Upper house results from the Western Australian election are coming through this afternoon, and we will also have Premier-elect Colin Barnett announce his new cabinet. The first upper house result comes from Mining and Pastoral, which has gone two Labor (Jon Ford and Helen Bullock), two Liberal (Norman Moore and Ken Baston), one Nationals (Wendy Duncan) and one Greens (Robin Chapple). Full preference distribution here. It earlier appeared possible that second Nationals candidate David Grills might win a seat at the expense of the Greens, but Chapple emerged 8168 to 7070 ahead at the final count.
This post will be progressively updated as information becomes available.
UPDATE (1.30pm): Cabinet announced. Included are three Nationals (Brendon Grylls in regional development, Terry Waldron in sport and recreation and Terry Redman in agriculture) along with independent Liz Constable, who takes education from Peter Collier, who instead gets energy and training. Constable is one of only three women out of 17, and the only one in the lower house. The others are Robyn McSweeney as Child Protection and Community Services Minister and Donna Faragher as Environment Minister, the latter a surprise inclusion at the expense of former Shadow Women’s Affairs Minister Helen Morton.
UPDATE (3.30pm): North Metropolitan, East Metropolitan and South Metropolitan have all gone Liberal three, Labor two and Greens one. Still to come are Agricultural (likely result Nationals three, Liberals two and Labor one, although the third Nationals seat might go to Liberal-turned-Family First member Anthony Fels) and South West (looking like three Liberal, two Labor and one Nationals).
UPDATE (3.40pm): Three Liberal, two Labor and one Nationals in South West.
UPDATE (4.50pm): Three Nationals, two Liberals and one Labor in Agricultural. Final result: 16 Liberal, 11 Labor, five Nationals, four Greens.
UPDATE (Saturday): Full preference distributions:
North Metropolitan
East Metropolitan
South Metropolitan
South West
Agricultural
Mining and Pastoral
Listed below are close-ish results at the final counts. There were no tremendously close calls earlier in the counts that might have proved decisive, such as Family First or CDP candidates getting ahead of Liberal or Nationals candidates in South West or Agricultural.
EAST METROPOLITAN
Greens #1: 41489 (15.0%) ELECTED
Labor #3: 37106 (13.5%)
SOUTH METROPOLITAN
Greens #1: 43516 (15.5%) ELECTED
Liberal #3: 40174 (14.3%) ELECTED
Labor #3: 34640 (12.4%)
SOUTH WEST
Liberal #3: 22124 (14.4%) ELECTED
Greens #1: 20992 (13.6%)
AGRICULTURAL
Nationals #3: 11096 (15.2%) ELECTED
Labor #2: 8971 (12.3%)
228 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 » Show All
Adam@85 “[unlike the DLP] The Greens by contrast are a party of petit bourgeois dilletantes, who combine self-righteous rhetoric with treacherous and unprincipled behavior…”
Hee. Deft use of irony and self-deprecation, or Freudian projection? ;^)
d
If I recall this issue went like this
The gresns call a meeting of all thier members to discuss upper house reform and in particular the issue of giving the upper house president a deliberateive vote like the Senate
7 people turned up and they voted against this as a result the ALP and Greens did not have a majority to change the constitution, however if the greens has said yes ot the president getting the vote then the upper house would of changed
Maverick, I believe you are talking about the different but related issue of the Gallop government’s attempt to get 1v1v through during its first term. From memory: the numbers were locked at 17-16 on the floor whereas the constitution required an “absolute majority” of 18 votes, and the President couldn’t do a casting vote because it wasn’t tied. The Greens wouldn’t allow Labor to change the law to give the President a deliberative rather than casting vote.
Independently of all that, Liberal MLC Alan Cadby quit the party after losing preselection and agreed to back 1v1v during the period between the February 2005 election and the changeover to the new upper house the following May, thereby providing the 18th vote. However, he could have scuppered any arrangement between Labor and the Greens came to if he wanted to.
William, in response to your question, the comments of Cadby during the third reading of the 1V1V bill seem to indicate that he was trying to “represent the interests of the Liberal Party” in his negotiations over the legislation.
I do not know if that would have translated into rejecting anything other than the 6×6 model for the LC. His vote was required though.
William @ 100: Here is Cadby in Hansard, on the second reading of the One-Vote-One-Value bill (29 April 2005, p. 974):
“I will now turn to the Legislative Council. I have some difficulty with the basis for the electoral distribution of Council membership. However, I have now accepted that the nature of the Council is different from that of the Legislative Assembly, and therefore it can be established under different principles. However, I make it clear that my preferred option would be a system based on population numbers within the regions. I will accept amendments that give equal representation in this house to both metropolitan and non-metropolitan regions. Within that parameter, I would prefer the status quo; that is, 17 from the metropolitan regions, with their split taking account of the population, and 17 from the non-metropolitan regions, once again based on their individual populations.”
WILLIAM, will you PLEASE, as a WA resident and local elections media whizz, confirm the basic facts that
(a) the Gallop-Carpenter government wanted to bring in one-vote-one-value for both Houses
(b) In the last parliament the ALP and the Greens between them had 18 of 34 seats in the Council, so it would have been possible to achieve one-vote-one-value if the Greens had voted with Labor.
(c) They did not do so.
If these facts are correct, can you then tell us, in your opinion, WHY the Greens did this.
I can help you out there Adam:
(a) Yes in theory but no legislation was ever introduced,
(b) Yes but ALP then had to supply the President reducing them to 17. Then Archer resigned from the ALP over BB issues and made it clear she would not support 1V1V changes. The ALP tried to expel her from LC but Libs refused as would have handed numbers back to the ALP and Greens.
(c) No legislation introduced as moot point once Archer resigned from the ALP.
Adam, maybe you should blame Brian Burke.
What a lot of self-contradictory hogwash from Adam:
“All parties do preference deals, and no-one is any position to get too sanctimonious about them.”
but yet…
“The Greens by contrast are a party of petit bourgeois dilletantes, who combine self-righteous rhetoric with treacherous and unprincipled behavior, as we saw in Qld in 1995 when they got into bed with the Nats…”
And in the same post no less.
The Labor fanatics expect, nay demand, that they receive the Greens co-operation and preferences in every instance, yet tell them not get to “get too sanctimonious” about it when Labor does a preference deal with Family First and the ultra-conservative DLP.
You might think that “The DLP is, at bottom, a labour party…” but have you actually paid any attention to the ultra-conservative fruitcakery that goes along with this.
Your comments about the membership and outlook of the Greens are as absurd as they are insulting. To suggest that Greens members are not committed to their party and to the political process is a uninformed delusion at best, and a deliberate lie at worst. You should seriously consider withdrawing that statement.
William,
I would rally appreciate being able to wade through the numbers from the distributions in all regions. Are you able to post or link the equivlent of the M&P file for the other regions.
Also I would like to be able to change my login to a prefered name and a password that I can remember. How can I do this?
Grant
as long as the Greens include old CPA members/supporters like Lee Rhiannon, i share Adam’s skepticism about them
Skepticism like yours is one thing Mary. Out and out lies and abusive rhetoric like Adam’s are a different thing altogether.
WAEC Media Release of Legislative Council result complete with names.
http://www.waec.wa.gov.au/elections/state_elections/election_results/2008_State_General_Election/media_centre/documents/Media%20Release15%2008%20LCcount.pdf
Luke, thanks for that. I wasn’t aware that Labor had lost one of its Council members through BBism. So that’s why Cadby was needed. Nevertheless, once Cadby was on board, there were still 18 votes for 1v1v in the Council. It was passed for the Assembly, so it could have been passed for the Council too. I presume the reason no legislation was introduced to this effect was that the Greens told Labor they wouldn’t support it. Is this not so? The inescable fact is that if the Greens had supported 1v1v for both houses that is what would have happened.
The question you have not answered is WHY the Greens took this position. I can think of several possible explanations:
(a) like the Nats, they actually think that people in Useless Loop are superior beings and should have votes worth 4 times more than the votes of people in Perth.
(b) they calculated that they could win more seats that way and be damned to democratic principle.
(c) others – I can’t think of any others.
Any thoughts of what might have happened in the upper house, as the current vote been conducted at 1V1V with the 36 seats?
Adam Dear 113,
You are so Passe!!!!! Loosen up!!!!!
Shelly Archer and Alan Cadby were never in the council together. 1v1v went through before the 2005 council took office but after the election in the lower house. This was because the new Council which took office May 22 2005 or therabouts , consisted of 14 Labor , 2 greens, 15 libs and 1 nat.
No one had a constitutional majority.
Adam @ 113: No. Check out post 105;Cadby favoured equal representation, not proportional representation, as between metro and country regions, and this is what we have – 18 country seats, and 18 metro seats. He favoured 1V1V within country and metro regions, but not between them. If the 36 LC seats were allocated in proportion to the country and metro elector numbers, it would be 9 country seats, and 27 metro seats, but it doesn’t appear that Cadby would have supported that.
Mary Hanna Wade!
Beware Reds under the bed! You poor young thing, as though any of your generation KNOWS anything about hardship. The spoilt rotten generation who thinks Labor still stands for something! The “Another Liberal Party” and a damned CONSERVATIVE one at that!
Actually Adam, the Shelley Archer situation wasn’t the reason why Cadby’s vote was needed. She resigned/was kicked out of the ALP during the November 2007 federal election campaign, whereas 1v1v was passed in the period between the February 2005 election and the May 2005 changeover to the new upper house, at which point Cadby exited parliament. The numbers then became ALP 16, Greens 2, Liberal 15, Nationals 1. This returned the situation to where it had been previously: 18 MLCs who might back 1v1v reduced to 17 after appointment of the President, against 16 who wouldn’t. Any Labor-Greens deal would thus have been 17-16 with no vote from the President, whereas the constitution required an absolute majority (18 votes) for changes to the composition of the upper house (which as I recall was one of a number of retrograde measures which Charles Court’s government passed in the late 70s).
However, Labor and the Greens together could have changed it so that the President had a deliberative rather than a casting vote, in which case any change to upper house would have got the magic 18th vote. But the Greens refused to support this when Labor tried to do it during Gallop’s first term. Labor didn’t try it again during the second term because they were content with the deal that had been reached, rightly or wrongly. Those in the WA ALP who see eye-to-eye with your reading of the situation blame Jim McGinty and the Left for being too keen to do a deal with the Greens, when they could have cut a better deal with the Liberals.
Andrew, that’s not correct. The 2005 Council had 16 ALP, 2 Green, 15 Libs and 1 Nat.
http://www.waec.wa.gov.au/elections/state_elections/election_results/2005_State_General_Election/legislative_council_elected_members.php
16+2=18 is an absolute majority of 34 which is the requirement.
Scott, if the Council election had been done by statewide PR with a 5% threshold, the result would have been: Lib 16, Nat 2, ALP 14, Green 4.
I hope I’ve answered that question for you: one of the 18 couldn’t vote, hence no absolute majority. As for the Greens’ motivations, the commenter “Hands off Venezuela” seems to be on top of which MPs were gunning for what in this thread.
OK I take the point about the President not having a deliberative vote, but from what William says it still seems to be the case that if Labor and the Greens had really wanted 1v1v in both houses they could have got it.
To cut a long story short, that is indeed the case.
Thanks William.
Now reading that thread, it seems that “Hands Off Venezuela” is supporting my original assertion, that it was all done to help Dee Margetts win a seat in Agricultural district. The other Green MLCs were divided but eventually acquiesced to oblige Margetts and Chappel. So if in your view “Hands Off Venezuela” knows what he or she is talking about, then I claim vindication.
A significant distinction being that it served the interests of a few Greens MPs, rather than the Greens as a whole. Interesting to note that this was a once-in-a-lifetime Greens caucus (if that’s the right word) that had more country than metro MPs, thanks to One Nation preferences in 2001.
Thanks Adam. Interesting. So in effect had the 1V1V reforms gone through, ALP/Greens would have a majority, once a speaker is chosen, presuming this comes from the Liberal Party.
Instead the Conservative forces now have complete control of both houses. I’m sure that will be great for democracy in WA.
I don’t think that makes it any less reprehensible. The opportunity to end a century of malapportionment in the WA parliament was lost because of the short-term opportunism of a handful of petit bourgeois dilettante politicians, and who knows when the chance will come again?
Adam,
Sticking with that thread of which you’re so enamored, can I draw people’s attention to Stewart J’s comments, particularly at 51 (and 41 and 44)?
You’re missing a very important aspect of The Greens (WA) decision making process: Consensus. The Greens, particualrly the Greens WA work very very hard to reach a consensus position on issues. If Dee Margetts required a system that maintained a particular level of representation to non-metro residents and she was supported by her constituents and local Greens members, a compromise would have to be found since her vote was required to pass anything.
Stewart goes on at 55 and 56 to explain how this compromise *reduced* the Greens chances in the LC.
I’d also draw your attention to Williams comment to you in that thread at 38:
“Adam, I agree with your antagonists here – in particular Luke’s assessment that “it may be stupid but it is not opportunist”. Any number of one-vote one-value models would have been better for the Greens than this six-by-six arrangement.”
and then Antony Green’s:
“I’m with William. I really don’t know why the Greens agreed to six member regions. They’ve made it harder for themselves to get elected in the two regions they represented on the marginal chance of winning seats in two of the other regions.”
And to be fair, I should include your response to William, in its entirety:
“*mutters darkly*”
d
Does that mean that East Metropolitan constituents and party members were uniquely unrepresented because they alone didn’t have a Greens MP?
William and Antony were disagreeing with me about the Greens’ motivations for doing what they did, not about the fact of what they did. With the greatest of respect in both cases, I still think they were wrong. The only explanation for what the Greens did is that has been offered so far is that they were acquiescing in Margetts’s demand that 1v1v be rejected so that she could win a seat in Agricultural. I still haven’t seen another plausible explanation. Darryl, do you have one?
#120 Adam: Mea Culpa. I realised after I posted that, I had taken my numbers from the current wa Parliament website, which doesn’t include 2 ALP members ( Catania and Giffard ).
“Does that mean that East Metropolitan constituents and party members were uniquely unrepresented because they alone didn’t have a Greens MP?”
Well, by definition if East Metro was the only division without a Greens MP then they were unique in not being represented by a Green. I’m not sure what you’re getting at with this question William. Are liberal voters in Fremantle unrepresented because they have an ALP MP? MPs always have a balancing act trying to represent the various people with legitimate claims on their attention. Caucus colleagues, the Party organisation, party members, constituents and members of the public who feel like they are not getting satisfaction from their local member. That’s hard balancing act and one that’s likely to end up with a lot more obviously angry people than obviously happy people. That’s also one of the reasons I like some sort of PR that takes state-wide party votes into account. If your local member is not someone who’s views accord with yours, you might have someone else whose mandate includes representing your views.
Sorry if I’ve missed your point. I’m a Queenslander and I don’t understand why the other states waste time and money on Legislative Councils :^)
d
d
My point is that there’s obviously a problem with a model of “consensus” that freezes out about a quarter of the membership.
According to ABC TV News, the Libs plan to retain RPH is in trouble with both John Bowler & Janet Woolard indicating their opposition to the plan, with Bowler going as far as saying he’ll vote against the legislation, while Woolard is concerned about funding being diverted from the Fiona Stanley hospital and health services in general in the Southern suburbs.
I notice Crikey lagging 4 months behind The Worst of Perth, and then shamefully giving absoutely no credit to The Lazy Aussie for remembering back 20 years that there was a picture of WA Nationals Grant Woodhams wearing a bong shirt, and equally no credit to David Cohen for finding the photo they used in tips and rumours.
http://theworstofperth.com/2008/05/08/bad-gin-2/
What kind of organisation have you joined here William? Disgraceful.
Perfect timing for the new Liberal Government in WA (see link attached) as they strive to implement and foster the birth of the Uranium Mining industry in WA.
They will quite rightfully continue to smell like roses over the next few years as a result of continued breakthroughs like this.
And to think the previous Labor Government wanted to legislate to keep the resource buried in the ground.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24370728-5013404,00.html
I’m in no doubt that it (Uranium Mining) will be this states next boom industry and congratulations must go to the Liberal Party for putting the issue on the electoral platform from the start in the recent election – and further having the balls to cut through and win the right to govern in spite of it.
If the Nats could have had a majority in the upper house with Labor, i would put money on the Nats having gone with Labor instead…
Adam
You require a plausible explanation. How about what happened, or is that just not good enough? I will admit that Dee Margetts may have thought she would win her seat in Agricultural in 2005, but I can also say that no-one else thought that. The acquiescence you think you see is that her vote was required at the time to pass the legislation in whatever form. Simple stuff.
As to the Presidents vote: well, if you believe in “what ever it takes” then fine, but at the time the thinking was that if the change to the Presidents vote was unconnected to the 1v1v legislation then it might have been considered, but as it was directly linked to it, it was seen as a just a piece of partisan electoral engineering. I was privy to a number of discussions on this and the consensus (heck, lets call it a unanimous vote) was that it was just too much like shifting the goalposts to suit the team – if McGinty had been smarter he might have brought the Presidents vote on sooner (ie; before the 1v1v legislation arrived) and it might have gotten through – suspicions of his motives notwithstanding.
re William & Greens members in East Metropolitan not having a say, well Luke can answer that one – they certainly did and some are fortunate enough to be in the position of being able to say ‘I told you so’. Whether East Metro constituents were represented – well maybe they weren’t, but by the same token, you might argue were the constituents of other regions well served – in the Assembly yes, in the Council perhaps not.
“My point is that there’s obviously a problem with a model of “consensus” that freezes out about a quarter of the membership.”
That would be a problem, but we’ve no reason to think that happened and until now I’ve not heard anyone claim that it happened.
I thought I suggested Margetts was listening to her constituents and pointed to Stewarts comments @ 51 in the previous thead. You’ve somehow interpreted that as meaning party members in east metro were unrepresented in the process that led to the Greens (WA) position. Clearly, I should call it a night.
d
Darryl, my line of thought was that a process requiring consensus among MPs taking their cues from “constituents and local Greens members” meant that if you didn’t have an MP to take cues from you, you were not represented in the process in any meaningful sense. You seem pretty sure that’s not the case, so perhaps I’m missing something. However, a more important point might be that the default position in the absence of consensus is support for the status quo. Maybe in this case the status quo would have been better for the Greens and their constituency than a system that has delivered a 21-15 conservative majority, but it seems plain to me that other options would have been better than either.
And the other point I’m making is that country constituents/branch members were over-influential because the Greens party room at the time was egregiously unrepresentative of the party’s base, as most of them had been elected in country regions off One Nation surpluses.
Full preference distributions for all regions:
North Metropolitan
East Metropolitan
South Metropolitan
South West
Agricultural
Mining and Pastoral
Sue Walker on her Election Defeat.
http://www.postnewspapers.com.au/20080920/news/009.shtml
I noticed in Friday’s West that they’re advertising the Welcome Home Parade and Reception for the Olympic & Paralympic teams for this coming Monday, and it features the old WA Coat of Arms as used during the Court Era, and not the current state Govt Logo.
And in a supreme irony, it will be the last public act by outgoing Premier Alan Carpenter, as he welcomes the team home, as the new Govt won’t be sworn in until Tuesday
Poor old Colin won’t have honour as Premier, but will be there as Opposition Leader
What timing
Listed below are close-ish results at the final counts. There were no tremendously close calls earlier in the counts that might have proved decisive, such as Family First or CDP candidates getting ahead of Liberal or Nationals candidates in South West or Agricultural.
EAST METROPOLITAN
Greens #1: 41489 (15.0%) ELECTED
Labor #3: 37106 (13.5%)
SOUTH METROPOLITAN
Greens #1: 43516 (15.5%) ELECTED
Liberal #3: 40174 (14.3%) ELECTED
Labor #3: 34640 (12.4%)
SOUTH WEST
Liberal #3: 22124 (14.4%) ELECTED
Greens #1: 20992 (13.6%)
AGRICULTURAL
Nationals #3: 11096 (15.2%) ELECTED
Labor #2: 8971 (12.3%)
Stewart J, thanks for your reply. I still can’t see any explanation for what happened in what you say other than that Dee Margetts said “I’m opposed to 1v1v in the Council because I want the retention of Agricultural so I can get elected there, and I won’t vote for 1v1v whatever you guys decide.” And then the others said: “OK Dee whatever you want.” If that is NOT what happened, please tell me what DID happen.
On the President’s vote, you seem to be saying that the Greens opposed it because they saw it is a manoeuvre by McGinty to get 1v1v through the Council. Well of COURSE it was – so what? If the Greens had been committed to the principle of electoral equality (which is what 1v1v) is, they would have supported it for precisely that reason.
All in all, NOTHING that Stewart or William or anyone else has said here has mounted any effective challenge to my assertion that the Greens opposed 1v1v purely to benefit themselves, or rather one of themselves, namely Margetts. And all for nothing since she didn’t get elected anyway.
SNIP: Abusive comment deleted. Last warning – The Management.
I note Today’s West are seting up The Nat’s as the whipping boys if things in Govt go pear shaped, especially Paul Murray.
I predict. Armstrong will do a 180 degree turnaround and talk up Labor as the good guys
1. My account of what happened in the Greens party room is based on what other contributors have said here.
2. As I’ve said several times, I’ve no objection to parties doing deals to benefit themselves. In this case, however, we are talking the Greens sabotaging a historic opportunity to reform the WA parliament by ending malapportionment in both houses. If they had done it out of principle, that would be one thing. I am still waiting for someone to tell me what principle the Greens were acting on when they made this decision. Until someone does so, I have to conclude they did it out of self-interest. Do you have a better explanation?
3. I have never been a candidate for pre-selection, and I have never had a boyfriend who was a Greens member (I don’t like lentils).
4. When you have something other than personal attacks to contribute, feel free.
William, I can look after myself.
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 » Show All