This post will progressively follow the late stages of the count in the Northern Territory election, reckoned to hinge on the outcome in Fannie Bay where Labor leads by 57 votes. There are two seats where the CLP holds narrow leads: Fong Lim (83 votes) and Brennan (148 votes). Labor also aren’t conceding Port Darwin, but the 177-vote (3.5 per cent) difference suggests it’s a long shot. All are two-horse races except Port Darwin, where a Greens candidate has polled 393 votes (15.6 per cent) of which 151 (61.6 per cent) have flowed to Labor. The column on the right shows redistribution-adjusted figures for each type of vote from 2005, to give an indication of how many votes might remain outstanding – remembering there should be an unusually high number of absent votes this time due to confusion over the new boundaries.
UPDATE (11/8/08): Antony Green explains all about the timeline for late counting; counting of the all-important absent votes will begin tomorrow. It seems there might be a great many such votes in Fong Lim, as voters formerly in its predecessor seat of Millner would have carried on voting at the Coconut Grove booth which is now in Johnston (Clare Martin said during the election night commentary that she herself had done so). Antony also weighs in on informal voting, and writes on this site that the much-ballyhooed low turnout will prove less remarkable when all the votes are in.
Monday 2pm. Minor adjustments made to booth and pre-poll results after re-checking, which in Fannie Bay has added four booth votes for the CLP and one pre-poll vote for Labor.
Monday 4pm. Antony Green in comments says Labor has gained an invaluable 40 votes in Fannie Bay from counting of absent votes, which is evidently being fast-tracked. Another commenter says counting of 789 absent votes in Fong Lim has increased the CLP margin from 88 to 113.
Monday 6.30pm. Terry Mills concedes defeat after 374 absent votes in Fannie Bay split 206-168 in favour of Labor. However, absent votes have also put the CLP’s hold on Fong Lim, Brennan and Port Darwin beyond doubt.
Sunday. As you can see, I lost interest in this exercise after Mills conceded defeat. I have now brought the results below up to date with what I believe to be final figures, although there may be a handful of declaration votes outstanding. The final turnout figure proved to be 76 per cent compared with 80 per cent in 2005.
| FANNIE BAY | ALP | CLP | Total | 2005 |
| Booths | 1384 | 1333 | 2717 | 2829 |
| Pre-Poll | 170 | 170 | 340 | 225 |
| Postal | 79 | 94 | 173 | 159 |
| Absent | 245 | 203 | 448 | 509 |
| Declaration | 0 | 0 | 0 | 21 |
| TOTAL | 1878 | 1800 | 3678 | 3743 |
| FONG LIM | ALP | CLP | Total | 2005 |
| Booths | 1068 | 1166 | 2234 | 2565 |
| Pre-Poll | 135 | 155 | 290 | 213 |
| Postal | 64 | 80 | 144 | 144 |
| Absent | 418 | 430 | 848 | 676 |
| Declaration | 0 | 0 | 0 | 21 |
| TOTAL | 1685 | 1831 | 3516 | 3619 |
| BRENNAN | ALP | CLP | Total | 2005 |
| Booths | 1312 | 1456 | 2768 | 2372 |
| Pre-Poll | 195 | 212 | 407 | 211 |
| Postal | 55 | 57 | 112 | 109 |
| Absent | 245 | 284 | 529 | 653 |
| Declaration | 0 | 0 | 0 | 32 |
| TOTAL | 1807 | 2009 | 3816 | 3377 |
| PORT DARWIN | ALP | CLP | Total | 2005 |
| Booths | 960 | 1133 | 2093 | 2251 |
| Pre-Poll | 207 | 198 | 374 | 265 |
| Postal | 88 | 113 | 201 | 124 |
| Absent | 314 | 313 | 627 | 364 |
| Declaration | 0 | 0 | 0 | 22 |
| TOTAL | 1569 | 1757 | 3326 | 3026 |
227 Comments
Still a lot of absentees left.
ALP insiders’quietly’ confident about Fannie Bay and surprisingly Fong Lim because of large numbers (>5-600) of absentees from ALP friendly areas to be counted after lunch today.
Rudd’s taking the NT result quite well and making the right noises.
My question is about the up to 40% who did not vote. I assume voting is compulsory in the NT. Do all those people get fined and if so how much? Can you really fine 30-40% of the population?
Poll a serious warning to Labor, says Rudd
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24159098-2702,00.html
the cleaner
I was told the same thing re: Fong Lim this morning by somebody who probably knows what she’s talking about. There might be a touch of “wishful thinking” on her part but they are quietly confident.
Thanks the cleaner,
I’ll just duck back to the cave and have a tofu burger and a bit of watermelon.
Don’t mention the greens.
My advices is that the CLP expect to win Fannie Bay but don’t know what they are basing that on.
Had some discussions today about CLP leadership and Carney seems to generate some distinct reactions. You either like her or hate her. Apparently she can have a bit of a nasty streak. Tollner is a bit the same – some like him some view him with contempt. Anyway you would have to be a fool to get rid of Mills given this result.
For the ALP Chris Burns is quite a nice guy and maybe too laid back and easy going to take the job, but would be more engaging. Some made the comment that you had to be Greek to get to see Vatskalis or get anything out of him.
If it is a minority government then I guess Woods would have to front up and be a minister – (DPI) Lands & PLanning?
This is a joke. This is the same size as a municipal council. they should have only 9 seats. Surely these people can’t have poltician paying jobs representing a couple of thousand people?
centaur,
I agree with your sentiment, but they have to do the work of a State Govt. too. 9 MPs would struggle to service state issues. Your municipal council doesn’t run the hospitals/police/goal does it?
I agree, centaur07. But what else can you do? The NT spans a huge geographical area, and its a separate political entity. Somebody has to run the show, and 25 allows any NT government to have at least 12 members, rather than just 5 (if there were only 9).
It could be worse; they could be a state!
The CLP are confident because they think the postal votes, ie people who moved into Fannie Bay and went to vote in their old electorate by mistake are likely to be CLP voting.
Whether it turn other that way and is sufficient in number is another question
1 in 3000 people is a politician and that is not counting council, and federal (2)
Poor NT, if they were in Sydney only 1 person would have been elected
This is true. The NT Govt has to provide the same services of a state from Darwin to Alice Springs. This is why the % of public servants in the NT would be much higher than other places, there is minimum size you can have to provide all the services of a state. And even if small in population they are not in terms of mining resources (and water).
But the small population base does have influence on the standard of available political candidates.
The NT has in different periods in its past been administered by QLD, SA and the Feds, I believe.
If the CLP do get to form a minority government people like Bolt, Ackerman and Co and the OO peoples will be besides themselves with joy and will no doubt read the demise of Rudd and soaring to power of Costello. The question is who would be more senior? Brisbane mayor or NT Chief Minister?
The CLP resurgence came on the back of being thrashed and being renewed a process the federal Liberals will need.
“I agree with your sentiment, but they have to do the work of a State Govt. too. 9 MPs would struggle to service state issues. Your municipal council doesn’t run the hospitals/police/goal does it?”
State governments run hospitals??!! Quick, someone tell Iemma!
Why wouldn’t you run a bunch of dummy candidates and get in on a preferance flow.
TP
It’s started all ready. Look at this drivel from Tirnbull in the OO. Anyone would have though Rudd was up for election in NT.
“This is a big wake-up call for Mr Rudd,” Mr Turnbull said today.
“This is an extraordinary swing and it underlines the disillusionment Australians are seeing and feeling with the lack of leadership from the new (federal) Labor government – a government that promised so much.
“Last year Kevin 07 was everywhere, dripping with empathy, draping himself across petrol station forecourts, shopping centre aisles, promising to stop prices going up.
“And all we’ve got is one watch after another, FuelWatch, GroceryWatch and who knows what the next watch exercise will be.”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24160209-12377,00.html
Turnbull: “And all we’ve got is one watch after another, FuelWatch, GroceryWatch and who knows what the next watch exercise will be.”
A: Nelson watching his back.
Centaur
Just another example of too many jurisdictions, too many politicians and too many bureacracies. In the days of horse borne mail and bullock drays and telegraphs there were some good reasons for it. Now there are none. If we got rid of the states and territories we could save billions in running costs. However, there are too many snouts in the various troughs to make it likely that anything radical is likely to happen any time soon.
Can anyone hazard a guess who Woods would back to form goverment if it comes to that?
Obviousy if a big enough bribe came from the ALP and he was conservative he would back the ALP (and vice versa).
If no one offered anything, who would he back
Bert
Woods was happily on the front page of the Territory paper a few weeks ago talking about his UFO encounter. Anything’s possible.
It would be tough for him.
He by rights should be looking for minister for ‘Planning and Infrastructure’ since he is so vocal about it all the time. If he doesn’t look for something like that then he starts to lose credibility. Easier to throw mud than to catch it. He will discover Garretts dilema.
Democracy is about having a wide variety of snouts in the trough so the piglets of all can get something to eat.
If Howard was the only person with a snout in the trough god help Australia.
Maybe he can be Minister for Extraterrestrian Affairs.
Federalism is supposed to be one jurisdiction doing A, and another doing B. Not both jurisdictions doing a little bit of A and a little bit of B. This is the problem with our federation.
The idea is that we elect the federal government to take care of defence, foreign relations and the like, state governments essentially the rest, and local governments for municipal services.
This is what we need ingrained in our constitution, not the abolishment of the states\. I shouldn’t have my federal politician, representing 100 000 people, listen to the problem of a bumpy road and secure federal funding for it — that’s the job of my local councillor, representing only 2 000 of us!
I’d be very surprised if Wood did anything but back the CLP: the man shows every sign to me of being like, say, Bob Katter crossed with Nick Xenophon…
I’d be gobsmacked if Chris Burns was considered for the leadership – his past behaviour (things like his homophobic attacks on John Elferink) would seem to suggest that he’s a liability, and I’m a bit surprised he hasn’t suffered the same electoral fate as Len Kiely.
Dovif @10. I’m mystified by those remarks. The only voters moved into Fannie Bay were in Stuart Park, and they would have voted at the same booth as last time. Stuart Park school has long been a joint booth for both Port Darwin and Fannie Bay, and this time it was solely used for Fannie Bay. There was a new booth in the Darwin CBD, but it had never been used before. For what you say to be true, it would mean that in the past, Stuart Park voters have driven to Larrakeyah to vote and this time either continued to go there or voted in Darwin CBD.
A note on turnout. Very badly reported this morning. The turnout on Saturday was 63%. Once all the declaration votes are included, it will be up to about 78%. The turnout in 2005 was 80%, so the turnout is not down that much.
How does the 2CP get calculated, specifically in Braitling? Is it whoever is coming 2nd when someone cracks 50%, or is the last candidate recursively removed from the contest with their preferences distributed?
The 2CP count in Braitling was done on election night between two candidates nominated before hand by the Electoral Commissioner. The count is done entirely to provide extra information on the count and is referred to as an indicative throw of preferences, as it is only done to provide an indication of the final result. It is not an official count of preferences.
The candidates have to be nominated before hand because the count is done in multiple booths, and there is no guarantee the same two candidates will finish first and second in every booth. Occassionally the wrong two candidates are chosen for the indicative count, as has occurred in Braitling.
The preference count will be done again at some point in the count, at which the final count in Braitling looks likely to be between the CLP and the Greens.
Boerwar,
Getting rid of the states and territories would not save us a cent. According to a paper by the Australian Council for the Federation (http://www.caf.gov.au/), their existence actually saves us money: we are more than $4,000 per head better off because we are a federation.
Australia is just one of 80 countries in the world with more than 10 million people, all of which have at least three tiers of government, as does every one of the 51 countries of more than 500,000 square kilometers. Think of the Russia, Canada, the USA, Brazil, China, India, and keep going – states or their equivalents are the norm. In fact, China has both provinces and prefectures between the national and local government.
Even citizens of the oft-quoted United Kingdom have four (or, in some parts of the country, five) levels of government – the European Parliament, the UK Parliament, regional assemblies (elected in the case of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Greater London, unelected in the rest of the country) and unitary local authorities or, in some places, both county councils and district councils.
If the states were abolished, thus making Australia unique among the world’s large countries, the bureaucracy would remain the same size, and the levels of decision-making would remain the same. The only difference would be the people would not get to elect those who made the decisions at the intermediate level.
Abolishing the states would require a referndum to pass in all 6 states, not just a majority. So any one state objecting to its abolition could reject the referendum. Dream on if you think you can pass that referendum.
“The idea is that we elect the federal government to take care of defence, foreign relations and the like, state governments essentially the rest, and local governments for municipal services.”
Yeah, but who gets IR? Universities? Schools? Hospitals?
I think states are the ham in the sandwich we don’t need any more. It’s silly to have Sydney and Dubbo, Perth and Broome, Brisbane and Cape York all under a single jurisdiction. Abolish the states; vastly expand local councils so they have some sensible boundaries (like greater Sydney); and let the federal government run the country.
Is an argument about abolishing the states really relevant here?
“Getting rid of the states and territories would not save us a cent. According to a paper by the Australian Council for the Federation (http://www.caf.gov.au/), their existence actually saves us money: we are more than $4,000 per head better off because we are a federation.”
Who wrote that paper in support of Federation? The “Australian Council for the Federation”?? No vested interests here?
Kakuru,
If you read the paper, you may judge the argument.
I have just read an interesting essay by a historian about Federation, the essence of which is that the historical evidence shows that it was not any practical advantages which were the key motivating factor behind Federation: it was status-consciousness and vanity (the historian doesn’t use those terms, but that’s what it amounts to). This has given further confirmation to my view that Federation was a mistake. If I had the chance to wave a magic wand and get rid of one level of government, it wouldn’t be the States, it would be the Commonwealth. Of course there’s no chance of that happening, but as Antony rightly points out, there’s no chance of getting rid of the States either.
Antony, on what do you base your statement that abolishing the states would require the consent of all the states? The states were once sovereign entities under the Crown, but since the passage of the Australia Acts they exist only by virtue of the terms of the Constitution. The Constitution can be amended by the Australian people, to whatever extent they like, by the procedure laid down in s128.
Chris – I’m not against the federal structure per se, just (a) the current boundaries (which are historical relics) and (b) the current division of responsibility. Many of the federations you mention (though not all, including the US) have altered their state/provincial boundaries, and/or re-structured the balance between the separate tiers of govt. I say retain the Australian federal structure, but it needs some serious overhaul rather than just ‘tweaking’ around the edges.
Adam, read the second last paragraph of Section 128. It is a minefield open to interpetation. For instance, it could mean you abolish the states but you cannot change the state basis of Senate or House composition, or even Section 128, without the consent of all states. You also cannot alter the borders of the existing states without consent, which it wouldn’t take a lawyer to long to argue also means you cannot abolish the borders without consent.
Did I start this? Sorry if I did. The ALP will hold on in NT, and carpenter will get WA. The disorganised rable that are the conservatives will have to wait longer in the wilderness. So hahahahah. Surely NSW, surely VIC, surely TAS surely, surely surely somewhere!
Is there any news from the counting room?
Second problem. Entrenched provisions of State Constitutions. Can a Federal constitutional referendum to effectively abolish a state constitution over-ride the provision of a state constitution that requires the majority support of a referendum to pass? (Though constiututional lawyer Anne Twomey argues very persuasively that they are not entrenched.) As I said, dream-on those who want to abolish the states.
The body that would determine these matters would be the High Court. I doubt that in 2008 even the fairly conservative court we have now would hold that the Australian people do not have full sovereignty to change their own constitution. If it is within the power of the Australian people to abolish the Crown with respect to Australia – something that would have been held to be impossible 50 years ago – then it’s hard to see how it could not be within their power to abolish the states. The High Court has a consistent record of upholding the power of the Commonwealth at the expense of the states, and if they were asked to rule on the constitutionality of a bill for a referendum to abolish the states, requiring only the double majority specified in s128, I’m sure they would uphold it. (For the record I am opposed to abolishing states.)
Re the consversation above: the exception to the observation about all large states being federations is Japan, which has a strong national government, and no tier of government between the centre and the prefectures, which have only limited delgated powers. Does this make Japan a better governed country? I don’t think so.
J-D: “This has given further confirmation to my view that Federation was a mistake. If I had the chance to wave a magic wand and get rid of one level of government, it wouldn’t be the States, it would be the Commonwealth.
Oh thanks, J-D!! We citizens of NSW and Victoria have to bail out the Tasmanian Republic and its basket-case economy yet again, to prevent another military coup. Just another Pacific island intervention we have to fork out for! And don’t get me started on all those ricketty rafts heading across Bass Strait!
Always comforting to know our constitutional framers had the wit to put the strength of law before the whim of men. (and what an interesting discussion!)
Chris Curtis @ 29
‘Australia is just one of 80 countries in the world with more than 10 million people, all of which have at least three tiers of government, as does every one of the 51 countries of more than 500,000 square kilometers. Think of the Russia, Canada, the USA, Brazil, China, India, and keep going – states or their equivalents are the norm. In fact, China has both provinces and prefectures between the national and local government.
Even citizens of the oft-quoted United Kingdom have four (or, in some parts of the country, five) levels of government – the European Parliament, the UK Parliament, regional assemblies (elected in the case of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Greater London, unelected in the rest of the country) and unitary local authorities or, in some places, both county councils and district councils.
If the states were abolished, thus making Australia unique among the world’s large countries, the bureaucracy would remain the same size, and the levels of decision-making would remain the same. The only difference would be the people would not get to elect those who made the decisions at the intermediate level.’
For one thing, not all of those countries are federations. For another, different federal systems regulate relations between levels differently, and so do different unitary (non-federal) systems. The difference between federal and unitary systems isn’t the presence or absence of elected bodies at different levels, either. In Australia, local governments don’t have the status (in relation to the States) that State governments have in relation to the Commonwealth, but that doesn’t stop them having elected councils. India is a federation, but their system gives the central government the same power to sack state governments and take over direct control temporarily that Australian State governments have in relation to local government.
In Australia, the boundaries between the powers of the Federal government and the powers of the States are, in principle, determined by a law (the Constitution), and any attempt to change those boundaries is subject to the threat of a court challenge. The same is not true of the boundaries between the powers of State governments and the powers of local governments. I think this is something which would be better left to be determined by the political process, not by legal processes. It would be better if the national government had total control of the distribution of functions. Whether it was still called a federation or not wouldn’t bother me.
(As I said before, in my opinion it would be better if we weren’t joined as one country at all. But that boat’s sailed.)
Antony must be correct. Section 128 forbids the ‘diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of [a] State’ without majority support in that State.
Isn’t the more relevant debate whether and when the NT is admitted as a State (nb no referendum at all needed there). And whether that will make it easier to pass referenda? Four from seven sounds easier than four from six, especially when the seventh is such a small population to swing. On the other hand it’s traditionally been a blokier region.
How have NT electors voted in federal referenda since ‘77? My vague memory of ‘99 is they were more pro-republic than the rest of Australia.
ps Marquet’s case provides some guide: in constitutional law the term ‘amend’ was taken to include ‘abolish’. Adam’s argument would only hold true if the High Court had a v.progressive, even radical majority. Rudd could govern till he’s a hundred and we won’t see that day pass.
I stand by my argument. The Former colony of Tasmania is guaranteed 5 seats by the Constitution. Every state is guaranteed equal representation in the Senate. No ifs, no buts, Section 128 protects those provisions without support from the affected state. Then you just work through the rest of the clause and it a test beyond majority of voters in a majority of states.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with three tiers of government. I haven’t heard too many people argue that NSW is over-governed, for example.
Perhaps the problem is the disparity in size between the states and territories. It’s harder to justify the number of politicians in Tasmania, the ACT or the NT (though the latter does have a reasonable argument because of its geograpical size, asothers here have pointed out). I think it work quite well if we had five states – NSW (including ACT), Vic (incl Tas), Queensland, SA (including NT) and WA. That’s actually not much different to what we had at Federation.
But, as Antony Green says, dream on…
If Australians can’t even vote in favour at a referendum in favour of trial by jury, freedom of religion and local government – even though most Australians don’t think twice about accepting these things – they’ll never abolish a state or territory.
The Constitution is what the High Court says what it is at any given time. In the 1950s the Court would certainly have ruled the WorkChoices acts ultra vires, and would certainly have held that the Australian people did not have the power to abolish the Crown in respect of Australia. This is not a left-v-right issue. It’s a matter of centralism-v-states rights, and the Court has been consistently centralist for decades, regardless of who appointed the justices. I agree that this is not likely to happen, but I disagree that the power to do it is not there.
Come off it Adam. No High Court will allow the use of Section 128 to over-ride the provisions of Section 128.
Adam, if it came to touching the states (against any of their wills) then states-rights and federalist arguments alike would neatly align with conservative values, both methodological and ideological.
yeah Adam nantucket slay ride.
I agree that the whole Federalism debate is a fascinating one – but I want to (selfishly) get back to the results of the NT Election.
I was told this morning by a returning officer that at least a quarter of the votes from her booth were informal – many had lengthy notes & rationales written on them.
I agree Burns would not be a good leader, but he is not nearly in the same category as Len Kiely. Kon’s a good local member but no leader in my view.
I think Hendo is a dreadful leader (often overused term of ‘arrogant’ comes to mind) and though Clare didn’t always make the right decisions, at least you get a sense she genuinely wanted to improve things for all territorians.
On Rudd and the national implications – don’t think there are any – Federal issues or any mention of the world beyond the Territory did not even enter the campaigns (both of which were totally dreadful by the way).
I apologies if this is stating the obvious but has anyone on the LIb side joined the rather obvious dots around the relationship between the Fed governing party and the subsequent state party governing.
When the Hawke Keating dictatorship was in full throw we had a beautiful blue map from one end of this great free land to the other.
Then we had the Howard Howard government (Just making the point that it was never a Costello government, never will be, he will be forgotten in the mist of time. Peter who) the states all fell quietly to Labor and the socialist trotsyist stalinist russian imperialist pig dogs.
Now I proffer no science to back it up but make the next 2 points for discussion.
1) Watch out ALP states. (This theory explains somewhat the upsets such as Bracks over Kennett)
2) Watch out Libs in the Fedreal parliament as it could show that the punters are going to have a long romance with the federal ALP.
West Australia could give further clues re this, if WA goes to the forces of freedom and right thinking then watch out the other states.
And then there will rise up a great freedom network of right thinking and truely patriotic idiotic co-olitions of believers. They will then cast a shodow over the pro-totalitarianism of the anti-capitalist running dogs. ( Sorry just wanted to use that line, capitalist running dogs againg. I don’t know who thought of it but it is a ripper.) Capatilist Running dogs, love it.
Kitty, I don’t think that’s the case. There’s not one booth I can find with an informal vote above 10%. And as at past elections, the high informal vote is in contests with only two candidates, and if past research is anything to go by, a third to a half of those will be becuase ticks or crosses were used.
I’m probably not telling anyone here anything new but here are the recheck figures for Fanny Bay so far.
http://notes.nt.gov.au/nteo/Electorl.nsf?OpenDatabase
I agree with Antony when he says it is not going to happen any time soon, if it is thought of as arising from a constitutional amendment requiring a popular vote. Apart from what most folk would want, there are enough legal issues to turn it into a lawyers’ picnic. But the main issue stopping it is that there are too many snouts in all the troughs. I do think I have detected in my various troubles that more and more folk would just like to get rid of the states, but that is very anecdotal.
However, I think that it might be a more or less historical trend that that the practical scope and power of the Commonwealth has grown since federation. If this trend continues, the states will probably end up being minor outsourced service delivery agents for the feds. Might it be said that there is an inescapable logic of efficiency that is driving this trend? Or is it just vertical fiscal imbalance?
The idea that: 8 parliaments, 8 health depts, 8 judicial systems with 8 sets of laws and 8 sets of courts, 8 education departments with 8 curricula, 8 transport departments, 8 infrastructure departments, 8 law and order departments are either necessary or efficient for 20 million people… These days with instant digital access, video conferencing, humungous data crunching power…
As for turning them into independent nations, the thought of adding 8 depts of foreign affairs and trade, and 7 armies, airforces and navies? lol. I can just see the ACT wheeling out the old War Memorial .303s, Bren carriers, lancs and wirraways to mount frontline defence against the dreaded cockroaches.
It was a Casuarina booth Antony and my source says that most of the informals were not the tick/cross issue but writing on the ballot paper that they were a teacher and inferred their discontent with both parties (colourful language being used for emphasis).
Obviously there will be lots of analysis and also dribble coming from both parties in the wake of the election and a swag of reasons will be put up for the low turnout and the swing.
From my perspective, I have never known so many people up here to be so disenchanted with both parties. The positive is at least there will be a better balance in the chamber which i’m hoping will mean some good government.
So, is there any news on when we will hear something about this election? (as opposed to the ravings about states, constitutions high courts and such- William it seems there might have been enough interest in a thread for this on its own)
And just a small comment on the Federalism thing – if the Federal intervention is anything to go by, I’m all for having local representation. On more than one occassion, I had Fed officers up here saying that the NT looked way smaller from their office in Canberra.
Kitty – “From my perspective, I have never known so many people up here to be so disenchanted with both parties. The positive is at least there will be a better balance in the chamber which i’m hoping will mean some good government.It certainly can’t hurt. Politicians need to feel politically threatened to get their minds focussed.
What do Territorians think the outcome would have been if Clare Martin had still been leader?
I forgot to add 8 olympic teams…arggh
But in reply to Roger @ 60 on the Midday Report they were interviewing Mr Mills who said that himself and a certain person independent of party affiliation were good friends, that they had phoned to congratulate each other, but that it would not have been proper to hold further discussions at this stage…
Casuarina, Nakara booth informal 4.6%, Tiwi 5.8%. Same booths last time, 2.8%, 2.1%. An increase, yes, but it happened in all seats with only 2 candidates.
All that has happened today is a check count. Only minor variations on the figures from Saturday night. They are currently counting Absent votes to hand in the four key seats, Fannie Bay, Fong Lim, Brennan and Port Darwin. The will be available after 4pm central time today. There are about 500 votes to be counted in each of these electorates.
Thanks for clearing that up Antony, it would seem my source was prone to some exaggeration.
If Clare was still leader, I think (and hope in the interests of good government) there would still have been a number of seats turned over to the CLP, but not as many. Got to say though, after how haggard she was looking in her last year of being leader, she looked fabulous on Saturday night – and i’m glad she managed to subtley sink the boot into Hendo a couple of times.
Kakuru @43
‘We citizens of NSW and Victoria have to bail out the Tasmanian Republic and its basket-case economy yet again, to prevent another military coup. Just another Pacific island intervention we have to fork out for! And don’t get me started on all those ricketty rafts heading across Bass Strait!’
Why should New South Wales worry about Victoria’s problems?
I think Antony’s probably right and Adam probably wrong about the referendum, but even if Adam’s right, I don’t see that only having to get a majority in favour of abolishing the States in four States instead of all of them is likely to be any easier for practical purposes. For practical purposes, it’s still a non-starter.
The vote numbers in Fannie Bay have fallen very slightly for both candidates and Labor now leads by 52 votes.
Antony Green @26, my analysis is that the extra area from port Darwin cut the margin in Fannie Bay from 18.6 to 15.7% per your analysis.
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/nt/2008/guide/fann.htm
That means the new voters from Port Darwin was probably more CLP voting then the rest of Fannie Bay. Since both Fannie Bay and Port Darwin moved by 10+%. If the voter of this area move by 10+%, they are likely to fall in favour of the CLP than Labor
Yes there is more ifs in it than a Peter Costello challenge.
Ben, they have fallen slightly because they haven’t re-counted the postals. If that figure from election night is included, the lead is 54 votes. Labor lost 4 votes off its lead at Parap, gained two at Stuart park and gained one in the pre-poll.
Which is why my figures above say 54 votes and the NTEO says 52: they have removed the postal votes and I haven’t.
I agree that abolishing the states de jure is not practical politics. That’s why the High Court has been progessively abolishing them de facto for several decades.
Dovif – the fall in margin was caused by the loss of voters to Fong Lim and Port Darwin as much as any gain from Port Darwin. Even then, these are incredibly rough calculations when you only have two booths. The Absent vote was the same as the booth vote and the argument you put was that people went to vote in their old electorate i.e. Port Darwin, but their old booth is actually now in Fannie Bay so they would have been voting in their new electorate, not as absents in their old electorate.
Probably not a bad thing for the Feds if most of the States change hands.
On something like IR and health I doubt many of the States will shed a tear in handing them over – with Liberal State governments more likely to happen without too much fuss.
Fannie Bay latest is 397 absentee votes counted this arvo and ALP’s lead increased by 40 votes. Only declaration votes (traditionally favour ALP in NT) and approximately 220 Postals to be counted now.
Fong Lim has approximately 800 absentee votes being counted now.
Aggregate votes:
ALP 28,593 (43.3)
CLP 30,339 (46.0)
Green 2,733 (4.1)
Wood 2,103 (3.2)
Others 2,233 (3.4)
That of course is without Arafura and MacDonnell
Last time the aggregate vote in those two seats was ALP 3,364, CLP 1,518, Green 562, Ind 206. To allow for the swing I have given 5% of the ALP vote to the CLP and 5% to the Greens. That gives ALP 2,692, CLP 1,854, Green 898, Ind 206. Add that to the totals above and we get:
ALP 31,290 (43.8)
CLP 32,193 (45.1)
Green 3,631 (5.1)
Wood 2,103 (2.9)
Others 2,233
“On something like IR and health I doubt many of the States will shed a tear in handing them over – with Liberal State governments more likely to happen without too much fuss.”
Except, they won’t want to hand over IR to the “other side”.
oops I pressed “submit” before I was finished. Anyway I think the 2PP finishes up about 50-50.
76 Edward – it didn’t help Howard having all Labor states and territories did it?
789 Absentees counted in Fong Lim. ALP now 113 behind.
Therefore final result almost certainly ALP 13, CLP 11 & 1 Independent.
Labor now officially 96 votes ahead in Fannie bay having gained 42.
Correction, 92
I think the Labor States would dearly love to hand over health and IR but for internal reasons (ie unions and public sector interests) will find it hard to do so. The Liberals would have no hesistation in handing these powers over to the Feds.
After all for different reasons both issues are losers – On IR better to have it managed under the Federal Labor regime (which is less generous than the State regime) AND on health do you really need any explanation? Who wants to own every hospital tragedy?
I think there’s a bit of relief in knowing we are closer to avoiding a hung parliament. There is something distinctly unhealthy in my view in having an individual (no disrespect to Gerry who I reckon is a great operator) holding so much power.
Now that it looks like we might have a government, one has to wonder about who will be in the ministry.
Will Aagaard want to ditch the speakers role and get a portfolio?
Kitty,
It’s not even that your source exaggerates. From my experience (scrutineering), you notice any informal that includes a written note – humorous, obscene or political comment. My inference is that your informant saw some number between three and ten (of 97 according to the NTEC website) informals that included such comments, and carried away the impression that there was “a lot”.
If I could also throw in a comment about the division of powers, since the thread has de facto become a discussion of that issue:
the problem is surely that the wording of the Constitution is virtually unchangeable, because of the restrictive referendum requirements and the irresistible temptation for one side or the other of politics to oppose referenda for short-term political advantage. Iirc, the Liberals with Peter Reith enthusiastically in the driving seat opposed four sensible referendum proposals in 1988, which were the product of an representative Parliamentary committee, and had the prior explicit endorsement of all parties.
The consequence that the wording of the 1890s is resistant to change, is that the High Court has taken it upon itself to render the Constitution workable, by liberal interpretation. In an ideal world, we would have a root and branch review of how power should be distributed 120 years after the initial deliberations. The fact that it is very unlikely to happen means that the political system will continue to struggle with the consequences. I think the woes of the Murray-Darling basin are an excellent example of the defects of the existing division of powers.
Yes PeterF, human nature huh.
Apparently, a note on one of the informals was so lengthy, they’d actually written PTO with the essay continued on the other side – clearly some passionately held views.
63
Adam in Canberra Says:
What do Territorians think the outcome would have been if Clare Martin had still been leader?
Tough question. Probably a couple of seats better, but hard to say. Too much an historical ‘what-if’ question. The real problem with interpreting (and predicting) NT politics is the small electorates, It only takes 2 or 3 hundred voters to change their mind in each electorate and there will probably be a change of government.
As to Gerry Woods, he might seem on superficial assessment like a bit of a flake, but he is one of those people who believes you should take your work seriously, but not yourself, and is quite happy taking the piss out of himself. He is a pretty down to earth and rounded person, and I would not have any serious concerns about him holding the balance of power. I agree that he would have to deal with the Garrett syndrome (moving from criticising from the sidelines to making hard government decisions), but he would do a far better job of it than Garrett has (so far).
A question for psephological historians: Woods currently has 77.4% of the primary vote. What is the Australian record for an independent in a seat where both major parties ran candidates?
Probably the ALP would have been a couple of seats better of,…
Indeed the narrowest of their 24th(?) successive state-and-territory election losses, in what was historically their strongest bastion, definitely shows that the conservatives are right back in the game on a national level.
FWIW (not much) this non-lawyer agrees with Antony on S128.
“What do Territorians think the outcome would have been if Clare Martin had still been leader?”
Well, Labor would definitely still be in government, because they’d have definitely won Fannie Bay.
Gerry Woods has reportedly ruled out being the Speaker, which makes it 12-11-1 on the floor. How well does parliament work if the Speaker continually has to cast the deciding vote? Won’t that mean that labor at least have to determine Woods’ position before every vote to avoid embarrassment?
Chris Curtly asks
You are not actually lookng for informed comment are you?
Wood was also saying on Sunday that the Speaker should be an Independent. Wait and see what happens.
Martin, it’s actually not the narrowest Labor win. Labor has won by small margins when coming to govt, and in Vic, Qld and SA, they were originally a minority govt, before winning a crushing landslide at the next election. In the NT, it looks like Labor’s back to their original win margin of 1 seat in 2001; they won 59-41 in 2005, with 19 of 25 seats. In ‘01, they actually lost the overall 2PP 52-48.
ESJ,
Kennett already handed over Vics IR reponsibilities to the Feds.
93
Diogenes Says:
Gerry Woods has reportedly ruled out being the Speaker, which makes it 12-11-1 on the floor. How well does parliament work if the Speaker continually has to cast the deciding vote?
Only when Woods votes against them.
Latest from ABC NEWS…
Northern Territory Labor appears to have an unassailable lead in the crucial seat of Fannie Bay and is highly likely to form government with a majority of one seat.
ALP officials say their candidate, Michael Gunner, leads by 92 votes.
There are still about 150 postal votes to be counted, but the Country Liberals would need to win 80 per cent of them to succeed.
The likely election outcome is now 13 seats to Labor, 11 to the Country Liberals, and one independent member.
But NT Labor Party Secretary George Addison is still reluctant to claim victory.
“We’re cautious because we saw that in Solomon, the federal campaign, big numbers coming against us, but we’re just confident, but it is just too close to call at this stage with a number of votes still outstanding.”
I just discovered that Clare Martin is the niece of Kevin Cairns, once Liberal MHR for Lilley.
“Martin, it’s actually not the narrowest Labor win. Labor has won by small margins when coming to govt”
True.
MY point stands
I suggest you take a cold shower then.
91 Martin – So a close result in the NT means the conservatives are back in the hunt only in the NT or over Australia? If you mean the NT well, anything can happen in the next 4 years if Labor win. It doesn’t guarantee the CLP government next time.
If you mean across Australia that is a “courageous” conclusion to come to given that this is the first election since Rudd won government and the NT was fought on local issues.
RE: Adam in Canberra
Clare Martin is also related to the late great Victor Trumper and is a cricket ‘tragic’.
There have been successful governments that have ruled with a one seat majority. It should not really be a problem, if that is the outcome, I would have thought.
Is there anything to stop the CLP waiting until the first day a Labor member is sick or on holiday and then holding a no-confidence or censure vote, which would be 11-11 on party lines with Woods to cast the deciding vote?
I say, that would be rather unsporting. Surely no Australian politician would do such a thing.
Well, it hasn’t happened in the past 106 Diogenes. Of course such sickness would have to occur while parliament is sitting and usually they agree to pairing (I think the term is).
Was Lorraine Brahams still CLP when the ALP came to govt in 2001 or had she become independent by then (think she must have been ind.)? I raise it because she was the speaker for their first term when they held 13 seats.
Not sure about the NT, but in ACT the motion doesn’t occur until a week after the initial call for a no confidence vote
102, 103: Someone’s irony filter is broken. Now I’m not saying it’s yours…
The Opposition doesn’t have to grant ‘a pair’ if they want to be especially bloody minded, as this ICAC inquiry shows:
“The problem which is posed in relation to the effect of an appeal is not necessarily resolved by the prospect that the Member may elect not to sit or vote in the House pending the determination of an appeal. Should the House not grant the Member leave of absence this could have the effect of the Member’s seat being vacated in consequence of not being present in the House at any time during a session of the Parliament. It could also pose a problem in a Parliament in which the numbers are closely matched, the Member is a Government member and should the opposition not agree to a pair.”
http://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/files/html/pub2_41i.htm
103
Gary Bruce Says:
If you mean across Australia that is a “courageous” conclusion to come to given that this is the first election since Rudd won government and the NT was fought on local issues.
Correct. Anybody who thinks this has any implications for politics in other or the federal level, does not understand Territory politics.
109
Kitty Says:
Lorraine Brahams was independent for both term ALP terms.
106
Diogenes
That would be a very brave precedent.
Anybody who thinks this has any implications for politics in other states/territories, or the federal level,…
Well, there’s always implications even if it is just the effect on media narratives or party morale, but I agree in general and point out once again – irony.
Diogenes, the loss of one vote does not necessarily constitute defeat. If the government was prepared to wear the odd defeat, it can just continue on. The only one it couldn’t wear would be a defeat on an appropriation bill, the classic ‘I move the value of the budget be decreased by $1.’ That was the motion (in pounds) by which Curtin brought down the Fadden government in 1941. Even then, in 1945 when a similar motion was passed against the Victorian Dunstan government’s budget bill, Dunstan managed to pfaff around for about 6 weeks before growing hints from the Governors about intervention finally convinced his government to resign.
If a Minister or backbencher was absent, and the opposition suddenly cancelled a pairing arrangement, the Government would be within its rights to ask the Administrator to prorogue a sitting. That is a convention that goes back to NSW in 1911. See http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/resources/nswelectionsanalysis/1910/Mudgee_1.htm
Antony Green
Thanks for that.
Martin B, one likely implication is a brawl by the tories over the spoils of defeat – it is part of the political theatre in Queensland, not sure if it is a common practice in the NT.
I posted this analysis earlier this afternoon on the wrong thread. It’s well worth a read.
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2008/08/11/what-happened-in-the-nt-arrogance-hubris-and-complacency/
Also, wouldn’t a no confidence vote trigger a change of Government, but not necessarily an election?
I mean, all the positions would change but the members itself would not.
In which case, a “stealth” no confidence vote would immediately be reversed as soon as the absent politician returned…. Unless the new PM/Premier/Chief Miinsiter immediately called an election.
But again, even then, wouldn’t the Governor concerned not look kindly on such shenanigans and possibly refuse the request?
116 Martin B – fair enough. “Irony” is bloody hard to recognise on blogs I’ve found.
I will keep my responses brief as the thread is really about the Northern Territory.
Kakuru (37),
I agree that the federal/state structure needs serious work in Australia. The political problem is that it is easy for the Commonwealth MPs to interfere and promise solutions to state problems because they have the money, and the public is not interested in constitutional niceties.
Adam in Canberra (42),
I did not say that all large countries are federations, just that they had at least three tiers of government. In some, such as France, the regional, departmental and municipal levels are all subject to national control.
J-D (45):
Your explanation is correct, but the advantage of a federation is that it distributes power, even though the High Court is undermining federalism by its interpretation of the corporations and external affairs powers.
58
Boerwar (58),
The separate departments that you mention are necessary because they protect against the possibility that one central authority will make the wrong decision. There is a strange assumption in these discussions that having one body means having better decisions, when the one body might instead condemn the whole country to error. I shudder to think of Victoria having to suffer from WA’s education system because its proponents got control of the Commonwealth education department.
94
Albert Ross (94),
I was actually.
All over red rover as Mills concedes.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/11/2331687.htm
The motion need not be against the Government. In SA, we recently had a failed no-confidence vote against our wonderful Health Minister. I’m sort of surprised that a Minister would be able to survive a successful, albeit dodgy, no-confidence motion.
Adam in Canberra (100),
I didn’t know that, but the resignation of Clare Martin meant that the last of the three ALP premiers/chief ministers from DLP families has departed the scene, leaving only the ALP PM from a partly-DLP family in place.
Anyway, the Commonwealth can over ride anything the NT legislates if it wants to as we saw from Howard and Brough last year:
http://www.nt.gov.au/lant/parliament/committees/lca/state-ref-report.pdf
Isn’t it odd to see an opposition leader concede defeat and the incumbant reluctant to claim victory?
Anthony, Is there a convention on how long and in what situations the vice-regal person will prorogue parliament?
I am thinking of the situation in Tasmania in 1981 when the parliamentary Labor party had clearly losed its majority after splitting on the Dams issue. Harry Holgate took the premiership from Doug Lowe but then had parliament immediately prorogued rather than face a no confidence vote. Parliament remained prorogued and Holgate remained premier for 5 months. This produced one of the best political one liners I can remember from the Democrat Norm Sanders ( ‘The only reason he is hanging on is so that every morning he can look in his shaving mirror and say “Hey, Harry Holgate! Premier of the Tasmanians!”‘)
I presume parliament must eventually meet to consider appropriation and in the Australian constitution at least once a year, my guess is that if the governor is compliant then a vote of no confidence can be put off until appropriation needs to be addressed
Chris Curtis @ 123
Thank you. Your post caused me to question my assumptions.
The one that was uppermost in my mind when I wrote in originally was that doing something eight times when it really only needs to be done once is a waste of resources. Personally, I don’t think we get good value from having eight parliamentary systems. For starters, both territories could be quite sensibly subsumed in a state system and be left with local government powers. Similarly, South Australia and Tasmania could quite usefully be subsumed. Adelaide and Hobart could just as easily be government by a local councils with some increased powers and that pretty well takes care of many of the relevant state populations.
A second assumption, arising from your suggestion is that doing the same thing eight times (eg generating a new IR law, or generating a new curriculum for maths or the best way of delivering heart transplants) probably increases the chances of poor policy or wrong decisions being made. One reason is that not all of the eight have equal resources to generate good policy. In fact some of the states and territories in some areas either have de facto neglect or desperate piggy backing as their policy making processes because they cannot afford anything better.
The smaller systems, whether from a limited pool, or limited desirability, also seem to attract a better than average share of mediocre pollies. However, perhaps I am being unfair, and maybe that is not limited to the smaller states and territories. Some of the larger states and the feds also seem to be able to attract some doozies.
On the other hand if you do it only once and cock it up, then the costs are going to be nation-side rather than just stuffing up one state or territory.
But then again, maybe if we do things once we could put more resources into that once, do it better, and come up with a quality product.
Woo hoo a great day, another ALP win. The torries with their nearlies can sleep at night, with the little comfort it gives them. It’s amazing so many are on here in view of the great performance that our “clean” athletes in Beijing are giving us!
Chris, I thought Rudd’s family were Country Party, certainly his father was. Does he have some Groupers in his attic as well?
Re state premiers. Well at least we still have a premier with a PCI ancestry, which is nearly as good. Avanti popolo!
Not to mention the Greens who can return to their caves safe in the knowledge that over 90% of the population see them as ratbags. Today nothing, tommorrow nothing!
Adam,
His dad was Country party. His mum was DLP. What’s PCI? No the Italian Communist party?
Holgate’s actions were very controversial. The fact the Liberals changed leader the same day and the fact a referendum to resolve the Franklim Dam issue was set for December gave some justification for Holgate to cancel parliament until the new year, but he held out until May the following year which was very controversial. The mess over the result of the referendum, and whether ‘No dams’ votes could be counted, added to the farce. Normally a parliament would be prorogued from its normal sittings with the expectation of an early election. That happens in NSW every election now, where the parliament sets sitting dates for February in election year the previous November, then every January the sitting in prorogued ahead of the election. Holgate’s sin was to go ahead and meet parliament rather than go to an election.
The convention with a temporary problem with parliamentary numbers is that it only justifies parliament being prorogued until the short term problem is resolved. There are plenty of instances of parliament being cancelled until a by-election to fill a vacancy occurs. But the Governor would only act to do by proroging if the Opposition refused to co-operate by offering a pair or an agreed adjournment.
The Holman case I referred to earlier is famous because Holman did not have the numbers to survive a vote of no-confidence. By getting his speaker to resign and then resigning the commission of the government (he was Acting Premier at the time as McGowen was in London at the Coronation of George V), he avoided a vote of no-confidence but put the Liberal opposition in a position where it would lose any vote of no-confidence if it took government, which would force the Liberals to hand the Commission back to Holman and grant his wish to prorogue Parliament. In 1920, Nationalist Leader George Fuller went through one of these farces but was silly enough to go ahead with forming a government that handed back its Commission 7 hours later. All this nonsense might have made sense in pre-party days, but now Governors just take the advice offered.
I’ll stand corrected, but the power to prorogue is a reserve power, only constrained by requirements for annual sittings as set out in Constitutions. Like the issue of writs, it’s one of those obscure hangovers of monarchy.
Boerwar,
I’ll get back later. I’ve taken a quick break from The 7.30 Report while it does its boring Olympics story, but I’ll go back when it returns to something of substance- should that be ‘if’?
Having come close but lost, the challenge for the CLP is to not neuter themselves between now and the next election. More elected members means more egos and more people to fight with. I can’t see Mills outlasting the old and new egos he now has joining him.
Boerwar,
I’m back early: the 7.30 Report has another sport story – about some NSW game!!!
I think you need to consider geography even with modern communication. Each state has a substantial population centre, with more than half the state’s population in five out of six cases, which is a very long way from every other state’s such centre. This focuses the state’s political activity.
If we were starting Australia from scratch, we would not have the present states. We might, for example, have a Murray-Darling Basin state. However, we don’t get to start from scratch.
Doing something eight times probably increases the chance that one way will be bad, but doing it only once increases the chance that the whole country will have to put up with a bad system. WA has the worst education system in the country, but at least no other jurisdiction has to put up with it. If there was one national system, the chances are that on occasion the whole nation would be enduring a substandard system. Currently, there is some competition of ideas going on. Not ideal, I know, as we also tend to import dumb ideas from England to our education systems. (See the Times Education Supplement website forum to see how bad the system is there.)
Different functions can be more effectively handed at different levels; the economy, defence, foreign affairs at the Commonwealth level; education, transport at the state level; garbage and community centres at the local level. I’d see health as a state responsibility except that Medicare funding of doctors, which is sensibly a Commonwealth matter, conflicts with state responsibility for hospitals.
I am prepared to endure some inefficiency as the price for protection of freedom, and a federal system gives the latter and is not necessarily inefficient, though ours is.
JUST SOME THOUGHTS:
In a close parliament the opposition if they are serious should never grant
pairs… but this doesn’t really change the balance
a By election in a labor held seat would be a problem though
how many would be and ex leaders amongst the clp parliamentary party?
half??
It appears the clp does not hold a single non- urban seat… Katherine and the 3
Alice Springs based seats are all urban
2 of the seats won by the clp were on personal votes
Fong Lim…. for Mr Tolner
Sanderson … against the ALp member
Thankfully the punters will get paid rather than the bookies just scooping the pool into their pockets which looked possible at one stage on Saturday night.
Chris Curtis @ 138
I would be happy to have two levels of govt (national and regional) instead of three. The problem even then would be buck passing.
I accept the idea that having some redundancy and complexity somewhat reduces the changes of total stuff ups and acts as a sort of checks and balances.
Quite happy to take geography into account, as long as it results in a reduction of parliaments. Even four states: northern, eastern, southern and western would be a useful number. Australia is increasingly ‘hollow’ and a lot of that hollow country requires little or no governance because there are very few people and very little actually happening. Perhaps a ‘central’ to mainly take in the dead centre and the pastoral interior?
I agree that our forebears have saddled us with a governance camel designed by a committee and that we are unikely to escape it any time soon.
Ahem…
just back from a computer-free 5 days to discover that perhaps the Greens did rather better than one would have thought likely…???
I’m a long way from having any relevant opinion on territorial politics,,
but I really need to ask the obvious question
is this result a validation of “the intervention” at all?
even just a little bit?
Yes Chris of course the Italian Communist Party. Maurizio’s father was a member before he came to Australia.
Chris Curtis @123
You can have distribution of power without federalism.
143 Mr Squiggle – Why would it be? Labor agree with it as well. A neutral issue.
The NT ALP should be thanking its lucky stars that it just managed to avoid a repeat of Victoria ‘99.
The real question now is – Can Carpenter survive or will the Canal Man be resurrected?
Hi Gar,
Maybe after all these years, the electorate can tell the difference between on ghe one hand
1) coming up with a ballsy idea that no-one else would dream of doing
is this result a validation of “the intervention” at all?
even just a little bit?
No.
Hi Gary,
Maybe after all these years, the electorate can tell the difference between on the one hand
1) coming up with a ballsy idea that no-one else would dream of putting forward (eg Mal Brough)
and on the other hand
2) simply agreeing with someone else after they have shown leadership on an issue (eg the ALP on indigin????… on indigin????,,, on aboriginal issues)
while I’m at it, why are politically correct names harder to spell??
Squiggle, it was a brilliant stroke of political genius alright both Howard and Brough lost their seats at the Federal election.
2) simply agreeing with someone else after they have shown leadership on an issue (eg the ALP on indigin????… on indigin????,,, on aboriginal issues)
So, why did Howard refuse to help when Clare Martin, then Chief Minister of the NT, pleaded with him for assistance on the indigenous problems in 2006? Indeed, he wouldn’t even admit there was a serious problem, and had a long track record of ignoring indigenous issues.
Who is following who?
Hi Steve,
Any predictions for the newspoll?
Here’s my thoughts,
The Australian is a biased newspaper and loves a chance to build a story with momentum..
They ahve two stories they want ot run with just now
1) Costel-low is the only way the LNP will return to power
vs
2) ALP support collapsing in NT/NSW/WA and therefore nationally
What spin will they put on this fortnight’s results if its 54-46???
No Squiggle just wait and see what Newspoll brings.
C’Mon steve,
Didn’t you see the Australian on the weekend? A whole page on Costel-low…
surely there is no chance of impartial intepretation of the Newspoll this week?
temptation……
I fail to see why there wouldn’t be an impartial interpretation.
Steve,
You defender of the MSM you
IOK…I
I’ll predict 54/46 …..the lowest 2PP for ALP since the election
Beating th CLP Liberals by 100 voters is sweeter than a landslide
Can one imagine how those Libs ar feeling today , its like an icecream given to a child and then its taken away , to see victory come so close , but it may as well have been a loss by 100,000 votes not by 100 votes , seeing when they come into th Chamber they still get to sit on there same irrelevant chairs as before election day
Ron there’s something poetic about the CLP running last in a two horse race.
Steve , especialy when by running 2nd , the Libs actualy think they’ve won
One thing I have never done is read NT hansard to see how the CLP actually perform in parliament and I have never even heard any mention of it.
Mr Squiggle
#150
“Hi Gary,
Maybe after all these years, the electorate can tell the difference between on the one hand coming up with a BALLSY IDEA that no-one else would dream of putting forward (eg Mal Brough) ”
I can see where your logic is going with Mal Brough’s great BALLSY IDEAS , since that great ballsy idea , Mal baby has lost his own Fed seat , AND since then lost his postion as Q’ld Liberal Party President !! ….and now Mal with th ballsy ideas has even managed to lose th whole Q’ld Liberal Party )folowing Pineapple Party’s take over of it) You just kepp following that great ballsy Mal Brough ideas…into oblivion
I don’t think ALP people should crow too much. I expected Henderson to get back easily, and to come within a handful of votes of defeat is not a good result, even in a place as traditionally conservative as the NT. Sure a win is a win, but this was a close call, and it should be a warning to us both for WA and federally that the voters give and the voters taketh away, not always for the most rational of reasons to be sure.
Newspoll confirms your worst fears Squiggle someone has taken a blow.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24165653-601,00.html
The 2PP is the same as last time.57/43
hmmm 57 43
muhahaha
57-43 – ho hum, the interesting newspolls will be the next WA and NSW State polls – then we will see if there is movement in any of the tectonic plates.
Publicly crow to th born to rule set , privately to larn th lessons and mesages Getting out of touch (or perceived to be) with bread & butter issues is not ignord by swinging voters
As to pro intervention effect or not and unhelpful Calare Martin dumping , guess subsequent Party private polling may answer , because anti uranium dump and anti Daly River development (when CLP were pro in both) should hav been a possitive but such a large swing suggests its had little postivve efect
perhaps the fact up to 40% of the electorate didnt vote at all is the most important message
They continue to tell us of the failure of fuelwatch, when in reality it is being held up in a Senate inquiry forced by the Coalition. Polls as usual, the public cannot find fault with Rudd,
hey ron……before you post that little red line under a word means something…
Red Wombat , I’m color blind so your sugestion doesn’t help
Gusface , in my #168 I suggested Labor definitively privately should learn from th ressult and perhaps look at 4 issues as starters , what does 40% non voting figure suggest to you
This is a real problem. Of course the NT’s should not have presumed a win, under all the circumstances. The NT needed time to get over the defrocked, really, Clare Martin. The sheer cynicism, of going to the electorate, on spurious and even scary environmental grounds, is so far out of the thinking of a worried NT electorate. Which is reflected around Australia.
Bad news, all. WA is the next domino. Sure, Labor may scrape in, but not looking fantastic, at all.
Don’t think Kev gets it, nor does Penny Wong or Carlene Maywald.
Just a reminder, I write from SA.
My straw polls are not good for Kev.
And I am less than delighted.
Ron
was listening to abc local radio which reported up to 40% non turnout
the MSM didnt mention but that said ,the confusion and realtively short time may have thrown some people out
2 things can be taken out of this in myopinion
1.in low voter turnouts the odds favour the conservatives so the clp should actually be worried that it didnt get the nod
2.if a “anti rudd’ message was delivered,it has as much effect as a fart in a bottle, so shannas et el will only (as usual) preach to the converted
This could also been seen as a total disaster for the CLP.
They failed to sneak under the guard of the electorate and just failed to grab government. The ALP truly scared by this will no doubt work very hard to set things right with the electorate and put the CLP back out to pasture again at the next election. The CLP may not get the chance again for a long while.
I can tell you environmental or some such had very little to do with this result.
The previous election where the ALP thrashed the CLP was because the people still remembered the old corrupt CLP and, had become used to and supportive of Martin. That old CLP is now long gone – the memory is gone and the personnel gone, thus the pendulum swung back to a more normal state of affairs. I suspect the swing involves some part of people going back to their normal voting pattern plus some reaction against the knifing of Martin and the inability of Henderson to connect with the public. And a sundry bunch of smaller issues.
In the same way it is good for Rudd Labor that the likes of Minchin, Andrews, Nelson and co are still around. By the next election people will still be able remember the negative old Howard govt and do to the LNP what NT Labor did to the CLP at their second election. Give them a real thrashing and clear out the nasty bits of trash.
Gusface “in low voter turnouts the odds favour the conservatives so the clp should actually be worried that it didnt get the nod”
Would alot of this low voter turnout be disapproving Labor swingers , not happy with NT Labor , but not angry enough to come out & vote CLP (against there preferred ‘left’ political preference)
There was a distinct lack of emotion in this election campaign – could hardly raise a yawn. The ALP TV campaign was quite negative and I found it a real turn-off.
Hmmm. Would not count on it. Thomas Paine. Gusface. Sure, the ALP will need to work very hard to regain any kind of solid support. I do not imagine for one moment that the ALP has the momentum required to win again. They need to work very hard and in tune with the electorate’s thinking. I am at a loss to understand why any kind of Labor is so, apparently, out of touch.
Ron
conventional wisdom holds that where the voter turnout (as a percentage of eligible voters) is low , the preference will be to the conservative or right wing
“Would alot of this low voter turnout be disapproving Labor swingers , not happy with NT Labor , but not angry enough to come out & vote CLP (against there preferred ‘left’ political preference”
quite possible ,in fact i think the final count will give a guide to actually who was really shanghaied
177
Thomas Paine Says:
The ALP TV campaign was quite negative and I found it a real turn-off.
Agree. I didn’t like their TV ads. Very negative personal attacks on Terry Mills. Probably cost the ALP some votes.
I am up in Darwin (and have been since 1977) and the LNG plant for the harbour or not doesn’t even make discussion.
There is precious little noticeable difference between the ALP and CLP up here now the old crew are long gone. In fact the CLP seemed more like an ALP this time around. People up here generally don’t seem to be ideologically motivated (except for the usual core for both sides) in regard to local politics, not that you would find any between the parties here.
I have been a Labor voter for the past number of years but really I would not have been that concerned if the CLP won.
Nobody here equates Labor with the Feds or the CLP with the LNP. The rest of Australia is a long way away.
It really isn’t ALP -v- CLP it is team in Red shirts versus team in Blue shirts.
That nice Ms Martin is not here now so a natural attraction to the Red shirts is gone. The local media has been critical of the ALP (Govt) off and on for a long while and that Gerry Woods has been criticising them a lot too. That Mr Mills in the blue shirts seems like a nice guy. And the Red shirts have been in for a while too and it seems a bit boring and stale to have them there again.
I am not joking that the CLP may have just missed out on unexpected prime opportunity – and if they hadn’t threatened the public servants jobs they may have won.
This gives the govt here the lucky opportunity to fix things and become attractive again. It is all in their own hands.
There was actually one issue that did strike a chord with many people – youth crime and violence.
I thought Antony G. had in earlier posts refuted the low turnout assumption, by suggesting that after all the absentee votes, pre-polls, postals etc. are in the figure is likely to be within 2% of the 2005 election. As I recall, it was suggested that the changes of boundary in a number of seats meant that people may have turned up at what had been their regular booth, where they would have been obliged to vote absentee – thus inflating the number of such votes this time around.
Peter F
ABC local radio today said the low voter turnout.not me
Mr G’s latest re the actual turnout
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2008/08/turnout-at-the.html#more
ron, your party line spruiking is perhaps at odds with the other somewhat intelligent comments here. but if you’re an ALP advisor, i suppose you are feeling desperate relief. perhaps you could answer: when will henderson take the blame?
and boerwar – #130
thankfully efficiency is not the only way we design our political system. fascism was also a very effective system of concentrating power – otherwise known as “doing things once only”.
but we tell ourselves our system is also about representing people – and i don’t want someone in canberra empowered to think they know what is best for the top end. we are seeing now how little that gets us with the Ruddies. a national government is always likely to do things that attract votes in the most populous places. and that is not the NT.
Dylan
#184
And which unhappy politcal Party do you represent
Labor people ar delighted Labor won , thats 9 State/Territory & Federal Parliaments held out of 9 , why wouldn’t a labor suporter be happy scraping in
Thats better than a CLP suporter claiming they ‘won’ , but finishing 2nd
Had you taken th trouble to read my #168 post you would hav seen I noted all Partys privately look at reasons , large swings deliver a peoples message You’ve jumped gun wanting me to blame Henderson , however instead careful analysis of cause of swing is required (including Clare Martin’s dumping , campaign rsults , NT CLP’s pro intervention policy , style/policys of past government , low voter turnout etc ) rather than such knee jerk reactions Notwithstanding better to be in government with relief and happiness , than in opposition
168
Ron Says:
August 11th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Publicly crow to th born to rule set , privately to larn th lessons and mesages Getting out of touch (or perceived to be) with bread & butter issues is not ignord by swinging voters
Note the updated results and comparative information on the Australian Government and Politics Database website at http://www.elections.uwa.edu.au
Delightful summary of NT politics by Alice Springs resident, Strange Dave.
Northern Territory politics in a nutshell
http://strangedave.livejournal.com/229288.html
Northern Territory politics – selected highlights of the last several years
http://strangedave.livejournal.com/229417.html
What went wrong for the ALP in NT
http://strangedave.livejournal.com/229767.html
Thomas Paine
I’m with you on all you’ve said. The knifing of Clare has not been taken well perhaps especially because it was wielded by the soulless and arrogant Hendo. Hendo’s speech on Saturday night convinced me that he has to go. Of course the problem then becomes who could possibly take his place.
I hope that this next term allows both sides to develop and hone their skills as quality representatives so we can look forward to having some good people on both sides leading us into the future.
At the moment, they’re both as bad as each other. The only matter raised in either’s campaign that connected with me was the CLP’s public sector attack.
I’ve been meme-ing Antony’s debunking of the ‘low turnout’ hype.
But consider Fannie Bay, at 74% turnout (close of play Monday evening, after counting of absentees). That’s not great is it, for a city electorate?
How would the Territory as a whole approach even 80% – even allowing for the two uncontested seats – assuming lower turnout in some remote locations?
“I am not joking that the CLP may have just missed out on unexpected prime opportunity – and if they hadn’t threatened the public servants jobs they may have won.”
When will the conservative parties work out that sacking public servants is actually not the way to win an election? It didn’t work for John Hewson, and it didn’t work for Jeff Kennett, and it didn’t work for several state opposition leaders in recent years.
Teachers, nurses and police all have families and votes, and also have a good deal of public support. Even cutting “head office bureaucrats” may sound good to the Libs, but usually that just means the burden of paperwork falls more heavily on the teachers and nurses.
You can make the public service more efficient without sacking staff. Invoking fear in the public service will not help productivity.
I agree Antonio at 190. And it is especially the case in the NT. We only have about 220,000 in the whole population – if you took 700 jobs from the public sector – that would have a major impact.
Are the Blain McCarthy and the Arnhem McCarthy related?
Kezia Purick is Noel Padgham-Purich’s daughter, yes? Why are their names spelled differently?
Adam: I sincerely doubt the two McCarthys are related, considering that one of them is black and one of them is white.
I’d been wondering about the spelling of Kezia Purick’s name myself…
Boerwar (141),
I will have to continue to disagree. There are functions which naturally fit with entities of a particular size, and three levels seems necessary to me, but I won’t go on about it on this thread.
Adam (144),
All I can say is what a strange world it is.
J-D (145),
Yes, you can have distribution of power without federalism, but federalism treats the subsidiary units as sources of power not creatures of the higher level.
‘Puric’ with an accent ove rthe ‘c’ would be the original, Adam. The rest are bad anglicisations of the slavic.
@195
‘Yes, you can have distribution of power without federalism, but federalism treats the subsidiary units as sources of power not creatures of the higher level.’
I know. That’s what’s wrong with it.
antonio at 190, kitty at 191
I must admit that i do not know the facts of the northern territory situation. However there would be some instances in which such a policy to cut or streamline certain jobs the public service would be beneficial, such as if the state is struggling with the budget etc.
My point is politicians should not shy away from making tough decisions is they are unpopular in the short term
My idle reflections as a former Territorian are at: NT election: Waking from a Bad Dream
Ron #185
Sorry for the late response.
I don’t represent any political party and never have. It is not surprising to me that the highest vote in a seat was won by the independent Gerry Wood.
you said:
‘Labor people ar delighted Labor won , thats 9 State/Territory & Federal Parliaments held out of 9 , why wouldn’t a labor suporter be happy scraping in’
I think this is the problem: many party people seem to have trouble seeing past the ‘us v them’ battle mentality. in this case, Labor would not be smart if they were happy about this – happy about almost losing from a very safe position.
if people are delighted at the Labor ‘win’ they’re missing the main point: the electorate gave them a resounding kick up the arse – largely, i think, for treating the electorate like fools with the early election and with the empty campaign. “just do nothing and they’ll put us back in” does not cut it.
such people can be delighted all they like, delighting their delightful selves until the moment comes when the electorate kicks them out of their jobs. by then, it will be too late to listen.
unless, of course, you think the early election was a masterstroke because Henderson would have suffered a heavy loss if the CLP had time to get organised.
What are the odds that in a 25-member assembly, there will be two McCarthys, not related? They could of course be husband and wife.
The fact that both Purich and Purick are renderings of Puri? still doesn’t explain why mother and daughter spell their surname differently.
Well, Labor have 4 long years to wonder why they are still in government. How awful for them. The CLP must be delighted.
Perfectly sensible, I’m sure, and I certainly hopee all ALP operatives think that way.
But from where I’m coming from I can’t help feeling that anytime the CLP lose in the NT it is a bad result for the conservatives.
I don’t think ALP people should crow too much.
I do not see NT ALP crowing at all. Quite the contrary.
I was refering to people here, not there
Adam I suspect they will be suitably calm by the time of the next election.
Fair enough, Adam.
I cannot help but laugh at some of the ALP’s spin that the CLP had a bad election
1. CLP had almost a 9% swing
2. CLP won the 2PP
3. CLP more then doubled their representation in parliament 5-11
4. ALP was thinking about taking Terry Mills seat
5. CLP lost the election by 60 votes, if 31 people (public servants) changed their minds…….
6. The NT economy was going well
They did this despite the CLP ran a completely inept campaign
1. Their own candidate was gunning for Terry Mills’ job
2. They threaten to take away the job of 15% of NT workers (always a good way to get people to vote for you)
3. They had no money
Still, they might have won despite all this. The CLP did not do great, if they did some things properly, they would probably been governing.
To call an election like this a bad result for the CLP is Ruddian.
To call it a good campaign by either side is a bit farfetched, Dovif.
It really was a bad result for both parties in the sense that Labor put about the same effort in as their Brisbane City Hall campaign in March and the tories were so disorganised they couldn’t even run a candidate in every seat. A case of the disinterested almost rolled by the incompetent.
Nobody has yet raised the possibility that push polling influenced the unexpected result in NT.
Mark Textor, Australia’s push polling guru, who learned his methods in training with the US Republicans, is reported to have used push polling in an NT election in 1994.
Push polling next surfaced in the 1995 ACT by-election, where the ALP candidate Sue Robinson was push polled out of contention by Mark Textor and Liberal Party luminaries like Andrew Robb (who was named in the legal suit). Sue Robinson eventually won a large defamation settlement but the damage was done and the Liberal Party won the constested position.
Push polling operates below the media radar by definition, and is much more effective in smaller population pools, such as in the Territories. And many people are reluctant to come forward to say that they have been pushed polled, because it makes them look like dills.
Guess we will never know.
Grace, I think you can discount push polling. Every time someone pushed a letter into letterbox in Sanderson, it was in the ABC newsroom within two hours. You can’t do something like push polling in Darwin without it being known shortly afterwards. We would have heard about it by now if it had happened. The only seat where the swing was out of line was Sanderson, where all the letterbox drops were and where Len Kiely became an issue. The push polling in 1994 was known within 2 days and was done in only 2 electorates and the results in those electorates was totally anomolous with the rest of Darwin. We’re now 2 weeks after the election with not a hint of any push-polling having been heard, so I think the proposition that it didn’t happen is looking pretty strong.
Having been telephone polled personally on the weekend of 1 August, someone was doing numbers.
Who.. I dont know.. but it did seem legit.
Story from ABC that the turnout was the lowest in 20 years.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/17/2337706.htm?section=justin
Thanks for your response Antony, and point taken, smaller communities spread such gossip faster, and the spread of possible anomolies is not there this time.
Your professional opinion is valuable given your concentrated overwatch of the electoral process, but in the end, we cannot know…
I heard Lynton Crosby tell the BBC on radio last week his organisation (once known as Crosby/Textor) had never been involved in push polling in Australia, and nearly lost my breakfast laughing.
“his organisation (once known as Crosby/Textor) had never been involved in push polling in Australia, ”
Grace
The key phrase is the once known, Howard used a similar phrase in his non-core promises such as “That was a promise of the previous (Howard) government.
Oh yes Ron, Lynton was very careful with his words.
sorry, rod
Grace, he may be right. The NT push polling was done by a WA company associated with a senior Liberal. I think the ACT stuff was carried out by another polling company.
Antony, in Robinson’s 1995/96 successful defamation suit, both Andrew Robb and Mark Textor were the defendants, and the shelf name of the polling company involved was innocuous, as I recall. So yes, the name of the company does not necessarily indicate the prime movers. Textor’s involvement in the 1994 NT election (soon after he returned from the US) was detailed in the SMH later, and was quite probably a backroom organising job rather than actually making the phone calls, but again, I am working from memory.
Lovely lovely intertubes, much better than my fading memory.
Here is a run-down on Textor and the 1994 NT election from ABC Background Briefing on 28 Feburary 1999:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/1999/19393.htm
Fixed terms to be introduced in NT – I think Henderson has learned his lesson.
http://news.theage.com.au/national/fixed-terms-to-be-introduced-in-nt-20080819-3y2x.html
Fixed terms to be introduced in NT
Good. The only person who should be able to call an early election is the relevant Administrator/Governor/Governor-General.
Grace
Interesting read re the polling.
“Background Briefing has a number of statutory declarations from electors who say the company doing the poll identified itself as Apex. Company searches reveal that the name Apex was owned by a company known as Controlled Marketing Service, and a director of that company was Charles Porter, a former Director of the Liberal Party in Western Australia.”
I take it he is the father of the shadow A-G in WA.
Yes rod, that sounds a fair guess. The pollsters in the NT in 94 and the ACT in 95 were connected to, or commissioned by, the Liberal Party, when Andrew Robb was in charge. The whole charade of denial, including Lynton Crosby’s on the BBC, is beyond a joke. At the time, Crosby and Textor were Liberal Party apparatchiks, who later formed a commercial company together, which did its dirty business throughout the Howard Years, and then dissolved. Careful words indeed.
Grace
I think you may have a point re push polling and the NT, but in a round about way.
That article you linked to mentions the effectiveness of the push polling in the NT especially in relation to fishing ” where half the population loves fishing for barra”.
The push polling apparently said that labor was to give the aborigines land/ sea rights that would threaten this NT past time.
Interesting about a week before this NT election the high court did just that.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/traditional-owners-win-sea-rights/2008/07/30/1217097331310.html
Push polling in the NT does not need a phone campaign, with such small electorates a whispering campaign in the pubs is just as effective. IE “See we told this would happen if labor got in”