The Advertiser has published a poll of 571 respondents from the South Australian state seat of Chaffey, held by the state’s sole Nationals MP Karlene Maywald. It finds an effective dead heat in two-party terms between Maywald and Liberal candidate Tim Whetstone, with the former on 50.5 per cent. Primary vote figures after distribution of the undecided are 40 per cent for Whetstone, 30 per cent for Maywald, 14 per cent for Labor, 11 per cent for Family First and 3 per cent for the Greens. The result at the election was 53.2 per cent for Maywald and 28.2 per cent for the Liberal candidate, resulting in a 17.2 per cent Nationals-versus-Liberals margin after preferences. The margin of error on the poll is around 4 per cent. The paper appears not to have repeated the mistake of its poll of the electorate in August 2008, when it merely asked respondents which party they would vote for without naming Maywald as an option. When asked who Maywald should support in the event of a minority government, 53 per cent said Liberal and 33 per cent Labor. Maywald has served as a minister in Mike Rann’s government since 2004, currently in the water security and River Murray portfolios. She has nonetheless maintained she would support a “conservative” government in office.
Please feel free to use this thread for general discussion of the South Australian election.
William
Do we assume from the above that the primary vote for Maywald in the Addy poll was 38%?
William; I’m not convinced of The Advertiser’s methodology this time either. Just because they asked people who they’d like her to support in the event of a hung parliament, doesn’t mean they asked the primary vote question in terms of individuals rather than parties like they did last time.
If you look at the primary vote figures, it shows Maywald losing 25% of her primary vote, but only 8% going to the Libs, 5% going to Family First and even 3% going to Labor! Given that the Green vote is stable, one has to wonder where the other 9% of the vote has gone.
Secondly – given her margin at the last election – on these figures the Libs would need all of the “other” vote, including pretty much all of the Labor vote, to overtake her on preferences and snatch the seat, and that just doesn’t tally with what happened in terms of preferences at the last election.
Can’t see it happening. Despite what this story seems to indicate, I suspect those “angry irrigators” were not people who voted for her last time and were going to vote for her this time anyway.
The primary votes were as follows:
Whetstone (Liberal): 36%
Maywald (National): 27%
Telfer (Labor): 13%
Papageorgiou (Family First): 10%
Undecided: 8%
Jordan (Greens): 3%
Peake (Independent): 2%
Informal/None: 1%
I’m encouraged by this poll – it’s obviously much tighter than it was in 2006, but Maywald has a pretty decent shot at keeping her seat. The 8% undecided is obviously the key point, along with the obvious margin of error.
I maintain my previous logic that as long as Rann labor lasts, Maywald will last. If the libs were on the cusp of government, she would be washed away (yes, deliberate pun there). The majority of objective observers would conclude she has handled a tough, tough portfolio with relative professionalism. I do concede however, the liberals (unlike many other seats) have a credible candidate in Chaffey.
Oh, and BTW, getting a response of “back the Libs” in such a conservative electorate is hardly surprising. What surprises me is that The Advertiser has reported it with such an element of surprise …
I thought the 10% Nat primary in the ’tiser’s last poll for Chaffey was idiotic and ridiculous. This would be closer to the money, but, it’s a ’tiser poll, so I definately take it with a grain of salt. I’m surprised the ’tiser didn’t put her 2PP lower than her primary or something *remembers back to the metro/rural/total 2PP fiasco several months ago*
The Tiser’s seat-by-seat polls have a good record. Still, there’s a 4 percent error factor here. Either Maywald or the Liberal could be nicely ahead.
The Family First vote seems out of whack. For the only group without a high profile on River Murray issues it seems unlikely. But if its a phone poll then there a bit of bias towards people at home etc although article claims it was done Wednesday night which might limit bias.
[The Tiser’s seat-by-seat polls have a good record.]
Well, kind of …
I see Rann loses by a big margin to Redmond again on the trustworthy question. Foley has got to stop saying the election is about trust.
[Fifty-four per cent of the respondents thought Ms Redmond was more trustworthy than the Premier, who polled 35 per cent.]
I neglected to include Maywald’s primary vote in my hurry to get it done and go to bed last night. I’ve added hers and amended everybody’s to exclude the undecided and informal – thanks to Sykesie for the full figures.
I hear on the radio that Maywald will merely “consider switching support to the Liberal Party if that is the best result for her constituents”. Has she normally been this reticent?
#7 I think people generally underestimate the Family First vote in SA – I think they under-performed at the last Federal election mainly because Nick Xenophon was running. Their vote of 10% in this poll doesn’t surprise me at all.
She’s always said that, William.
And, it’s got to be said (although I am naturally biased), I think she HAS been able to get a pretty good deal from her constituents out of Labor thus far. And she would have been able to achieve even more if it hadn’t been for the drought which, sadly, is out of her control.
Someone questioned the FF figures; in many areas of country SA the Christian vote can get up quite high, so it actually doesn’t surprise me. Many of these voters vacillate between Liberal and FF and I suspect that the increase in this cohort might have come via the Libs: ie the Libs took more off Karlene than the 8% increase they got, but then some has come off them to FF. I have no proof of this, of course; more like a gut feeling, but I’ve certainly seen similiar things happen in other seats in the country and Adelaide Hills.
Slightly off-topic, I wonder what all the God-botherers in the area who continually pray for rain think when the rain stubbornly refuses to fall? They seem to be very quick to believe their prayers are answered and they have somehow been “blessed” by God when things go right, so why don’t they believe the opposite when their prayers remain unanswered and life continues to be dire? As an atheist, I find it rather puzzling why people don’t lose faith in the face of such adversity …
[ If I win the balance of power I will consider what is put on the table by both parties and what is better for the regional areas of the state,” she said. “I am quite happy to support which party gives the best deal for the regional areas.]
Sounds like she’s trying to weasel out of making a decision.
[#7 I think people generally underestimate the Family First vote in SA – I think they under-performed at the last Federal election mainly because Nick Xenophon was running. Their vote of 10% in this poll doesn’t surprise me at all.]
Ummm, we have a bicameral system and Nick Xenophon ran for the upper house, and Chaffey is a seat in the lower house……………………….???
Sorry Bob – what I meant in talking about Xenophon taking away from their vote in the last Federal election was that if he hadn’t been running, I think they would have been more likely to be in contention for the last Senate seat – as they were in 2004. But Senator X’s extraordinary profile and strong anti-pokies, anti-drugs stances attract a lot of the sort of voters (and polling booth workers) who might otherwise be attracted to Family First.
It would have been extremely odd for Xenophon’s senate run to affect a lower house seat in an election taking place 18 months earlier. The increase in FF vote in Chaffey between the 06 election and this poll can easily be explained by conservative voters looking for other places to park their vote.
What a joke, Ken Rollond appearing in Liberal ads:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/19/2824680.htm
Insulting to the intelligence of voters everywhere.
[It would have been extremely odd for Xenophon’s senate run to affect a lower house seat in an election taking place 18 months earlier. The increase in FF vote in Chaffey between the 06 election and this poll can easily be explained by conservative voters looking for other places to park their vote.]
Considering the Libs are more electable now than in 2006, you’d think disaffected conservatives would have been more likely to park their vote with FF then, than now…
Michael Atkinson is a total gooose.
With SA election writs to be issued on Saturday 20 February, he finally got around to making his regulation on 18 February 2010:-
17—Prescribed classes of material (section 116)
(1) For the purposes of section 116(2)(e) of the Act, material in a public forum
within a journal published in electronic form on the Internet is prescribed.
(2) In this regulation—
journal has the same meaning as in section 116 of the Act;
public forum means a weblog, survey or other forum in which members of
the public may post comments.
SA Govt Gazette, No 10, page 855
IMHO the exemption only applies to forums on The Advertiser site – not to all forums.
[ This is NOT my name and address]
PY:
[journal has the same meaning as in section 116 of the Act;
public forum means a weblog, survey or other forum in which members of
the public may post comments. ]
This sounds like everything to me, not just the ’tiser.
Peter Young – I’m really not sure what all the fuss is about. Time to move on.
Bob they weren’t disaffected with Karlene in 2006. But now she’s been a Minister in this busted-arse Government for six years.
Yes PY. “public forum means a weblog, survey or other forum in which members of the public may post comments.” would appear to catch almost everything online.
Rann isn’t going to dump Atkinson if he wins the election. That will cement quite a few swinging voters in the Lib column.
[STOOD by embattled Attorney-General Michael Atkinson, saying he would not be dropped in any Cabinet reshuffle.]
Karlene Maywald has always said she will support “the government of the day”.
I asked her once who she would support in the event of a hung parliament and she said: “Whichever party offers the best deal for regional South Australia.”
http://www.borderwatch.com.au/archives/4803
That’s because The Don would never allow it.
This comment doesn’t reflect Rann’s personal opinion at all. I think if he had HIS way, Atkinson would have been booted out ages ago.
The man is a clear liability.
As a Norwood resident, I’m faced with quite the conundrum – I don’t think I could ever bring myself to preference the Liberals, but Vini Cicarrello certainly hasn’t done anything to deserve my support either. I’ve started to seriously consider voting informal.
In fact I can’t bring myself to care much about the result of this election at all. My only wishes are for (a) Joe Scalzi and Trish Draper to lose their contests, since their being re-elected would send all the wrong messages to a party that should be placing far more focus on renewal, and (b) Kris Hanna and Geoff Brock to retain their seats.
I’m not particularly optimistic about either of these wishes coming true, however, and I suspect that Maywald’s goose is also cooked. Overall, I’ll go on the record as predicting a hung parliament, or close to it.
Signed,
XXXX XXXXXX (nyah nyah Mr Atkinson!)
Michael G – appreciate any information about Mt Gambier contest. Notice Advertiser today didn’t have it in their 10 main seats of interest which seemed odd.
itsthevibe
Completely agree with all of your points except the last. I think Rann will win by a few seats.
@21 – Skysie
[ Peter Young – I’m really not sure what all the fuss is about. Time to move on.]
I disagree.
If you assert the exemption in regulation 17 applies to anything else other than a forum conducted by a traditional newspaper, please say so.
I appreciate your argument is that s.116 only applies to traditional newspapers. However, if you are wrong on that, which I believe you are, then there is a ball game in still in play which operates from say midnight on 20th February.
If the wording of s.116 does not cover blogs, then Michael Atkinson is a total goose because he told parliament it did.
If the wording of s.116 does cover blogs (as I believe it does) then regulation 17 does not exempt blogs from s.116. Atkinson told the media he had listened and would be exempting blogs from the operation of s.116. He hasn’t done so. Thus he is a gooose.
Either way – he is a biggar gooose.
[ This is NOT my name and address ]
bob1234 – #20
In s.116 in the Act –
“journal means a newspaper, magazine or other periodical”
I think journal means traditional newspapers. I don’t think it means blogs.
Thus, when the regulation exempts ” material in a public forum within a journal published in electronic form on the Internet ”
it only exempts public forums within a traditional newspaper.
It does NOT exempt public forums which are not part of a traditional newspaper. Thus it does not exempt public forums on a blog site.
[ This is NOT my name and address ]
I think I see what you mean now Peter Young. I’ll go and look at the Act again and see if I can explain it in a simpler way.
Itep – #32
The only possible way you can explain it – is by asserting that s.116 does not apply to blogs (because they are not covered by the words “broadcast on the Internet”) and that s.116 only ever applied to traditional newspapers.
That interpretation I disagree with. Others claim it is the correct interpretation.
However in Parliament Michael Atkinson asserted s.116 was meant to apply to blogs, although said it wasn’t intended to apply to Twitter and he would apply the law in a common sense way.
Just out of interest, where do the words ‘in written form’ in s 116 fall? Is it:
a) “in written form, in a journal published in electronic form on the Internet”
b) “in written form”
c) “or the issues being submitted to electors, in written form,”
[The only possible way you can explain it – is by asserting that s.116 does not apply to blogs (because they are not covered by the words “broadcast on the Internet”) and that s.116 only ever applied to traditional newspapers.]
This doesn’t seem to make sense. “Broadcast” only refers to “radio or television broadcast on the Internet”. This is clear by reading s116(2)(d) which clarifies that s116(1) doesn’t include news services or current affairs programs on radio or television which are then broadcast on the Internet.
The first part, relating to ‘journals’ is meant to be read separately from “radio or internet”.
I might just add this:-
Don’t expect The Advertiser to take this issue up. They took the issue up vehemently at first. However, they were probably doing so to get themselves out of being caug by s.116. Atkinson has obliged them, and clearly exempted traditional newspapers from the operation of s.116.
However, why should The Advertiser take the cudgels up for other blogs/websites. They are competitors. Can’t see The Advertiser conducting a campaign now that would be of no personal benefit to it, and could only be of benefit to it’s competitors, that is those outside the MSM.
Well this is my reading of s 116 as it applies
[s 116 of the Electoral Act 1985 provides that during an election period a person cannot public commentary on any candidate or political party or the issues being submitted to the electors:
a) in written form
b) in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical published in electronic form on the Internet; or
c) by radio or TV broadcast on the Internet
unless they provide their name and address.
UNLESS
it is content published on a weblog, survey or other forum in which members may post comments within a newspaper, magazine or other periodical published in electronic form on the Internet.]
It would depend on what “or other periodical” meant. I don’t think it would cover every blog because a periodical is something that is “issued at regularly recurring intervals.”
Itep- #35
[ “Broadcast” only refers to “radio or television broadcast on the Internet”.}
No, the actual words of s.116 are:-
…or by radio or television or broadcast on the Internet,
[The words “written form” ]
I suggest the reading is:-
commentary …in written form:-
a. in a journal (newspaper) published in electronic format on Internet,OR
b. by radio (I wonder how this done, but nevertheless), OR
c. by television, OR
d. broadcast on the Internet (this would include a blog).
oops – #38
A bit of a stuff up with brackets there.
The post deals with2 items….
First – where broadcast appears.
Second – the use to which “written form is put which may be restated as commentary in:
a. wriiten form in a traditional newspaper published on internet
b. written form by radio (???)
c. wriiten form by television
d. written form broadcast on the Internet (this I suggest includes blogs/websites)
I won’t argue the legalities here but Atkinson said the law was mainly intended to deal with AdelaideNow (who he has been fighting with for ages). I suspect Crikey would have been targetted as it is an electronic journal, but something like Larvatus Prodeo probably wouldn’t have been.
It’s certainly a big mess which should’ve been redrafted. The Parliament failed big time on this one.
If you wanted to to read it as “commentary in written form” how do you get rid of the “on” after “commentary”? I figure there must be some unneeded commas in there.
#40 – Diogenes
I am sticking to my view a set out above. It was clearly intended to cover all blogs/ websites but not Twitter (because he would apply the law in a commonsense fashion). One needs to read the parliamentary debates in Hansard to see Atkinsons clear intention.
Until the correct interpretation is “discovered” – one has (unless one is a welded on Labor supporter and urger) conclude that Atkinson is a totally incompetent and inept A-G.
It is not just this legislation (and his purported exemption of blogs by regulation) that demonstrate his unsuitability for the position of A-G, but also his drafting of other legislation which has been found wanting by the Courts, e.g. bikie legislation.
If anyone can honestly say Atkinson is NOT a biggar gooose – I would be shocked. Rann’s continued support of Atkinson raises questions about Rann’s judgment.
[Until the correct interpretation is “discovered” – one has (unless one is a welded on Labor supporter and urger) conclude that Atkinson is a totally incompetent and inept A-G.]
Not really. Labor supporters all accept that here in SA. The matter is not really in dispute. We take that as a given. It’s the amount of damage that concerns us.
#43
[ It’s the amount of damage that concerns us. ]
Well if you have an accident waiting to happen, the safest course is to remove it before it happens.
Thus, if you find a bomb in your house, you don’t know when it will go off and don’t know how much damage it will cause when it goes off – surely the best thing is to remove the bomb.
It is irresponsible and foolhardy, to simply leave it there and say “Oh we will see what happens, and worry about it after it explodes”
[ This is NOT my name and address ]
Just for the purpose of the record, these are extracts from what Michael Atkinson told parliament on 2 June 2009:-
Government amendment No. 8 amends section 116(1) so the requirement to include a statement will also apply to material consisting of, or containing, commentary on any candidate, party or issues being submitted to voters that is published or broadcast on the internet.
…….
Mrs REDMOND: I know that the internet is a very broad term, but again I ask the question: will it apply to telecommunication by mobile phone? I would assume it is not caught by that. I wonder whether the term ‘internet’ is actually broad enough to capture everything that we presumably will be taking about like blogs, Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter and all the other things that could occur.
The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes. We aim to catch web pages and, therefore, it would cover blog sites, Wikipedia and internet newspapers such as Adelaidenow, but we do not want to go into twittering because that is too much like individual communication over a mobile phone. So, that is where we are putting the boundary.
I would humbly suggest for Atkinson now to argue that s.116 only ever applied to traditional newspapers, and was not intended to cover blogs or websites not operated by a traditional newspaper – is stretching credulity to it’s absolute breaking point.
If, as Atkinson clearly intended in parliament on 2 June 2009, s.116 covers blogs/websites not controlled by established newspapers ( a view I happen to agree with), then the PROBLEM is that regulation 17 does not exempt such blogs/websites from the operation of s.116.
Regulation 17 only exempts public forums published by established newspapers from the operation of s.116.
To be precise it also exempts anything considered “or other periodicals”. You couldn’t really count Wikipedia or most blog sites as periodicals though.
So if I edited a Wikipedia page to include commentary on the issues being submitted to electors I’d need to assign my name and address?
ltep, the problem would probably come down to whatever a judge – and one that probably rarely uses the net – defines as being within the scope of the legislation according to their intepretation of modern definitions of “periodicals” and whatnot.
Roll a dice on what could be included or not.
The whole thing came down to a personal vendetta Atkinson’s fevered paranoid mind came up with. You’ll note he specifically mentions AdelaideNow and wikipedia, both of whom he had been having running fights with. He tried to use his political position to attack and silence his critics in a gross abuse of power.
Dio,
If I had to name a set of MPs that were the most outrageously incapable and utterly incompetent of fulfilling their duties should they ever be made a Minister – from all the Parliaments in the land – Atkinson would be in the top five. Well up in the top five.
And there’s a lot of dross in our Parliaments, particularly our various state Parliaments.
Atkinson is reason enough to vote for Redmond. If the Labor Party in SA is going to insult our intelligence by putting up a dickhead like that in such an important role, they deserve to get electorally spanked 5 ways to Sunday. It goes to the capability, the character and the integrity of the party itself. If that’s what SA Labor considers acceptable… well, they aint.
#46
[ So if I edited a Wikipedia page to include commentary on the issues being submitted to electors I’d need to assign my name and address?]
That is my interpretation of s.116 – yes.
It also happens to be the interpretation of Michael Atkinson MP, SA’s Attorney General as expressed by him in parliament on 2 June 2009.