Sunday 26/10. Final result: Labor 7, Liberal 6, Greens 4.
The count has now been finalised and the Greens have indeed won a fourth seat in Molonglo, their candidate leading 9457 to the third Liberal’s 8536 at the key point in the count. As I should have noted in the previous entry, there was also a close race between the second and third Greens candidates which has in fact been won by Caroline Le Couteur, who overtook Elena Kirschbaum late in the count. Kirschbaum had 4203 votes at the point where she was excluded to Le Couteur’s 4285.
Saturday 25/10
In Molonglo, we now have a preference count for 62,577 out of 88,291, and Antony Green’s assessment is that “the Greens are starting to be favourite for the final spot”. On the present projection, second Greens candidate Elena Kirshbaum leads third Liberal candidate Guilia Jones 6660 to 6166 at the relevant count. The Liberals are likely to close the gap in what remains of the count – the primary votes that have been admitted to the preference count have gone 31.3 per cent Liberal and 18.5 per cent Greens compared with 31.4 per cent and 18.2 per cent from the total – but my back-of-envelope calculation tells me they will only be able to close the gap by perhaps 200 votes.
Tuesday 21/10
The count in Molonglo is getting progressively more interesting, with second Greens candidate Caroline Le Couteur just 49 votes behind third Liberal Jeremy Hanson at the crucial point in the count. Le Couteur herself leads the third Greens candidate, Elena Kirschbaum, by 49 votes at the relevant earlier point of the count. So the result could yet be Labor 7, Liberal 6, Greens 4, rather than 7-7-3.
Sunday 19/10
This post will be updated progressively with details of late counting in the ACT election. Two results remain in play: in Molonglo, which could either go Labor 3, Liberal 3, Greens 1 or Labor 3, Liberal 2, Greens 2, and in Ginninderra, which could either go Labor 2, Liberal 2, Greens 1 or Labor 3, Liberal 1, Greens 1. The most likely results will produce an outcome of Labor 7, Liberal 7, Greens 3, but other possibilities are for the Liberals to win as few as five, Labor to win eight or the Greens to win four.
In Molonglo, the Liberals are on 2.48 quotas on the primary vote and the Greens are on 1.48, so whoever does better on preferences will win the final seat. The problem for the Greens is the 2.7 per cent recorded by Liberal-turned-independent Richard Mulcahy, which based on pre-poll votes looks likely to go about 35 per cent to the Liberals and maybe 10 per cent to the Greens. Against that is that the Greens can hope for a strong rate of preference leakage from Labor. There is also an outside chance that independent Frank Pangallo could sneak through and take the seat if he receives enough preferences from minor candidates, but it would have to be rated a long shot.
In Ginninderra, Labor are on 2.41 quotas and the Liberals are on 1.64, the risk for the Liberals being that Greens preferences after the election of their candidate will push them ahead. However, the gap is probably wide enough to get endangered Liberal incumbent Vicki Dunne home.
326 Comments
More precisely The Greens are on 1.4756958055664445315562524500196
and Liberals 2.3908271266170129361034888279106
Ok that doesn’t make sense? Green vote is lower, by percentage, on ACT website vs. ABC site from yesterday and Liberal vote is higher.
I’m dividing number of votes by the quota, on the ACT site and that’s the quota’s it’s giving me. Why are the Libs actually lower, than on the ABC site?
Ah, I typed in a number wrong that’s why.
Libs are on 2.4888279106232849862798902391219
So 1.48 vs. 2.49
Still extremely close.
It’s so close, in fact, that I’d argue there’s no point looking at the party totals. A significant minority of people didn’t vote on the party line and I expect that will have an effect. It’s more important to watch the primary totals for “Giulia with a G” (which I always like to pronounce with a hard “G”), Caroline, Elena and Pangallo. When you look at it that way, Caroline is leading. I expect Giulia will get plenty of preferences from Zed, but Zed will also give a lot to Jeremy Hanson.
Where are you getting the latest figures from? The only figures after preferences I can find on ACT elections website were last updated on Saturday night
“However, the gap is probably wide enough endangered Liberal incumbent Vicki Dunne should get home.” Not a sentence.
“ALP founders in a sea of Greens” – By Christian Kerr
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24521423-5013871,00.html
LABOR is struggling in a rising Green tide around the nation, with the minor party now laying claim to being a mainstream player after ousting the ALP from majority government in the ACT.
Greens victories in three of the ACT’s 17 seats in Saturday’s election came amid strong showings in NSW weekend by-elections and will force Labor’s Jon Stanhope into a minority government.
The strong showing follows the Greens reaching a record high of 13 per cent support in the latest federal Newspoll – a result mirrored in state-based polls. As Labor strategists began considering how to counter the attack of the Greens from the political Left, the Greens’ federal leader, Bob Brown, said the results showed Australians were becoming greener and thrusting his party into the mainstream.
—-
Another one of Kerr’s rants. The ACT are about to do what Tasmania did a decade ago, that is the Greens holding the lower house balance of power and being able to decide who forms government. Federal/remaining states and territories all use instant runoff voting in single member electorates. They are unlikely to win a lower house seat at a general election, and even if they did it would only be 1 or 2 or 3, with Tanner’s Melbourne the most obvious first division off the block, given that it was the only electorate in 2007 to have the Greens on the two-party figure.
The only thing that Australia-wide growing Greens support will do is put more Greens in to upper houses, and whether (for arguments sake) an upper house has 49 ALP, 49 Lib and 2 Green, or, 44 ALP, 44 Lib, and 12 Green, it won’t make a difference in terms of outcomes, being that the Greens would hold the balance of power in both theoretical scenarios. It will make future federal Liberal governments very interesting however.
Don’t get me wrong, I put Greens above Labor at the 2007 fed election, only because Labor seems to be closer to the Liberals on social issues than ever before. But Kerr is still seriously overdramatising.
Is there any possibility of both Labor and Liberal forming a broad coalition to lock out the Greens? From what I recall Stanhope was quite pro-development and might find himself hamstrung by the Greens.
Alternatively is it likely that- since Labor are the government-in-residence- they will not form any agreements at all and simply sit in a minority, forming temporary alliances with either Greens or Liberals when necessary? There doesn’t seem anything the Greens or Libs could do about this apart from a no-confidence motion, which the Greens wouldn’t do.
The third seat in Ginninderra is really pretty safely Liberal at this stage, which, given the primary votes from both major parties, seems a bit of a joke, 41% ALP, 27% Libs and they both end up with 2 seats each. But that is the way of things, I suppose.
The interesting race will be the last seat in Molonglo – If the Greens win it, then the Libs will have gone backwards at this election, despite their leader claiming a victory when there was a swing agains them in the polls.
Australia Votes, the ACT Election site was last updated:
19/10/2008 6:01:58 PM
MDMConnell, I floated that idea in the last thread. In fact, there’s a letter in the Canberra Times today raising it as well. The thing is, even though Labor and the Libs have more in common with one another than The Greens, they’re so used to fighting each other that they couldn’t even contemplate it. Not to mention it would be particularly worrying if they went into coalition at territory level but were fighting at Federal level. ‘Grand coalitions’ are not unprecedented, but this is not the kind of situation where you would expect them to take place.
On your second point – Labor would need to guarantee supply. That’s why they need The Greens.
Oz
“it would be particularly worrying if they went into coalition at territory level but were fighting at Federal level”
This is the ACT government, which is regarded by many non-Canberrans as a puffed up local council. I’m sure these sorts of alliances are more common in local government. It wouldn’t have the same impact as the NSW or Vic state governments forming a grand alliance, for example.
“Labor would need to guarantee supply”
Suppose the greens blocked supply out of spite, what then? Labor would have to resign, meaning the greens would have to either
a) Back the Liberals, which they probably wouldn’t do for ideological reasons
b) force the people back to another election, and face a public backlash.
No, there’s nothing the Greens could do if Labor snubbed them and sat in a minority. They’d have to pass supply and give general confidence support. Unless they really did want to support the Liberals.
MDM – I agree with your conclusion about a Lib-Labor coalition, but I don’t think Labor and Liberal Party HQ see it that way so I think it’s not going to happen.
Stanhope already has an issue problem with him being considered arrogant. If he tried to govern without consulting The Greens, who have already picked up the votes of disenchanted Labor voters, and there was another election, the backlash would go against him not against The Greens.
I really don’t think the ‘negotiations’ will be that difficult. Guarantee light-rail, maybe some other ‘green’ initiatives and there you go. It would be very unlikely that The Greens supported the Libs but they have to make it out as though they are seriously negotiating lest they look like Labor stooges.
I think the Greens are probably leaning towards Labor, but if Labor completely locks the Greens out and tries to go it alone then the Greens would not have trouble supporting a Liberal government. I’m sure Stanhope understands that. And I’d point out that, while the Labor Party in Tasmania is probably the most anti-Green ALP in the country (hence so much difficulty in the Accord), you’d have to say the ACT ALP is the closest to the Greens. It would be easier to have a Labor-Green alliance here than in, say, NSW, VIC, QLD, WA or SA (lets throw in NT for good measure).
Sorry not ‘issue problem’, image problem.
I think Stanhope should just continue to govern, without doing any deals with anyone. If the Greens block legislation and frustrate government, it will be on their heads. But if they play nice they will probably get most of what they want – except banning cars and making tofu compulsory
In the ACT Executive power is vested in the Chief Minister. The Assembly elects the Chief Minister who then appoints a cabinet – so the first order of business is: “will the greens vote for Stanhope as Chief Minister?”. The answer is almost certainly ‘yes’, what is less certain is what the greens will want in exchange for that support. In the first Stanhope government he claimed a mandate by having eight seats and the Green accepted that without demur and supported him for CM and didn’t block any budgets – however she did frequently vote against the government on other bills and propose amendments.
When you say “the Assembly elects the CM” – what does this mean? In a Westminster system the Crown or its representative appoints the head of government, and that person then retains office unless their term expires or they lose the confidence of the legislature. In the context of the ACT, when the results are finalised I presume Stanhope will go to the GG and say, I believe I can form a government, and if the GG accepts that proposition she will then recommission him. On the other hand the GG is free to consult with all party leaders in deciding whom to commission, and presumably if the Greens tell her that they will not support a new Stanhope government, then the GG will explore other options. Is that a correct description of the process, or does the ACT have a different process?
Adam, in the ACT, the Assembly elects the Chief Minister. The GG has no role in the ACT. The self-government Act is written without an Adminstrator/Governor position. The Chief Minister in the ACT is always elected, not appointed. After an election or a passed vote of no-confidence, the Assembly’s first order of business is to elect a Chief Minister.
How very shocking. Rank republicanism!
There is no Executive Council either. Once bills are passed through the assembly, they are signed as passed by the speaker and come into force once published in the register of legislation.
The G-G overturning ACT laws, such as the gay relationships laws, has been done by the Commonwealth exercising its power to over-turn any ACT law. It does this by instructing the G-G to overturn the law. Someone with a better knowledge of the technicalities can better explain the process.
The Scottish and Welsh assemblies have adopted a similar process of electing First Ministers. Avoiding having to bother the Queen with such provincial matters.
The GG does have the power to dissolve the Assembly though, via Section 16 of the Self Goverment Act if it ” a)is incapable of effectively performing its functions; or (b) is conducting its affairs in a grossly improper manner”. The ACT doesn’t have a constituition, self government is set out through the Act – which makes it easy for crusading Tories to come in a la Kevin Andrews and amend the act so the Assembly could no longer enact legislation relating to euthanasia.
As Executive power is vested in the Chief Minister, it is technically possible for minister to be appointed who are not members of the Assembly.
Antony, section 35 details how the GG can disallow an enactment – pretty much as you describe it, although it is not explicitly stated that the GG needs to be directed to do so by the Australian Parliament and she can also recommend amendments.
And to think we’d have to deal with these fragile minority government situations if we actually did introduce multimember electorates in to the federal lower house…
Yes, heaven forbid we collapse into the chaos which PR has wrought in New Zealand, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Israel, Tasmania and many other countries. What a disaster!
Australian Capital Territory Self-Government Act 1989 (Cth), section 41 Ministers for the Territory, subsection 1: ‘The Chief Minister must appoint Ministers for the Territory from among the members of the Assembly.’
So it is not possible to have ministers who are not members of the Assembly.
To my mind, the interesting question is this one: Suppose the final result is, as seems likely 7-7-3. Then, when the Assembly comes to elect a Chief Minister, the Greens can either vote to put Stanhope in, or vote to put Seselja in, or abstain. What if they abstain? The Assembly will be unable to elect a Chief Minister.
For that very reason, I expect that the Greens will not abstain. In that case, what if neither Labor nor the Liberals offer them anything? They will still have to make the choice.
I don’t expect that will happen either, though.
Don’t forget Canada!
The Assembly has to make a choice. It cannot proceed to any further business until it elects a Chief Minister.
Yes, Antony, I know that the Assembly cannot proceed if it does not elect a Chief Minister.
And (as I said) I know that in practice the Greens will vote to elect a Chief Minister so that there will be no deadlock.
But in theory there is no mechanism to force them to vote to break a deadlock. If the vote comes out tied, all the Assembly can do is vote again. And if there’s still a deadlock they can vote again. And again. And (in theory) the Greens (or anybody else for that matter, if they held the tiebreaker votes) could keep on abstaining indefinitely.
Since the assembly elects the Chief Minister, is it possible for the Greens to choose which ALP or Liberal will be Chief?
As in, “We support the ALP but not Stanhope, pick someone else.” Not saying this might happen just wondering if its possible?
bob1234, Canada does not have a PR system.
Unless that was sarcasm. And I just made a fool out of myself.
Pretty sure it is Dave. Someone suggested that they make Labor support conditional on the fact that Gallagher is CM.
The Chief Minister ballot is conducted by secret ballot. The abstaining option was tried back in 1989. The anti-self government Independents had hoped to join with the Liberals to oppose Rosemary Follett as Chief Minister, and so make the Assembly unworkable to have self-government canned. At the last minute, Labor agreed to an amedment to allow an election for Opposition leader. Then Labor and Liberal combined to elect a Chief Minister and Opposition Leader. Self-government went ahead.
If the Greens were silly enough to try abstaining (I doubt they would be that silly), the Liberals at some point turn around, vote for Labor and accuse the Greens of being obstructionist. You can be sure the Greens won’t fall for that!
Combining with the Liberals to get a different Labor Chief Minister might be interesting. But if Labor refused to budge, again you get a deadlock.
It is in the interest of all three parties to make the Assembly work, so assume it will all be negotiated before any nastiness appears come the vote.
The Greens are meeting with Zed tomorrow.
BBQ diplomacy, the Canberra Times calls it.
Of course you’re right, Antony. But it does make for entertaining speculation.
Thanks J-D for the correction at 25 – not sure where I got it from, probably a frustrated Chief Minsiter wishing he could appoint ministers from outside the Assembly.
The other question of course is who gets the ‘consolation prize’ of becoming Speaker. Tradition in the ACT is that it goes to either the biggest idiot and/or most dangerous maverick of the dominant party. The Greens have been aggrieved in the past by Speakers’ rulings – they may be tempted to accept the role of independent umpire.
I have a question about distribution of preferences.
Lets say I voted 1 for Katy Gallagher in Molonglo, who is on 1.26 of a quota. That means her excess 0.26 needs to be redistributed.
How is the excess 0.26 determined?
Lets say I’m an idiot and voted Motorist Party 2nd. I’m probably the only Gallagher voter who did that. Is it a matter of chance whether my vote falls in the 1.00 Gallagher quota that is not redistributed, or the 0.26 that is?
Or is the redistribution done proportionally? Eg. is 0.206 of my vote sent to the Motorist Party?
Thanks in advance.
Random – the short answer is that all the preferences of the 1.26 quotas are distributed at a fractional value – so your 2nd preference lives on as a fraction – if no one else voted AMP 2 then it won’t go anywhere.
Thanks very much, Jimbo – that’s obviously the fairer outcome.
To use the simplest explanation random, the answer is yes, 0.206. The Transfer Value on votes is 0.26/1.26 = 0.206. The actual transfer value calculation is done using votes, and exhausted preferences would not be included in the calculation, but in simplest terms, the above calculation is essentially right.
The rules for transfer are still based on manual procedures and only integer value votes would be transferred. So if 10 of Gallagher’s preferences were to a Motoroist candidate, the transfer value is 0.206, so 2 votes get transferred. You get the odd ‘loss by fraction’ vote in this process.
Antony explained this in an earlier ACT thread. Good luck finding it, lol.
Thanks Antony – I imagine the fractions become even more complex when AMP drops out and the 2.06 Gallagher votes have to be redistributed again (assuming the 10 votes went differently on 3rd and subsequent preferences).
No wonder ACT is trialling electronic voting.
Hey Jimbo
Check out http://www.elections.act.gov.au/education/factHC.html
What would happen in your case (and everyone else who voted KG 1st pref) would be:
A transfer value is calculated by dividing the number of KG surplus votes by the number of papers expressing a 2nd preference.
Counting the number of votes for each candidate for whom a 2nd preference is listed
Multiplying that no. by the Transfer Value (and rounding down to the nearest integer) to get the no. of votes to be transferred.
Adding those votes to the totals of each receiving candidate.
Oops – sorry for repeating Antony . . . too slow on the keyboard
^There, found it.
Antony, judging by preference flows, which I’m sure you’ve analysed, how do rate the chances of The Greens picking up a second seat in Molonglo?
The ACT doesn’t need electronic voting it needs a better electoral system. Hare-CLarke with Robinson Rotation and a 100m exclusion from polling places on election day is not a good system and needs to be scrapped.
(that said, I support secure, open source, paper-supported, electronic voting – Ivoted electronically this time and it was quite good.)
I think the 100m rule might go. What they were really trying to stop was parties issuing tickets with suggested preferences, though the only party I actually saw doing this with newspaper ads in the ACT was the Greens. The ban works in Tasmania, but voters have a longer history of using Hare-Clark, and Tasmania isn’t a city-state like Canberra. Voters have much more knowledge of local candidates through the strongly regional nature of Tasmania, as well as the existence of local government.
In New Zealand, any form of campaigning on polling day is banned. On the Friday before polling day, all advertising hoardings have to be taken down, all posters is gardens, all bunting removed. Might be a good idea here to get oll the signs taken of power poles.
that’s posters ‘in’ gardens, and ‘all the signs off power polls’.
Oz, the Greens best chance is that the Liberals have 7 candidates for their 2.51 quotas, the Greens only 3 for their 1.47 quotas. That means there will be more leakage out of the Liberal ticket. However, I think the Liberals were getting more minor party drift to their ticket than the Greens. One to watch but I think the Liberal chances are slightly better.
Thanks for that, Antony.
I’m going to be keeping one eye fixed on those figures for the next week.
Now I’ve had a second look, I think the Green chances are not that good in Molonglo. Seselja has 1.5 quotas. On his election, the 0.5 quota gets distributed, leaving the Liberals with about 1.4 quotas split across 6 candidates. The Greens have 3 candidates, Rattenbury 0.88, and the Le Couteur on 0.30 and Kirschbaum on 0.29. When Kirschaum is eventually excluded, Rattenbury is elected, which leaves the Greens with about 0.4 to 0.5 quotas with a single candidate, le Couteur.
The Liberal ticket is evenly spread, which means at some point, only two candidates remain splitting 1.4 quotas between them. So each of them has above 0.6 quotas, higher than the only remaining Green. So even if the one remaining Green has 0.5 and the two remaining Libs have only 1.4 quotas, the greens still can’t win the last seat because the only reamining Green has less than either of the two remaining Liberals.
I won’t say the Greens can’t win the last seat, but their chances would be better if the Liberals had had two candidates with full quotas in their own right.
You ruined my week.
Maybe William’s theory will hold up and some of Gallagher’s surplus will flow through to Le Couteur or Kirschbaum (Can we just call them Caroline and Elena??) and keep the battle interesting.
No way Oz! Kirschbaum is a killer surname. If I were lucky enough to marry a woman named Kirschbaum, I would surely adopt her name.
I agree it is fun to say but not so fun to type.
The gap between them is now 93 votes.
Adam at 14: It’s precisely that attitude which makes Greens members like me want to back Seselja. I’d love to see the faces on some of the Labor hacks if they realised that their attitude to being dickheads toward the Greens just cost them the perks of office. And it’s not even like there isn’t a local precedent for it: if Kerrie Tucker and Lucy Horodny could work with the Libs in 1995-98, we certainly can now.
If the Greens were to back Seselja that would be the end of them as a significant force in Canberra.
As William points out, they now have a monopoly on ALP ‘leakage’. This election was a excellent example of that (11% away from ALP, 2% away from Lib, 6% to Green). If they back Seselja, it would be to the irritation of a great portion of the folk who voted for them. That would not be quickly forgiven at the next election.
I agree and disagree. In the end the Greens should back who offers them the best deal and let them know they can easily turf them out if they don’t live up to any demand they have or do something particularly objectionable.
I’d also demand a key ministry for one member and leave the other 2 on the crossbench. For instance, demand Climate Change, Water and the Environment; whilst leaving the other 2 members to speak out against the rest of the Government when need be.
Rebecca:
As long as the Greens insist on having the far-left fringe such as old Communist Lee Rhiannon in their party I won’t support them
Rhiannon’s parents were members of the Central Comittee of the Communist Party of Australia and Rhiannon dutifully served her parents and the CPA politically for decades
Greens taking seats from Labor is not what i want – Greens – or anyone – taking seats from the Liberals is what i want – in order for that to happen, the Greens have to move rightward towards the centre where the Democrats were.
Is that you Generic Person? In disguise? Some disguise.
He raised the exact same ‘point’ a few days ago. It was dutifully dealt with by some of the more sensible posters. Haven’t you heard? Red is the new black! Socialism back in!
Moving past that, as one poster pointed out, why are you intent on fighting cold war battles from 40 years ago? The CPA is dead. Lee Rhiannon is a member of The Greens. She was elected as a member of The Greens and adheres to Green policies. To paraphrase John McCain, if you want to argue against communism you should have been blogging decades ago.
Regarding your last paragraph, the Greens are not political pragmatists. They do not exist for the purpose of gaining seats by sacrificing principles. They are a party founded on principles and their members are elected on those principles. The centre ground is now dominated by Labor who shift rightwards in their ultimately successful attempt to gain power. The fact that the Greens are steadily increasing their vote around the country without sacrificing their principles or selling out their policies should not be viewed as an indictment by the electorate but the exact opposite.
Oz:
As William would tell you – different IP address and different person
Adam was the one who brought up Rhiannon’s old Communism (and her mother’s notorious Stalinism) a while back – i happen to agree with him that it should not be forgotten and should be remembered when assesing Rhiannon – you don’t just stop having life-long beliefs after all
As Adam said: “We all remember what the Trots and Marxists did to the NDP”
Labor voters and there irrational fear of The Greens.
I presume you don’t vote ALP because of Julia Gillard’s past far-left history?
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22544981-421,00.html
“SCRAPPING the ANZUS treaty, twinning Melbourne with Leningrad and introducing a super-tax on the rich were among radical policies devised or backed by Julia Gillard as a student activist.”
Now your only argument is about differing degrees of “leftiness” which would be an amusing discussion.
*Their, of course.
Oz:
Gillard was a young student – Rhiannon was a Communist well into the “full grown adult who should bare full responsibility for her actions” part of her life and she only stopped being an official one because the CPA disappeared from under her
WRT Canberra if i were Stanhope i would give serious consideration to a governing in a minorority or even a “grand coalition” to keep the more fringy Greens out of power and influence
MWH, Gillard was a radical in the ’80’s and ’90’s. That is, her 20’s and 30’s.
Rhiannon was a member of the CPA for “a few years in the 70’s”. In her 20’s.
Did Michael Costa’s membership of the Trotskyist Socialist Worker’s Party in the late 70’s, while he was in his late 20’s stop you voting for the Labor Party?
If you have issues with The Greens about their policies, just say them. No need to hide behind hypocritical attacks on “far-leftism”.
Oz:
Is that Rhiannon’s version of events – the one that doesn’t mention the reality of her involvement in Communist-controlled youth groups in the 60s, her involvment in Communist directed unions in the 70s and 80s – not to mention her parent’s membership of the Central Committee and hard-line Stalinism
I’m not a member of the ALP – i used to vote Democrat and am now independent
sorry William for this
Mary Hannah Wade: I couldn’t care less what rightward Labor voters would like. As a Green, I expect them to do the best to achieve the policies of their constituency, which is to Labor’s left. If Labor insists on bastardising us at every opportunity, then they’re going to eventually find out – as the Liberals keep finding out with state branches of the Nats – they’re going to wind up with a very intransigent party.
There’s a section of Labor diehards that seem to both think a) that they can pee on the Greens from height, while b) the Greens owe Labor something. I think we could achieve a lot by backing a Seselja government, and it’d give Labor the kick up the arse needed to stop taking us for granted, and realise that tacky smear campaigns like they pulled here can lose them government.
Rebecca:
The Greens could do with some moderation though – for example their views on unions and union power seem to be so anachronistic that they are pre-Winter of Discontent
I am a centrist and former Democrat not a Laborite
Again sorry William
I’m very sceptical about the possibility of the greens getting two in Molonglo, but having just done some analysis of the preference flows thus far (noting that there will be a big update tomorrow night) there are enough preferences coming to the Greens from others for Rattenbury to be elected without using the preferences of Elena and Caroline. For full benefit it would need Elena to outlast Pangallo – she’s about 25 votes behind so perfectly possible. That would see either of Elena or Caroline sitting on a healthy 0.6 of a quota…not enough to stay ahead of Giulia Jones yet – about 0.08 of a quota behind, but well within the change that will come with further counting.
I haven’t looked at Ginninderra so haven’t formed an opinion about the possible dispatching of VIcki Dunne to the void
Thanks for that information, Jimbo. Keep us updated with the preference flows!
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/greens-at-odds-over-leadership-as-suitors-knock/1338719.aspx
If they can’t elect their own leader I wonder how they will elect the leader of the ACT?
Disappointing. Is it policy differences? Does someone want to support Lib and someone else Labor? Or just hubris.
Oz, its not that surprising. None of the Green state parties have one leader, they have co-convenors. The party is being forced to choose one leader when they have never had to before.
Just think, if all Australian parties had co-leaders, and then the ALP or Libs, who only had one leader, were forced to change a winning formula, could that be done this quickly?
Who would have been co-leader with Bracks? Kennett? Howard?
Different parties have different ways of opperating. When they are forced to change how they work, they need to do it carefully or everything will crumble.
Why are they being forced to choose?
I’m guessing its because the ALP/Libs will only give a possible cabinet position to the leader.
Another reason could be the media would prefer to speak to one leader.
Having the BoP is probably another reason. Bob is now leader where he wasn’t officially before.
Maybe its their own decision and they aren’t being forced. I’m just saying that choosing one leader is different. And it probably makes it harder when both convenors have been elected.
Fair enough. Interesting to see the outcome.
On the score of Bob Brown – he’s not actually the leader of the Australian Greens, irrespective of the views of the media and general populace. He’s the Parliamentary Leader. This is not just a difference of semantics – operationally he does not control the party.
It wasn’t a very bright decision by the Greens to try and pick a leader. It should’ve just gone informally, as the federal Greens did forever, and as the ACT Greens did last time they had multiple members with Tucker and Horodny.
Everyone knew that in the event of there being a sole leader, both Rattenbury and Hunter were going to want the position – and if they were to be co-leaders, it wouldn’t do much for Bresnan if there were only three MLAs.
Surely if The Greens get 3 members elected and they get a ministry, they can job share the position?
Evenin’ all – ACT Electoral Commission has released a new interim distribution of preferences. Not sure that their new electronic counting system is going well as they don’t seem to have made a great deal of progress in two days. However it is a little clearer in Molonglo that the key thing for a second green to get up is that they are both in the count when Pangallo gets excluded – that passes on enough preferences for Rattenbury to be elected in his own right (by my calculations at least). At the moment Elena is 33 votes behind. This vote count is done in alphabetical order of booths, so the best booths for the Greens are yet to come – with a big flurry towards the end with the Turner booth. However, before anyone gets excited, being ahead of Pangallo is only part of getting up, they also need to be ahead of Giulia Jones – this will be a tougher ask and at the moment, presumably due to better booths for her, she’s well ahead – this is a distortion as she’s ahead of Jeremy Hanson on this count, we know he’s well ahead on first preferences. Thursday should be a bit clearer as Lyneham booth will have been counted by then.
I had a quick look at Ginninderra – it’s still early in the count but I think, regrettably, Vicki Dunne is safe owing to the even split between the three remaining Labor candidates…Mark Parton though is doing surprisingly well there may yet be serious heart palpatations for Mrs Dunne from this quarter.
What are Parton’s political inclinations?
Adam: Daft, and right-wing. He was notable for releasing nearly no policy at all, and what was there of it was entirely contradictory. What we do know is that he was publicly endorsed and backed by the Canberra Business Club, the ex-Liberal fundraising organisation that got pissed at the party’s dysfunctionality, walked away, and started funding pro-business independents.
Jimbo I don’t understand your comment about ‘both’ greens still being in the count when Pangallo gets excluded – there are three Green candidates and although, as you say, on tonights distribution Elena Kirschbaum gets eliminated before Pangallo, that still leaves both Rattenbury and Le Couteur. Rattenbury gets elected on prefs from Kirschbaum and Le Couteur goes way ahead of Pangallo in the same distribution. Pangallo eliminated and then it is up to whether Le Couteur survives one of the two remaining Libs.
On election night I must admit I hadn’t noticed the fact that Hanson outpolled Jones on primaries when I made the observation that the last Lib (I said Jones but meant Hanson) beat Le Couteur in the interim distribution of electronic votes by a much smaller margin than the Greens stood to make up in the counting of paper ballots.
Having absorbed your important point that the second Green probably needs to beat Jones rather than Hanson, I’d now point to the fact that in tonight’s count Le Couteur is just over 0.19 of a quota behind Jones at the point she gets eliminated. Tonight’s distribution is based on a primary vote for the Libs of 2.61 quotas, and 1.39 quotas for the Greens. The Greens’ relative position on total primaries vis-a-vis the Libs is actually .22 of a quota better in the overall count – ie Libs 2.5 quotas to Greens 1.5. Not to mention the fact that Jones started in tonight’s distribution with primaries representing 0.34 of a quota when her position in the overall count of primaries is 0.20 of a quota.
I would be willing to put a small bet on two Greens getting elected in Molonglo. Probably Caroline le Couteur as the second, but it could still be Elena Kirschbaum.
For what it’s worth, my analysis agrees with canberra boy: very very close, but if I had to bet I’d bet on the second Green.
It’s worth a very great deal, Charles. I’m too exhausted at the moment to follow the intricacies of the count, so I greatly appreciate these assessments from those who have their eye on the ball. I will start adding updates to the post when I’m able to rouse myself.
Canberraboy – the importance of the two lesser greens staying ahead of Pangallo is that there are enough preferences from him, and the other rats and mice excluded prior to him, to get Rattenbury over the line. If a green gets excluded first then while the bulk of their preferences stay in the ballot group, most go to Rattenbury and he ends up with an overquota – this overquota gets distributed at fractional value resulting in a net loss – maybe as much as 20%. If Rattenbury is elected on Pangallo prefs, then when Elena gets excluded her prefs will transfer to Caroline at full value – this will be important as there is almost nothing between Jones and Caroline.
It is really important to remember that these preference distributions come from a full second count. On election night only first preferences of paper votes were counted with a full ocunt of electronic votes. What is happending now is that paper votes are being recounted with preferences entered into the computer – early results are distorted becasue only a few booths are counted – Jones is ahead of Hanson in this count because there are better booths for her than him counted – but we know that on first prefs he’s way ahead. What you can use these early counts for is to work out where preferences are going, go back to the primary count and apply as a ratio.
In related news The Greens have deferred negotiations with the Liberals as they eye the count.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/greens-delay-leadership-talks-as-party-eyes-4th-seat/1339827.aspx
I thought I’d point out that out of the three booths that have been counted in this interim distribution of preferences – Ainslie North, Amaroo and and Aranda, Ainslie North is pretty healthy Green booth (31.4% primary vs 17% Libs), Amaroo is pathetic (7.7% Greens vs. 44% Libs) and Aranda only as 101 votes 26% Greens to 13% Libs.
So averaging that out, the booths are probably favouring the Libs, especially since Amaroo is a bit bigger than Ainslie North.
Check out this pathetic article:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/little-cause-for-celebration/1339845.aspx
Indeed! Pretty sad that you have to go back a year to find election results in an attempt to spin this as anything other than a comprehensively positive result for The Greens.
Hrumph! Aranda isn’t even in the Molonglo electorate! There would be a couple of out of area votes, but nothing significant
Amaroo is Giulia Jones home suburb so polls strongly for her, hence the aberration that currently sees her ahead of Jeremy Hanson. This will come down to the woire as two of the Greens strongest booths are Turner and Watson, whilst the Libs have two strong ones in Weston and Yarralumla – the tricky bit is that these last two are good for Hanson, not Jones. If it’s taken two days and we’re still only at the ‘A’ booths, it’s going to be a long wait till we get to ‘W’ and ‘Y’
Having done some further analysis on Ginninderra I think, despite an impressive performance from the Mark Parton, Vicki Dunne is safe by about 400 votes. Labor no chance for a third seat. One wonders if Parton had managed to form a party and thus not be in the ungrouped netherworld on the ballot paper whether he might actually have made it.
JimboBoy, what’s wrong with your analysis is that you talk about the third Green staying ahead of Pangallo. On the current distribution where Pangallo starts behind the third Green, he manages to pull ahead. If you check the almost complete primary count, Pangallo actually starts off ahead of both the second and third Green. On that basis, I don’t think what you’re talking about is going to happen.
On the current distribution, Pangallo has 0.27, primary count now 0.32
Rattenbury 0.75, primary 0.87
Le Couteur 0.33/0.30
Kirschbaum 0.32/0.29
So as the primary count comes in, Rattenbury’s vote rises, the other two Greens fall and Pangallo rises. Which makes your scenario less likely.
Fair point Antony, but I’m not convinced the order of elimination is going to make much difference. On last night’s count, even with Kirschbaum going out before Pangallo, the Greens still get within 49 votes, so on the basis that the booths still to come are better for them than what’s been tallied so far they should be able to get a second up (either Kirschbaum or Le Couteur).
Depends Charles. The Green was trailing Liberal Hanson by 49 votes, but Hanson won’t be running third on the Liberal ticket when all the votes are in, it will be Jones. You have to compare the candidates as the Liberals will have more than 1.5 quotas split across two candidates, while the Greens will have their surplus of more than 0.5 quotas with a single candidate. I can’t say it won’t happen, but it is a mistake just to compare the party totals and surplus, you have to compare the candidate totals.
Hrumph again Antony Green – Jimbocool thanks very much…perhaps you confused me with Canberraboy…
Anyways my worry has always been, where will the greens preferences come from to get them over the line? My answer is that there just aint enough there to make up the quota, so what has to happen is that either Elena or Caroline has to be ahead of Giulia Jones at the end of the count, a situation in which a quota is irrelevant. In order to get ahead of Jones, they need to maximise their in-group preference flows – if one is excluded and elects Rattenbury the resulting overquota get distributed at fractional value, probaly a net loss of 20% than if, on the back of Pangallo prefs Rattenbury gets his quota. Pangallo prefs are now going 18% to the greens (up from 14% when I did my first calculations), CAP prefs are at 29% (but the volume is considerably less than Pangallo).
I appreciate your argument, but I think that it’s too early in the count to see where the Pangallo vs lesser Greens race is going. If indeed you are right and Pangallo is going to end up ahead of a lesser green then they will not be able to pick up that final seat.
Tonight’s interim distribution with about 9300 extra votes included has thrown up a couple of interesting things.
But first, thanks Jimbo for explaining what you were driving at about the second and third Greens remaining in the count beyond Pangallo. That would maximise things for them, but like Antony I don’t think it is possible. I’m 100% with Charles in saying that that particular order of elimination won’t matter.
Then there’s Antony’s last comment. He’s right that it will depend upon how the total for the Libs is divided between the two surviving candidates. But he’s wrong in saying that the Greens will have only 0.5 of a quota for their one candidate versus 1.5 between the 2 Libs. Looking at tonight’s distribution, the overall preference flow from other eliminated or elected candidates favours the Greens over the Libs so that at the stage there’s three candidates left Kirschbaum has 0.85 of a quota while the two Libs have 1.75 between them.
Kirschbaum getting within 101 votes of Hanson at the end, or 0.02 of a quota, was achieved with a starting point of primary votes in this distribution that relatively disadvantaged the Greens by 0.15 of a quota (or 600 votes) compared to the overall election primary tallies. So that’s one interesting thing.
The other observation from tonight’s distribution is that although Hanson starts out 147 votes ahead of Jones on primaries, the preferences favour Jones to the degree that she ends up 57 votes ahead at the point there are three candidates remaining. Perhaps this is a local effect from the particular booths included to date. I doubt that even if this preference split were maintained right through the remaining ballot papers it would enable Jones to get ahead when Hanson’s 1000 primary vote head start is all included. But it underlines the fact that one should not assume too much when dealing with the dreaded Hare-Clark system!
Polling booths included: Ainslie, Ainslie North, Amaroo, Baker Gardens, Barton & Campbell.
I was just about to draw attention to the new figures but canberra boy got ahead of me. So, what he said. (Except it’s not three candidates remaining at that point but four – the third ALPer hasn’t been elected yet.) The Greens’ problem is that Hanson and Jones are so close together; since everyone’s under quota at that point (moral: should have floating quotas), it just needs one Liberal to get noticeably ahead of the other for the second Green to slip thru.
Charles I did indeed overlook poor Mr Corbell! I think Antony was implying much the same thing earlier about the need for the Libs to split their vote evenly to keep the third Green out. The preferences favouring Jones over Hanson helps to achieve this. But I still reckon the more favourable primary vote position for the Greens when all ballots are included will enable them to win a third seat.
All those new booths are fairly strongly Liberal (Campbell 41%!) bar one. Though I wonder if there’s actually any link between primary vote and preferences. What I mean is, if the Liberals for example poll strongly in a particular area does that usually correlate to a large amount of preference flows to them from other parties and candidates? Or is there no correlation at all, meaning that there’s not point in looking how how Green or Liberal particular booths are.
Oz I have been wondering the same thing. My guess is that there isn’t that correlation – ie that preference flows from a particular kind of voter (ie supporter of particular candidates or parties) will flow in much the same way regardless of whether there are more or less Libs, Greens or whatever in their neighbourhood. The exception could be if there is a local candidate.
Antony or someone else may have observations on this from other elections.
We can also set out to do our own research… I’ve been saving the daily distribution spreadsheets from the ACT Electoral Commission to enable backwards comparison.
Would you like to jointly author a paper for the Journal of Inconsequential Studies?
I still reckon the most important factor to consider at the moment is that the Greens are 600 primary votes behind the position they would be at relative to the Liberals if the sample of votes in the interim distribution mirrored the overall vote.
The Greens should seriously consider forming government with the Liberal Party. The ALP just takes the Greens for granted- like as if they own them.
Someone else has probably already done it but I’m not familiar with the results of such research if so, so I’m going to have a look at it now. I’m going to find the first three-candidate federal seat contest I can (because the preference data for such contests is so readily available on a broken down basis) and I hypothesise that there will be a corellation between the booth primary vote for the Liberal (or National) Party and the proportion of preferences that party receives from the third candidate in that seat.
I propose this corellation will exist for two reasons: (i) that voting intent in a given booth covers a spectrum influenced by the booth’s demographics and not just a polarised either-or, so if there are a lot of Liberals in a given booth then those who prefer the third party candidate may be more likely to preference the Liberals (ii) that where a candidate polls strongly because of local name recognition, they will also attract more preferences for the same reason.
My method for finding a guinea-pig seat for this test will be to scroll through the state-by-state 2007 results on Adam Carr’s archive until I find a suitable seat. This method has been chosen to eliminate my own biases.
Back when I’ve done it to report on the results.
Actually I struck a semi-expected obstacle right away – can’t find any three candidate contests as they all seem to have more! I will use the seat of Canberra as the guinea pig since (a) it is relevant to the current election (b) it was a four candidate contest where one candidate was a very minor independent who polled less than one percent.
I’m mystified by your 600 votes comment Canberra boy. The Green vote on that distribution is 1.47 quotas as opposed to 1.46 quotas on the full primary count. The Labor ticket is 2.80 quotas compared to 2.90 quotas, the Liberal vote 2.62 as opposed to 2.52, Pangallo 0.36 compared to final 0.39. The battle is still between Hanson, Jones and a second Green. Hanson will have the higher primary vote but Jones is consistently favoured in preferences from other Liberals. Together with the operation of Robson rotation, this is keeping Hanson and Jones’s totals roughly equal, splitting the Liberal ticket and keeping them just ahead of the third Green. I think the point is that both Jones and Hanson may be 100-200 votes higher than they will be at the end of the count, which makes the final race closer. And the 2nd and 3rd Green have 0.65 quotas togather where by the end of the count they will have 0.59 and need more preferences to get to their current tally.
And the current count has Labor 0.10 short of its final primary. Corbell will have an extra 400 votes on the current count which puts him out of any difficulty.
Jones is still overperforming compared to her final total and Hanson is still underperforming on first preferences. But will other voters in booths that had high Hanson first preferences be more likely to preference him over Jones or will she continue to grab a larger slice of the later prefs?
I got as far as Fadden in the list of 2007 Canberra FE booths before the case for the opposite view occurred to me. That is, if the Liberals poll well in a particular booth that could mean that they are successfully competing for primary votes among those who would have otherwise put them second, which could mean one would expect a degree of corellation in the *opposite* direction (ie strong primary performance in a booth = bad performance on preferences in that booth). Nevertheless I shall press on with my hypothesis from #98 and see what happens to it (aint science grand?)
Good luck, Kevin.
If I didn’t have half a dozen papers to write I’d join you.
Of course that’s with the 3 dissimilar parties. When it’s within the Liberal Party the the trend could be different. The question is really where Zed’s excess and the votes from the other excluded liberals will go.
Some analysis on the latest distribution – please note caveats. Antony, I make the Lib preference split between Hanson and Jones as pretty much even, maybe Jones marginally ahead.
Now a big caveat here is that the interim distribution of preferences is still too early for my projections to be reliable, but for fun here they are:
1) On the current preference flows the greens will end up with 1.743 quotas and the Libs 2.788 – indicating that the final seat is down to 0.045 quotas. This also suggests that the winner of the final seat will not actually get a quota.
2) As I’ve said before the fate of Caroline Le Couteur is determined by whether or not Elena stays ahead of Pangallo. If she doesn’t – most likely – then Caroline ends up on 0.653 quotas. If she does stay ahead of Pangallo – less likely – then Caroline ends up on 0.772 quotas – which is probably enough to outlast Jones
3) I can’t do a remotely reliable projection of where Jones ends up on this distribution as Hanson is neither elected nor excluded. A very rough figure is 0.424 quotas- which is obviously wrong but perhaps indicates she’s behind
On preference flows within the Libs, on the current distribution:
Seselja: 16% to Hanson, 20% to Jones
White: 17% to Hanson, 16% to Jones
Kent: 30% to Hanson, 26% to Jones
Barnier: 21% Hanson, 15% to Jones
Burke: 36% Hanson, 42% to Jones
Which if anything slightly favours Hanson, but it could change
To analyse the final counts, when Mike Hettinger is excluded, the totals are as follows
Pangallo 0.44 quotas
Labor 1.74 across 2 candidates
Green 1.83 across 3 candidates, lowest Green 0.42
Liberal 1.71 across 3 candidates
The Pangallo going out theory suffers because his vote will rise as the rest of the primary count is excluded while the lowest Green candidates primary vote will fall. The gap between a third Green and Pangallo will widen for the rest of the count.
The third Green goes out and elects Rattenbury and then his surplus is distributed. Totals are now
Pangallo 0.46 quotas
Labor 1.77 across 2 candidates
Green 0.75 with one candidate
Liberal 1.73 across 3 candidates
Pangallo goes out and also elects Andrew Barr. After his preferences and the tiny Labor surplus, totals are
Labor 0.88 quotas with one candidate
Green 0.83 with one candidate
Liberal 1.85 with three candidates
Jacqui Burke now goes out
Labor 0.89 with one candidate
Greens 0.85 with one candidate
Liberal 1.75 across 2 candidates, totals 0.88 and 0.87 quotas.
Compared to the final primary totals, Labor’s vote will be higher, Liberal vote lower, Pangallo higher, Green second candidate lower, and minor parties whose preferences are leaking to Liberal slightly higher.
That’s one very close final count. The Greens need one of the two final Liberal candidates to open a lead over the other. At every stage of the count so far, the final two Liberals have been neck and neck. It’s very similar to the Brindabella count in 2004, when the Green just couldn’t get ahead of one of the two remaining Liberals.
I scrubbed the booths Oakes Estate, Tharwa and three Special Hospitals from my 2007 Canberra FE sample for being too small. For the remaining 37 the net result is that there is no remotely significant rank corellation in either direction between the Liberal primary vote and the proportion of preferences received by the Liberal candidate (r=.096, p=.56). Of course if you throw a very large amount of data at it from lots of different booths rather than just 37 booths from one electorate you might get somewhere but for a small sample either the factors pulling in opposite directions cancel out or else any corellation is totally drowned out by slop. Might do this on a larger scale sometime if it has not already been done.
And areaman is completely correct – things might very well be different when talking about booth-by-booth preference flows within a party. Maybe I should have spent the above time doing something more useful like a full notional distribution of preferences using the updated primary figures as a base.
Something worth bearing in mind when looking at these kinds of situations (and I’ve seen a few of them) – when people are talking about the Greens being .xy of a quota behind on a distribution based on incorrect primaries, and actually being .zw of a quota better than that in the real primaries, the .zw doesn’t translate fully to their final position. An increase in the Green primary at the expense of the Libs increases the Green exposure to leakage while decreasing the Libs’, meaning that only most of the vote gain is effectively reflected in the final position and not all of it.
The scenario of a candidate losing because they are the sole remaining candidate opposed to two fairly evenly split ones from another party is one that I often talk about in Hare-Clark but practical examples of it happening are rare. Will be interesting to see if this turns out to be one or not.
Kevin, it happened in Brindabella in 2004. At the end of count 45, one Green had 0.58 quotas, two Liberals had 1.52. But the Liberals had 0.71 and 0.81 which meant the final Green was distributed at this point. I think it is something more likely to occur in the ACT than Tasmania, because the vote between candidates is much more randomised in the ACT by the extra rotations, and because the individual candidates tend to be less well known.
The fact that the greens only ran 3 candidates and the Libs 7 means that they’ll have lower leakage, but yeah more votes means more leakage (in votes, not percentages).
So The Greens would have had a better chance if they only ran 2 candidates?
Jimbo Cool, hate to disagree on the preferences, but I think they favour Jones when you take account of the size of the bundles, and when you pull out Seselja’s preferences that can be identified at every stage of the count.
Of Seselja’s surplus, 827 finish with Jones,777 with Hanson, 41% to 38%
White to Jones 68 (18%) Hanson 65 (17%)
Barnier to jones 153 (24%) Hanson 132 (21%)
Kent to Jones 274 (26%) Hanson 316 (30%)
Burke 660 to Jones (42%) and Hanson 559 (36%)
However, Jones’s primary still has to slip anoth 0.08 of a quota to the final primary. That opens a real opportuinity for the Greens to get ahead.
It depends on how many votes the candidates got for the greens ticket that the party wouldn’t have if they hadn’t been there.
Anthony, the question which I asked at the top of the page that no one seems to know is if if Jones’ share of liberal preferences will fall inline with her declining primary vote.
That’s because no one knows.
That’s what I figured
.
Areaman you could make an educated guess though – using either of Antony’s or my estimates of preference flow ratios and apply them to the uncounted booths – ignoring the Zed vote. Add the Zed preferences back in at the end as a ratio of his overall primary overquota. Laborious perhaps but you’ll have an idea. To do it this way you should use my ratios I think because Antony’s done some fancy juju to the Zed overquota on his Turing machine. I’m using pen and paper and the power of procrastination…
But my argument is that her flows (as a percentage) will fall along with her primary. All doing that maths would show is how many pereferences she’d get if the ratios stayed the same.
I think the preference flows will be exactly the same. There does seem to be a slightly higher flow of preferences to her from both Seselja and Burke, but the rest are essentially random, as occurs under full Robson rotation.
Well, Kirschbaum gets to second on the Green ticket, but only on a count back, and then wins the last spot after getting 58 votes ahead of Jones. this count will go on all week.
Bummer – no update on the Elections ACT website…
I disagree that the preferences are “essentially random, as occurs under full Robson rotation” – if a voter marks out 1 to 7(which is the bulk of the major party votes) in a ballot group they do it in an order that isn’t random, and the mere presence of Robson rotation doesn’t make it so. If it were that simple surely we could just rake a random sample of ballot papers and build a confidence interval from that – no need for Antony’s juju and Turing machine, no need for a full count. Which reminds me, where’s Possum? Now that we’re talking stats surely he has a regression that will help us?
To what extent foes donkey voting occur under Robson rotation- does anybody know, is it possible to detect it? There must surely be a tendency, even for a “thinking voter” for people to say- “this is too hard” or “it’ll all come out in the wash anyway”, so they just vote down the ticket for the Party they choose and for the ballot-paper permutation they’ve been handed. The system was initially designed to stop intra-party squabbles over who was going to be top of the pecking order- a rather strange tool to intercede within a party.
These permutations are limited by the technology of the printing process (in Tasmania anyway) and generally the candidate order 1234 is just rotated in each batch i.e. to 2341, with each column rotating in lock-step. It’s just like an Enigma machine really and it might be possible to do a Turing and “break” it? You could get horizontal donkey voting as well, in which there would be a correlation between parties for a given candidate.
In the case of electronic voting it ought to be possible to present each voter with a more truly random ballot “paper” without such intra-party and inter-party correlations. Is this done? The Tasmania legislation, at least, doesn’t trouble itself with how the aim (each candidate appears at the top of the ballot in equal numbers) is achieved, so there would be no particular trouble in making it happen.
Double bummer- there is an update just as I’m trying to be clever!
Well on Antony’s figures it will take all week as we have the Greens best booth coming up next, Lyneham, followed by a good one for the Libs, Ngunnawal, followed by a good one for the Greens, O’Connor etc.
Hey all,
I missed this thread for a bit so missed some of the discussion, so I’ll respond to some old comments.
1) Oz wondered about why the Greens haven’t decided on a leader. I don’t think it’s that there’s two people competing for the position (who people would guess would be Meredith and Shane), I think it’s that both of them want the other one to do it. Remember that none of them have any parliamentary experience, and the ACT Greens have never had a leader before. It’s made more complicated by the fact that they don’t know if there’ll be a 4th MLA or who it will be.
2) I think the Greens will have to go with Labor in most circumstances. The Greens actually did suffer in the polls after supporting Kate Carnell’s government. But I think it is possible to support the Liberals if the ALP are seen as being complete bastards. So if Labor just refuses to negotiate and dares the Greens to support the Liberals, I reckon they would, and they’d get away with it. After all, that’s what happened in Tasmania in 1996, and I think that government worked quite well.
PS. Even though I live in Canberra now I haven’t been that involved in the ACT Greens, so these are just my hunches, I really don’t know what’s going on in the meetings any more than a Greens person in Sydney or Melbourne.
And I’ve also written some commentary on the progressive results at my blog.
I’d assume they didn’t have a whole lot of choice in supporting Carnell’s Government though right?
I understand you being mystified by my 600 votes, Antony. I foolishly made my comparison of the primary vote quotas in last night’s count with the Electoral Commission’s rounded-off figures of 2.5 quotas for the Liberals and 1.5 quotas for the Greens in the full primary vote count. The advantage the Liberals had in last night’s distribution vis-a-vis the Greens was actually 0.08 of a quota, or more than 300 votes more than they would have had if it were in proportion to the overall vote.
Tonight’s count, where Elena Kirschbaum takes the last seat, involves the Liberals primary vote in the distribution being advantaged relative to the Greens by 0.07 quotas or more than 400 votes when compared to their relative position in the overall primary tallies.
Hanson & Jones each have a share of the primary votes counted tonight significantly higher than their individual share of the overall primary vote. Kirschbaum similarly has a disproportionately high share – but less than the two Libs. Not surprisingly, Le Couteur’s share of the primaries in this distribution is lower than her proportion in the total count.
Antony can you explain the countback – when the two Greens are both on 2331 votes at step 175, does the countback involve going back to the last occasion that one of them was ahead, or is it a look back at their primary vote?
Just on timing of the count – I understood the Electoral Commissioner was saying yesterday that the count would take until next Wednesday. Today he seems to have said it would take until the end of next week.
There were 387 million votes cast at the last Indian general election, and the ECI had every last one of them counted, by hand, and up on their website in a week. And look at this: 200,000 votes to count and the end nowhere in sight.
The ECI probably had 100,000 people working on the count. And if memory serves me correctly, India uses first-past-the post. Hare-Clark combined with the anti-democratic, elitist Robson rotation must be a nightmare when it comes to data entry of all preferences.
How is Robson rotation anti-democratic and elitist?
Because it denies groupings of candidates the ability to present themselves in an order of their choosing; denies voters who wish to support a party (and other election systems which offer this opportunity as an alternative to full preferencing – eg Senate – show that the overwhelming majority of voters prefer it) the opportunity to do so with greatest effect for the party; and assumes that voters should be educated, informed and interested enough, and endowed with enough time, to be able to choose between individual candidates.
Hear hear.
Geoff (#123), there are some stats on the incidence of what the TEO calls “linear voting” (which is essentially donkey voting but for a particular party) in both ACT and Tasmanian Hare-Clark elections in the TEO’s discussion paper at http://www.electoral.tas.gov.au/pages/Media/PDF/Robson_Rotation_Paper.pdf
Robson Rotation takes power from elites in political parties and gives it to voters which is not elitist but in fact anti-elitist (and why Adam & co don`t like it).
With Robson Rotation voters who cannot be bothered choosing between candidates can and do do an internal party donkey vote “linear voting”.
Surely the “elites” are the people who run the political parties, not educated voters?
What Tom said.
Hardly surprised the party hacks don’t love Robson rotation – a system where the most popular candidate wins, as opposed to the one the party bureaucracy would most like to install, is never going to be their fave.
It was an elitist decision to impose Hare-Clark on the ACT in the first place. There was a poll at the time which showed that the people wanted single-member seats. But someone said “Oh no, we can’t have that because the demographics of Canberra mean that Labor would win all the seats, so they have to have PR.” That was elitist in the sense that there was a deliberate decision to ignore what the people of the ACT wanted, because it was felt that giving them what they wanted would be bad for them. In contrast, all Canberra Boy said was that parties should be allowed to list their candidates on the ballot paper in the order they choose, and that voters should be allowed to vote for a party list of they want. I don’t see anything elitist about that. I suspect Robson rotation is just a device to reduce the Labor vote, since it is mainly Labor voters who want to vote for a party list, and who are more likely to be confused if they don’t have a how-to-vote that matches the ballot paper.
Actually Adam there was a referendum when it was decided to move from modified D’Hont. The two choices were Hare-Clark or single member electorates. Hare-Clark won easily:
http://www.elections.act.gov.au/elections/referendum_92.html
Then the next election the electorate was asked if it wanted to keep it:
http://www.elections.act.gov.au/elections/referendum_95.html
which it did.
OK so they changed their minds. That doesn’t negate my point about the original decision.
Do you have anything to back up your memory of that poll?
Surely two referenda involving the entire ACT are more accurate than one poll?
No, it’s just my memory, which is usually pretty good for this sort of thing.
It’s not a question of accuracy. I’m not disputing the later votes, I’m making a point about the original decision to impose PR on the ACT, since people were complaining about the “elitism” of wanting voters to have the option of party-list voting. In fact imposing self-government at all on the ACT was “elitist”, since it was pretty clear at the time that they didn’t want it.
I don’t think “elitist” means what you think it does.
My definition of elitism (in this context) is the behaviour of people who by virtue of their position or education assume the right to impose decisions on other people either against their wishes or without consulting them, in the belief that they know best what is good for people.
Deputy Liberal leader Brendan Smyth maintains Canberrans rejected Labor on Saturday
“You’ve just got to look at the big number, that 64 per cent of people did not vote for a Labor government, they did not vote for Jon Stanhope,” Mr Smyth told ABC Radio.
Spot the flaw in this argument.
So anything that’s not populism then?
How about the fact that more did NOT vote for a Liberal government? About 68%.
Well Robson Rotation forces the candidates to get out there and campaign. If candidates are unable to inspire people to vote for them then that’s their problem. Further, there’s nothing stopping the parties from circulating material which numbers candidates in an order if they want to (which is actually what the Greens did). I still don’t understand how it’s ‘undemocratic’.
All decisions are ‘imposed’ to some extent. The decision to choose Robson rotation is no more or less of an imposition than choosing to allow the parties to determine the order their candidates are placed on ballot papers.
People prefer above the line voting, when given the chance to vote above the line, a huge… i mean huge… portion of people choose to use it.
This surely is the simplest, easiest, most clear, straight forward way of ending this argument.
If people want to vote as they are forced to at the moment, let them, no one is stopping anyone from numbering candidates in whatever order they see fit – bottom up, across columns, whatever floats their boat.
But once people have the chance to vote above the line, you watch them vote with their pencils and vote above the line in MASSIVE numbers.
The vast majority of people choose to vote above the line because to vote above the line, in the Senate, because if you vote below the line then you have to number all the boxes (well at least 90% where there are more that 10 candidates) with often over 50 candidates while above the line you only need a single 1 and most how to vote cards say to vote above the line.
Read this history of Senate electoral law http://www.prsa.org.au/qn/1998d.html#section2
Of course ppl prefer ATL voting – it’s a lot easier than numbering 90% of the BTL boxes (which you need to do to record a formal vote).
The issue is that on face value you are voting for your party of choice. That’s true as far as your 1st prefs are concerned. But in reality, you are voting for the preference deal that your party has made. And thus is born Senator Steve Fielding – who most assuredly was NOT the person who most ALP voters wanted to see get in. Other posters have commented on the strategy of preference harvesting and it is a real blot on the process.
A far better way to proceed would be to preference all parties ATL, with each party’s candidates being given the flow of prefs according to their party’s registered listing. This way a voter gets to simply determine the parties they wish to see elected in order of preference. Simple, transparent, democratic. (Puts crash hat on waits, for response). And free of backroom party deals. To illustrate:
Say the four following parties are listed on the ballot paper with X candidates listed BTL
Party A (6 candidates)
Party B (4 candidates)
Party C (6 candidates)
Party D (2 candidates)
Total: 18 candidates
Then say I vote ATL
Party A 1st pref (Candidates get BTL prefs 1-6, in Party A’s stated order)
Party B 3rd pref (Candidates get BTL prefs 9-12, in Party B’s stated order)
Party C 4th pref (Candidates get BTL prefs 13-18, in Party C’s stated order)
Pary D 2nd pref (Candidates get BTL prefs 7-8, in Party D’s stated order)
I’ve simply and easily chosen exactly the parties I want. Mind you, it’s a bugger for the Ungrouped. I really don’t like ATL voting.
Or, we could have the system that we have, where you know that not just the parties, but the candidates themselves, have popular support.
I think it’s a definite plus for this system that we’re able to throw someone out who’s pretty hopeless (Mick Gentleman coming to mind as one example in this election – lovely bloke, useless MP), and replace them with a new candidate who actually has popular support – instead of the preferred system of folks like Adam, whereby he’d get straight back in because he has the standing with the party hacks.
First Areaperson: The balance for politicians between populism (doing whatever you think the people will approve of regardless of whether it’s right or wrong) and elitism (doing what you think is right regardless of whether the people agree or have even been asked) is obviously not an easy one to strike. Politicians who are both skilled and principled try to explain to the people why certain policies are right, and to lead the people to support them. “Democratic leadership” thus has two components – democracy as in respect for the will of the people, and leadership as in trying to persuade the people why certain things are right and necessary.
Rebecca: One thing any democratic system needs is people who are willing to give large amounts of their time and money to make political parties and election campaigns work. No doubt you do this for the Greens, as I and others try to do for Labor, and others do for other parties. I’m sure you don’t like being dismissed as a “party hack” for your pains. Well neither do I.
looks almost certain the Greens (Elena KIRSCHBAUM) will win the Molonglo final seat in the ACT election, taking it from a Lib. Make up will be 7 ALP, 6 Lib 4 Green.
Friday PM, Kirschbaum still gets elected, though on the current count, the Liberal vote is below its eventual primary tally and the Green vote is above. The Greens issued a formal ticket of preferences listing Kirschbaum as 3 behind le Couteur, but because Rattenbury hasn’t reached a quota, the preferences of anyone following the ticket won’t count. I think the Greens are starting to be favourite for the final spot, but who is the second Green that will be elected?
I’d think le Couteur, as she’s ahead by 21 votes in the sample, but 80 in the full count. On step 89 where she gets knocked out she’s down by only 2.
Oh my frickin’ gawd! It’s all over – the greens get the final spot! Antony, I have no idea which one it is, Le Coteur is generally 15-20 FPs ahead in each remaining booth, but that doesn’t mean anything. I’ve lost my cool – I’m too excited to think straight, so someone please slap me, but by my count there’s 4401 FPs to go to the Libs, 2982 to the Greens in the remaining booths (including Red Hill, which isn’t on the list, but as I understand the alphabet comes before Reid, which has been counted). the Libs votes need to get TWO elected, whereas the Greens only ONE – so lets split it evenly between Hanson and Jones 2200 each. Jones is 494 votes behind Kirshbaum tonight. So, very roughly, Kirshbaum gets the residual of 2982 -say 2500 – plus the 494 she’s ahead, meaning that Hanson has to end up with 3,000 of these last booth votes to win – and these booths heavily favour Hanson. Other random preferences cancel each other out. I can’t see Jones making up the gap.
Antony – the Greens have no discipline, how could you expect them to follow “formal ticket of preferences”!
Well it doesn’t really matter who it is, except to them. If the Greens win a fourth seat, they will have bragging rights from this election, since they will have taken seats from both major parties. It will also remove any claim the Libs may have to have had a good result, since they will have gone backwards in votes and seats, and make it much more difficult for the Greens to support a Zedista government – not that I think they would anyway.
And by Zed’s own logic from election night, the Liberals should support a Green government.
Hah.
Having had a look – Elena’s only two (!) votes ahead of Caroline at exclusion – I think Caroline gets well ahead (at least 20) on the remaining booths.
Adam – I think four greens makes things less certain, not more. Six Libs joining with four greens (for argument) makes for a legitimate coalition government – a guaranteed 10 out of 17 votes on the floor of the Assembly is not something we’ve seen before.
On that logic an ALP-Lib coalition (13 or 14 seats) would be even better. Or maybe an ALp-Lib-Green coalition (17 seats).
well an ALP-Lib-Green coalition would be divine, Adam, but who’d make the tea?
The Nationals.
Well it would have to be Nerada then – couldn’t have any of that foreign stuff. Sadly we don’t have any Nats in the ACT, although we did have some One Nation types for a while, one of whom amusingly resurfaced as the lead Australian Motorist Party Candidate in our recent election.
Hey Antony, I’m glad you’ve come around!
I’m pleased to claim that on election evening I said that there was a ‘very good chance’ the Greens would get the last seat and on Tuesday I said I would bet on the Greens getting it.
The Greens are over-represented relative to the Liberals in tonight’s distribution by over 250 votes compared with their share of the primary vote overall in the election. This is the first time it has happened in the interim distributions to date. But that obviously doesn’t explain the 494 vote difference between Kirschbaum and Jones at the crucial point in the count. I think it’s likely that Caroline Le Couteur will come in as the final MLA for Molonglo.
Anyone want to take the bet – your odds will not be as good as they could have been on Tuesday!
+1 Canberra boy! I’ll pay you and I’ll pay me too as I reckon my projections of Lib preferences favouring Hanson over Jones are part of the result. So much for Antony Green and his Turing machine – it is no match for Hare Clark and a couple of lucky dilettantes
I better stock up on meat then, before the ferals get to ban it.
“Antony – the Greens have no discipline, how could you expect them to follow “formal ticket of preferences”!”
It’s called free thinking. Greens voters think for themselves when they preference.
Unlike the AMP voters who simply forgot to preference.
Well played.
Ben,
Or is it, if the Greens preference the Libs they’d be crucified by their voters? Every one knows that if the Greens preference Labor the flow is 80%, if they have an open ticket it’s 70% and if they preferenced the Libs then the Green vote declines.
It’s survival mate, not principle.
I dunno, somehow I like the idea that the best approach electorally is also the best principled stance. It’s true that preferencing the liberals (except in extreme cases) would hurt us, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t remain a principled decision. It’s just serendipitous that the two coincide.
Ben,
I am an ALP sceptic, but,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9hMXnUty6s
Adam: Can you please knock off the conspiratorial rambling about the Greens supposed plans? Ban meat? Heck, if that’s the sort of thing you genuinely believe, if you go any further you’ll be starting to sound like your ol’ mate Lyndon.
No I don’t really think the Greens will ban meat. I am however going to stock up on shoes for when they ban leather.
“3.1.4 Ending the captivity and killing of animals for the cosmetic and fashion industries, including the use of fur and skin.” (http://www.vic.greens.org.au/about/policy/policy-documents/Animals300606)
Adam:
Like i said, it’s “sacred wilderness” / “Mother Earth” extremism
Adam
When saying cosmetic and fashion, it is talking about unnecessary add ons. Not basics.
And you know that. Your just being sensationalist
RE: ATL, “convenience” is no justification for a system which effectively hands voter prefs to unelected party hacks.
Jeez, why dont we just give your proxy to someone else, and you can stay home? Thats extra convenient.
If you’re worried about voter convenience: optional BTL.
Problem solved: easy for voters, and actually an exercise in democratic choice – not some hackocratic farce, which leads, eg, to Fielding being elected on the unknowing prefs of people who hate everything he stands for.
As for ACT – hohoho!!! Libs actually lost ground?? In this climate? Thats a priceless indictment of how hopeless their state/territory orgs are.
Jimbo (#168) in my case it is all logic, spreadsheets and calculators: no luck, although I could correctly be called a dilettante. I didn’t know Antony employed a Turing machine!
Adam
169: Don’t bother! Us ferals will use the ALP’s convenient Anti-terrorism laws to hunt you down, root out your meat and thaw it into oblivion before composting it.
176: Don’t confuse the clothes that pollbludgers wear with the fashion industry! I’m sure your death-wear is safe in Victoria. Maybe the policy means that the animals can be killed for skins, for use in fashion. if they have a chance to get away. So much more sporting. To be fair its a goal. So until there is something more suitable to hide your feet with, you should be fine.
Now is there a final result in the ACT yet!
I’m sorry Dave, but that’s not what the policy says. It calls for ending the use of animal skins in the fashion industry. If that doesn’t mean banning leather shoes, leather belts and leather jackets, what does it mean? Who decides which clothing items are “fashion” and which are not? Leather shoes and jackets are usually marketed as being fashionable. If they are banned in leather, they will presumably be sold in something else – like that very envirocompatible petrochemical by-product known as plastic. Or are you going to ban shoes altogether? (Just curious.)
Adam:
If animal/green extremists got too agressive/violent against people or property what do you think would happen – they would become “unfortunate victims of stray bullets” maybe?
also I’m just curious – do you know why Bob Brown (the Green) never served in Vietnam?
I presume the same reason most people at the time didn’t? He didn’t want too?
Mary, if anyone gets violent or aggressive against people or property in this country, they get arrested by the police.
I don’t know why Bob Brown didn’t serve in Vietnam, probably because he didn’t approve of the war.
Adam:
i had in my mind the image of the scene from Red Dwarf where the “hippie” goes into a battle with the “protection” of peace and love only to be shot five times (”There is a grievous fault with thine weapon; it keepeth shooting people!)
I don’t have much time for animal or green extremists
Mary 183
Bonus Points if Bob Brown was a conscientious objector! He was born 27th December. Not sure if his birthday came up in the ballot. He was 20 in 1964 when the Act was introduced for Conscription. I suspect as a Medicine Student he may have been excluded from the Draft even if his birthday was balloted?
Adam 182
I don’t care if there are leather shoes or not.
Not that it matters but there are natural rubbers, oiled fabrics and non-petroleum biodegradable plastics that can be used to make shoes. There is a long tradition of metal and wooden shoes: clogs. (not all those wonderous pointed Dutch types either). Hey I wear leather shoes and I’m vegetarian. So figure that out.
Anyway ACT: is it A Government of Territory Unity: Ministers: 4 Labor, 3 Liberal, 2 Green? I suspect Territoreans probably wouldn’t mind if they performed well. The old party factions probably couldn’t stomach it though.
I wonder if those forestry workers who destroyed a protestor’s car on film will be charged?
Bob Brown was a doctor in the late 60s early 70s. So, saving lives rather than ending them was kinda his thing.
In fact, in was he who signed Jimi Hendrix’s death certificate – he was by chance on duty in the UK when Hendrix died.
And Mary, so you’re saying some protestors should be shot? That’s um… kinda psychotic.
tounge was firmly in cheek lefty
Confirm Molongolo – Le Couteur wins in Molongolo – thats 4 Greens, 6 Libs & 7 ALP – still counting in Brindabella & Ginninderra, but no change.
Plenty of doctors serve in the military, particularly in the reserves. There are lots of lives to be saved on battlefields. I know a surgeon in his 40s who has done two tours in Timor and one in Afghanistan.
I don’t know what Brown’s politics were in the 60s and 70s, but I’d be surprised if he was a Vietnam War supporter. In any case the military wasn’t very welcoming of gay men then so that may have been a factor too.
Excellent result in the ACT. Greens in government! (probably with support of that other major party, known as the ‘ALP’).
Seriously – first Green ministers in AU likely.
It means there won’t be a Liberal/Greens government, not that I ever thought there was much prospect of that!
The question is: can Stanhope cooperate with the Greens? If not, Labor might replace him?
They might have to! Its not in their hands alone.
And yes, I do like the aspect that ALP has first bite at forming a govt by convention. Extra demoralising for the LNP.
Incidentally: props to the Patterson poll after all.
I don’t see how it changes the chances of a Liberal/Greens Government. There’s nothing that states the Government needs to be the party with the most seats. The Chief Minister is selected by a vote of the chamber, which means if the Greens vote for a Liberal Chief Minister the Liberals can form government.
I still think the Greens should go with whoever offers them the best policy position and then threaten them with causing a vote of no confidence if they don’t buckle to their demands on key issues.
Patterson came close in terms of seats, since Labor came fairly close to three seats in Ginninderra, but their vote predictions overstated the Green vote in all three seats.
Patterson predictions:
Brindabella: ALP 40, Lib 37, AG 14
Ginninderra: ALP 41, Lib 26, AG 20
Molonglo: ALP 34, Lib 31, AG 23
Actual vote
Brindabella: ALP 36.5, Lib 35.3, AG 13.6
Ginninderra: ALP 40.1, Lib 27.8, AG 14.0
Molonglo: ALP 36.1, Lib 31.5, AG 18.2
lefty e, the concept of ‘first attempt to form a government’ doesn’t apply. A monarch, or a Governor-General, or a Governor, or an Administrator, can invite somebody to form a government, and if that person can’t, another person can be invited. But that’s not how the ACT system works. There is no invitation. The decision is made by the Legislative Assembly when it meets and must, by law, elect a Chief Minister. Under the rules of another jurisdiction Stanhope might get an invitation to form a government, then talk with the Greens, and then either form a government or admit inability, after which Seselja might get an invitation to have a go. If Stanhope got the first invitation, it would create a conventional presumption that he had the right to first talks with the Greens. In fact there’s no way to enforce that convention, but under the ACT system even that presumption doesn’t exist. Neither Stanhope nor Seselja will get an invitation, the Greens can, if they want to and Stanhope and Seselja are accommodating, talk with both concurrently, and then the Assembly will meet and we will see how the Greens cast their votes, which should settle the matter.
The ACT has a republican form of government while hosting the capital city of a constitutional monarchy!
You’re right, J-D – I’m drawing on a Westminster convention that doesn’t exist there in the ACT. I wonder if it does in the NT though? Don’t they have a “government administrator” – or is that gone now with self-govt?
Still, it does shift the weight to ALP symbolically. What will be interesting is if the Libs had the greater plurality, but not majority – I’m sure it will happen one day
I think the Administrator of the NT behaves like a state Governor, although since the NT is not a constitutional entity he/she can’t have a direct relationship with the Crown as the state Governors do. I assume he/she is appointed by the GG on the advice of the NT CM, and operates under some sort of delegated power from the GG.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/25/2401247.htm
Caroline Le Couteur took the last seat.
Lefty e have you got a “hard” reference for the Hendrix death cert thingy?
I’ve heard that too from a greens staffer.
Actually I heard he was working in emergency when they brought Hendrix in, not that he signed the certificate.
SNIP: Offensive comment deleted – The Management.
No hard ref, albatross: but my understanding is that this is not in any way controversial. Bob Brown was there on duty at the hospital when Hendrix arrived, dead.
Thats my understanding too: NT is more ‘parallel’ to the states than ACT apparently is. Now, if someone can just explain where Norfolk Island stands these days since the review in 2000- ish, I’ll be across most shit.
Canberra is a city full of what I call crazy left-wing looneys.
This Green growth around the country is a big problem that isn’t good for Australia’s future. Bring on a referendum and abolish compulsory voting. I want Australia to have voluntary voting by the 2010 federal election.
Let me get this right Bree. Because the people of Australia are voting for someone you dont like, you want to change the rules?
Petty much?
I’d like to see what makes Bree think the Greens would do worse under voluntary voting.
It wasn’t even close – Le Couteur beat Jones by 921 votes. And it wasn’t a result of the split between the surviving Liberals – their combined vote wasn’t enough to get them both up with an even split.
I’d say the opposite would occur, due to the demographic of Greens voters.
I’m not sure where, but there have been news articles which have mentioned Bob being in the room when Jimi Hendrix came into hospital. But I don’t know where.
Please, Bree, let’s abolish compulsory voting, that’d be fantastic!
209
[Canberra is a city full of what I call crazy left-wing looneys].
Bree, just curious. What for you represents a “crazy left-wing looney”?
If compulsory voting were abolished before 2010, it would make almost no immediate difference, because the habit of voting in Australia is so ingrained. In the long run the level of voting would decline, because a certain proportion of young people would not acquire the voting habit as they reached 18. In the US voting is strongly related to age – the older you are, the more likely you are to vote (particularly if you’re white). The same would be true here, but because we are a better-integrated society than the US (thanks to a century of social-democratic politics), the voting rate would stay higher than it is in the US. I think it would fall to maybe 80% over time. The longterm losers would be Labor, because it would be mainly low-income, low-education and NESB people who dropped out of voting. The winners would be the Greens, whose voters tend to be affluent and well-educated and thus much more likely to vote.
There is very little chance that compulsory voting will be abolished in Australia. Past surveys show that a large majority of Australians support it.
I’m surprised there hasn’t been more of a discussion on the Greens taking the last seat in Molonglo. It means that Labor is on 7, Liberals 6, Greens 4. Labor has around 6% more of the vote than the Liberals.
The ACT has spoken – they want a Labor/Green minority government.
Who would be the opposition if lib and Green got 5 each? as may happen at the next ACT election.
Well the most you can say is they don’t want either a Labor or Liberal majority government and would probably prefer Labor in government overall.
Of course the people who voted Green entrust the Greens to make the decision as to what way to vote to produce the best outcome for Canberrans. If they do decide to back a Liberal Government it will be their role to explain why to the people and demonstrate that this will lead to better outcomes for those that trusted them with their vote.
Castle, the ACT Legislative Assembly votes for the Leader of the Opposition. I’d imagine Labor and Liberal would reach a decision among themselves to keep the titles of official Government and Opposition away from the Greens.
@220
Doubtful. I don’t see the Greens and the Liberals on a near equal vote next election. This election was the perfect storm due to the dissatisfaction with Stanhope Labor, and even moreso for the Zeselja Liberals.
@221
It’s a PR house, what do you expect? Only once has the ACT had a majority government, Labor, last election. It’s business as usual now.
In Tasmania after the 2002 election the numbers in the House of Assembly were: Labor, 14; Liberal, 7; and Green, 4. It may have started informally earlier, but certainly at this time the Government began to refer to the parties as ‘the Liberal opposition’ and ‘the Green opposition’. Of course, this is slightly at odds with the Westminster convention of one opposition but it drove the Liberals mad which is maybe why Labor pushed it so much! The Greens certainly didn’t mind the added status. So the case of having two similarly sized opposition parties has happened before, and that is how it was resolved in Tasmania in 2002. It’s different in the ACT this time though; with two of the three parties needing to form a coalition of some description.
Well, I’m sure the Greens would take the title “the Green opposition”, if they were in opposition, but they won’t be, they’ll be in some relationship with the government.
But it doesn’t really mean anything. I’m sure if you had an even Lib-Green split and somehow Labor got a majority (say it was increased to 21 and it was 11-5-5) then they would probably be given equal status and resources.
With voluntary voting, I think our vote wouldn’t fall to US levels, but would probably settle to 60-70% without electoral reform. There’s clearly a tendency that countries like the US and UK, where most people’s votes genuinely are irrelevant to the outcome, where people understandably don’t care. Our system is a bit better, but it remains that most people live in safe seats where their vote doesn’t matter (there is the Senate, but most people wouldn’t consider that), and the turnout would plummet in those seats. Voluntary voting would work a lot better if we fixed the system so people actually had more of an incentive to vote (ie. PR).
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/libs-offer-greens-ministry/1343839.aspx
Oh ho ho.
If the Greens support a Liberal government in the ACT they will do themselves immense damage in the rest of the country. At the federal level and in all states except Tas, the Green objective is to take votes from the Labor left, trading on the belief that Labor governments aren’t left-wing enough. These voters won’t defect to the Greens if they fear the result will be a Liberal-National government.
They wont Adam. (”Zed’s dead baby”).
But they’re hardly going to roll over upfront, are they? Or they wouldn’t get anything from the ALP.
As a Green voter, I cant tell you I expect my party to extract maximum concessions – in line with the platform – from the other governing party for this sort of support. Thats what I expect to see.
First Green Ministers in AU are now a lay-down misere after. Its a big moment.
“Maximum concessions.” If you drag Stanhope too far to the left, even in the ACT, the voters will react and let the Libs in next time.
Labor could of course call the Greens on their bluff and refuse them a ministry. The Greens would certainly know it is in their best interests to have a Labor government.
Adam, since you’ve expostulated twice about the use of a ‘republican’ system for the formation of a government in the ACT, I thought you might be interested in the system codified in Chapter 6 of Sweden’s 1974 Instrument of Government. The responsibility is placed on the Speaker of the Riksdag to consult with all parties in the Riksdag, confer with the Deputy Speakers, and place a proposal for the appointment of a Prime Minister before the Riksdag. The Riksdag must vote on the proposal and it is adopted unless more than half the members of the Riksdag vote against it. If four proposals in a row from the Speaker are rejected, new elections for the Riksdag are held. The Speaker, on behalf of the Riksdag, issues a Prime Minister’s letter of appointment. A Prime Minister’s request for discharge is acted on by the Speaker. If the Riksdag carries a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister, either the Speaker discharges the Prime Minister or new elections are called. All these functions are vested in the Speaker and not the King, even though Sweden continues to be a monarchy.
Yes I remember when Olaf Palme brought that constitution in. He said he was a republican, but recognised the historical status of the House of Bernadotte in Swedish history, so instead of abolishing the monarchy he proposed separating it entirely from the system of government, leaving the King purely as a symbol of state. As I recall, the King doesn’t approve legislation either.
Does that mean that after each election the Riksdag must meet and elect a Speaker before there can be a government? Or does the Speaker of the previous Riksdag retain office until there is a new government in place?
Adam, as far as I can make out:
(a) the Speaker holds office until the new Riksdag meets (Article 5 of Chapter 3 and Article 2 of Chapter 4);
(b) the government holds office until a new one takes office (Article 8 of Chapter 6).
Since the Speaker’s proposal for a new Prime Minister must be placed before the Riksdag for approval (Article 2 of Chapter 6), it would seem to follow that the usual sequence at election time is this:
elections;
new Riksdag convenes, automatically terminating tenure of outgoing Speaker and obliging Riksdag to choose a new one (or, of course, the same one for another term);
if Prime Ministership vacant (as it would be if the outgoing Prime Minister has resigned, although still continuing in ‘caretaker’ capacity), Speaker (thus, the new one) initiates procedure for appointment of new Prime Minister.
You can see the whole document here:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Instrument_of_Government_(1974)
It might also interest you to know that I have heard ACT Labor people talk about the republican structure of the system there as if it was a conscious choice.
Will one of the Green demands be that the Assembly be renamed the Canberra People’s Soviet?
Meredith Hunter has been named as ACT Greens leader:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/27/2402024.htm
@234
No, they’ll argue for policy outcomes to the left of what both parties are used to, which is a good thing.
That doesn’t make them communists. Put down your ALP card for a few moments and you might see that.
Not that I know her but Hunter seems to be a good choice.
The Greens can and should demand two cabinet positions as there proportion of government demands.
Tbh, I’d prefer they didn’t get into bed with Labor. Unless they are given freedom to speak out against issues they don’t believe in.
Adam: It’s sad to see you drifting further toward loony conspiracy theory territory. The ongoing Green-baiting trolling makes no sense (unless you’re high, perhaps, in which case you might want to drop back on the weed), and just means that we have someone who comes across like Paddy McGuinness back from the grave repeatedly talking crap through these threads. I think it’s interesting, though – since it’s this sort of crap from Labor hacks that is making many in the Greens wholly more sympathetic to the Liberals (just as the reverse happened with the Nationals).
I also think you’re very wrong about the Greens existing to take votes from Labor Left. I see the Greens as being a party of concern about the environment and social welfare – and thus just as able to take voters from the moderate end of the Liberal Party, as well as anywhere in Labor left of the SDA. There is absolutely no reason we shouldn’t support the Liberals in exchange for social and environmental reform, especially when (as at the federal level) Labor is pretty hopeless on those.
While I ultimately expect that Labor and the Greens will come to an accord here and return Stanhope as Chief Minister, in the event that Labor follows the lame Green-baiting course that Adam suggests, I would wholeheartedly endorse throwing Labor out on their arse and installing Zed Seselja as Chief Minister in exchange for taking a couple of key related portfolios (infrastructure, transport, housing, environment perhaps).
I also think Hunter was a good choice for Greens leader, having met her out campaigning on election day, and after hearing the thoughts of others in the party. It’s a good sign for us keeping the focus on social welfare issues and not ditching them for a harder focus on environmentalism, considering her background.
As for ministries – I think this would be a very bad idea in a Labor government, but a good idea in a Liberal one. In a Liberal one, taking portfolios in our core areas would give us some control over their handling, and result in better outcomes down in the line; in a Labor government, we’ve got nothing to gain except from being tarred with the brush of Stanhope’s next stuffups.
Rebecca, I try to keep reminding myself that Greens have no sense of humour, but, you know, I have a lot of other things to remember, like who won East Sydney in 1934 and stuff, and sometimes I forget.
I stand by my view that the Greens take most of their votes from the Labor left – I know this because I know most of their names.
If you want to go into government with the Libs, go right ahead. Two things will happen: they’ll screw you over, like Borbidge did when you foolishly put him into government in Qld in 1995; and your voters will desert you in droves, or at least in old VWs painted funny colours.
Oh come on, Adam. That’s about as “funny” as Andrew Bolt’s latest rantings, albeit less coherent. And you know the names of…who exactly? That doesn’t make any sense.
The Queensland example was a cock-up from all sides. The Qld Greens didn’t extract enough for the price they paid, and without parliamentary representation, didn’t have any means to enforce their policies when it came time to actually implement them. Here, we have the numbers to force the Liberals to enact elements of our policy agenda – and I dare say our supporters here are a lot more open to the concept of us backing the Liberals. (Try attending a Greens fundraiser here and see the crowd it attracts and you’ll know what I mean.)
Just as we did in 1995-98, and as the Tasmanian Greens did in the same period, we can work perfectly well the Liberals – and survive just fine for it.
Rebecca, you don’t think dissatisfaction with the Labor Government earned the Greens more of a vote this time?
LTEP: Absolutely – most of the swing against the government for the various screwups and unpopular decisions of the last four years went to us. It’s all the more reason why we shouldn’t instantly turn around and get into bed with them, and if it comes to it, work with their opposition.
But if the Greens support the Liberals for government you don’t acknowledge that it’s most likely a fair chunk of those voters will return to Labor at the next election?
Perhaps. But I think we’ve reached a point where we need to seriously consider that risk, and stop the party and our policies being jerked around by the Labor Party. While it’d risk some potential hurt in 4 years, I suspect we’d still manage to hold at least 3 of those 4 seats, and it’d send a powerful message about where we stand.
Which would be where exactly? With the Liberal Party? With anyone who will offer you a ministry position? With the right?
You’re both right – the Greens DO take ALP left votes. Thats obvious enough from the lower house seats they are competitive in. However, numbers heads at the Greens tell me a full 10% of their vote is ex-Tories who’d never vote ALP in a fit.
So thats a full 1.0-1.5% of the electorate voting progressive, who otherwise wouldn’t. And that, my friends, in a close preferential system is called: “winning the election”, aka, GOVERNMENT.
I honestly think Green voters would care more about progressive policy outcomes than any inherent fear of the Liberals. It’s Labor that has the irrational fear of the Liberals, and vice versa.
The logical extension of the argument that The Greens should join Labor rightaway because they are closer in policy terms is that the actual government should be Labor/Liberal.
I’m sorry I voted Green and have a ‘fear’ of the Liberals. The nonsense we put up with for 11 years under Howard is enough to scare anyone. The Greens siding with the Liberals is about the only thing I can think of that would make me think twice about voting for them again next time.
The best option would be to support Labor and wait until they do something to offend the left spectrum and then kick them out with a no-confidence motion.
Of course, it was the rise of Labor that forced the prior two-party system known as “Tories v Liberals” together here in Australia.
Wouldn’t rule it out!
Why do you think there would be anything similar to the Howard regime and a government in the ACT, 60% Liberal and 40% Green, relying on Green support for passing supply and on issues like no confidence and with possibly two Green cabinent ministers?
Well I’d like to be pleasantly surprised but somehow I doubt I’d ever enjoy a Liberal Government. I’m also not too sure how thankful Canberrans will be to the Greens if that’s what they give us. A no-confidence motion wouldn’t in itself bring about a fresh election would it?
It’ll certainly be interesting.
The Greens don’t HAVE to side with anyone. When the Assembly votes to elect a new CM, they can abstain. Stanhope then wins by default, but the Greens are not tied to him. They have a veto over all legislation, and with the Libs they can set up inquiries into anything they want, censure any minister they dislike, or vote no confidence in the government any time they like. They can even initiate legislation and pass it if they get support from the Libs. That would be a position of great power (relative to the Liliputian world of ACT politics of course), and with no dirty deals done with the Libs.
The would have to make a decision on whether to pass supply or not, yes? So in doing so they would be giving tacit support to Labor.
Good point. On an objective viewpoint it would seem the best way for the Greens to go would be to do just that. However, I suspect the chance of real executive power may be too tempting for them.
Now that Labor has a 7-6 advantage over the Libs, the Greens can abstain on everything if they want.
Malcolm McKerras has an article in today’s Canberra Times on reform of the ACT electoral system. He floats the idea of resdistribution of the 3 electorates, and electing 7 members from each electorate.
He also suggests the following wording on all ballot papers:
“Number seven boxes from 1 to 7 in the order of your choice”. It should go on: “You may then show as many further preferences as you wish by writing numbers from 8 onwards in other boxes. On the bottom of the ballot paper it should read: “Your vote will not count unless you number at least seven boxes.”
Merdith Hunter has been asked not to be referred to as ‘leader’ but ‘parliamentary convener’. Oh dear.
7×3 in a good idea.
But if it is only the ALP in government then there won`t be anyone to replace a censured minister will there? (ALP 7 and Cabinet 7)
That’s not a reform, it’s just a change.
I think the ACT Cabinet has five members.
LTEP: Why’s that an “oh dear”? The Greens have never been huge on having leaders at all anywhere in the country, and I suspect the only reason they bothered here this time was because of the likelihood that one of them might end up Deputy Chief Minister. It’s hardly surprising that, having had to choose one person against precedent, they’d then play down the role as much as they could.
It’s just utterly pretentious, what is the difference between a ‘leader’ and a ‘parliamentary convener’? If the party knows what her position is what does it matter what her title is?
Because she is not in fact a “leader” she is merely the one person who gives the “casting vote”. There’s no top-down pressure in The Greens, unlike Labor and Liberal.
Hey LTEP
difference is simple – a convener facilitates, a leader directs. The Greens – party and parliamentary – operate by consensus. Of course there are Parliamentary Leaders at Federal and State level (i.e. Tas) but this is the minority case.
A leader doesn’t need to direct. A leader could ‘lead’ by supporting and promoting the consensus view and helping the party to reach a consensus.
I suspect the Greens have also learnt that when a leader falls, so does the party. And the Greens are far more in to ideology than leaders. So if a ‘convenor’ stuffs up, no big deal, it’s about the party and not the leader, oops, convenor, and they can move on.
In Australia, a leader always directs. It’s usually Rudd and Turnbull, Stanhope and Seselja that come up and announce plans, policy ideas, etc.
The Greens are a grassroots party who reject that view of “directing” party direction. Calling the position a ‘convenor’ is to demonstrate that distinction between The Greens and the old major parties.
In Australian politics, even.
They may announce plans and policy ideas but it’s no necessarily just them directing that that be the case. It’d be the same with the ‘convener’. The whole thing is quibbling on a minor detail that no member of the public will care about.
Here’s betting the media will just refer to Ms Hunter as ‘Greens leader’.
@271
She’s already said that much.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/greens-hunter-to-have-leadership-role/1344307.aspx
Ms Hunter conceded she would have “a leadership role”, but said the Greens would act as a team and that she should be called the convenor, not the leader.
“We’re the Greens and we do politics differently,” Ms Hunter said as she announced her new position.
“We’re not the old parties, we don’t do things the old way.”
When told by journalists that she would be called the leader, Ms Hunter replied: “I can’t control that, can I?”
They already said that they would, but there’s still a significant difference that I think you’re overlooking.
#266 put it better than I did. Meredith Hunter won’t override her caucus and consult directly with bureaucrats and other party leaders unilaterally as is done by both Labor and the Liberals. The Greens structure is based on consensus decision making and the position of “convenor” reflects that more appropriately than “convener”
The average public may not care, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t attempt to state your position.
Yes, well it’s that level of pretentiousness that infuriates me about the Greens. They seek to be taken seriously as an alternate government of the future without acknowledging that if they ever reach the level of being able to form government in a state with a susbtantial number of members it will require strong leadership as the party will contain too large a number of views to decide everything by consensus.
Also, the idea that everything CAN be decided by consensus really is something that should be questioned. In matters where there is a large degree of disagreement between members of the party how can consensus be used to reach a decision? Are we suggesting that the Greens members could never have an issue that there would be a susbstantial amount of disagreement on?
It’s all needless symbolism as far as I’m concerned.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2008/10/27/2401916.htm
The ABC reporter interviews the Greens MLAs, and refers to them as a party of social democrats.
That’s sure to boil up the blood of some Howardites!
It’s about building consensus, not hoping that it exists. The current system of decision making at party and parliamentary level has served the Greens well thus far and there’s no indication that it’s not working.
A leader doesn’t need to override caucus and consult directly with bureaucrats and other party leaders. I don’t understand exactly why you would think they need to, nor do I understand why you think titling her ‘leader’ would result in her taking those actions?
If she wanted to she could attempt to do those things with the title of ‘convener’ but it would get her nowhere. Similarly if her title was ‘leader’ she wouldn’t be able to do it. Her position as leader would be known to be based upon her promoting the ideas of the party speaking as one voice if you want to put it that way.
A leader can build consensus within the party. Some argue Bob Hawke was a leader who focused on consensus decision making.
Except that’s what leaders in recent Australian politics, at state and federal level, do. Calling yourself “leader” would reinforce that idea.
As I said, that’s needless symbolism. The focus of the party on inconsequential matters such as that is bewildering.
ltep @ 280
Since when is the focus of the party on such inconsequential matters? The media made a deal of of it, not the Greens. They’re more interested in gaining policy outcomes and using the balance of power to do so.
It is symbolism, but I don’t think it’s “needless” nor irrelevant. I also don’t know why you think their “focus” is on that. They needed to decide who their ‘leader’ was going to be, waited for their last member to get elected, decided who it was, organised a press conference, the end.
During that period they continued to engage with Labor and Liberal and are doing so again tomorrow. It seems that that’s their “focus” but the leadership question was one that needed to be decided.
Another thing I notice is some of the attitudes toward the Greens… read the comments at the bottom of http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/greens-hunter-to-have-leadership-role/1344307.aspx
And why do I feel the need to notice it? That ranting that Christine Milne had about going federally from a few MPs, to the balance of power, then to government, in the footsteps of early Labor.
Those rantings at the bottom of that article are just like what people first said about Labor! People called them weird, kooky, out to destroy the economy, bizarre policies forced upon us etc, but look what happened to them. The first federal majority government, and coincidentally also the first Senate majority, at the 1910 election.
But again, that said, it won’t happen. Different times, different situation, well entrenched parties etc etc.
I think we’ll agree to disagree on this one. I presume you mean their ‘convenership’ was an issue that needed to be decided Oz.
Ah bob1234, we can dream.
Of course, ‘convenership’. The correct Green terminology.
If the Greens make it to Government (which I don’t think they ever will in a majority partner sense) I imagine they will be substantially different. At the moment they appeal to only a small section of the community and appear to not be particularly interested in even attempting to broaden their base.
I’d imagine issues such as ‘conveners’ would be quickly out the door should they reach government status as well.
ltep @ 287
You are too entrenched in the current way politics is done.
Yep, too narrow, focussed on sectional interests, incapcable of seeing big picture, the national interest, unready to govern – this was precisely what the Tories said about the nascent labor parties from 1891- 1920. You’ll still hear the echo of that in the “labour cant manage money” line.
The Labor Party had the trade unions behind them. A significant support base. The Greens don’t have such a base. Unless the union movement swings behind them. Which seems unlikely, even though they have far more pro-union policies than Labor.
Oz @ 290
The Greens have a significant portion of the trade union base behind them since Labor’s move to economic neoliberalism, evermoreso in the 21st century (WorkCover in SA comes to mind), not to mention environmentalists, and disaffected ALP/Lib voters.
Sure bob1234, but I mean in terms of public union endorsement, Sharon Burrows has applauded the Greens for their policies in IR but the more powerful unions still continue to fund and support the Labor Party.
bob1234, well if the ‘new’ way is just a symbolic gesture I’m not surprised! I’m a fan of consensus, as far as it can go. Unfortunately once a party reaches a certain parilamentary membership it’s hard to reach. I still am not of the view that a party that reaches a consensus cannnot have a leader. In fact the Nunuvat Parliament runs by consensus and they manage to still have a Premier. Perhaps they should instead name him Prime Convenor.
lefty e, the difference is Labor, although stacked with a lot of union officials is a far broader ‘church’ than the current membership of the Australian Greens. There’s really not a whole lot of diversity going on there for a left wing party.
Oz @ 292
The right-wing unions you mean.
It will be interesting to see how the whole WorkChoices campaign heading our way from the unions AGAINST the ALP will play out. Who knows, by the end of the Rudd Labor government, union support might be spliced down the middle, half ALP half Greens.
Well it depends on whether the unions can take some control over the Greens. If they can’t then I doubt they’ll see the point in switching allegiance. Why buy the cow when you get the milk free?
@295
Because the cow produces more milk when it receives funding.
So you’re saying the Greens will offer more if they’re given money?
Except the Greens don’t accept money from organisations.
I think he was saying that they will be in a position to offer more if given funding.
It costs money to field candidates, to advertise, etc etc.
The unions can provide that.
And just incase nobody got the obvious, a cashed up party wins more votes than a cash strapped party, which means more seats in parliament which means more influence directly through policy pushing, and indirectly through Labor realising they have to accommodate the left as well as the right.
Have our furry friends given any indication of what they’re going to do? Or do they need to consult the tree spirits first?
(Memo Rebecca: I am being sarcastic. This is a form of *humour* – albeit not a very sophisticated one.)
The big issue in the ACT at the moment, as I’m sure you’re aware, is about this data centre. Both the Libs and Greens are opposed to it in its current location and that was their platform before the election. Labor is accusing them of “politicising planning” and promising that they won’t engage in a “bidding war” to get the Greens onside.
The Libs have offered them two ministerial positions.
It would appear that whilst the Greens are communing with “tree spirits” Labor needs to find out what the people who pull their strings (unions and developers) want. Adam, that was a joke. Not particularly funny but slightly more humorous than yours.
This story, posted yesterday indicates no:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/29/2404885.htm
And the latest news on the formation of an ACT Government is . . .
There’s no news:
http://news.smh.com.au/national/act-greens-yet-to-decide-on-govt-mix-20081031-5ezb.html
Ms Hunter has some convening to do!
Tastes differ, Oz. I didn’t think Adam’s joke was funny, but I found yours even less so.
I didn’t even see the joke in it to be honest.
Labor to form minority government.
http://news.theage.com.au/national/labor-to-form-minority-government-in-act-20081031-5fea.html
ok thread over
move along folks
nothing to see hear
erm…here
Hah. ABC news caption called Meredith “Greens Leader”.
Wise decision for the Greens. Forming a coalition with either party would not have been a sensible option – well done for resisting the temptation of ministerial portfolios. This time round, there was little choice but to support Labor, given its significantly higher primary vote over the Libs.
There may be opportunities for the Greens to enter a coalition at a future election, under the right circumstances. This was not the right time for it.
Have just seen the announcement – Greens Leader Hunter not at all like the shrill Green party hacks on this site – perhaps they’re from the very small minority who preferenced the Liberals.
The agreement between the ALP and The Greens can be found in full here:
http://act.greens.org.au/documents/alp-greens-agreement.pdf
I don’t particularly understand how this agreement is that great for the Greens. It looks like Labor got the best out of the whole situation.
I think the Greens 2nd preferences at the last fed election ran over 25% to the libs.
Not a small minority and shows that the greens are attracting a wide range of voters and views, which is a good thing.
Labor voters will preference greens or go green /labor expecting greens to support labor, lib voters wil expect the greens to hold labor accountable or go with the party that got the majority of the votes or majority of the seats.
7) Parliamentary Staffing and Resources
ACT Labor will ensure that the Greens MLAs are accorded party status, including
formal recognition of the roles of the Greens’ Parliamentary Convenor and Whip.
ACT Labor agrees that it shall commit to provide the Greens with staffing
resources for three cross-bench Members and staffing equivalent to 1.5 of a
cross-bench Member for the Greens’ parliamentary convenor.
ACT Labor will support the Greens’ nominations for Chairs of the following
Committees:
i) Public Accounts Committee
ii) Health, Community and Social Services
iii) Climate Change, Environment and Water
iv) Select Committee on Ecological Carrying Capacity for the ACT and
region
3.10 The provision of Climate Change Impact Analysis to be required for all
Government Bills and major policy proposals.
3.11 Introduction of Triple Bottom Line annual reporting to be required through the
Chief Minister’s Annual Report Directions.
3.12 A new Standing Order to require that answers to questions during Question Time
be “directly” relevant to the question.
3.18 A request for observer status for the Greens at COAG meetings to be made by the
Chief Minister to the Prime Minister.
1.1 Legislate a greenhouse gas reduction target for the ACT.
1.2 Call for Expressions of Interest by the end of 2008 for the development of a
renewable energy plant capable of producing sufficient power for at least 10,000
Canberra homes. Provide at least $30 million in assistance in 2009/10 budget to ensure the development of the plant.
1.3 An Energy Efficient makeover for Canberra households, with the aim that within 10
years all houses rated lower than 3 stars for energy efficiency should have improved
energy efficiency to move them up to at least 3 stars.
1.4 A timetable for the purchase of 100% renewable electricity by the ACT Government.
2.1 Increase recurrent funding for cycling infrastructure to $3.6 million per annum from
2009-10, and provide $2.5 million to address the maintenance backlog and
implementation of signage on the cycling network.
2.4 Adopting a goal of guaranteed bus frequency of 30 minutes. The first stage of the
proposal, considering time periods and appropriate locations should begin
implementation by the middle of 2009.
3.1 Introducing a levy on plastic bags in supermarkets and other retailers. This will be a
12-month trial, and will be implemented in the first half of 2009.
4.1 Implementing the ‘Plumber Visit’ program, where a qualified plumber visits houses
and undertakes maintenance and repairs such as fixing or replacing leaking hot water
systems and pipes, installing dual flush toilet systems, fitting low flow taps, shower heads
and other water-saving devices. This should be delivered to at least 25,000 houses over
four years. This program would concentrate on government houses and other lowincome
households.
5.1 Requiring a minimum 6 star rating for new residential housing by 2010
Also some other policies on business, education, health and justice.
Speaking as a rotten right-wing ALP hack and purveyor of puerile anti-Green jokes, I find all of that very acceptable and sensible. Good sense and statespersonship (or perhaps statesbeingship since we don’t wish to be speciesist) has been displayed all round.
For once, I have to agree with Adam. I’m pretty impressed at this.
I guess the next question is what happens to the role of Speaker. I’m a bit surprised that Labor isn’t begging the Greens to take the job, purely because, in a seven member caucus, and with five members, taking the Speaker from their own ranks leaves them with a backbench of all of one.
According to the CT this morning, Labor wants to nominate John Hargreaves for the role, which is brilliant (anything that gets the cantankerous old fool out of a ministry is brilliant); presumably that would mean that Mary Porter would be promoted to the vacancy, and Simon Corbell would be safe. In that case, I hope the Greens back down and don’t follow through with their threat for a Liberal – especially since the Liberal nominee is supposed to be Vicki Dunne, who’s undoubtedly the biggest idiot to tarnish the Assembly benches in their history, and that’s saying something here.
“Speaking as a rotten right-wing ALP hack and purveyor of puerile anti-Green jokes”
Full credit for honesty.
I also think the Greens could have wangled a ministry out of the deal – but that said, the platform it ties the ALP to is great: cutting edge urban policies. I predict other cities will be looking to Canberra for policy ideas this time in 3 years hence.
The ACT is perfectly sized to become a model sustainable city-state. Good outcome for the people.
Shame the rest of the country doesn’t have PR – we could look forward to this around the country. Local councils just dont have the power of the ACT govt (Brisbane excepted – but then Brisbane doesnt have PR)
It’s probably wise that the Greens didn’t gain any ministerial portfolios. It leaves government incompetence up to Labor and not the Greens. The Greens have got what they wanted through the agreement. A ministerial position would have simply been about the spoils of office which is not what the Greens are about.
Even in Lilliput, expecting complete parliamentary novices to take on ministries is asking for trouble. The Greens were wise not to demand portfolios but rather to dictate terms from the crossbenches. They will gain useful experience with the committee chairs they now have. There you are Rebecca, I put “Greens” and “wise” in the same sentence. Now I think we can all holds hands and dance around the forest glade singing Puff the Magic Dragon. We get to stay in government, you get to have your policies enacted. You get all the credit of they work out, we get the blame if they don’t. Everyone’s a winner EXCEPT THE LIBS. What’s not to like?
Mr Rattenbury has been elected Speaker.
Good decision by Labor I think.
Good for The Greens I suppose, they still have the balance.