May 23 2008
EMRS: Liberals lead 42-33 in Tasmania
Tasmanian pollsters EMRS have produced a survey of state voting intention from 1002 respondents which provides all kinds of bad news for Premier Paul Lennon. Support for Labor is down to 33 per cent from 39 per cent at the previous survey in March (and from 49.6 per cent at the March 2006 election), while the Liberals are up to 42 per cent from 37 per cent (31.9 per cent at the election). The Greens are steady on 22 per cent (16.2 per cent at the election). Worse still, a question on preferred premier has Liberal leader Will Hodgman on 39 per cent against 17 per cent for Paul Lennon, who is barely ahead of Greens leader Peg Putt (14 per cent). The agency has gone against its usual practice in failing to break the results down by electorate. Apple isle pundit Peter Tucker has more.
UPDATE (26/5/08): Lennon quits.
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:46 pm
I think Labor will get alot less green preferences than in the past. I think those liberal supporters out there should be careful what they wish for as Lennon might end up getting rolled if this keeps up.
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Scotty, Tassie uses a complex proportional voting system, thus 2PP is irrelevant. If this result were the election outcome, Greens would hold balance of power, with Libs having more seats than Labor.
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Yes. But what happens when those greens reach their quota and dont have enough for a second mp? i did not mean to imply anything about the 2 PP before and if you look again i said nothing about that. Do preferances matter in the senate? Yes.
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Hare Calrk is complicated, and I don’t profess to know it in detail. But here goes.
Firstly, for any candidate who scores a quota in their own right, they are declared elected and their surplus (that vote over a quota) distributed at a fraction according to the second preferences.
Then the candidate with the lowest primary votes is excluded, and preference distributed at full value. This exclusion from the bottom goes on until five candidates have a quota.
With regards to Scotty’s query at #3, the quota is not with the party, it is with the individual candidate. Party quotas are published for information, but can be misleading. But, generally, there is a strong flow of preferences along the party ticket. So, using Scotty’s example of the Greens totaling over a quota, the preferences of the remaining Green candidates are distributed like everyone else’s. Tasmania has partial preferential voting where electors are required to mark at least five preferences, but can stop there. The three major parties always nominate at least five candidates per seat, so their supporters can mark 1-5 down the party ticket and not need to go further to other party’s candidates. In cases where the ballot paper cannot be distributed further because the elector has chosen to limit their numbering, then that ballot exhausts.
More here http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/tpl/backg/HAElections.htm.
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Just as well the next Tasmanian election is not due until 2010. Can Labor survive?
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Peter Tucker
Yes it does appear very complicated and i do not pretend to know all the details. And im sure you would proably know the most here. I was suggesting more about the voters themselves and to not expect things as previous Tasmanian elections necesarily.
“Tasmania has partial preferential voting where electors are required to mark at least five preferences, but can stop there.” Am guessing this will probably increase a littel also. But this is specualtion on my part. Im not commenting on what i think the results of this would be.
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Peter (or any other Tassie locals out there),
How likely do you think it is that the Greens would support a minority Liberal government if the Libs got more seats than Labor? Or would they oppose it for ideological reasons? That is, would the Liberals need to score a majority in their own right (pretty unlikely from their current position) to win government?
And is Paul Lennon really that unpopular, and any insight as to why? He thumped the Libs in 2006 so he can’t be that unelectable.
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:54 pm
these figures understate the labor vote & overstate the liberal and green vote
however the quota for a seat in any one of the 5 multi member electorates is
1/6 ie a little over 16.% …. these figures suggest a hung parliament
what becomes interesting then is who governs
the Field minority government was a disaster
would either labor or liberal wish to govern in minority? I suspect not
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:59 pm
“And is Paul Lennon really that unpopular, and any insight as to why? He thumped the Libs in 2006 so he can’t be that unelectable.”
Perhaps because of the pulp mill ?
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Glenn @ 9
May i introduce you to our two previous deputy premiers
http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,23367026-921,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,23510598-921,00.html
There have been alot of problems comming from the education department, we have some of the crappest internet in the country. They are increasing the price of electricity a fair bit.
http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,23663910-3462,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,22846935-3462,00.html
http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/tas/content/2006/s1978083.htm
May 24th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Well Scotty. Your power price is going up because your now importing coal generated power from the mainland. You had a state electricity commission that was building dams so you could have cheap renewable energy, but that was brought to an end by the greens. Yet the greens have a large percentage of the vote.
May 24th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Not much seems to change in Tassie. A generation or so back it was the HEC running the show and the uncharismatic ” Electric Eric” Reece danciing to their tune.
Now we have Gunns calling the shots, and Lennon jumping to oblige.
If anything I might’ve preferred the former. Some pristine forests and lakes were shamelessly wrecked or threatened but at least there was no release of chemicals or woodchipping.
Lennon unpopular? He has the most revolting moustache this side of John Boulton. Surely that is excuse enough to dump him.
May 25th, 2008 at 11:04 am
In my opinion, Lennon’s the worst of the Labor premiers. Even though I’m a Labor supporter, I won’t be sorry to see him go.
May 25th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Charles,
The Tasmanian power system is not as simple as you describe. The state buys coal fired power from the mainland when it is cheap to save its stored water, but also sells hydro-power back. With a national grid, it is all about the timing of power and it’s spot price. Like the Snowy Hydro, the Tasmanian system does a lot of futures trading in back-up power, making money out of being able to turn its plants on and off quickly and reliably.
Tasmania has two types of power plants, constant flow plants which provide most of the power when rain is plentiful and generally power the grid, and the storage systems that generate power in the drier summer season from stored water. The vast increase in storage systems with the Gordon and Pedder schemes was developed after the droughts of the 1960s hit the state’s power supply.
In winter, when the rain is plentiful, Tasmania has excess power and sells it to the mainland at peak times and does well out of it financially.
The dams the Greenies stopped were further stored water systems. You can’t use those dams to generate power all the time. Dams like Lake Pedder don’t actually generate power, but are used as storage systems to maintain the level of dams that do generate power. But building more and more dams to provide security of supply comes at a huge financial cost, as Tasmania found out in the late 1980s as it struggled with the debt from building too many dams that didn’t generate income.
May 25th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
#13 Lord D
I concur, just because one is a Labor voter doesn’t mean we should have to accept rubbish like Lennon (and Iemma). The other state premiers are OK tho.
May 25th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
William,
Can I suggest that you consider starting a thread on the Australian Joint Standing committee on electoral Matters - 2007 Federal Elections
The committee is currently reviewing the 2007 Federal Elections.
The Parliamentary web site can be found Here
One of the Issues I have placed on the agenda is the need to review the method used by the Australian Government in calculating the Australian Senate Surplus Transfer value and the method used in counting the ballot
The method of calculating the Surplus Transfer value MUST be based on the value of the vote and not the number of Ballot papers (See submission)
The other option I would like to see adopted is a reiterative counting system where the count is restarted on the exclusion of candidates the count continues until all vacant positions are filled without the need for further exclusions.
The current system was designed in the early 20th century to facilitate a manual count. With the use of electronic computerized counting it is possible to review the system used to ensure that the count reflects accurately the one vote one value principle and true proportionality of the ballot. The current system has serious errors built-in to the system that distorts the value and results of the election.
Hopefully the Joint Standing Committee will address these issues and adopt the recommendation contained in my submission.
This issue not only e3ffects the senate election but also other multi-member public elections as most tend to adopt the Australian Senate system. the distortion in the counting system currently used is more prevalent in those election where above the line party voting is not used. Ideally this should Abe address prior to the 2008 Victorian Municipal elections. Tis review is also of interest to State elections (Including Tasmania)
I would welcome any constructive discussion and debate on this issue
May 25th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
A specific thread of that kind would not generate much interest (at least, not at this stage) - those wishing to comment on any aspect of federal politics can do so on the federal polling threads. Please keep state threads on topic. Thank you.
May 26th, 2008 at 7:04 am
Lennon to quit!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/26/2255131.htm
May 26th, 2008 at 8:01 am
What’s the new guy like?
May 26th, 2008 at 8:24 am
He’s going to quit on 17%, but Nelson still hangs on when he’s in single figures!
Anyway, I’ve just moved to Tassie, and having tried to dip my toes in the political climate down here in the last few weeks, I can say that it’s probably the first time I’ve ever felt I wouldn’t mind seeing the Liberals elected. I don’t know if I should feel that way, I just can’t help feeling they couldn’t possibly be any worse than the Lennon government.
(Posted from a 40kbps dial-up connection because, 15 minutes from Hobart, it’s the only internet connection I have short of putting a whopping great satellite dish on my roof.)
May 26th, 2008 at 8:31 am
My guess is he’s a Gunns lovin’ politician
May 26th, 2008 at 10:27 am
One assumes that the Libs are equally pro-Gunns, based on past form - can anyone with a bit of Tasmanian knowledge enlighten us as to where the Libs (and the likely new Labor leader) stand with respect to Gunns?
One positive: Lennon going is a sure sign the pulp mill is dead in the water. ANZ would be mad to fund it at this point.
May 26th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Is this Labor’s first 3rd generation premiership succession?
May 26th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Blair S. Fairman @ 19
He is comparitvley young at 40 and to ambitious for his own good. Was the education minister and focused more on becoming premier then he ever did on his brief period as minister. Very smug!
May 26th, 2008 at 11:36 am
THe pulp mill will go ahead. Nobody cares about that anymore except for people on the west tamar and a rabble of protesters. It will NOT be an issue at the next state election. Other than the mill, which i agree was handled badly, Lennon was a more left wing, progressive premier than any other Labor premier around the country. Easily. And if you don’t know anything about this government except the pulp mill then you shouldn’t make a comment.
May 26th, 2008 at 11:56 am
The Lennon government was the same as all the recent Tassie Governments, running favours for mates. They need to leave all of this old, semi-corrupted politics behind. I’ll be interested to see if Bartlett tries to reinvigorate/overhaul Tassie politics or follow the same old tune.
May 26th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Ummm… Blackbird at 25 - … On one hand I totally disagree. I think anger about the pulp mill is still widespread. Not just on an environmental level, but also as a planning and due process issue. I’d wager that there are more folk pissed off about it from the second stand point than the first, but that doesn’t mean that the first doesn’t hold true. A minority can be right.
On the other hand, I totally agree. Lennon, when at work for the state and not for Gunn’s, has done some sterling work in indigenous affairs and ended up, for all his old Grouper tendencies, to be socially progressive. Problem was that he was stymied by the fact the it all appeared to be window dressing for a none-too-pretty shop.
PB at 22: who knows what Bartlett will do… while he’s not of the left, he has left/independent backing (Singh, O’Byrne et al) The only thing I really know about him is that worked in IT for a while and is sure to have all the answers on really, really, super, important, life-changing issues like download speeds…
May 26th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
I’m also wondering if there is going to be a reshuffle?
There’s such a wealth of talent in the 13 possible people for the 8 or 9 ministries… just take a look at Brenton Best, Graeme Sturges…
May 26th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Stuart, Im not saying that a minority don’t want a pulp mill or that they’re wrong for opposing it. Indeed i think most people would be happier if it didn’t go ahead. However, i do not think it is the burning issue for these people that it is for the Greens. Come election time they will be much more interested in hospitals and schools (same old, same old). Also, I think that there is very little prospect for the mill not to go ahead at this stage. Its really all over guys.
May 26th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Point taken, Blackbird. I reckon most would be happier if it didn’t happen too, so it just feels like a waste and shame and a travesty if it does! This is why a sizeable number of people will still fight it to the bitter end… myself as one of them… Can totally see that when it comes to voting, though, there are other issues around yes?
Well, goodnight (here in Newfoundland) - what an eventful evening!
May 26th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
stuart S @ 28
You forgot the parliamentary secretaries !!!!
May 26th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
I agree with Stuart 25. I don’t pretent to know anything about Tasmanian politics but I think it is still valid to comment on the pulp mill. Besides, as a mainland taxpayer I make a substantial contribution to the Tasmanian economy every year.
The Gunns funding saga confirms a suspicion I was trying to find out months ago - whether the mill ever made economic sense. Tasmania has a long history of politicians being so desperate to generate jobs that they will trample over environmental legislation for any project. The Franklin dam was also a good example - they were basically building in “on spec” to supply power to industries that may (or may not) have shown up. If it went ahead it might have been a huge debt around the necks of the State for almost no gain in employment.
The trouble is they don’t realise that when developers want normal assessment processes set aside, half the time its because the projects are turkeys that should never happen. Do they actually realise what wine and tourism in the Tamar are worth to the economy? Pulp milling doesn’t even generate many jobs per dollar, because there is almost no value adding.
May 26th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
OK. So I patently haven’t gone to bed - watching Predator on cable… sad, sad me.
Quick Appraisal:
David Bartlett: Premier
Lara Giddings: Deputy Premier
Ministers:
Paula Wreidt
Michelle O’Byrne
Jim Cox ……. for the meantime
David Llewellyn
Michael Aird
so that’s 7 with Ministerial experience for 9 (is it?) ministries and x many parliamentary secretaries (but in the Tasmanian parliament, hell, isn’t everyone a parl sec?)
Bryan Green (disqualified)
Steve Kons (disqualified)
Michael Polley (Speaker)
so that’s 10 Labor members
Heather Butler..?
Brenton Best..? (little chuckle)
Lisa Singh …? (too far left - maybe arts and environment in the new regime?)
Graeme Sturges…?
Alison Richie…?
Doug Parkinson…?
Lin Thorp… ?
Takes us to the grand total of 17 members (+ a new one in the by-election), two of whom are disqualified through incompetence, one is disqualified by virtue of being speaker and I dare say a good 4 of those last 7 are disqualified by virtue of being totally clueless.
Time to revert to a 35-seat house… maybe even 7 seats of 5?
The pool is patently too shallow.
Thanks for letting me get that off my chest.
Stu
May 26th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
On the whole Gunns thing, I note there was a story a few days ago about the ANZ getting cold feet on funding the mill: http://business.smh.com.au/anz-quiet-on-gunns-funding-20080522-2h52.html
Now, the ANZ aren’t saying they wont, but they’re not saying they will either, so I’d be assuming that if the ANZ funding doesn’t come through then the mill is at least on the backburner if not terminal. There was another related story concerning this: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/ANZ-to-decline-Gunns-funding-EV38F?OpenDocument
This story notes the small drop in Gunns shares.
As to what will happen at the next election? I almost expect that there will once again be minority government in Tasmania. The issue for either major party is; can they live with it? Both major parties agreed to change the electoral system in 1998 to try and stop this happening, but this may come to nought. What next? Threats of going to the polls repeatedly until the electorate gets it ‘right’?
May 26th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Jim Cox will probably leave in july… after the super comes in… so we need 3 new ministers. The best one’s for the job would be Lin Thorp, Doug Parkinson and Sturges or Singh. We really need to increase the size of parliament… 35 in the assembly and 20 in the LC. 7 to a seat in the HoA and i would hope that we could finally have simultaneous LC elections with HoA. Perhaps that would get rid of some of those faux ‘independents’.
May 26th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
I don’t presume to know the ins and outs of the pulp mill debate but I will say that it seems almost certain to go ahead, which means that the business case, as assessed by some excellent financial minds from a number of sources, is strong. I just watched Lennon’s resignation speech on Sky and the point he made about value adding also made a lot of sense. Funnily enough, it was one of the Greens’ main arguments about Tasmanian forestry until not long ago. I understand Blackbird’s sentiments. The Tasmanian Greens always have a Big Issue running. The mill (and Gunns) is the latest, it often seems to me. Unfortunately for the level of debate, Tasmanian environmental issues have a way of becoming totemic on the mainland, out of all proportion to their relative importance. They appeal to certain old and harmful prejudices, in part. It’s no coincidence that the mainland seat this issue was perceived to have the greatest play in last year was Wentworth.
Recent levels of popularity aside, I think Lennon has been a fine Labor Premier, with some impressive progressive policy achievements to his name. In my view the Bacon/Lennon Government vies with the Field Government (until it was destroyed by the Greens) as the greatest Tasmanian government of the modern era in terms of policy achievement. As a result, Tasmania’s position on a raft of social and economic indicators has improved both absolutely and (more tellingly) relative to the other states. There is now a palpably renewed sense of self confidence that I have noticed myself on travels back down there (I left about a decade ago when the feel was much bleaker). The state’s population is growing again, for example.
Electorally, both Bacon and Lennon managed to bring back voters who had been tempted by the crude cultural warfare of the Tasmanian Liberals under Gray and Groom (following a majority government strategy championed by Field after the Greens demonstrated their complete irresponsibility in 1991). With the support of those voters, they made genuine social and economic reform a priority and made real, measurable progress. I think much of the criticism of Lennon in particular has been unfair, although I applaud him for facing reality in a way that other leaders haven’t. That says good things about him to me. I’ve never really understood what the particular charge against him is with Gunns - it never seems very specific to me. There’s no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Lennon thinks a pulp mill is a good idea. I tend to think he will be proved right. Let’s not forget, too, that Tasmania protects a far larger proportion of its forests than any other state. Australia’s biggest problems with forest destruction have always been elsewhere.
May 26th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Socrates, i didn’t mean to say that one shouldn’t comment on the pulp mill. Just refrain from trying to make out as though that single issue can possibly give you an impression of the overall job performance of the government. I find it so hard to believe that Labor oriented people could possibly say they would vote for the Libs at the next state election given the Tas governments record in having the most progressive social and environmental record of any state government in the country.
As to the next election, almost everyone thought there would be a minority government before the last election. Centrebet had Labor maintaining a majority way out at $9 at the start of the election, narrowing to just $1.85 at the opening of the polls. With the huge shake up that is underway right now in the government it would be very hard to make a prediction about the next election right now.
May 26th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Molesworth, you may be perfectly correct to say that the mill’s business case has been assessed by some excellent financial minds. However, given what’s happened on world finance markets in the last six months, and the resultant severe tightening of credit, I suspect all the numbers are being done again before any bank lends the amount of money required, or indeed before the board of Gunns would sign on to borrow that amount. Just think of the difficulty Bunnings recently faced in financing its takeover of Coles.
May 26th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Fair enough point Antony - that sounds right. I have to admit, I hadn’t really given much thought to how the last six months might change things, in spite of the posts referring to it above.
May 26th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
There was fairly reliable information doing the rounds quite a few months ago that ANZ was going to pull the pin on funding for the mill anyway - a combination of it being economically unsound per se, fear of consumer backlash, and the sudden uncertainty in the world economy.
Do not be surprised at all if you find that ANZ announces that they are not funding it based on either a finding that it is inconsistent with the bank’s investment principles somehow (politically correct answer) or that it is no longer a responsible investment given the economic outlook (true answer).
And mainlanders have just as much interest in Tasmania’s forests as Tasmanians. Apparently more, in fact, perhaps as a result of the effective media blackout in Tas. I live in SA, the desert state - we would kill to have beautiful forests like Tasmania, and yet some idiots in Tasmania want to chop theirs down and sell it to the Japanese.
Frankly Tasmania has given every impression of being unable to govern itself responsibly and is an excellent advertisement of why the old federation is looking very frayed and ragged around the edges and why the modern variant of westminster democracy needs a radical overhaul to restore accountability and transparency.
May 26th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
My god.. i mean my god. Where do people get this crap about tasmanian democracy, accountability etc going down the toilet? Our system of election to the lower house is the most open and accessible of any state and this has allowed parties like the greens much greater access to the parliament and public debate. This is a good thing, but its also why a lot more criticism of government gets into our media than in other states. As for forestry, so much of our forests are conserved and we have very good forestry practices managing the rest of them. I have extensively walked all of the WHA which conserves 20% of the state and am a keen supporter of Tasmania’s National Park system, all of which was instituted by Tasmanian Labor Governments.
May 26th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Blackbird
While you may have a point that it is being exaggerated you have gone to far the other way. Parliament has never been the same since they shrunk it (in an effort to get rid of the greens).
The government was/is crooked and incompetent. That thing about Richard Butler was a disaster. And our mate Bryan green is lucky not to be sitting in a prison cell. Let’s not even get started on Kons bad shredding habits.
May 26th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Patrick, another fair enough point about mainlanders having just as much interest as Tasmanians in protecting Tasmanian forests. You’re right to sort of point out that comparisons between states don’t always tell the whole story too. And like I said, I don’t know the mill debate in detail (although I did understand that old growth forests weren’t going to be used). I suppose what I was trying to get at is that the criticism of Lennon from mainlanders seems to be tied overwhelmingly to an assumption that the Tasmanian Government (and, implicitly, everyone else including both major parties at a federal level) backed the mill for nefarious purposes when I don’t believe that to be the case.
May 26th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Blackbird@41
While a proportion of Tasmanian old growth forests is conserved, this is no argument to allow more of Tasmania to clearfelled. And lets be clear - clearfelling is NOT best-practice forestry. In NSW Bob Carr promised in the late 90’s to end logging of old-growth forests - didn’t happen, BUT for what its worth he created more national parks than his Liberal predecesors. In WA Gallop made an election promise he DID keep (ending old-growth logging in south-west WA) which arguable won him an election (and I don’t mean just because of Greens preferences). However, that still doesn’t mean that logging practices in either WA or NSW are best practice - or even reasonable practice.
For me the point isn’t that the ALP is better than the Libs on forestry policy - thats almost a given - but that management of forests is not at best practice, and in a range of other issues (and here I go back to Fields) they are only as good as the Libs.
This is the same hatchet argument as charles used above on dams and energy - the issue is more complex than “the ALP saved tree’s” and that somehow this makes them an excellent government. Let us not forget the manipulation of the electoral system to engineer out a significant minor party (the Greens) in 1998. Their agreement to that was a smack in the face of democracy, and was ultimately about being able to divide government (and power) between themselves and the Libs.
May 26th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Molesworth
Sorry to flog a dead horse (and lets hope that the Gunns mill is seen for the dead horse it is) but the Gunns Mill has NOT been assessed as strong by “some excellent financial minds”. Both the environmental assessment, and the subsequent Tasmanian government assessment started with the assumption of accepting Gunn’s assumptions on financial viability. They assessed its impact on the local economy. Surprise, surprise, if you asume that the mill is viable then it is good for the local economy! But that proves absolutely nothing. See this Canberra Times editorial which lays out the problems quite well:
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/reading-into-the-pulp-mill-fictions/132119.aspx
The only independent review of the economics of the pulp mill was by Dr Peter Brain of the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research (NIEIR) and he condemned it. NIEIR were commissioned by the Tasmanian Greens. Nevertheless they are highly reputable in this field and their report makes all assumptions transparent. Dr Brain concluded that, although there were many uncertainties, the most likely outcome of the mill was a net outcome on the local economy of - $300 million. i.e. it will destroy more jobs than it creates! See http://www.google.com/search?q=nieir%20gunns%20pulp%20mill%20economic%20evaluation&sourceid=mozilla2&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
I am not speaking against Labor in Tasmania generally (progressive), or its environment (beautiful), or in favour of the Liberals there (who are even more narrowly libertarian). But the Gunns deal stank. The whole process was set up to reach a pre-determined conclusion.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:24 am
The shredding of the document by Kons was not illegal or ethically questionable in any way. That was entirely his pejorative to do so… who cares. The problem was that he misled parliament when the greens asked him a question about the incident. He said he hadn’t shredded the document when he had. However the question was asked without notice and in a contorted fashion months after he had shredded the document (not an uncommon practice in a ministers office). Nonetheless he was stood down. As was Green. Im not saying the TAS government has been perfect, but there’s really been nothing more seedy in their actions than those of the Brumby/Bracks, Beattie/Bligh, Iemma/Carr, Gallop/Carpenter etc, etc, governments. As for the mill, as much as its proponents might be blind to its cons and even viability there can be absolutely no doubt about the clouded minds of its detractors who immediately discard any positive assessment - Chief Scientist Peacock - and clutch at any substandard evidence to support there doomsday theories.
May 27th, 2008 at 4:14 am
Seriously can Tasmainia be considered a State. Its popoulation is the same as an Inner Urban municpality. Tasmainia is over represented and over governered. Maybe, if someone had the balls, they would serious advocate reducing the number of municipal regions to five and or abolish the state altogther (Maybe offer it to New Zealand and create the South Eastern Island Sate of Australia)
May 27th, 2008 at 6:25 am
Edward St John @ 23
It looks like Tasmania has gone through a number of successive Labor premierships …
From 1934 to 58 there were 6 successive Labor premiers (5 individuals) and from 1972 to 1981 there were 4 successive premiers (4 individuals). Just got that from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premiers_of_Tasmania
Cheers
May 27th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Blackbird
My concern was with the economics of the mill, not the science. Hence Peacock’s finding is in my view beside the point.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Blackbird, your impartiality shines through.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
A note re EMRS polls and electorate-by-electorate distributions - they stopped publishing those some time ago for state polls because the margin of error of a 200-vote sample is such that trying to determine a likely Hare-Clark outcome from it is more or less pointless; the figures can easily be out by half a quota so you’re very unlikely to reliably learn anything that you don’t already know. (It didn’t help that the published projections based on these very small samples were quite often wrong even if you assumed that the sample was accurate!)
I have had a lot of queries about the process for recounting Lennon’s seat, so for anyone curious: what happens is that only Lennon’s #1s are thrown again, as he was in on the first count with over a quota. Any votes obtained by candidates from other sources are irrelevant. Only Labor’s Butler and Hulme have any chance, and given that Butler got far more Lennon #2s than Hulme (and is also higher profile as indicated by more primaries) it is virtually certain that Butler will be elected if he contests.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
The corruption around Lennon is palpable. He’s in the backpockets of the timber industry which even blind freddy can now see.
I would have loved to see him go down in flames much like Howard did, but it seems he was so gutless he bailed out early… and wouldn’t surprise me if he gets a “golden handshake” on the way out the door from the timber industry.
This is what happens when politicians get too close to business. Looks like Libs will probably pick up Tassie as their first state win in ages, as long as they can position themselves as being the anti-pulp mill party(federal Libs damaged this position for them somewhat)
May 27th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
I wonder who will be elected by countback to repace him if he Quits his seat.
May 27th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
The other two Labor candidates in 2006 were Ross Butler, a schoolteacher for 37 and former Principal of Cosgrove High in Glenorchy, and Daniel Hume, then 26 and a former Young Labor President.
The election is conducted by calling for nominations from the defeated candidates at the 2006 election. To determine who fills the vacancy, all the ballot papers that elected Lennon in 2006 are re-examined. As Lennon was elected with more than a quota in his own right, the count is simply a matter of taking the 16,666 ballot papers he received, and distributing them to their next preferences.
Butler received 1,066 primary votes, and Hume 620, but at this by-election, both would start with zero votes.
When Lennon’s surplus to quota preferences were distributed in 2006, 2830 went to Paula Wriedt, 2171 to Lara Giddings, 515 to Butler and 228 to Hume and 262 leaked out of the Labor ticket.
At a by-election, the only preferences that count are those for candidates that nominate. As elected MPs Wriedt and Giddings are out of the count, which means the next preferences on those ballot papaers are counted. Based on the primary votes and Lennon’s preferences, you would have to guess that Butler would poll 2-to-1 amongst the other preferences as well, meaning Butler should achieve a majority on the first count.
That is if both Butler and Daniels nominate. If only one of them nominates, then they would be even more easily elected.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Thankyou Antony.
I did not know that there were fresh nominations involved in countback.
Countback should be used in all multi-member electorates.
Does anyone know why it was not the proposal put up in 1977 for the Senate?
May 27th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
The 1977 changes weren’t about the mechanics of filling casual vacancies, they were about the engineering of casual vacancies and also ensuring that vacancies were filled by a Senator from the same party.
The origins were the Gair Affair and the Albert Field appointment. The Gair Affair was where Whitlam arranged Gair’s ambassadorial appointment in 1974 to create an extra vacancy in the Queensland half-Senate election. At the time, Senators only filled a seat until the next House or Senate election was held. In Gair’s case, he was a long-term Senator, so his resignation increased the vacant Senato positions in Queensland in 1974 from 5 to 6, improving Labor’s chance of winning 3 seats. In the end, the QLD government issued the writ before Gair resigned, but events were then overtaken by a double dissolution.
Just as a side-light, this also meant you occassionaly got a Senate election for a single Senator. There was no half Senate election when Whitlam was elected in 1972. However, Neville Bonnor had filled a casual vacancy, and so went to a single-seat Senate election in 1972.
The other point of the 1977 amendments was to ensure casual vacancies came from the same party as the departing Senator. It was to stop appointments like Pat Field in 1975. That made a countback pointless, as what would happen if the next person on the ticket had left the party?
The other point was size. the quota in NSW is 500,000. You might have ended up counting 1.5 million ballot papers just to elect the next person on the ticket. All a bit pointless really.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
LaborVoter - If the Liberals changed their position on the pulp mill they would suffer another serious defeat. The pulp mill will not be a major issue at the 2010 election… there’s nothing further to be done with it. The major issue will probably be health again, centred around the Hobart and Mersey hospitals most likely. Wether Labor maintains a majority or not and if not wether Labor or the Liberals win more seats are what will be determined at the next election. The Libs will not win a majority. No way.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
47 Tassy Devil, your comments are absurd! Tasmania is an important and intergral part of the Commonwealth of Australia. Statehood is not about population, it is about historical fact. Tasmania is not over represented, if you are referring to it’s 5 House of Representative Members and its 12 Senators. All the states that make up the Commonwealth of Australia have the same number of Senators. You dont have to be a Rhodes Scholar to work out why? Tasmania is not over-governed, it has been badly governed by people who want to make the quick buck now and not look to the future at the real ‘goldmine’, its intrinsic beauty and uniqueness. Tasmania is fortunate to have the Hare-Clark system which is the envy of so many voters in other states. Tasmania is one of the most fabulous places on the planet. I dont live there now but that is where I am headed as soon as I retire.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
I know very little about Tasmanian politics and the Lennon Government’s achievements or lack of.
However, to me, every time i saw or heard Paul Lennon i felt i was looking at or listening to a man who had been got at.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Curiosity requires me to ask of Antony - who would have been elected to the Senate in 1975 if there had been a countback? I know Mal Couston was the ALP nominee for the vacancy but I wonder who would have been next in line from a countback?
I should add that the same system of countback is used in WA to determine casual vacancies in the Leg Council - but it does require people to be willing and/or able to stand for election, requiring their re-nomination. Of course, if you elect all your candidates from a ticket (or they have died or are otherwise ineligible) and then you have a casual vacnacy this could become quite interesting!
May 27th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
A 1975 countback would have been carried out on 1974 votes and would have elected Mal Colston who was 5th on the Labor ticket.
And the WA LC uses a completely different countback method to Tasmania. It starts the whole count process again after first distributing preferences of the primary votes of the departing candidate. But after that re-count, only a candidate that has nominated for the vacancy can win the re-count. If the re-count winner has not nominated, other procedures are followed to fill the vacancy.
In Tasmania, re-counts only examine the votes that elected the departing candidate. The WA system is much fairer, as Hare-Clark re-counts severaly disadvantage any candidate who was the next highest polling on the party ticket, but was not excluded at the end of the count.
As an example of the problem in Tasmania, at the 2006 election, Michael Hodgman was the only elected Liberal in Denison. He was elected on the preferences of three other Liberals, but at the end of the count, the 2nd most popular Liberal Fabian Dixon had not been excluded. If Michael Hodgamn were to retire, then when his votes were examined, the other three Liberals would receive their primary votes back at full value. Dixon, because he was not excluded, would not get his primary votes back.
Note that this doesn’t affect the Lennon re-count as Lennon was elected with more than a quota in his own right..
May 27th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
With countback they should count the the votes of the retiring candidate plus the votes that have not elected anyone thus eliminating the problem Antony mentioned.
I knew about the general historical background of the 1977 Casual vacancy changes but was wondering if there was an obscure reason that the messy change was made instead of countback.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Antony, does the WA system create the possibility that a candidate from a party opposed to the party of the retiring member might get in on the recount (if they extremely narrowly missed out in the original election)?
Another oddity with Hare-Clark recounts in Tasmania is that some voters can double-dip on vote-value. Those who voted Lennon-Wriedt or Lennon-Giddings now have their votes back on the table at full value for Lennon’s recount, although a part of their vote was actually used to elect (and in theory is still held by) Wriedt or Giddings.
The recount that elected Lennon was quite unusual in that the retiring candidate (Ken Wriedt) was originally elected partway through the cutup of Lennon (which never needed to be completed), meaning that Lennon got the Lennon-Ken Wriedt votes back at full value, but didn’t get a sniff of those that were (someone else)-Lennon-Ken Wriedt.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Kevin, yes, but as the act also specifies the person must be a member of the same party as the departing MP at the time they were originally elected, anyone from another party elected at a recount would be unable to take their seat.
The Tasmanian electoral was changed in the 1980s so that if there were no candidates of a party’s ticket eligible to nominate for a vacancy, a new member from the same party could appointed. So far that provision has never been invoked.
During the NSW use of Hare-Clark between 1920-27, by-elections were filled by nomination, not count-back. The NSW Legislative Council used countback between 1977 and 1991 to fill casual vacancies, but the person elected then had to be confirmed by a joint sitting, and there was also a provision that required the member to be of the same party.
Albert Field has lived on in electoral acts around the country.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Tom, they didn’t even consider countback. As nearly all votes go straight down the ticket in the Senate, even before group ticket voting, it was a lot of effort for little reward. Storing millions of ballot papers for up to six years just wasn’t worth the effort if all it would ever ending up doing is electing the next person on the ticket. While in 1977 they changed the way Senate casual vacancies were filled and the length of term, they retained the same mechanism of them being appointed, that is by a joint sitting of state parliament.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Kevin, I might be wrong on the WA LC point. The reference to party only occurs where a party has no candidate eligible to nominate for a vacancy, in which case a re-count does not occur and a real by-election can be held.
However, as WA uses ticket voting, elected candidates either lead their party’s ticket and have all the ticket votes, or are on a lower rung of the group and have only a tiny primary vote. So the chances of someone from another group being elected to a vacancy are extremely remote though possible.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
They could record all of the preferences of all the votes at election time then do a count without the actual ballot papers. This is more feasable now computers are used for the actual count in the Senate.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Entirely true Tom, but that wasn’t the case in 1977. The Constitution has been changed now and can’t be altered without another referendum.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
I know.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Socrates, thanks for some interesting comments and links. They’ve raised my level of suspicion about the business case, although I’m not wholly convinced yet - surely some financial people who get paid lots must think the idea makes sense (or made sense when they looked at it last). I concede that it is certainly an issue that has become code for other things (there’s fault to go around here) and it is the nature of such issues to be quite difficult for mildly interested outsiders like me to evaluate.
Stewart & Antony, I’d forgotten about Mal Colston’s earlier claim to fame. The irony!
Stewart, your analysis of the 1998 MP reduction is a common one (ie that it was done simply to drive out the Greens). There’s a bit more context to it than that and no-one comes out looking perfect, I would submit. From memory, when the Groom Government gave Tassie politicians a 40% payrise in the early 90s (a predictably popular move from a man who, as an electoral strategist, was a good footballer) there was some faux move to reduce the size of Parliament on over-government grounds at the same time, designed to be blocked by the LC (which it was). Groom sold the two as linked, creating some degree of genuine public pressure for a reduction.
When the issue was revisited and resolved later there were a range of proposals (and motivations) floating round. From memory again, Labor’s was initially for a single chamber with some sort of dual electoral system where, in effect, the Greens would get a say on legislation but government would be determined on a two-party preferred basis (like most other states you could say). Some of the commentary on the final changes also overlooks one basic fact - the LC, dominated by conservatives with their own agendas, had to pass the legislation. I stand to be corrected on this but my understanding was also that the reduction hasn’t actually changed a result yet (ie Bacon and Lennon would likely still have won their majorities under the old size if you assume the same vote shares) and that there is a reasonable psephological case for saying that it hasn’t disadvantaged the Greens in the long term (in terms of holding the balance of power) so long as they keep their base vote somewhere near where it is now.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
It’s a pity the EMRS poll didn’t give a gender breakdown this time. Sample size wouldn’t seem to the issue because they still give age breakdowns and the cohorts there would be even smaller. The last one seemed to show that Hodgman’s support as preferred Premier was significantly stronger among women than among men.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Molesworth, sorry, but the Greens would have won four seats in 1998 and produced either a hung Parliament or a one-seat Labor majority. Labor would have won a majority anyway in both 2002 and 2006, but politics would have been very different had 1998 produced another hung parliament.
And your chronology on various proposals for reform is muddled, though I can’t quite remember the sequence myself. But the Groom government did get the Legislative Council reduction from 19 to 15 through, after which Labor’s single house proposal disappeared off the agenda. Between 1996 and 1998, Labor was putting up the 5×5 proposal, and Liberal Bob Cheek crossed the floor to support it. I think the Green proposal was for 4×7. The Greens had said from day one they would bring down the Rundle government if it supported Labor’s proposal. In mid-1998, Rundle decided the best chance of re-election was backing Labor’s bill and calling an early election. This they did and then came respectibly close to being re-elected with their ’sell the hydro to save the state’ campaign.
Labor should re-visit it’s earlier one house proposal, as there are real problems with the lack of members in the current House of Assembly.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Antony, thanks for the corrections, everything you say sounds about right except the bit about Groom getting the LC reduction through at an earlier stage, but I’m not sure. You’re right that politics would have been very different if 1998 had produced another hung parliament. I don’t think there’s any guarantee we would still have the same electoral system today. The reduction might have been a blessing in disguise for the Greens, by taking the heat out of the issue when things could have turned very nasty for them.
I also suspect that some people thought the Greens’ long-term support was a bit lower than it actually turned out to be, when all this was under active consideration. If the Greens retain enough support to hold seats in Denison, Franklin and Lyons, which is not really an unreasonable assumption now they seem to have entrenched themselves, Labor can only ever win a majority if the Liberals perform absolutely disastrously. The last two elections though, the Liberals did. And even if the Greens only win a seat in Denison, that still gives them a very good shot at the balance of power in a close election if the Liberals win three seats in Bass and Braddon (where they have traditionally been strongest, since at least Gray’s time). I don’t think the Greens have too much to complain about re biases in the current system, really. If the Liberals do recover, the Greens are in a very good position, and will be for the foreseeable future.
I agree re the single, larger house proposal - a government backbench would be good for accountability and for other reasons. Trouble is, will the turkeys ever vote for Christmas? (Using that term for the LC only because it’s in the phrase, of course.) And if they won’t vote to end their political careers, will any government be able to sell an increase in the lower house’s size (even if the LC let them do it)? Hard to see any of these things happening the way things are. But maybe the LC will change over time. Maybe the major parties might one day have a majority between them, which would make things interesting.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Actually, here’s a brief background on the 1998 changes (in neutral language):
http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/tpl/InfoSheets/reform_1998.htm
May 29th, 2008 at 8:57 am
I was stuck yesterday trying to remember what the Groom government did to change the Legislative Council. After checking last night, it all came back. They got a redistribution through that finally did away with the old electorates and their huge inequalities in enrolment. It broke the powerbase of some of the more obstructionist Independents and was important for getting later changes through.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
The ANZ will not fund the pulp mill. They have not provided a reason. Interesting. This does not, of course, sink the project.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Re the effect of 25 seats vs 35 seats on the 1998 result I discussed this in moderate depth in an old piece at http://www.tasmaniantimes.com/jurassic/bonhamlester.html and reached the conclusion that Labor would very probably not have won a majority on the same vote levels in a 35 seat house. The most likely result would have been 16 or 17 Labor, 14 Liberal, 4 or 5 Green. Labor won a majority in the 25-seat house in 1998 because they got a majority of seats (3-2) in four electorates (Denison the exception), but under the 35-seat system at least two of those and probably three (as well as Denison) would have split 3-3-1.
Another example where it may have made a difference was 1989; it’s possible under the 25-seat system that Gray’s Liberals would have just stayed in majority had the House been 25 seats at the time (as it was, they missed majority government by a seat).
When the Green vote is low, then the 25-seat system generally increases the chance of majority government compared to the 35-seat system. When it is high it is likely to make no difference but could work either way depending on how the votes are split up.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Blackbird
ANZ’s funding decision does sink the project (hurray!). Gunns, despite their sincerity in claiming the project is a winner, are not putting up all their own cash (curious…). The only other option is govenment funding; Tasmania doesn’t have that sort of $ spare and no mainland government would dare put federal cash in - electoral suicide.
Don’t cry for the pulp mill. As I said before, Dr Peter Brain is a very reputable economist on employment impacts (he did the last employment forcasts for major transport studies in Brisbane). If someone of his calibre says the impacts may be negative, he’s probably right. Gunns might have made some money, but the losses to other industries would have exceeded it. Jobs wise, its a no-brainer not to do it; timber is not a very labor intensive industry as it has become increasingly mechanised. By constrast the threatened industries in the valley (wine and fishing) are labor intensive. I know more reasons about this that I can’t discuss but, suffice to say, the mill was a turkey.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
I am not debating the merits of the mill. Simply saying regardless - it will go ahead. The mill will be funded by international financiers, apparently Gunns has been in talks with foreign banks for some time and are very confident of reaching a deal.
May 30th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Wow bring on the next election the Libs may just win one for once!
May 30th, 2008 at 9:05 am
80 Hubris
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hubris
May 30th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Thanks Kevin.
On the mill, has there been any talk that ANZ might have been worried about sovereign risk (meaning a hung parliament)?
May 30th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
The mill is gone. They can spin it all they like but this is a big setback, and by the early noises coming out of the new leadership in Tas the total free ride from the government there may be coming to an end. It will be surprising if they can drum up that sort of cash from “international banks” in the current financial crisis, and the ANZ experience suggests that consumer backlash is a real concern for any bank getting involved in the project.
Tasmania should do something intelligent like taking advantage of its remaining pristine wilderness to position itself as one of the few places on earth which is in a first world democracy but also contains beautiful old growth forests and wide open spaces (and isn’t a desert). Rather than, say, cutting it all down and replacing it with pollution and a large factory.
May 31st, 2008 at 6:34 am
steve i said ‘may’ that’s not declaring that we’re going to win which would be hubris.
May 31st, 2008 at 7:44 am
Glen I am sure you will be disappointed by the behaviour of Gunns in not being able to create a state of the art mill too. Some companies just cut corners as a matter of course, are not visionary and progressive and end up putting forward proposals that damage everybody associated with them. The damage does seem to be spreading. Keep your head down and hard hat on in case we learn that your mob was associated with Gunns.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Ross Butler elected to Franklin with a majority on first count, as Antony predicted above. Actually slightly closer than I thought it would be; Butler got 54.5% on the recount, Hulme 36.7%, Goodwin (Lib) 3.1% and the other six candidates the remaining slops. 72 votes exhausted; I am guessing most of these voted for all five sitting members across party lines.