Yesterday, the Australian Electoral Commission performed an act which in a rational world would have excited no interest. Since last weekend the commission has featured a “national two party preferred result” on the front page of its Virtual Tally Room, which has assumed tremendous psychological interest as Labor’s margin has steadily eroded from 0.6 per cent to 0.4 per cent. However, the tally had a flaw which biased it in Labor’s favour: there were no Labor-versus-Coalition figures available from strongly conservative Kennedy, Lyne, New England or O’Connor, where the notional two-candidate preferred counts conducted on election night involved independents. This was only balanced out by left-wing Melbourne, where Labor and the Greens were correctly identified as the front-running candidates for the notional count. For whatever reason, the AEC decided yesterday to level the playing field by excluding seats where the notional preference count candidates had been changed since election night, which in each case meant left-wing seats where the Liberals had finished third to the Greens (Batman and Grayndler) or Andrew Wilkie (Denison). The result was an instant 0.4 per cent drop in Labor’s score, reducing them to a minuscule lead that was soon rubbed out by further late counting.
In fact, very little actually changed in yesterday’s counting, which saw a continuation of the slow decline in the Labor total that is the usual pattern of late counting. The media, regrettably, has almost entirely dropped the ball on this point. Mark Simkin of the ABC last night reported that Labor’s lead had been eradicated by the “latest counting”, as opposed to an essentially meaningless administrative decision. Lateline too informed us that Labor’s two-party vote had “collapsed”, and Leigh Sales’ opening question to Julie Bishop on Lateline was essentially an invitation to gloat about the fact. Most newspaper accounts eventually get around to acknowledging the entirely artificial nature of the 50,000-vote reversal in Labor’s fortunes, but only after reporting in breathless tones on the removal of votes that will eventually be put back in.
The reality is that nobody knew who had the lead on the two-party vote yesterday morning, and nothing happened in the day to make anybody any the wiser. The Prime Minister equally had no idea on election night when she made her ill-advised claim to the two-party majority mantle. Only when all seats have reported Labor-versus-Coalition counts, which is probably still a few weeks away, will we be able to say for sure. The best we can do at present is to construct a projection based on the votes counted and our best assumptions as to how the gaps in the vote count data will be filled when all the figures are in.
At present we have completed “ordinary” polling day totals for all electorates and advanced counts of postal votes in most cases, but there has been no progress yet on absent or pre-poll votes in roughly half. Where counting of any of these three categories has been conducted, I have projected the party results on to the expected total of such votes (derived from the “declaration vote scrutiny progress” for absent and pre-poll votes, and from the number of applications for postal votes discounted by 16 per cent as per experience from 2007). Where no counting of a particular category has been conducted, I have compared the parties’ 2007 vote share in that category with their ordinary vote share, and applied that difference to the ordinary vote from this election. For example, the 2007 Liberal two-party vote in Canberra was 7.19 per cent higher than their ordinary vote share, so their 40.54 per cent ordinary vote at the current election has been used to project an absent vote share of 47.73 per cent.
For Batman, Grayndler and Denison, I have used the figures from the two-party Labor-versus-Liberal counts that were conducted in these seats from ordinary votes on election night, calculated the swing against the ordinary vote in 2007 and projected it over the expected absent, pre-poll and postal totals. For Melbourne, New England and Kennedy, where no Labor-versus-Coalition figures are available, I have used preference shares derived from the Labor-versus-Coalition counts from the 2007 election to determine the swing on ordinary votes, and projected that swing through the other categories. It’s with Lyne and O’Connor that things get crude, as we have no case study of how Rob Oakeshott’s or Wilson Tuckey’s preferences split between Labor and Nationals candidates. For O’Connor, which has at least been a Labor-Liberal-Nationals contest at successive elections, I have crudely arrived at a 7.9 per cent swing against Labor derived from the primary vote swing plus moderated by a 70 per cent share of the swing in favour of the Greens. The best I could think to do for Lyne was average the two-party swings from the neighbouring electorates, producing a 5.14 per cent swing against Labor.
Plug all that in and here’s what you get:
Labor 6,313,736 (50.02 per cent)
Coalition 6,307,924 (49.98 per cent)
In other news, Andrew Wilkie says the two-party vote total is “not relevant” in determining which party he will back. Good for him.
UPDATE: An Essential Research poll has it at 50-50, which is “unchanged” – I’m not sure if this is in comparison with the election result or a previously unpublished Essential result from a week ago. Basically no change on preferred prime minister. UPDATE 2: The 50-50 from last week was indeed an unpublished Essential result from their rolling two-week average, which they understandably felt was not worth publishing under the circumstances.
Well, if Windsor has explicitly said he won’t accept speaker, who then?
Problem is both Oakeshotte and Wilkie have a big agenda.. is it still possible to get your agenda implemented while sitting in the speaker’s chair?
#689 Gary
[ Something you conveniently overlooked earlier young fella.
]
You are logically twisted.
Betting odds do mean something, contrary to your original statement which was wRONg.
Re: votes of confidence/no-confidence
Someone who actually knows about this would be fantastic – I’m only guessing.
I have heard of both votes of confidence and votes of no-confidence. Presumably if, as a government, you are going to test your confidence in parliament you would move a motion of confidence and seek to get it passed, and as per normal, you would need a majority of votes (76 if all 150 lower house members are present).
However, if the opposition wants to take down a government it would pass a motion of no-confidence presumably? Does this also take 76 votes to pass (ie the government can defeat a no-confidence motion if it has 75 votes)?
blue_green@699
I think it is fairy easy. As long as that state is New Zealand…
[Need for parliamentary and democratic reform.]
They need to start with correcting the way the count the Senate. It certainly is not democratic or fair. I doubt anything will change. The ALP has demonstrated that it is not interested in electoral reform other then increasing public funding.
[is it still possible to get your agenda implemented while sitting in the speaker’s chair?]
None of them want to be Speaker. The Speaker will be furnished by the government.
[Wouldn’t the two QLDs have to get 24 senators over two half-senate elections?
It would probably cause the ALP to desperately seek state status for the ACT. ]
The ‘new Queensland’ would get whatever representation the Parliament provided for it. The Constitution only provides for the equal representation in the Senate of the original states.
The ACT would likely only be offered 1 extra senator if they became a state (as the NT was by Howard).
[This is part of Australia, and they also have a voice.]
Oh, boo hoo. Queensland got 10x the attention of Victoria, Tas and SA combined in the bloody election.
[you are going to test your confidence in parliament you would move a motion of confidence and seek to get it passed, and as per normal, you would need a majority of votes]
I’ve never heard of a motion of confidence. I think no-confidence motions are sometimes loosely called confidence motions.
[lizzie
Posted Tuesday, August 31, 2010 at 3:43 pm | Permalink
blue_green
Yes, there’s a whole generation that have always re-used, recycled etc, stemming from post-WW2, who do not fear new restrictions on consumables because they already self-impose. Some of us have mothers & g-mothers who went thru Great Depression and the lessons were passed on.
I fear for the world of Tone, which is the dominant attitude now.]
Lizzie whatever happened to the culture of the late 60’s.
[“Ask not what your government should do… etc”]
That is still the paradign that is needed most today.
Unfortunately its the opposite.
If Wilkie is basing his decision purely on gambling – which of Lab/Lib do you think is going to be able to offer the stronger/better response?
[Its called PHD-procrastination…]
Ah been there … got half way and decided it was merely self-indulgence that had me going for those letters … settled with the MA — weight of the world off my shoulders!
Can’t believe it………an even handed report of Julia’s speech at the NPC on front page of the online Australian!!!!………..
I can feel the world turning upside down!!!
[
The Libs have chased down 149 votes in Corangamite with the last 4206 added. They have only about 2500 to go with which to chase down the last 735. My projection is for Labor to win by 508. However, if the remaining postal votes are as favourable for Liberal as the last batch, that will come down to 368.
]
Thanks William.
Jackol, both instances only require a simple majority of votes on the House of Representatives floor, or a tie with the Speaker casting a vote one way or the other. There are Speaker conventions that say the Speaker should cast its vote in favour of confidence if there is a tied vote.
[I dont know the constitutional convention for adding states]
There is no way Australia will add states. One Tasmania is enough. If anything we should be abolishing States. Technology, travel and communication has made State virtually redundant. I once asked John Brumby when he was first elected leader of the State Parliament what his policy was on the VIC Upper house. Abolition or reform? He replied if he could he would abolish the State Parliament. As we know that did not happen.
Re extra states, you have to remember that the point of equal representation is to protect the small states from the big states, who otherwise dominate via the HoR. Of course this was all designed with touching faith in the MPs/Senators to actually give two s$%ts about their actual constituents as opposed to their parties/factions/donors.
triton @706, can you argue that point further?
And while we are at it, can we change the senate dominance of Tasmania. A Taswigian’s vote in the senate is worth about 400 the vote of someone in NSW, they have less population then Newcastle + Central coast
[ I really hate the way the media expects all the negotiation to be out in the open, with them barracking on the sidelines. “We must see the details.” Have they no *respeck*?
]
Your feelings are understandable. However the mantra of the country independents has always been that the big party’s make decisions in back rooms behind closed doors, and this leads to BAD decisions being made AND that government business should be conducted openly and transparently.
I guess to some extent the media are now just following the country Independents program.
[Can’t believe it………an even handed report of Julia’s speech at the NPC on front page of the online Australian!!!!………..
I can feel the world turning upside down!!!]
The need to salt their bias with a little of this so that later they can point to it when people accuse them of being unbalanced.
blue_green
[Lizzie whatever happened to the culture of the late 60’s. ]
I know, and it hurts. Everyone is so cynical about others’ motives now.
Nice talking to you, Must go – bye
[cud chewer
Posted Tuesday, August 31, 2010 at 3:43 pm | Permalink
Well, if Windsor has explicitly said he won’t accept speaker, who then?
Problem is both Oakeshotte and Wilkie have a big agenda.. is it still possible to get your agenda implemented while sitting in the speaker’s chair?]
If your Agenda is Parliamentary reform, then yes. The indie speakers in NSW haven’t seemed to be able to achieve this to any great deal.
If you want a broader policy oversight role, its hard to do it from the speakers chair.
If you personally want a fatter paycheck (and then retire based on that level) then the Speakers role is great.
[If the indies are just seen as naturally voting for the conservative side because they are rural then how can they be true independents?]
Independent just means they aren’t in a political party. They can be conservative or progressive and still be true independents.
[And while we are at it, can we change the senate dominance of Tasmania. A Taswigian’s vote in the senate is worth about 400 the vote of someone in NSW, they have less population then Newcastle + Central coast]
Implicitly, that’s because the independent state of Tasmania agreed to federate with NSW. In exchange, they got protected from being consistently overruled by NSW’s larger population.
@OzPol Tragic
I’m a SE Qlder and I agree that Qld cops a lot of silly flak in these pages, but I also see Katter for what he is – a clever political survivor who has carved out a career on parochial issues that demonise both Canberra and Brisbane.
Now he has to go from fighting the man to being the man, and prop up a national government for 3 years without breaking ranks. His whole political personna will be turned inside out and if the government continues to fail the north, he will be seen as part of the problem by his electorate.
I still think Labor’s best bet is to pick off some low-hanging fruit from the Coalition side and install them in the Speaker’s chair. That way their own numbers remain intact, while effectively taking one off the opposition.
I would have thought the best person to sit in the Speaker’s chair is either a lawyer, or someone who has put in many years’ service to the Parliament and who already knows the rules like the back of their hand.
Somehow I don’t think Bronnie would be interested – she enjoys shouting at the Speaker too much to give up that particular pleasure. Besides which, she would be far too adversarial and partisan in her approach. However, there must be a raft of moderate Coalition MPs who are both disaffected with the current Party and knowledgable and clever enough to handle to role.
I say it again; I’m looking at Moylan or someone of her ilk. Not Turnbull; he’s Ministerial material, but there’s got to be others who would both be able to do it and who would be *willing* to do it.
[Where’d you get that Ltep? Gillard put a paper to the Indies outlining a reform agenda that was supposedly quite detailed. She just hasn’t released it to us until the Indies have had the chance to look at it.]
I missed Julias speech to the press club but saw lots of questions.
Michell dinasour Gratten asked a question about transparency and said wtte You talk about transparency why haven’t you given us all the paper that you gave the indies blah blah blah.
I took it from the way that she asked the question that she was inferring we are not interested that you are having confidential, delicate negotiations with the indies, you should give it to us first so that we can decide whether the stuff you are negotiating is ok for Roo and Tony.
Julia basically told her to shove her head up a dead bears a..e and said when we have an agreement on things with the indies it will be released.
Consequently it is reported that she has failed to outline a parliamentry reform agenda.
She did elaborate on some of the items that she had put forward for discussion but you can’t have a reform agenda until it has been agreed between the parties.
That is the level of the brain dead moronic Australian subjects that masquerade as intelligent journalists who gravel rash their knees at Ruperts beck and call when he tells them not to swallow
anything else.They are about kindergarten standard really.
jackol
the opposition moves no confidence
they need a majority of at least 1 for this motion to pass
if a tie, then the speaker casts vote – and s/he should follow Denison’s convention where they vote for the status quo
if the house passes no confidence, the PM is obliged (by convention) to submit their resignation to the GG
House of Representatives National Two Party Preferred Result Coalition Votes Percentage % Swing %
Australian Labor Party 5,414,648 50.01 -2.69
Liberal/National Coalition 5,411,529 49.99 +2.69
Then take a look at the senate vote and redistribute the 2PP..
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateStateFirstPrefsByGroupByVoteType-15508-NAT.htm
[triton @706, can you argue that point further?]
I just mean that no one on the cross-bench wants to Speaker, so the governing party will choose one of its own, as usual (I’m assuming that the parliamentary reforms being suggested don’t include any big changes regarding the Speaker).
[And while we are at it, can we change the senate dominance of Tasmania. A Taswigian’s vote in the senate is worth about 400 the vote of someone in NSW, they have less population then Newcastle + Central coast]
1. The Senate is not based on the principle of 1 vote 1 value. It seeks to protect the interests and rights of the smaller states.
2. The Constitution guarantees the equal repreresentation of the original states, of which Tasmania is one (s 7).
Patrick Bateman 725
Is it too late to back out of that stupid agreement?
Patrick Bateman 725
Is it too late to back out of that stupid agreement?
What’s the point in being able to survive a no confidence motion if you can’t pass any bills, though?
716 DemocracyATwork
[what his policy was on the VIC Upper house.]
In 1922, a Queensland Labor government abolished their upper house, but I think the LNP now have it as policy to re-introduce it if they win office
In Darwin if you tour Parliament, when you get to the Library the guide tells you that “This area has been designed to become the Upper House if and when we achieve Statehood”
sprocket_ @ 730
[The opposition moves no confidence
they need a majority of at least 1 for this motion to pass
if a tie, then the speaker casts vote – and s/he should follow Denison’s convention where they vote for the status quo
if the house passes no confidence, the PM is obliged (by convention) to submit their resignation to the GG]
I agree I think itn will require a vote of the house.. The Governor General should only act on the basis of a vote of no-confidence.
[I say it again; I’m looking at Moylan or someone of her ilk. Not Turnbull; he’s Ministerial material, but there’s got to be others who would both be able to do it and who would be *willing* to do it.]
Chinda, that would be nice but I think unlikely. The personal committment of an MP like Moylan to her local party supporters is massive.
A person in her position is unlikley to betray her lifelong friends and confidants.
[Is it too late to back out of that stupid agreement?]
It’d be an interesting region if each state was in fact a different nation-state! Mostly sport would be more interesting.
Personally, I favour adding NZ as a state. Seriously.
A National list PR system would be hard to establish in Australia because it would require the amendment of the Constitution to remove the requirement to distribute seats between states. This would require the approval of a majority of voters in all states as it would alter the proportionate representation of each state. State wide electorates are the biggest achievable electorates but multi-member electorates in the vicinity of 5 or 7 would be more achievable.
the ACT assembly has an interesting minority ALP governemnt where the Speaker is a Green, but also a shadow minister. He vacates the chair when he wants to debate
seems a bit dodgy to me, but they do it
[What’s the point in being able to survive a no confidence motion if you can’t pass any bills, though?]
Separation of powers. A Government only requires supply to pass to continue to operate. It can just continue to execute old laws. All other bills are desirable, but rarely crucial.
[Australian Constitution – Chapter 6
Chapter 6 – New States
Sections 121-124
Section 121 – New states may be admitted or established
The Parliament may admit to the Commonwealth or establish new States, and may upon such admission or establishment make or impose such terms and conditions, including the extent of representation in either House of the Parliament, as it thinks fit.
Section 122 – Government of territories
The Parliament may make laws for the government of any territory surrendered by any State to and accepted by the Commonwealth, or of any territory placed by the Queen under the authority of an accepted by the Commonwealth, and may allow the representation of such territory in either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit.
Section 123 – Alteration of limits of States
The Parliament of the Commonwealth may, with the consent of the Parliament of a State, and the approval of the majority of the electors of the State voting upon the question, increase, diminish, or otherwise alter the limits of the State, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed on, and may, with the like consent, make provision respecting the effect and operation of any increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation to any State affected.
Section 124 – Formation of new States
A new State may be formed by separation of territory from a State, but only with the consent of the Parliament thereof, and a new State may be formed by the union of two or more States or parts of States, but only with the consent of the Parliaments of the States affected.]
[Is it too late to back out of that stupid agreement?]
Which agreement? Federation? 🙂
[ I would have thought the best person to sit in the Speaker’s chair is either a lawyer, or someone who has put in many years’ service to the Parliament and who already knows the rules like the back of their hand.]
Oakeshott obtained a law degree whilst a MP in the NSW Parliament. He sat in the NSW Parliament from 1996-2008. Federal MP 2008-2010. So he has 13 years experience as an MP.
[This would require the approval of a majority of voters in all states as it would alter the proportionate representation of each state.]
Plus I think parliament has to vote it through both houses – one party at least would oppose that.
Well it’s already enshrined in the Australian Constitution.
[There are some of us who have been environmentalists since the 1970s and tend to vote Lab/green. We feel shut out by those who matured after the 80s who are further to the right.]
Of which I also am one, Lizzie; from the Save the Mt Etna caves, Barrier Reef & Cooloola Sands anti-sandmining campaign
[Disputes between conservationists and pro-development lobbies were important community issues during the late 1960’s and the early 1970’s 2. Contentious environmental debates included the fight to stop mining in limestone cave areas, the long-running battles to save Cooloola and Fraser Island from sand mining and the campaign to prevent oil drilling on the Great Barrier Reef.]
http://www.archives.qld.gov.au/1972cabdocs/background.asp
My disillusionment began later, probably because QLDers had some spectacular successes; but we had to wait until the end of the National Party Government (1989) to feel somewhat more (but not entirely) confident about environmental protection.
As Greens began to achieve parliamentary representation, environmentalism seemed to become more anti-industrial, anti-carbon (deindustrialisation) than pro-environmental; more recently, with stronger hints of Veganarchism and ecoanarchism (Green anarchism)– in fact, some Greens seem to become more conservative & more dictatorial (& more aggressive) in their demands. There’s a good thesis to be had in the “colonisation” of Oz’s Greens by eco/vegananarchists.
Except for its stance on gay marriage (and that support crosses most party lines), I find Greens are increasingly ultra-conservative tending towards the above-mentioned variants of C1900 militant nihilism.
[Separation of powers. A Government only requires supply to pass to continue to operate. It can just continue to execute old laws. All other bills are desirable, but rarely crucial.]
True, I suppose. But gee, that would be a lame, crippled government. I don’t buy all of this talk about “legitimacy”, but a government who can only administer, not make laws is about as weak as it gets.
Actually… that sounds great. Bring it on – the Libertarian Federation of Australia.
[You are forgetting that they’ve excluded those 3000 votes because they can’t be trusted; therefore you cannot know how how many votes went to each candidate]
And that is the whole crux of the matter IMHO. If all 3000 votes are suspect for some reason (do we actually know the reason) and there are only about 1500 votes separating the candidates then any appeal to the Court of Disputed Returns would have some chance of success..
Obviously the AEC has sought legal advice but until the matter is tested in court no-one can know for sure which way such a dispute might end up.
I certainly wouldn’t want to be in the shoes of the Divisional Returning Officer for Boothby right now.