to elect the anti-secessionist ALP at the simultaneously held state election. The pro-secession government of James Mitchell was so comprehensively rejected that the Premier even lost his own seat.
Yes it was a long time ago and during the Great Depression – but it also suggests people can seperate different ballots when they vote (BTW the secession vote was compulsory).
I don’t know. I don’t know the result in Useless loop either. On the night, I just get matched booth comparison totals of this election with the last. I don’t actually need to know any booth results. But I’ll let you in to a trick about television. Just being able to name which booths are in make you sound very knowledgable. But I would be completely wasting my time actually looking at any booth results. In the ABC computer, I store the historical votes for booths in a small number of electorates,just so I can know the booth names. But on the night, we don’t get booth results. I always call elections without knowing booth results. You just need to know the current percentage, and the percentage in the same booths last time. It removes all the bias from the estimator and allows an accurate prediction.
Either that or sit next to Robert Ray. He knows the results of all elections by mid-afternoon on polling day.
Ah yes, Robert Ray. He came out of TV retirement to work with us on the 1996 Victorian election, when Steve Bracks and Ted Bailieu were our political panelists. Mind you, that was not a very hard election to call.
BTW Adam, I’m Melbourne on 6 September for a Melbourne Press Club function if you feel like lunch.
I don’t know if this is poor form or not … but does anyone know if the group voting tickets from 2004 are available in spreadsheet form anywhere? I really want to plug them into my calculator and see what happens!
I always feel like lunch, especially on my birthday. Email me.
Dembo, if you can find the candidate names, this will probably be the easiest way of getting the tickets.
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/guide/groupvotingtickets.htm
Hey! Thanks Antony! That’s a HUGE help. I have the names from the PDF provided by the AEC, so it should be easy(!) to match up.
If its ALP 75 seats, Coalition 73 and 2 independents, thats a win.
One of the independents would be given the job as speaker (which i’m sure they would not refuse!!) They could even do that without needing to guarantee labor supply.
Once one of the independents were made speaker, Labor would have 75 votes to 74 (73+1), and would thus form government. (The speaker only gets to vote in a tied vote.)
Likewise if its 73 ALP / 75 Coalition / 2 Ind, then of course the coalition could make one of the independents speaker, and would govern.
Assuming the election of the 2 Independents the only situation where it would not be a clear result is if it was 74 ALP, 74 Coalition.
In this case it would depend on the independents, and while they are conservative, they would likely be looking at the 2PP vote as a guide as to what to do.
Adam, the links to the maps are broken (kalgoorliebig1.shtml file refers to kalgoorlie1big.gifnot kalgoorliebig1.gif like it should) (and similarly for 2)
Adam
I mentioned on a previous thread, but couldn’t the state governments run their own plebecites in regards to Work Choices on election day if they wished.
The Commonwealth Electoral Act can prevent states holding elections the same day, and from memory, the Federal law trumps the state law. Graeme Orr would know the detail better. But even if the states tried that, the Commonwealth can deny the state electoral authorities access to the Federal polling booths.
I’m trying to fix the Kalgoorlie maps now
OK they are working now
Peter Beattie, very impressive on Lateline.
Howard made an error picking a fight with the QLD Premier.
You’ve got to wonder if the rodent has already lost it: his behaviour is becoming more and more erratic.
Apparently, he’s campaigning in Noosa on Friday – in a safe Liberal seat.
Thanks Antony
I would not like to see the states do it anyway as it could decend into a farce of multiple plebicites from the Federal and state governments.
Though I would like one government to suggest it just to stir up Howard and get a reaction.
Frank, I can’t rememeber (or quickly find) the relevant provision, but Commonwealth law prevents the states holding genereal elections or by-elections on the same day as a commonwealth election. If for some reason that doesn’t apply to referendums, the AEC would deny co-operation, the state Electoral Authority would then have to organise its own seperate poll. That means hiring all its own staff for the duplicate poll, rather hard to find when most usual staff will already be working on the federal poll. It isn’t going to happen as it would just cause massive confusion. What the Unions need is to win the election, not win a meaningless referendum, so you can bet they would all want to work as booth workers on the general election as well.
I don’t understand how there can be a vote on whether or not to merge a council when the council has already been merged via an act of parliament. Doesn’t that mean the council no longer exists, how can there then be a vote about something that doesn’t exist?
Antony, what is your e-mail address? I organise guest speaker events for the Melbourne University Political Interest Society – we’re a non-partisan club for politically engaged students – and if you are willing I think you’d be a wonderful guest if we could match it up with a date when you were in Melbourne.
In a showdown between Beattie and Howard I know who I would back. Remember Gough v Joh.
Section 394
No State referendum or vote to be held on polling day
(1) On the day appointed as polling day for an election of the Senate or a general election of the House of Representatives, no election or referendum or vote of the electors of a State or part of a State shall, without the authority of the Governor‑General, be held or taken under a law of the State.
Charlie, I’m in Melbourne on 6 September. You can contact me through the ABC. If the Swans are playing in Melbourne that weekend (hopefully they’ll have a final in Sydney), I might stay on.
Antony, you warm this Swans tragic’s heart.
I reckon we will sneak into fourth and play Geelong at the MCG that weekend. I will e-mail you and find out if we can organise something. Thanks.
Interesting analogy Adam. Joh was the winner by a long way – I presume you would pick Beattie in this fight.
There was a new Govenor appointed in South Australia yesterday, but I didn’t get a vote on who was selected. I hope the Prime Minister remedies this by having the AEC intervene to enable democracy to operate more effectively.
Why would state government’s try to do anything in the months leading up to the election? They run the risk of the government scoring political points out of any tought decision they dare to make.
According to The Oz, the saw millin Eden-Monaro lost the government contract because they didn’t open a new saw mill, even though that was a condition they had with the government.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22213431-11949,00.html
But it’s election time, so the government turns into socialists in a desperate bid to win the seat. Matt Price is right, we should arrange with our friends to vote exactly 50/50 in this election so that we can all be in marginal seats, and thus all have the ability to get hand outs from the government. I mean, who cares about what’s good for the country.
Re Adam, post #6:
I thought Tony Windsor’s enmity was with John Anderson, rather than the National Party.
Windsor has supported a minority Coalition government once before.
Has any poll been conducted up in Qld to actually ascertain just how unpopular the amalgamation plan is? Is there anyone in favor of it, except for Beattie?
In the past Councils threatened by amalgamations have sometimes organised polls which always recorded strong majorities against amalgamations (on low turnouts). This happened when NSW Labor govts proposed amalgamations in the 1950s. Amalgamations are unpopualr in a vagie motherhood sense for most voters, but they may have more impact in small towns where council office is centre of town and a significant employer. On the hung parliament scenario: Howard would remain in power unless there were the numbers for a no-confidence motion, this seems unlikely and the govt would just take each bill one at a time. In 1970 the Swedish parliament was split 50:50 between left and right, the Social Democrats remained in office and on the rare occasions of a tied vote it was resolved in the negative (or maybe by tossing a coin?).
Pseph
In the spirit of your silly question, one answer would be “Yes. Those higher echelon LGA officials who will not be made redundant and who will earn much more managing larger financially viable organisations”.
Try to some research as to why these amalgamations make sense as they did in Victoria and NSW. It’s easy. Simply go to Wikipedia and look up
.
There you will find that in the first place is not all Councils are in line for the chop. Reading on you will find that some of the shires in line for amalgamation have tiny populations where the sole functions are really collecting rates, repairing a few roads, managing a few effectively derelict halls and holding council meetings. Oh and giving a few glory seeking cane toads the opportunity to ponce around with the honorific “Mayor” or “Shire President”.
Even the much vaunted Douglas Shire Council has a population of less than 12000 (2006) and relatively few of them are actually ratepayers.
Closer to Brisbane Esk has a population of less than 16000 and yet there are 11 elected Councillors. Compare and contrast this with (say) Blacktown with a population of 270000 and 15 elected Councillors.
A lot of the multitude of pocket borough politicians are there by dint of an uncontested election – there is such little interest in the council and its functions that they actually often have to scratch around to get people to nominate.
That is not democracy. It is not good management of taxpayers funds.
Beattie’s error is that he is doing the amalgamations in one fell swoop unlike in NSW where in the last 25 years in NSW the excercise has been done piecemeal with some LGAs going through multiple amalgamations. Nobody in their right minds would suggest that the replacement of dozens of “roads and pothole repair” LGAs with larger financially viable councils based on regional areas of common interest has revitalised both the management of the areas and in fact the politics.
Re Independents with hung parliament
It is possible that an independent wins Calare as well with
Peter Andren’s support
given The National party’s bad relations with Mr Katter & Mr Windsor
I suspect neither would support an Anti- Labor government
I also suspect that all 2 or 3 would come to a joint agreement
together.
But still my take is as things are going there will be a majority
ALP government
^^^^^
Last sentence should read
Nobody in their right minds would suggest that the replacement of dozens of “roads and pothole repair†LGAs with larger financially viable councils based on regional areas of common interest has NOT revitalised both the management of the areas and in fact the politics.
BREAKING NEWS ON ABC RADIO:
Kevin Harkins withdraws as ALP candidate for Franklin.
Harry Quick wins, another potential headache for Rudd gone.
Pseph in regard to your question is that Government should not always be based on what’s popular, but what should be done. I’m yet to see any objective argument supporting the keeping of the current local governments. Recall the various council amalgamations brought about by former Victorian Premier Jeff Kennet, which at the time were extremely popular, but now has been shown to have been the best move. If you poll on any significant change you’re most likely to get a no vote, because people don’t like change.
I’d also be willing to bet most people aren’t too concerned with local councils. I couldn’t care less about mine. Back home in Perth they’re a joke (and highly corrupt) and are gotten rid of by both major parties from time to time without any public backlash.
Also note that polling on a state level has not shown any decline in support for the Beattie Government (that I’m aware of) since all this fuss about amalgamations. In fact the Oppositions showing in polling is quite embarassing.
Stop press: I’ve just heard Kevin Harkins has withdrawn as ALP candidate for Franklin according to the SMH.
On Franklin. Sounds like one fewer union official, and one more lawyer as MP. Shuffling crocodiles for alligators in the great Parliamentary swap.
umm I meant ’swamp’ not ’swap’
I guess Quick won’t be suspended from the ALP after all.
No matter what the election result is, win, lose, or draw, the Prime Minister remains Prime Minister until he resigns. There is no constitutional or legal rule that the Prime Minister has to resign if his party loses the election, it’s just that it would be politically (and personally) disastrous to do anything else.
Judging from the historical record, if the result is 75 Coalition, 73 ALP, and 2 Independents, the Prime Minister would probably first try to find out the intentions of the Independents. Depending on what information he could get, he might or might not decide to resign. If he did decide to resign (I think the less likely development), the usual thing, formally, is for a resigning Prime Minister (where the political circumstances are not clear-cut) to advise the Governor-General whom to invite to accept the Prime Ministership. In this particular context, the only name Howard could realistically suggest is Rudd’s, and even if he didn’t suggest a name the Governor-General would have no realistic option but to extend the invitation to Rudd. However, even if had absolute guarantees of support from both Independents, Rudd would be certain of defeat in the House of Representatives except in the (unlikely) event that a Coalition member agreed to be Speaker. Then he would have to go back to the Governor-General and tender his resignation, and from there the probable next step would be a caretaker government and fresh elections. Much more likely, however, Howard would not resign. The first order of business when the House of Representatives meets is the election of a Speaker. The ideal result for Howard would be persuading an ALP member to take the Speakership, but that would again be unlikely. Failing that, he would probably want to get one of the Independents to take the Speakership, which would give him a secure position in the House. If he couldn’t get that either, he would have to put up a Coalition member for the Speakership. After that, the Government would be in danger of defeat whenever both Independents joined the ALP to vote against it. However, there is nothing to stop the Government going on from vote to vote without definite long-term guarantees from the Independents, and even if some Government legislation is defeated, that doesn’t stop it carrying on, just as defeat of some Government legislation in the Senate doesn’t force it from office. Only if the Independents both deliberately decided to combine with the Opposition on a vote on a ‘matter of confidence’ would the Government have to resign. At that point, the Prime Minister would have the options of advising the Governor-General to call new elections (advice the Governor-General wouldn’t necessarily have to take if he thought a different Government was possible) and of advising the appointment of Leader of the Opposition as Prime Minister. In this particular instance, however, a Labor Government could hardly last long because the Coalition Speaker would (almost certainly) resign, and once the new Government had found a new Speaker it would be certain of defeat in the House.
In practice, I think that the Independents would want to avoid new elections, would be unable to bring about a Labor Government, and so would choose to provide at least qualified support to a Coalition Government, perhaps not agreeing to support it on all matters but at least supporting it on ‘matters of confidence’, possibly in exchange for concessions from the Government on some issues they considered important. The Government’s position would obviously be much stronger if one of the Independents took the Speakership, and they might well refuse it for precisely that reason. The Government would last until it either decided that new elections would be politically advantageous or decisively antagonised the Independents. The most interesting (and historically novel) aspect is that these circumstances would almost certainly prevent Howard from retiring and handing over to Costello (or anybody else) because of the danger of losing Bennelong at a by-election.
Quick has behaved very badly, but the fact is that he was right all along about Harkins. Those who call me an ALP hack should recall that I said here months ago that the ETU should be disaffiliated and Harkins disendorsed.
J-D that is a masterly asessment of the situation.
There is no explicit rule, but there is a sufficiently strong historical convention that the party with the majority of seats in the house of reps appoints the PM that I would think that the High Court (if it came to that) would undoubtedly find that a PM who refused to resign could be removed against their will, and that a G-G who refused to do so was acting irrationally or with actual bias.
The situation I was analysing was a hypothetical one where neither side had a majority in the House. I prefaced the whole discussion by saying that if the Prime Minister’s party loses the election (meaning, if the other side wins an actual majority of seats), it would be politically (and personally) disastrous to do anything but resign. I agree that a PM who did not do so, presumably out of insanity, would be dismissed by the Governor-General–unless the Governor-General were also insane. I don’t see how the High Court could come into it, though. Neither the High Court, nor anybody else except the Queen, has any constitutional power over the GG. But we’re talking about fantasies now, not practical politics. The chance of a hung Parliament, however, although slim, is real, and there are historical precedents to guide us in the history of the Commonwealth, the States, and other countries.
William,
i know this is a bit petty, but I’d like a bit of recognition for making the point about Howard’s proposed Qld plebiscites and U.S ballot initiatives. I refer you to comment number 445 under the thread “Newspoll 56-44″ w- i realise i was perhaps not as articulate as Anthony Llewellyn, but I think the point is clear. Again, I feel a bit of a goose for making an issue outta this, but credit where its due right?
Any thoughts?
Re comment from Antony Green at # 42
1- The ‘prohibition’ only relates to a vote “held or taken under a law of the State.” As the vote would be held under a Commonwealth law (assuming John Howard wanted that) the section quoted is apparently of no consequence.
2- There is in any case nothing to stop the Governor General giving his consent, and he presumably would do so on the advice of the Prime Minister.
Praise from a genuine aficionado is always pleasant.
J-D you are no doubt aware of what happened in Tasmania in 1989 (I think) when the Governor effectively forced Robin Gray to resign when the Greens won the balance of power. Gray wanted an immediate fresh election but the Governor refused, as was his right. This is the one and only situation in which the Crown retains the right of independent action.
Actually, Adam, no I wasn’t (or I had forgotten). Thanks for alerting me to it. But I was aware of other instances of the general principle, which I referred to in these words above: ‘the Prime Minister would have the options of advising the Governor-General to call new elections (advice the Governor-General wouldn’t necessarily have to take if he thought a different Government was possible)’
The three recent cases of governments not resigning after an election were Robin Gray (Tasmania 1989), Don Dunstan (SA 1968) and Rob Kerin (2002). In each case it was to maximise the pressure on the cross bench members who held the balance of power. In all three cases, the government met the Parliament and was defeated on the vote for Speaker and promptly resigned.
However, that was not the course adopted by Jeff Kennett in 1999. Then the Liberal Party viewed the game was up and there was no point carrying on the fight.
If a hung parliament was the result, I suspect whether the government resigned or not would depend on public perceptions of who had won. Or try this one. The Coalition government looks to not quite have a majority, but Mr Howard loses his own seat. Even having lost his seat, he is legally allowed to stay on for a while as PM. But the constitutional nicities are that he would recommend to the G-G who should be asked to form a government. Would he recommend the newly elected Liberal Leader, or the Labor Leader? Or would parliament just be called quickly to resolve the matter by a vote on who should be Speaker.
Whatever scenario occurs, if there was no clear majority in the House, the incumbent PM is allowed to continue in a caretaker role until the Parliament met. Even if Labor was in a majority, this would be allowed for the existing government, but would be considered extremely bad form. In either case, the G-G would request that parliament meet as soon as possible.
Fargo61 – my comment was about states holding referendums on IR law in conjunction with the federal election. It was not in anyway a reference to commonwealth referendums being held in Queensland.
Adam, the Governor didn’t ‘force’ Gray to resign. He refused to accept Gray’s advice to call another election, asked that Parliament sit, and Gray resigned after losing the vote on Speaker. And he was right to refuse the advice, as Gray could not profure such advice without have first proved he had the confidence of the House of Assembly.
That should be proffer
And the Gray situation was incredibly muddied by the attempt by Edmund Rouse to bribe Labor’s Jim Cox into crossing the floor and supporting Gray.
re Adam, Kalgoorlie and Useless Loop (and its 46 electors): Ah, but I note the old booth of Barrow Island is not there anymore. That was an interesting booth – the last time it existed (in 1998) it vote 100% Lib. In (I think) 1996 it voted 100% Green…it had, I should add, 2 electors…
Peter Beattie says he will change legislation to sack any local council that decides to hold a “referendum” on amalgamation.
Game over.
I’m not sure that’s right. The High Court has repeatedly referred to itself as the guardian of the Constitution, and is undoubtedly prepared to assert a blanket right to determine all disputes arising from, and under, it, including those involving the Governor-General or even the Queen.
There is no doubt that there is no possible area of Constitutional dispute for which the High Court is not the final arbiter. For it to be otherwise would be to create a niche of unreviewable power within the Constitution which is the antithesis of the separation of powers model adopted by the framers. For any party to attempt to assert that would also represent a constitutional crisis of the most fundamental kind.
It’s a pity Useless Loop is in Kalgoorlie and not in O’Connor – the match of location and member would then be perfect…
Antony, “forced Gray to resign” was shorthand for “brought about a situation in which Gray was forced to accept defeat rather than call another election.” The relevance I think is that (as I recall) the Governor sent for the Greens and asked them for a guarantee that they would support a minority Labor government and thus ensure stability. I think the GG did same thing in 1941 when Coles and Wilson agreed to support Curtin after Fadden resigned. I also think the Governor did the same thing in Victoria in 1999. Presumably the GG could ask Windsor and Katter for a guarantee that they would support either a minority Howard or a minority Rudd government (depending on the numbers) and ensure stable government.
A historical note: the Westminster convention that a PM defeated at the polls did not resign until he had met the House and been defeated there was seen in the 19th century as a democratic convention. If a defeated PM resigned at once, the Crown could then appoint his successor. Democrats argued that it was up to the people’s representatives, not the Crown, to decide who would be PM. Once the Commons was elected more or less democratically after the 3rd Reform Act of 1886, however, this argument lost its force.
The WORLD TODAY Program on ABC Radio just ran a report claiming Federal ALP candidates in QLD are worried the council amalgamation issue is costing them votes
And the Liberals claiming Kevin Harkins was induced in some way to quit as an ALP candidate.
Adam, I think you’ll find that Green undertaking was given AFTER Gray lost the vote of no confidence. I’ll stand corrected, but I don’t think the Governor spoke to the opposition until the debate became one of forming the new government. If the Greens had not given that undertaking at that point, the Governor might have accepted Gray’s advice to call another election. Governor’s don’t talk to the opposition leaders without the agreement of the Premier. Lesson from that situation is that the Parliament must meet and resolve the matter.
I think that once the head of government has lost his majority in the legislature, the Crown is free to take advice where it wishes. My recollection is that when Bjelke-Petersen went mad in 1988 and tried to sack his entire cabinet Sir Walter Campbell met with various MPs without Sir Joh’s consent including Gunn, Ahern and Goss to resolve the impasse.
This discussion is all a bit technical for my liking. Personally, I don’t think it’ll be a hung Parliament; judging by the current polls a Labor landslide is much more likely. I’m tipping 100 seats for Labor.
As to Qld, a fervent minority won’t like the amalgamations, but the great majority won’t care at all. The majority of Qld’s pop is now in the South-East, which is really where Labor needs to make up ground, and where the council issues will hardly matter. In that region, there may actually be a reaction against the Feds for trying to take over a Qld state issue.
Victoria’s recent amendments took away even the last vestiges of independence from its’ Governor – now he/she must *always* act on ministerial advice.
Many states are also eliminating references to the Crown in conjunction with similar constitutional reform.
Adam, what is your view on fixed terms and will Howard bring them up if re-elected?
Technical, yes, and a refreshing return to objective discussion.
Entirely true Adam, but I stand by my point, that the Governor assesses the numbers after an election by calling together the Parliament. Gray used the fact that standing orders do not apply on the speaker’s vote to extend the debate well into the night to ramp up pressure on the Labor and Green MPs. But once he lost the vote, the Governor was then free to seek advice other than Gray’s. Two years later, Michael Field lost a vote of no confidence, went and saw the Governor, assured him he retained the confidence of the House, returned to the chamber and successfully moved closure and the crisis was over.
My favourite loss of confidence was the end of the second Dunstan government in Victoria in 1945. John Cain moved an ‘I vary the approriation bill by one pound” motion, which was passed. Dunstan refused to resign and refused again two weeks later when the amendment was moved again. He came close to being sacked, but a comprise was worked out behind closed doors with the appointment of a brief Macfarlan government, consisting of Independents and retiring MPs, with the sole task of holding office until the election. Everyone was happy, Dunstan was out of office, and neither Holloway or Cain was appointed Premier in his place.
Or Labor Premier William Holman in 1916. He was censured by the Labor conference, so resigned to caucus who elected John Storey as the new Labor Leader. Storey then rocked along to the Labor conference as Labor leader, at which point the conference decided this had all become much more serious than they originally intended. Holman resumed the Labor leadership, but his next meeting with Governor Strickland was particularly frosty. Strickland thought it very constitutionally improper that his advisers go resigning in homage to an outside body without first discussing it with the Governor.
Adam, on the Joh case. Walter Campbell did something very proper that stumped Bjelke-Petersen. He asked if he had the support of his government and therefore the Assembly when making his request to sack five senior ministers. He stalled and asked for proof and Joh couldn’t provide it. But I think that Queensland in 1987 was a classic “What if the head of government/state goes mad” situation. It’s a bit hard to write a constitution to cover that.
“Neither the High Court, nor anybody else except the Queen, has any constitutional power over the GG.”
Is it really the case that the High Court could not grant an injunction requiring the GG to do (or refrain from doing) certain things? Why? Is it some sort of Crown immunity?
“you are no doubt aware of what happened in Tasmania in 1989…”
Also Queensland in 1987. Joh attempted to remove ‘disloyal’ ministers by resigning his commission as Premier, then seeking immediate reappointment with the subsequent appointment of a whole new ministry. The Governor refused to go along with it and sent Joh away to obtain the resignations of the ministers he wanted to drop.
d
Ruwake – game not over, and I suspect Howard wanted Beattie to do just this, to continue the sparring of Democratic PM vs Dictatorial Premier. Beattie’s laws can stop a council or councillors (as councillors) co-operating in such plebiscites. But they probably can’t stop Howard holding some half-baked vote.
Howard can probably have the AEC perform any plebiscite he wants, providing the Electoral Commissioner is pliant. The Cth government just becomes a ‘client’ of the AEC, and contracts for the AEC to run the plebiscites. As Antony suggested, a robustly independent Commissioner might get his back up and simply use his discretion to decline the contract. But even if he did, the Cth Parliament could legislate to REQUIRE such plebiscites to be held, although then there may be some constitutional issues – are they incidental to the core functions that constitutionally justify the AEC’s existence? Who would have standing to challenge them?
We have had federal plebiscites before: notably 2 on conscription in WWI and one on the ‘national song’ but both were clearly federal issues.
Assuming they go ahead, god knows how they do it in practice without the Qld administration’s co-operation. I assume that local govt rolls are kept by the QEC, not the AEC. (Antony might know this). We could end up with a soup-like set of plebiscites, covering all the marginal semi-regional electorates Howard wants, asking a bald ‘Do you approve of the (recent) Beattie government imposed council amalgamations’ – or whatever leading question Howard wants.
Ah, what I get for spending too long with a half-written comment in the editor :^)
Adam: “…Sir Walter Campbell met with various MPs without Sir Joh’s consent including Gunn, Ahern and Goss to resolve the impasse.”
The Qld Constitution Act provides that the Governor’s power to appoint and dismiss ministers “is not subject to direction by any person and is not limited as to the Governor’s sources of advice.” That’s from the current Act, the sentiment is the same in the old Act. Ironically, it was an insertion by Joh, back in the day.
Antony: “[Campbell] asked if he [Joh] had the support of his government and therefore the Assembly when making his request to sack five senior ministers. He stalled and asked for proof and Joh couldn’t provide it.”
Joh’s failure at the first instance was being too clever by half in trying to kill off the entire ministry without warning anyone. That’s what Campbell refused to do, saying if Joh resigned, he would not automatically reappoint him and would speak with other MPs and he might recall parliament to settle the question. Joh came back the next day (Tuesday) with a letter requesting the sacking of five ministers which Campbell did. The new Ministers were sworn in on Wed in a ceremony boycotted by every other minister.
Ah, the good ol’ days…
d
We do not in fact have a “robustly independent Commissioner”, we have a Howard stooge.
I’m not aware of the legislation Peter Stephens refers to, but legislation cannot force the Crown to accept the advice of a minister who has lost the confidence of the Legislative Assembly, either by way of a confidence vote or an election. (I’m a republican by the way, but the same convention would apply to a ceremonial president and whatever lieutenant-president we had in Victoria.)
I’m in favour of fixed four-year terms for the House and fixed eight-year terms for the Senate. A re-elected Howard government will do nothing about this issue. A Rudd government will probably try to (although it will not be a front-rank issue), but will be blocked by the Coalition-controlled Senate, creating another DD trigger.
Of course, we could move to fixed three-year terms simply by having the PM announce the date of the next election after they are elected. I’d much rather have fixed three-year than unfixed four-year, which is what I think the previous referendum on four-year terms proposed.
d
One question is: would Rudd do a Gough and “bank up” a lot of bills as DD triggers so he could get them passed in a Joint Sitting?
Graeme
My view is that it cannot happen now, unless John Howard wants to fund a community group to organise a poll.
For example, the Noosa council agrees to run a poll, the State Govt sacks the council and appoints an administrator. The administrator then calls off the poll.
I notice Alex Somlyay (member for Fairfax, Noosa is now in Fairfax not Wide Bay as someone stated earlier) was the person who asked John Howard to intervene. If Fairfax needs some help to retain its sitting member then the Govt. is really in deep deep trouble.
Albert Ross,
No need to refer to my question as ’silly’. I am not here to debate the merits of the council amalgamations. My point is that, being down in Sydney, I have no idea of what plays in Qld and what doesn’t. The press I come across has been that the electorate at large is incesenced with the amalgamations. Quite frankly, I don’t understand why, but such are the pecularities of Qld politics. Now, if you care to answer my question rather than criticise it, feel free. If not, why bother writing anything at all?
1920 NSW Parliament was split 45:45 left and right, Labor persuaded a Nationalist to serve as speaker.
1989 Tasmania, the democratic legitimacy of the Labor/Green govt was doubtful. The next election was an emphatic judgment by voters.
From the safety of a great distance it seems to me that most of the council amalgamations are a good idea – some of these councils really are too small to be practical. However, the way Beattie is doing it looks appalling and I do think it might save the Coalition a number of seats. If Howard gets back into government as a result Beattie will never be forgiven.
The idea of banning councilors from organising plebiscites strikes me as a breach of freedom of speech as bad as anything Howard has done (although I don’t know the details). It would have been far better for Beattie would be far better off saying “you can keep your councils if you want, but you have to pay a financial penalty as a result of the extra costs involved” Given the choice between a serious rise in rates and council amalgamations most people would probably vote for the latter. A handful of councils might elect to stay independent, but the bulk of the issue would be dealt with and the anger would disappear.
Well, I’m not sure _that_ is right.
1. Can you quote chapter and verse on the High Court referring to itself as ‘the guardian of the Constitution’?
2. Even if the High Court has used that phrase, has it also explicitly asserted a blanket right to determine all disputes arising from/under the Constitution?
3. There definitely is _doubt_ about whether there are possible areas of constitutional dispute for which the High Court is not the final arbiter. Look at paragraph 11 here, , which points to a traditional (although admittedly disputed) view that some constitutional issues are _not_ justiciable, meaning not susceptible of resolution in the courts.
4. I don’t know exactly what you mean by the ’separation of powers’, but in the sense I understand it I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the framers of the Australian Constitution adopted it as a model.
“1989 Tasmania, the democratic legitimacy of the Labor/Green govt was doubtful.”
What? How? Labor + Green had a majority of the popular vote and a majority of the seats in the Assembly.
My recollection is that the Queensland position is special because Bjelke-Petersen put legislation through in 1975 explicitly stating the right of the Governor to take advice from whomever he or she liked, presumably as a symbolic anti-Whitlam gesture.
Since I’m partly responsible, I point out in my defence: (a) I did say that, although a real possibility, it’s unlikely; (b) Somebody Did Ask.
feral’
My feeling living on the Sunshine Coast Qld is that a majority of people in Maroochy and Caloundra are in favour of amalgamation and have been for years.
In fact from listening to ABC Radio talkback and reading local media people are starting to get annoyed with the Noosa council. They are seen as a small group of local elite making headlines.
My parents who live in Noosa Shire hinterland are happy with the amalgamation as they (and the people they talk to) would like some attention paid to thier roads, rubbish and facilities.
I only have anecdotal evidence but I feel that John Howard’s foray into this will do the Liberal Party more harm than good.
I expressed myself unclearly. I don’t mean that the GG is ‘above the law’ in any general sense. I still say that the High Court does not have the power to direct him in the exercise of the particular functions we are discussing.
Not just ‘a bit hard’: impossible. This is a crucial point. What can be done to stop somebody doing what Pakistani generals do when they announce that they’re ’suspending the Constitution’? Nothing. You could write a clause into the Constitution saying that there is no power to suspend the Constitution and that nobody can ever suspend it, but the generals would just announce that they’re suspending that clause as well. What would ultimately protect the stability of democracy in Australia in the extremest emergency would be, what does not exist in Pakistan, the general commitment of the bulk of the population to it, rather than verbal provisions in a constitutional document. Hence the miscomprehension of the arguments that we need a Governor-General, or the Queen, in case the Prime Minister goes mad. (People who make this argument don’t seem to think about what could happen if a Governor-General, or even the Queen, went mad.)
“Separation of powers” must be the most misused expression in Australian public life. It derives from the debates around the framing of the US Constitution and refers primarily to the separation between the executive and legislative branches, something completely unknown in the Westminister system. It was devised in reaction against the Westminster system – as it existed in the reign of George III. In Australia there is, constitutionally speaking, no executive branch at all, only a de facto one which is located within the legislature. All the expression really means in Australia is the independence of the judiciary.
J-D, if you’ll indulge me a further tumble down this justicable rabbit-hole…
Doesn’t Section 75(v) give the High Court the power to grant an injunction directing the GG on these matters?
In all matters:
(v) in which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth;
the High Court shall have original jurisdiction.
Doesn’t the explicit jurisdiction imply justicability?
d
It’s also something that was intentionally built into the Constitution, and we absolutely do have a separation of powers designed to prevent abuse of power and then developed by a century of jurisprudence. We are not a pure Westminster system, and there’s a good reason why we are often referred to as a “Washminster” system.
Of course our crucial separation is between the Chapter III Courts on the one hand and the Commonwealth Parliament/Executive on the other. This is reflected in both the words and structure of the Constitution, and is one of the best established principles of constitutional law in this country – for a recent discussion of some key aspects of the notion, look at any of the judgments in the Jack Thomas decision, Thomas v Mowbray, where the High Court had to determine in part whether control orders breached that separation and were therefore impermissible.
J-D, I believe I can answer your other points when I have a little more time, which unfortunately is not now. However, I should make the point that I am not suggesting the High Court could direct the G-G in the exercise of his discretion – merely that it could prevent him from making certain decisions, and force him to exercise his discretion in others.
Noosa town is going to be in Wide Bay this election (see http://www.aec.gov.au/pdf/profiles/2006/w/widebay.pdf). While Fairfax once covered the entire Sunshine Coast, it now just covers part of its north.
106
Yes, but only to the extent to which it is possible to apply for a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction against an officer of the Commonwealth, something which those words themselves do not define.
And I don’t know whether there is a definition of ‘officer of the Commonwealth’ which would include the GG.
Daryl,
Did voters for the Green Independents know they were voting for a Labor govt? Labor was 12% points behind the Liberals. The Liberal vote in 1992 was remarkable.
It’s a while since I read Australian constitutional history, but I don’t recall that the federal conventions gave much attention to the separation of powers in the sense the term is used in the US. The term doesn’t appear in the index of La Nauze’s Making of the Australian Constitution. Most of their attention was devoted to the division of powers between the Commonwealth and the states (and wouldn’t they be furious if they could see what Howard is doing to their Constitution now?). They had all read their Bryce and knew how the US system worked, but they were most emphatic that they were not copying it, except to the extent necessary to create a federal system. What has “Washminstered” our system since 1901 is firstly the expansion of Commonwealth power at the expense of the states and secondly the growth of the de facto presidential powers of the Prime Minister’s office and the subordination of the legislature to it.
I accept that you may have good answers which you don’t have the time to provide. As things stand, however, I stilll don’t know what your definition of ’separation of powers’ is, and now I also don’t know how far you think the power (as you assert it) of the High Court to direct the GG is supposed to extend. I certainly don’t think it could extend to forcing the GG to dismiss a PM, which was (I think) the point originally at issue.
My 2c as a Queenslander re: Amalgamation:
I can see some clear cases where I support amalgamation.
An example is Dalby and Wambo shires. Both councils have their offices in the town of Dalby. Money is going down the toilet supporting two sets of identical administration in the same town. It’s dumb.
Look at this page:
http://www.wambo.qld.gov.au/council/joint_services.shtml
They even share their library etc already.
On the other hand, half the councils in Queensland are getting the chop. There must be plenty of cases where it isn’t warranted.
However, in general I support it. Anything that cuts the number of beaurocrats and spends this money increasing services is on the right track.
Fair cop, Optimist, now noted.
One former Liberal party councillor, and possibly even Alan Cadman to run as Independents against Alex Hawke in Mitchell. I guess we’ll see if Hawke can walk the walk, or just Towke the Taouk.
http://www.hillsnews.com.au/2007/08/3_cadmans_crossroad.php
WITH the Liberal Party in disarray in the Hills after factional warfare, Mitchell MP Alan Cadman – forced to retire because he didn’t have the numbers to defeat right-wing candidate, Alex Hawke – may run as an independent.
…Almost certain to throw his hat in the ring is disenchanted Liberal, Councillor Peter Dimbrowsky, who said he has been offered a war chest of up to $50,000 by local business people urging him to stand against Mr Hawke.
”I’ve been approached by large businesses all of whom would previously have backed the Liberals.”
The Baulkham Hills councillor did not renew his long-term Liberal Party membership at the end of the financial year – ”like many, many others” – and has joined the Community First Party, founded by former Mayor Sonya Phillips.
His move assures her of donning the robes, yet again, in September after a longstanding deal with the ALP trio on council.
”I want to bring a new voice of moderation to The Hills by putting people before politics,” Cr Dimbrowsky told the News yesterday.
”The Liberals at all levels are in disarray because of left versus right versus right factionalism and it’s time to stop the rot and give moderate Hills voters a conservative alternative.”
And also after the treatment Elliot received, the AHA withheld a $200,000 donation.
Agree wholeheartedly on the second point, but on the former the states in the US actually have much more real power than our states and their Supreme Court has even featured states-rightists from time to time who have prevented a comparable federal takeover. For instance, many states are currently legislating their way out of the federal “Read ID” act.
Sacha
I stand corrected. I forgot the new distribution.
Now I realise why Alex Somlyay is worried.
As far as this blog is concerned, the question is not the merits of the amalgamations per se, but whether the row between Beattie and the councils, and now between Howard and Beattie, will hurt federal Labor’s vote in seats where it matters. I gather from what Qld people have said above that it is not an issue in Brisbane, so it will not affect the situation in Bonner, Moreton, Petrie or Bowman. What about Blair (Ipswich) and Longman (Caboolture)? On the other hand I gather the view is that it will / might affect the Labor vote in Herbert, Hinkler and Flynn (and Leichhardt?). Can we get some informed local comments on this?
And also on how Qld parochialism might play here. In the past Qlders have generally supported their populist premiers in rows with the evil Canberra centralists. Why will they not do so this time?
Maybe it will improve votes in those electorates were amalgamations are controversial, but increase the vote in urban and outer urban electorates.
I just don’t understand why people not living in Queensland have to pay for these plebecites. But there’s no expense spared when electoral careers are at stake.
I just don’t buy the parallel with the Republican ‘get out the vote’ campaign, purely because the compulsory voting system completely changes the dynamic.
At most you would be hoping that people will be reminded of why they’re p#ssed off about the issue in question, and that will swing a few votes. But unless it’s a really big, and universal, issue, I don’t see that being particularly effective.
Thanks J-D, you’ve been most accommodating.
Graeme: “I assume that local govt rolls are kept by the QEC, not the AEC.”
The ECQ only has responsibility for the BCC rolls. The rolls for other local elections are compiled by the Returning Officer for the Council (usually the Council CEO) based on the roll for the State Electoral District(s) with help from an Electoral Registrar if required.
d
“Maybe it will improve votes in those electorates were amalgamations are controversial, but increase the vote in urban and outer urban electorates.”
Sorry, Simon, improve whose vote?
Improve the vote for the opposition because some QLD would be annoyed that the Federal government is intervening in a state issue.
I think the main issue isn’t necessarily the idea of amalgamation, which I broadly support, but the manner in which Beattie is attempting to foist it on the state.
Sure, it may not do much in Brisbane, but it will only gave the Coalition traction in places like Leichhardt, Flynn, Fairfax, Wide Bay etc. (apparently Capricornia is also deeply affected – if the Nats have money to spend there, with the Libs not contesting, that could fall – and make Rudd’s job that little bit more difficult.
This is a state issue though, QLD voters have supported Howard and Beattie at different elections. So they seem capable of differentiating between different issues and different levels of government.
There is a heck of a lot of noise on the issue here in Qld. Page 3 full-page ads in Courier Mail from different councils, lead stories etc. You are right Antony in that this does not affect Brisbane City council at all. The other areas of note are:
Pine Rivers and Caboolture amalgamate to form North Moreton Regional. This will affect Longman and Fisher votes – safe Coalition seats (I count Brough as safe)
Caloundra, Maroochy and Noosa amalgamate to form Sunshine Coast Regional. This affects Wide Bay and Fairfax – again safe Coalition seats.
Ipswich remains unchanged, except giving a small portion of the Peaks Crossing area to Beaudesert Regional – no effect to Blair
All the way up the coast sees the main strong councils incorporating smaller, less financially stable regions (eg Townsville and Thuringowa combine, Whitsunday and Bowen combine, Mackay, Mirani and Sarina)
The effect on voting intention will be negligible apart from those in safe Coalition seats anyway.
I don’t know what Howards ploy is apart from getting media play and maybe pushing the ‘Herr Beattie’ chorus that covers the airwaves
Kerry Nettle is at it again – desperately trying to give herself relevance and appeal. Shame really that the Greens are being colonised by the far left that want to turn it into the Socialist Marxist Party.
Are people righting off the Coalition being returned but Howard losing his seat???
Also what are people’s thoughts on the Conservative side of politics if they lose Canberra will they implode like they did in 1943 where the United Australia Party suffered a 14.71% swing against it…Clearly conservative politics in Australia will be in a worse position than in 1943 as in 2007 if Howard loses the Coalition will be out of power in every level of government in Australia…
Adam says, I gather from what Qld people have said above that it is not an issue in Brisbane, so it will not affect the situation in Bonner, Moreton, Petrie or Bowman. What about Blair (Ipswich) and Longman (Caboolture)?
Ipswich and Moreton Shire were amalgamated about 15yrs ago into the existing Ipswich City Council of today with no problems. They are losing Boonah, but other that that Blair is pretty well for amalgamations.
Forgot to put Redcliffe in the Pine Rivers/Caboolture amalgamation which includes the Federal seat of Petrie. Maybe Gambaro will hold after all…
How about in the seat of Flynn Grooski?
The feds have no power over local government, local government units are created by state law. The state governments have the right under legislation they drew up to merge councils as they see fit.
Flynn will be interesting because of its large size – it affects quite a few different councils. Of note is the Aramac/Jericho/Barcaldine merger which sees a very successful financially Aramac shire amalgamate with an in-debt Barcaldine. Quite a number of full page ads for the region and an appearance on a local Qld current affairs show showing farmers vowing to never vote Labor again. Small numbers of votes in the scheme of things though. Contrast this to further east which sees 4 shires including Emerald combine. The shires there have not been vocal on the issue at all.
The main centre of Gladstone is combined with Calliope and Miriam Vale which really has very little effect as well.
I guess in Flynn, there is some opposition, but in areas of smaller voting capacity anyway
In the regional queensland council mergers, if smaller councils near Carins, Townsville, Rockhampton, Bundaberg, Gladstone are merged into the city councils, people are inclined to support it because they would feel particularly if they are suburbs of these regional centres. They generally feel they are a part of that city instead of being members of a seperate community.
People in the suburban areas of Brisbane and Sunshine Coast feel they belong to Brisbane and Sunshine Coast instead of bits of it. Plus a lot of people in those areas have recently moved from elsewhere, often interstate.
Grooski,
Farmers are very strong National or Liberal party voters, very few vote anyway.
There is no doubt Queenslanders are parochial. It is quite possible that many Queenslanders will register a vote against Beattie’s council amalgamations and support the coalition in the Federal election. You will recall that in 1990 (I think), Bob Hawke won the Federal election despite a big swing against Labor (and consequent loss of seats) in Victoria, in what was a clear protest against a Labor state government.
I do think, though, that Beattie is very much a pragmatist, who’d back down on the amalgamations late in the piece if he really thought it would hurt Labor. He even has a remarkable ability to do a backdown and a grovelling apology and the voters love him for it, as instanced in his handling of problems in the health system.
The other factor in Queensland (which no-one seems to have mentioned) is the positive parochialism of Queenslanders being able to elect a local as Prime Minister (with a Queensland Treasurer thrown in as a bonus). I think that, when the election comes, many Queenslanders will find it hard to vote against the home boy, Kevin Rudd, no matter how much they’re annoyed with Beattie.
Similar to the Toll Road announcement in Victoria, I think the Queensland local government saga will have no impact at all in regards to the election result. Most people have switched off already and have stopped concentrating, like 1996 this election has already been decided and Mr Rudd will win in a landslide. The only thing that may make the result a closer contest is Mr Rudds’ constant denial regarding policy prescriptions, this is a little worrying as he cannot continue to say duplicate government policy and if he does it may backfire slightly. Nonetheless whatever happens i cannot see Labor losing. People are generally not interested in politics….and this may be a good election to lose anyway as the economy seems to overheating and when this occurs a recession may result and the next one will be very nasty…
Big differences with 1943. Billy Hughes was the leader. He’d been elected as Labor MP in the NSW Parliament way way back in 1894. He’d left Labor while PM in 1916. He was pushed out of the PM’s office in 1923 by Earl Page and the Country Party. Hughes had brought down the Bruce government with his vote in 1929. After setting up his own party in opposition to the Nationalists for the 1930 NSW election, he’d later joined the UAP. He only became leader of the UAP after the party deserted Menzies while he was wartime PM. Hughes was 82 years old, deaf, irrascible and dispeptic. No one on his own side trusted him, let alone Labor voters. And Labor had been in power for two years and Curtin was seen as doing a good job in running the war. I don’t think the Liberal Party is anywhere near the nadir of the UAP in 1943.
Antony i keep referencing canada 1993 and the rout of the conservatives there.
Only the then underground media tipped it and from memory it was the biggest swing ever against an incumbent govN
any chance we may go close?
Go Laworr! Go the Bunnies! That’s what really counts! How do ya reckon we’ll go in the ‘Gong, Satdy?
I reckon we’ll struggle. Williams, Smith AND Buddy Gordon?
Even in 1943 the Libs and Country Party were in government in Vic and SA (thanks in both cases to gross malapportionment). If Howard loses this will be first time ever that the conservatives have been out of office everywhere, with no immediate prospect of returning to office anywhere. The Liberals have a history of disunity and leadership instability in opposition, and the state branches are factionalised, short of money and demoralised. Once Howard is gone all these things will come into the open, and Rudd will have a honeymoon that may carry him to the expected DD in 2008. If Costello becomes leader he will be in the same position as Peacock after 1983, and retaining control of the Senate may well be a double-edged sword, since he will have to decide how much to obstruct a popular new PM with a shiny new mandate, and whether to risk an early DD at which he might well get clobbered and lose the leadership. All in all, the Libs have a lot to lose at this election, which is why they are fighting so desperately not to lose it.
Glen,
People are going to have to choose between an extreme right wing, an extreme left wing and a middle. Somewhere between the extreme right wing and the middle is the perception that one party has been around for nearly twelve years and that they haven’t made much headway. People aren’t scared of the extreme left because they won’t get in. They are also not afraid of the centre. You, as in Howard et al, have lost the centre. There is your problem. Right there. Right now. You’ve got about six weeks to get it back.
Adam said “If Howard loses this will be first time ever that the conservatives have been out of office everywhere,”
That is not strictly correct, there will still be a liberal Lord Mayor of Brisbane.
Brisbane is not a constitutional jurisdiction.
Gusface, the big difference is the party system. In Canada in 1993, the Progressive Conservative Party (yes, that was its name) split across the country. In Quebec it was squeezed between the Liberals and Bloc Quebecois. In Western Canada is was squeezed between the Liberals and Preston Manning’s party, which I think was called the Reform Party that year, but some like to call is the Bloc Albertois.
The PC vote did collapse, but the result in seats was magnified by first past the post voting in a multi-party system. With the non-Liberal vote split between the Bloc, Reform, PC and the New Democrats. The PC won 16% of the vote and got 2 seats, the Bloc got 13.5% and 54 seats, Reform 18.7% and 52 seats. The Liberals won 177 seats with 41%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1993
Canadian politics has since been dominated by the regional splits first created in 1993.
Can’t resist two quick comments.
Firstly local government is really really unimportant, but a comment above about it being all corrupt is pretty broad; and who was it that said something about democracy and getting people you deserve elected.
I think the only significant bit can be the campaign / HTV on the day having an effect; and this may not be pro-Howard.
Like extended trading hours in WA. The small shops were loudly planning to give liberal party money in marginal seats and the State Govt gave them a extended trading hours campaign to distract them from party political activity. The small traders were too busy in the referendum to even consider the broader political debate.
In WA I think of Local Govt as by the Liberals, of the Liberals and for the Liberals. For example the City of Belmont, blue ribbon Labor territory seat of Treasurer Eric Ripper has a liberal Mayor.
Is it the same in Queensland? If so Howard is pretty silly if he is going to give them a second front to fight an election on? Money energy and time diverted from the real campaign?
Adam, point taken, but at least they will have a rebuilding point, a base to rally around as such.
Useless Loop? I never even realized people lived there – always assumed it was a ghost town or something like that. How many votes were cast at this booth in 2004 Adam?
45
Pretty much concur with Grooski’s assessment. –
Before the Council amalgamation issue got to the pointy end, back in May when Rudd tried to convince Beattie to find an ‘alternative’ approach, Labor was probably looking at a host of Coalition held seats that they might tip some resources into contesting with a level of confidence.
These would have included the obvious trio of Bonner (0.6), Moreton (2.8), and Bowman (8.9).There was (and remains) a very apparent strong swing against the Coalition in Qld, according to Labor internal polls, the media ‘feel’ via the polls and the misappropriation of funds issue for Vasta (Bonner) and Hardgrave (Moreton) which may see them forced to resign if the DPP decides to prosecute them over the issue.The mud is expected to stick to these 2 regardless of the DPP outcome.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21333204-601,00.html
Bowman was (and still is) expected to be caught up in the tide of the QLD pro Rudd swing, supported by the fact that the sitting member (Laming) is among three QLD Federal MPs who were being investigated for misappropriation of funds. Laming was not referred to the Federal DPP for possible prosecution because he ‘corrected’ his “administrative error” and announced his correction at a press conference standing beside a beaming JWH. Unfortunately for him, he is now being investigated over ‘ghost staffing’ issues. This investigation has not been concluded- the noose is around his political neck, waiting for instructions.
In my assessment, any ‘protest’ vote in these 3 seats not significantly affected by the ‘amalgamation’ issue will be totally overwhelmed by the mud stuck on the faces of these 3 sitting members over ‘dodgy’ activities.
So what about Blair (5.7) then ? I agree with Grooski who wrote that
“Ipswich and Moreton Shire were amalgamated about 15yrs ago into the existing Ipswich City Council of today with no problems. They are losing Boonah”. Therefore, Labor-ites can maintain a (as things stand) confidence that Blair, Bonner, Moreton and Bowman remain ‘in the bag’ if the pro-Rudd swings stays the course.
It is when we come to the ’second tier’ Coalition seats Labor (back then around May) had some confidence about that things have muddied abit. Here I am thinking of Herbert (5.4), Longman (6.6) Petrie (7.9), Hinkler (8.6) and the new notionally National seat of Flynn (7.9).
Before this week when the idiot from Redcliffe (Petrie) pulled his stunt and walked to town with 22,000 anti amalgamation petitions, I would have put Petrie in the bag for Labor ahead of the other ’second tier’ seats. Now I am not so rusted to that idea- This is probably one seat is QLD I will be cussing Beattie over if it is not won because it was/is likely to fall to Labor with a strong pro-Rudd swing.
Longman (Caboolture) is another seat I would have been confident for Labor about , but again it could be the amalgamation issue keeps conservative voters in JWHs pocket and scores enough ‘protest’ votes among swingers and no name voters to stop this seat from falling. Brough has a strong profile as well ( I like Brough anyway, hope he keeps his seat).
Flynn (7.9) I dont know enough about to offer an informed view on and it was an ‘outside’ chance in my estimation before this amalgamation issue hit the fan anyway.
Herbert (5.4) from what I hear remains very much in the Labor ‘confident’ category because the folks out there are not overly miffed either way over the amalgamation issue, some for it , some against, most (like those living in Brisvegas) don’t give a damn.
Any Labor hopes of getting somewhere near Leichardt (10.3) and Hinkler (8.6) may have been diverted (in resource and attention) by Labor by now because of the uncertain nature of reactions in those seats to the amalgamation issue – and you can forget about Wide Bay, Fairfax and which some overly excited Labor people once had an eye on.
In summary, Labor in QLD at this point ought to be (Im not claiming access to specific insider information) remaining very confident about picking up Blair, Bowman, Bonner, Moreton and Herbert (5 seats) and remain very much in the race for Longman and/or Petrie despite the amalgamation stuff up Beattie could and should have put to bed till 2008. Longman, Petrie and Flynn are the 3 Labor will be cussing Beattie over if they don’t swap guernsey’s in November. The others (Fairfax et al) were a fantasy. In all, 5-8 gains for Labor in QLD is the likely outcome IMHO.
Awaiting the birth of the psephblog-
Biggest swings against incumbent government: I think (without checking) the swing against Scullin in 1931 was the biggest ever federal swing. There were swings in state elections of the same scale at that time. In the 1933 SA election Labor won 6 of 46 seats, losing 24.
Howard does seem pretty desperate, the polling must be pretty bad for him to throw money to keep a hosptial in Devonport open, despite Devonport only has 25,000 people and Burine is not that far away and now the criticism of council mergers in Queensland.
Grooski, Strop – might Howard not be looking to maximise the Coalition’s senate vote in Queensland, as much as reinforcing their ‘fairly safe’ Reps seats?
Ruawke – which part of the Coast are you from? I’m a Nambourean – same sugary school that forged the Ruddler. But on these plebiscites, note Howard can probably call them regardless of whether the councils are involved or even still exist.
Roy Orbison – you’ve fingered me you falsetto voiced warbler. Les Rabbitohs will win this weekend, for they must. At least it’s a coin toss like all our games this year: and we have more to play for than the Dragqueens. I like the look of the team. Joey W has a final chance to shine.
Forgot to mention Capricornia. The Labor sitting member is well established and done well despite Labor getting booted in QLD in 2001 and 2004 (people really should read Adam’s seat by seat analysis) so logic says she should hold on (3.3) despite the protest vote she might cop.
I don’t think this is going to translate to the federal election. By the time the election happens most people would’ve moved on. Howard isn’t going to take amalgamated councils and split them up again, so he actually isn’t promising to do anything. He is doing what he accuses Rudd of doing.
Go Rabbits !!!
Graeme Says:
August 9th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Grooski, Strop – might Howard not be looking to maximise the Coalition’s senate vote in Queensland, as much as reinforcing their ‘fairly safe’ Reps seats?
Nearly all the election discourses I’m hearing/reading are saying 3 Labor, 3 Coalition senate seats at this election can be taken for granted, particularly after the ‘deal’ [Liberals not contesting Flynn etc] which put the Nationals candidate number 3 on their Senate ticket for 07.
The Coalition are using pretty controversial (if not desperate) strategies like the amalgamation issue and forcing the QLD National-Liberal ‘Coalition’ to agree to a senate/HOR ‘deal’ (the rumblings of discontent will continue right up to the election) because JWH put his foot down on it and wouldnt take no for an answer in order to ‘mamixise’ the Coalition’s senate vote if you theory is right.
This begs the question of whether or not the Coalition are worried more than they want to let on that the National candidate may be at risk of not getting up if Labor’s primary vote goes through the roof and they score 3 quotas *42.9%* and the GREEN machine starts to look plausible. Ha, no way- rediculous- I love the rediculous, implausible, mathematically illogical, at times . LOL.
Bed time, the Mrs has spoken. Night all.
Hope that police action against the Brisbane Three might be a pre election boost to the ALP has probably been scuppered by the Haneef affair. The AFP would have a backlog of non terrorist investigations building up and would be happy to use it as an excuse not to finalise controversial matters prior to the election.
Nothing I have seen of Commissioner Keelty makes me think he wants to cloud his prospects in any fashion.
Antony,
It’s still called the Progressive Conservative party at a provincial level in Canada, although the Federal equivalent is now just the Conservative Party (and, I imagine, not as bi-polar as its provincial counterparts).
I don’t think Commissioner Keelty understood when he backed down to the massive and improper Howard Junta pressure, regarding the obviously correct conclusion he drew that Iraq increased terrorist risk in Australia, exactly how badly he was damaging himself, and the AFP.
Now he has nothing to lose he might as well continued to act to protect Howard and if Rudd pulls it off then toady up to PM Rudd and convince Rudd the AFP can be a poltical tool for bothsides and will move obediently with the political breeze.
Someone (Adam?) asked why Beattie didn’t wait till 2008 to force through controversial amalgamations. My understanding is he is set to retire, with plenty of time for Anna Bligh to build her profile as Premier. For all the disagreements I have with Beattie, he seems to have a masochistic (or egoistic) joy in taking personal responsibility for hard policy and even crises. Also, he’d want to pilot his LG Minister, Andrew Fraser, a bright-and-coming-thing, through a baptism of fire.
But it’s still electoral poison. Many hundreds of communities, large and small. Councillors all have networks of supporters; local papers feast on local politics. In short, however rational the policy, and however good Beattie and Fraser are, they and a pile of bureaucrats have no chance of turning this around in a short-medium political term.
Will wait for Qld level polling, but ironically Beattie may be handing Bligh a very tainted chalice.
Graeme, I read somewhere, the amalgamations are going through now is because council elections are to be held in March next year and they want the new system in place before then.
Funniest speech of Council Amalgamation Bill was from Peter Lawlor using the full Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast rivalry to cutting effect. Page 2525 from Hansard 9/08/07.
http://parliament.qld.gov.au/view/legislativeAssembly/legislativeAssembly.asp?area=hansard&LIndex=3&SubArea=latest&Bindex=1
The rather odd name of the Progressive Conservatives in Canada came about because of a 1940s merger between the Conservative Party and parts of the Progressive Party.
The remarkable thing about the 1993 Canadian election (which I remember well, having been in North America for most of the campaign) was the astonishing loss of support for the PCs during the campaign. They went from averaging 35% in the polls over the first week of the campaign to getting 16% on polling day (the other 19% being split fairly evenly between the Liberals, Reform and the Bloc Quebecois). There have been governments that have entered a campaign at rock-bottom and stayed there, but I can’t think of any precedent for a mid-campaign collapse of that type.
The other oddity of the election was that the PCs were going into the election with a Prime Minister who was highly likely to lose her seat regardless of the overall election result – her seat (Vancouver Centre) was a four-way marginal which she had won by about 100 votes at the previous election, largely because an unusually good performance by the New Democrats in 1988 had split the left-of-centre vote (Canada uses first-past-the-post).
Peter Andren has cancer and will not be contesting the Senate election.
Thanks blair-the insight helps me believe that the Libs have already had their mid-campaign collapse of that type and now the elctorate are waiting to deliver their verdict.
Was the GST an issue .
From what ive been told/read the pollsters were nowhere near the final result-150 odd seats lost i recall-truly rooster one day,featherduster the next.
well thats sad
It’s very difficult to know what, if any, impact this issue will have on Queensland voters in the Federal Election. Others have given good accounts of the potential impact and as I have no better knowledge, I have nothing to add. Three things we can be certain of though:
1. no-one knows what impact it will have in QLD
2. it will not help Howard in the rest of Australia and may actually work against him
3. if the Liberal party thinks this issue will save them from defeat in the Federal Election, then the term desperate doesn’t quite apply; delusional would be more accurate.
Now it would have made more sense politically, to have deferred this issue until after the election, and I’m sure that’s what Rudd was pushing for, but for whatever reason Beattie insisted on doing it now. ALP supporters would hope it’s not a mistake, because the Qld ALP has stuffed up before, notably the 1996 state election.
According to Tom Burns,” we were seen as arrogant, there’s no doubt about it…….we forgot where we came from. By the end, we’d started to think we knew better. Well, when they got to the ballot box, some people thought they knew better. That’s why we lost in ‘96.”
Reading this quote, initially I thought of Beattie and the amalgamations, but then I thought that quote actually applied to the Keating Govt, the Kennett Govt, and in 2007 to the Howard Govt.
The Queensland State election was in 1995, not 1996, although the Goss government did not fall until after the Mundingburra by-election in 1996.
I don’t think you should underestimate Beattie. You may remember that in the lead up to the 2001 election Labor had many problems with its own parliamentary members taking bribes. Beattie kicked out the corrupt members, and went to the election promising to fix things up. The Tories were really bad in the campaign, and suburban Liberal voters were offended by their preference deal with One Nation. Election result (one of my three best political memories):
Labor: 48.93%, 66 seats
Lib-Nats: 28.48%, 14 seats
Labor won 66 of 89 seats, for a 43 seat majority. The Libs were completely shellacked in the Gold and Sunshine Coasts, and were reduced to 3, yes 3, seats. Over the next two elections, Labor has only dropped 7 seats and still has a huge majority.
The point is that everyone said the corrupt Labor members would cost Beattie the election; instead, he won a record landslide. If Beattie is able to turn Howard’s interference into a states’ rights issue (and I think he will), it will rebound badly on the Feds.
Following up on all the discussion of the Canadian collapse of the conservatives in 1993: notice that the conservatives are now back in government in Canada, despite the magnitude of their disaster then. Predictions about the permanently crippling effects on the conservatives in Australia of an electoral defeat this year, even a very bad one, look exaggerated to me.
That’s very sad about Andren, he’s a very decent guy.
The conservatives are back in power in Canada, but in a very different form – in effect the party that is now in power is largely based on the old Reform Party which has absorbed the remnants of the PCs.
I’d left Canada before polling day in 1993 so can’t comment on how well the seat loss was predicted; the final-week polls did predict the total vote fairly well, but I imagine that in an environment where one major party’s vote was collapsing, it would be difficult to estimate how that would play out in its safe seats, especially in a first-past-the-post system where it would also matter what the balance of the vote was between the Liberals, the New Democrats and (depending on where you were) Reform or the BQ. If experience of some of the more one-sided Australian state elections of recent times is anything to go by, one imagines that the pundits would also have been reluctant to believe that the wipeout predicted by the polls was actually going to happen.
Bob Abbott, mayor of Noosa, says Peter Beatie AND John Howard should hang their heads in shame for politicising the local council debate.
It looks like Noosa and Redcliff are the places that Glen Elmes and Geoff Seeney have written to the AEC to request a “poll”.
I think if Beattie had held a poll asking “would you like to remove over 700 ineffective councellors” there would be an over whelming yes vote.
Greame I live in Coolum.
Also, Qlders like strong leadership; witness the reign of Joh Bjielke-Peterson for about 20 years.
ruawake, I can’t understand how the State Liberals and Nationals can get any boost from this, when they had representatives on the Council reform committee, which agreed to the amalgamations.
ruawake I got three brothers living in Coolum, I’ve not heard through them that the amalgamations are having any effect in your territory. What have you heard?
Leichardt is likely more marginal than it’s margin of over 10%, depends on retiring member Warren Entsch’s popular vote. If say Labor gets a 7-8% swing in QLD all up, Leichardt could be won by Labor.
Bowman, Blair, Herbert, Longman, Bonner, Moreton and maybe Petrie and Flynn would come Labor’s way too.
Very rarely Labor gets more than 50% of the two party vote up there, but this election will probably see that ocassional occur.
I think we will all be awaiting the next state-level polling from Qld with great interest. Until we see that, all is speculation.
Then there was this.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/mergers-dont-worry-us-alp/2007/08/10/1186530576714.html
NO suprises here
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2007/4194/
Gary Morgan, in a comment attached to the latest Morgan phone poll says:
What makes him think that the people who say that Australia is heading in the right direction ever contemplated voting L-NP in the first place?
If he’s got some data that shows the two are linked he should publish it, otherwise his statement merely looks bizarre.
Morgan has been asking this “heading in the right direction” question for some time, but I can’t see its relevance. If the question asked, “is the Howard government taking Australia in the right direction?”, then the results might mean something. But as it stands it’s of no real value.
Can someone explain again why Morgan’s phone polls and face-to-face polls produce such different results? Do we have any clue as to which, if either, is more reliable?
Andren’s press release is here:
http://www.peterandren.com/pdf/Press%20Release/2007/Press20070810.pdf
It sounds a bit gloomy poor sod.
Still it will help The Greens given that prima facie the contest for the last NSW senate place was going to be between Andren and the Greens.
Are the council amalgamations really big news up in Queensland? Is it bad news for Rudd? If that many people are angry about the state government, and the PM is trying to profit on this by saying “State Labor = Federal Labor”, couldn’t that be bad news for Kevin Rudd and Co since Queensland is such a crucial state? It’s a shame that Queensland is such a crucial state because it’s such a conservative state, and is one reason why the Coalition are in power, but now I truly wonder what this whole council amalgamation dilemma will mean for Federal Labor.
Did you see Roy Morgan plugging the Possum’s analysis?
There is a poll on the Courier Mail’s website, that asks: “Will the council amalgamation issue change the way you vote federally?” – 8% would change their vote to Labor, 41% would change their vote away from Labor, and 50% say it won’t change their vote. Of course, it’s not the best source, but it’s interesting I suppose..
I see the ALP has endorsed State Secretary Julie Collins to replace Kevin Harkins in Franklin: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/10/2001718.htm?section=justin
Sean
My thought on the Courier Mail poll is “how would I vote if I opposed the amalgamations”?
The only option is to say I will change my vote from Labor. But how many of these would really have voted for Labor in the first place.
I am surprised by the 8% change to Labor, I thought it would have been much less.
The issue will die down now the legislation has been passed and it will have little if any federal implications.
A few things:
1. On the power of the High Court to restrain the GG or force the GG to do something, the exercise by the GG of his constitutional powers (including the reserve powers) is not justiciable. At the time of the dismissal, the Labor party sought orders in the High Court against the appointment of Fraser by Kerr as caretaker prime minister in circumstances where Fraser did not have the confidence of the lower house. The High Court refused to consider the case. Whatever you think of Barwick’s advice to Kerr, there is little doubt that the judges got this bit right.
2. The GG is not an officer of the Commonwealth. Nor (obviously) is the Queen.
3. The separation of powers (particularly the independence of the judiciary) is not really embodied in the constitution per se (but see s 71 and s 72(ii)), rather it is a series of conventions in the Westminster system, that can be seen to operate in cases such as Boilermakers and attempts to legislate privative or ouster clauses (essentially legislative clauses that try to prevent judicial review of decisions made by the executive).
4. We do have an “executive branch” of government under the constitution – see Chapter 2.
5. Howard can resign the prime-ministership but keep his seat until the next general election. If the coalition retains government but has less than 77 seats, this is a realistic possibility.
Presumably those saying Aust is heading in the right direction includes a lot of the people who both want and expect Labor to win. So it’s a pretty useless question from our point of view.
BTW Galaxy was phonepolling specifically in Bennelong last night. Look out for it in the News Ltd papers Sunday or Monday.
The Morgan phone poll sample of only 589 electors (MoE 4%) is a bit too mickey-mouse for my liking. However, a Labor primary of 49.5% is great news by any standard.
1. Are you sure that the Labor Party actually sought such orders? Somehow that doesn’t ring true to me. Can you cite your source?
2. That’s what I would have thought.
3. I’m not sure why a principle (assuming for the sake of argument that there is one) that legislation cannot prevent judicial review of executive action should be called ’separation of powers’. But in any case, you are obviously not claiming that ’separation of powers’, whatever it means, has the consequences earlier asserted for it.
4. Chapter 2 does indeed say that the executive power is vested in the Governor-General. But it doesn’t define what the ‘executive power’ _is_.
5. Good point. I hadn’t thought of that.
Gee 589 people is so representative of all of Australia…let me guess it had the Nationals on 1%…why do people think Morgan is a serious polling group?
My main concern in the news re-Andren is for his survival. In or out of parliament Australia (and the world) needs people as fundamentally good as him. Despite the pessimism of his statement one can only hope that advances in cancer therapy will do the trick.
However, I also don’t think it is good news, electorally speaking, for Kerry Nettle. While there was a possibility Andren would beat her, the more likely scenario was that he would drop out early. If he had preferenced her (and I think this was likely) it would have given her chances a significant boost.
J-D…
1. I’ve looked for the source, and not been able to find it. I think I read it in the 2002 version of Blackshield and Williams, but I don’t have a copy at hand. As George Williams sometimes posts here, I stand to be corrected. I was not able to corroborate this today using other sources.
3. I don’t think that’s quite what I said. Legislation can in fact prevent such review (subject to certain limitations and one obvious constitutional protection – s 75(v)). However, the court’s approach to determining what is justiciable (including consideration of whether privative clauses limit or deny the court’s jurisdiction) is an example of the operation of the principle of the separation of powers. Which is a round about way of saying there are certainly issues that could arise under the constitution that would not be justiciable before the High Court, as one of the consequences of the doctrine of separations of powers (and notwithstanding s 76(i)). Issues concerning actions of the Queen or GG would be clear examples.
However, there is no question that we have separation of powers under the Westminster system. It is implicit within our system of government.
4. The fact that the constitution doesn’t say what it is, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Again, the convention of the queen/king appointing a minister (prime minister) to advise her/him on affairs of state, comes from the Westminster system, and is implicit within our system of government. Thus, Parliament makes laws, which are administered by the Crown (GG) on the advice of ministers under the Crown. Ministers are appointed under the Crown (which actually does make it into the Constitution – s 64).
I’m not sure that’s right either. Like you, I can’t locate the source at the moment, but I’m sure I have a transcript of an interview with the then Solicitor-General, Sir Maurice Byers, where he says that he thought the Government (ie Whitlam et al) should have briefed him to go to the High Court and argue that Kerr’s actions were ultra vires and should be set aside.
d
Wow. Labor’s new Franklin candidate Julie Collins is an absolute babe!
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/2007seats/franklin.shtml
Hope they put her in the front ros of Parliament!
1. I don’t know the book you’re referring to, but I’ll try to find it when I get a chance. Failing that, I might think about asking George Williams directly.
3. It may not have been what you said, but it was what somebody else said earlier. Which I think illustrates my point. Here’s you saying that ‘the separation of powers’ means the the High Court can’t direct the Governor-General and here’s somebody else saying that it means that the High Court can direct the Governor-General. To me, this means that there is no clear shared understanding of what ‘the separation of powers’ means, and in that case statements about it are not false but in the strict logical sense meaningless. I notice that you haven’t offered your definition of what you think it means, although you’ve talked around it a bit.
4. Again, what is the definition of ‘the executive power’? You’ve talked around this, but you haven’t given a direct answer to the question.
The other thing to remember with Canada is they effectively have separate party systems on a provincial and federal level. So in some provinces there are provincially based parties in power. The old Canadian Alliance (which merged with the PCs to form the Conservatives) is still in power in Alberta in its original form (now called the “Alberta Alliance”) and some provinces still have PC parties.
As well as this, on the other side of politics the Liberals, NDP and Greens (although the Greens really don’t have much influence) all have different appearances in different provinces. In BC and Quebec the Liberal Party is actually the conservative party, and their voters (and indeed politicians) would usually support the Conservatives on a national level. The leader of the Parti Liberal in Quebec is a former cabinet minister in the last PC government. Indeed he became the PC leader when they were wiped out in 1993.
In British Columbia, rather than having a centre-right Conservative party, a centre Liberal Party and a left-wing NDP, they have a centre-right Liberal Party and a centre-left NDP, both of whom are more conservative than their national counterparts.
You also find substantial differences in policy between Green parties.
In comparison to Australia, we don’t find anywhere near as much separation, which I guess means there’s something to fall back on when you lose federal power. The ALP in 1996 still had a substantial presence on a state level, whereas in Canada provincial politicians generally don’t have any moral or political expectation to support their federal party.
Hi Optimist
Agree you were the first to raise the issue of a US style poll mobilization tactic. I see William has given you credit for this now.
Sorry, I must confess I hadn’t read your previous comment.
Much apologies.
But I’m glad to see this “conspiracy theory” has generated so much debate.
I wonder if blogs like these are influencing the political process in any way?
By this I mean, by openly debating the possible political machinations behind such moves, perhaps, just perhaps we are alerting the public to the possible ramifications?
Has anyone seen this issue picked up in the mainstream press yet?
Long live free speech.