Fruits and Votes » Prof. Shugart's Blog » Early late election in Australia

Julia Gillard just announced a federal election for 14 September. This raises a number of slightly troubling issues, not least the religious significance of the day for Australian Jews. She will ask the governor-general later today, to agree to issue writs for the September date. I’d be surprised if the governor-general does not at least state that she retains power to appoint a different prime minister in appropriate circumstances and to accept different advice on the election date. While there are precedents from Queensland and New Zealand for very long pre-election announcements, they were both by governments with a parliamentary majority in their own right.

95 ideas sprouting »

Is that Rosh HaShanah?

Seed planted by Chris — 30 January 2013 @ 03:23

In NZ 2011, the writs were not issued until many months after the announcement.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ap9h2nl

Seed planted by Errolwi — 30 January 2013 @ 04:18

Much worse, Chris – Yom Kippur.

Seed planted by JD — 30 January 2013 @ 09:00

Since every election is held on a Saturday, apparently it will make very little difference for most Jews because they already vote by post.

I think the bigger impact will be because it’s during the football playoffs. Drunk footy fans trying to make it to the polls to not get fined may not be an ideal situation for an election.

http://www.news.com.au/national/its-kosher-jewish-leaders-defend-yom-kippur-election-date/story-fncynjr2-1226565208415

Seed planted by Chris — 30 January 2013 @ 10:03

Also, Julian Asange’s mother has confirmed he will be forming a party and standing for the Senate. I wonder if he’ll give his preference to Labor or to lthe Coalition?

Seed planted by Chris — 30 January 2013 @ 10:06

Shouldn’t the announcement have been made in Parliament?

Seed planted by Ed — 30 January 2013 @ 13:34

Thank you, Alan. I heard a brief item about this on BBC as I drifted off to sleep last night. I immediately thought of the New Zealand 2011 case that Errol mentions.

Holding an election on Yom Kippur is definitely a slap to the Jewish community. Much worse than when Canada held one on Sukkot, or Australia and New Zealand always having elections on Shabbat. However, if Jewish voters can cast their votes early, I suppose that softens the slap to some degree.

Seed planted by MSS — 30 January 2013 @ 15:05

@Ed

Yes. Gillard is an extraordinarily improvisational politician. She is in some difficulties with a police investigation relating to actions she took as a lawyer long before entering the parliament. Yesterday she was to appear at the National Press Club and there was a chance she would be questioned about the scandal.

Purporting to announce an election killed any chance of that. Mere respect for the parliament and constitutional convention was not going to get in the way of that.

I say ‘purporting’ because the announcement actually does nothing. The governor-general cannot dissolve the house or issue the writs in advance and the ‘announcement’ is not binding on this prime minister, any other prime minister, or the governor-general.

@MSS

You probably do not want to read the Gillard answer on the Yom Kippur issue.

Initial media reaction was favourable, but a couple of more thoughtful journos are starting to question the thinking behind it today. Personally I suspect we are about to have a 7 month election campaign and I do not think that will benefit the ALP at all.

Seed planted by Alan — 30 January 2013 @ 16:55

I assume that early voting, which is fairly easy in NZ (12.7% of votes cast in 2011), is even easier in Australia (with compulsory voting)? A marked lack of respect in the PM’s comments – Non-observant Jews on my Twitter feed have siad ‘Even _I_ won’t vote on Yom Kippur’.

Seed planted by Errolwi — 30 January 2013 @ 17:16

I think it’s smart by Gillard in terms of staving off a leadership challenge. She has essentially launched the campaign and changing leaders wish make the.party look weak. She also can ruin their meticulous planning to unseat her by advising the.GG to drop the writs earlier than August.

It also gives her seven months to scare the electorate of the potential of an Abbott government; something which is indeed a scary prospect to.many people. While she probably will not end up winning, I think a long campaign would reduce the Coalition majority and hurt Abbott’s ability to enact radical changes. The long campaign could have Obama-Romney overtones; Labor has a better chance to build a ‘choice, not a referendum’ campaign and pull off a longshot victory. She was substantially above Abbott in preferred PM last I saw.

I would look out for third parties in a race where both leaders are hated and there is AV. I think Greens could make a couple pickups in Labor seats, and Later’s Australian Party seems to be ideal to pick up disaffected supporters of both main parties, esp in rural and working class areas.

Seed planted by Chris — 30 January 2013 @ 18:16

I doubt this will change anything much.

Last week Gillard selected a prominent indigenous athlete to run for the Senate from the Northern Territory. That was also supposed to be a game-changer and sank like a stone. Gillard is not only extraordinarily improvisational but also seems incapable of thinking through her actions. The gratuitous comments about Yom Kippur are an example. I seriously doubt that Gillard even considered the issue before going ahead.

Neither the cabinet nor the caucus were consulted on this issue, and there are rumblings this morning that neither body would have approved the decision if asked. The last time Gillard clashed with her cabinet, the UN vote on Israel, she announced she’d just go ahead under what she called the ‘leader’s prerogative’, a claim that was rapidly and specifically overruled by the caucus.

I doubt that Gillard could tender advice for an election on a date other than 14 September. She already has a reputation for never keeping her word and simply does not have the electoral capital to throw away on reneging on yet another promise.

I also doubt the governor-general would grant a dissolution to a leader under challenge in their own party. The governor of Queensland rejected similar advice from their premier in 1987. It seems to me that, in the context of a leadership challenge, advice for a dissolution would be rejected and would probably guarantee success to the challenger. I do not discount the possibility Gillard would tender such advice.

There also significant constitutional limits on when an election can be called.

A half-Senate election must be held in the year after 1 July. Writs for the senate election cannot issue before that date and are,in any case, in the hands of state governors rather than the governor-general. The idea of holding an immediate house election followed by a separate half-senate election within 12 months is just not viable. There is no legislation to trigger a double dissolution and it would now be impossible to secure such a trigger. Getting a trigger takes at least 3 months and the double dissolution power lapses in the last 6 months of a House term.

Seed planted by Alan — 30 January 2013 @ 19:01

Weren’t separate House and half-Senate elections the norm from the 60s to the 80s? I seen to remember that part of the Kerr-Whitlam crisis involved Gough appointing a QLD senator as ambassador to force an extra vacancy, but Sir Joh managed to drop the half senate writ before the appointment.

Why would such a split be impossible now?

Seed planted by Chris — 30 January 2013 @ 20:37

That was the Snedden-Whitlam crisis in 1974, not the Kerr-Whitlam crisis in 1975.

There were half-senate elections in the 60s and 70s. They functioned as giant by-elections and governments did very badly. Neither a re-elected Labor party nor a newly-elected Coalition will want to fight a half-senate election within 12 months.

The feelings of an electorate, already alienated from the level of polarisation in Canberra, about a second election campaign within 12 months probably does not bear thinking about. It is a non-trivial fact that governments have avoided half-senate elections since 1970.

Incidentally the ABC just broadcast a very negative set of anonymous reactions from the Labor caucus which ranged from ‘Insane’ to what the ABC delicately described as unbroadcastable language.

Seed planted by Alan — 30 January 2013 @ 21:24

Craig Thompson, who was elected as Labor MHR but was suspended from the party some months after an investigation commenced, has just been arrested and charged with fraud as secretary of the Health Services Union before entering the parliament. I’d imagine he’ll get bail so there is no immediate change in the numbers of the House.

The media is already questioning if there was any relationship between yesterday’s announcement and today’s news. Personally I think there was not.

People trying to follow this soap opera may have to learn the difference between the HSU scandal (Craig Thompson) and the AWU scandal (Bruce Wilson, Ralph Blewett, Julia Gillard).

Seed planted by Alan — 31 January 2013 @ 01:39

Josh Frydenberg (the Liberals’ first Jewish MHR since Peter Baume retired in 1991) and Malcolm Turnbull (electoral district has the highest Jewish population in Australia) were on the radio yesterday saying, basically, that Jewish Australians were okay about (or resigned to) casting advance or postal ballots before most Saturday elections, but Yom Kippur was a much bigger occasion, even for Jews who aren’t normally zealous.

A rough analogy would be the occasion a few years ago when a football match was played on Good Friday. A lot of the complaints were from people who were not normally churchgoers. One likened it to having to work on Christmas Day.

Kevin Rudd’s “Australia 2020″ thinkfest in 2008 ran into a similar snag when it was pointed out, after dates were fixed, that it clashed with Passover. (Full disclosure – I applied for a slot on the Aust 2020 governance panel but missed out, presumably because my swimming/ hockey/ netball/ acting/ football skills were not up to the standard required for my thoughts on the governance of Australia to be worth attention. Put it down to sour groups if you want.)

I can guarantee right now that no Australian politician, even Julia Gillard, would think for a moment to schedule anything “secular” on Anzac Day. Some things are sacred…

Seed planted by Tom Round — 31 January 2013 @ 02:53

… err, “sour grapes” not “groups”. And Baume was a Senator, so Frydenberg is the Libs’ first-ever Jewish MHR. My bad x 2.

Seed planted by Tom Round — 31 January 2013 @ 02:56

This has absolutely nothing to do with the advancement of political science.

The Queensland senator appointed an ambassador by Gough Whitlamin 1974 was Vince Gair, a former Queensland premier who was then leader of the DLP. Gair, a devout Catholic, got the plum post of ambassador to Dublin and the Holy See. Several colleagues in the Senate kept Gair occupied while the Queensland premier arranged for the state governor to issue writs for a half-senate election before the Gair vacancy could be notified, so that the state parliament would fill the vacancy.

This event was immortalised as the Night of the Long Prawns.

The Queensland tactic ultimately failed because the Senate then withheld supply, forcing a double dissolution.

Many years later Sir James Killen gave the eulogy at Gair’s funeral.

Christ commands us to love our enemies. Vincent Clare Gair was a man of the Old Testament.

Seed planted by Alan — 31 January 2013 @ 03:21

What is the Commonwealth tradition on announcing election dates? I remember Brown announcing it from his doorstep at no.10… Does it differ from country to country?

And why would it be a problem to vote early if one usually votes early anyway to avoid shabbat?

Seed planted by JD — 31 January 2013 @ 14:15

@JD

My impression is that elections are usually announced to the parliament,although I have not been able to track down a lost. The next sitting day for the house is 5 February so it’s not immediately obvious why the announcement could not have been made then. The opposition says that as far they are concerned the campaign has started.

I understand there is very serious disquiet among Labor MPs at the way this has been handled. The opposition is also asking if Gillard was aware of the impending Thomson arrest when she made the announcement.

I am bemused at claims that this locks in the Gillard leadership. In 1983 Malcolm Fraser advised a dissolution on 3 May. The governor-general accepted the advice, but only after calling for further information. That same day the ALP changed from Bill Hayden to Bob Hawke as opposition leader. Hawke went on to win the election and serve several terms as prime minster.

Seed planted by Alan — 31 January 2013 @ 16:51

In 2011, it looks like John Key (NZ PM) informed the GG of his intent, and announced it at a press conference.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/4juafm4

And when asked about setting the date for the 2014 election “He said when he announced the election date early in 2011, that was mainly related to New Zealand’s hosting of the Rugby World Cup.”

http://preview.tinyurl.com/b3ysx6q

Some reaction and predictions from 2011 at Kiwiblog:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/b43uzer

Seed planted by Errolwi — 31 January 2013 @ 20:23

Joh Bjelke-Petersen tried a similar trick in late 1986 Faced with grumblings among his own Nationals, he announced he would retire on “8/8/88″ (MSS and other USAns: he meant 8 August, not August 8, 1988), at the height of Queensland’s World Explain fever. Perhaps he thought that by promising a date with destiny in the not-too-distant future, he would avoid provoking frustrated challengers to think “If not now, when?” (Thatcher and Hawke might have benefited from such a safety valve, to allay fears of “Is he/she ever going to step down?”) Plus it preserves an appearance of authority and control (“if a dog runs towards you, whistle for it”).
JBjP’s maneuver might have worked, except that by mid-1987 the corruption exposed by the Fitzgerald Inquiry had offended (or at least worried) enough of his fellow Nationals that his own caucus dumped him in Dec 1987. Gillard’s position may likewise be too shaky for the “can’t you just wait your turn for a few months, for the sake of stable government?” gambit (or gamble) to succeed. Double or nothing is poor odds if you’re not a good poker player.
Grafting a semi-fixed term onto a parliamentary executive system may lack the balance the US system has. Everyone knows four years out (in fact, four decades out) that an election will be held Tuesday 8 Nov 2016, but neither Congress (by 50%+1 vote, for lack of confidence) nor the Democratic caucus can remove Obama before 20 January 2017.

Seed planted by Tom Round — 31 January 2013 @ 22:28

Err, “World Expo ’88″ not “World Explain”. The algorithm for predictive texting is inscrutable.

Alan, are you sure MSS’ blog in general, and this thread in particular, is an appropriate venue to repeat a quotation implying that “Old Testament” = “vengeful”? I’ve always found that a dubious equation. MSS’s advocacy of PR would show he applies “love thine enemy” to the realm of institutional design, for example, yet F&V is replete with quotes from the non-homophobic parts of Deuteronomy and Leviticus.

Seed planted by Tom Round — 31 January 2013 @ 23:37

I am not responsible for the limited exegetical capacity of my primary sources.

Seed planted by Alan — 01 February 2013 @ 00:56

To state it more clearly, there is a balance between the ability of the Lower House to remove a premier in mid-term and the ability of a premier to dissolve (or, at least, to ask nicely for the Head of State to dissolve) the Lower House in mid-term – at least if the premier can satisfy the HoS (if not necessarily the courts) that the current Lower House is being recalcitrant.

Seed planted by Tom Round — 01 February 2013 @ 02:25

How is the conflict with Yom Kippur going to interact with compulsory voting? Surely the government isn’t going to start fining everyone who won’t go vote on the High Holidays…

Seed planted by Vasi — 01 February 2013 @ 03:04

Vasi @25, the Electoral Commission has always tacitly accepted conflicting religious obligation (along with distance, old age, etc) as good and sufficient excuses for not copping the $25 fine.

I missed voting shortly after I turned 18 because I was away from home and hadn’t arranged a pre-poll vote. Knew that absentee voting (on the day) was easy enough, within the same State, for State and Federal elections but these were local elections and the Electoral Commission probably didn’t want to equip every polling booth with spare ballot-papers for 130+ cities and shires with an average three or four wards each! The fact I had turned up and tried to vote in good faith was enough and I didn’t get fined. I also didn’t get to vote until I was nearly 20.

From what MPs like Michael Danby are saying, Jewish Australians are down with postal voting for the normal Saturday election but if it’s going to be on Yom Kippur itself this time, then he can’t take part in it… which seems to imply that he’s not even going to campaign, either for himself or the ALP, this time?! Although no rabbinical expert, I do seem to recall that an exception for fighting battles on the Sabbath was established around the time of the Maccabees. The New Republic canvassed the issue in late 2000 and concluded that Joe Liebermann, had he acted in the office of US President or succeeded to it, would have no religious impediment to, say, giving nuclear strike orders on a Saturday or a High Holy Day.

Seed planted by Tom Round — 01 February 2013 @ 03:20

I think Danby’s statement may have been as much a signal about the leadership as anything else. He’s going to campaign he’s just not going to do anything on election day when a candidate usually makes the rounds, throws an election party, etc etc. He’s previously been counted as a solid Gillard supporter.

I suspect the Jewish issue is much more controversial because of the idiocy of Gillard’s answer to questions about it.

It now appears that the media were tipped off in advance about the Thomson arrest, which leads to the not unreasonable question of whether anyone in the media tipped off Gillard.

If Thomson is finally convicted that would disqualify him from the House, but the chance of that happening before the dissolution is minimal. The argument being put by some opposition figures is that the government wants to argue, in case of Thomson losing his seat to conviction or bankruptcy, there is no need for a by-election because the general election has already been ‘called’.

Seed planted by Alan — 01 February 2013 @ 04:27

You would think he could throw an election party as Yom Kippur ends at sundown and he’d have ample numbers of gentile workers to set it up; it seems he’s resigned to the fact that there won’t be much to celebrate.

For observant Jews (probably should say “Orthodox” there), I doubt a general election would qualify as a “battle,” and they’d likely view campaigning on any Shabbat, let alone Yom Kippur, to be grievously sinful. I would assume that most Reform and Conservative/Masorti (I don’t know what they call the “in-betweeners” in Australia) see no issue in campaigning on most Saturdays and set Yom Kippur alone apart. Is the Jewish community in Australia mostly secular, Reform/Conservative, or observant?

I would think for observant Jews, the bigger issue would be the fact that law requires every election to be held on the Sabbath, not that this particular election will be held on the holiest Sabbath.

Seed planted by Chris — 01 February 2013 @ 07:07

Alan, what were her answers regarding Yom Kippur? I’m looking on google and ABC, but not finding much… Do you have some link?

Seed planted by JD — 01 February 2013 @ 09:55

Transcript

JOURNALIST: You’ve given away what’s normally regarded one of the advantages of having your job by revealing to us all when the election will be. Do you think we should have fixed terms federally and also some have pointed out online September 14 is Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year for Jewish people. Was that a factor in your thinking at all?

PM: There are only a limited number of days because of international events where we continue to need Australia to be represented. It’s only a limited number of days because of things like football finals. So I do understand the significance of the day in question for the Jewish community.

But there would be many of my Melbourne Jewish friends who would also understand the significance of AFL grand final day. So there are only so many days and so many selections.

As people are aware, there’s more pre-poll and early voting now than there has ever been before. And so people who face a reason, anything that means it’s not convenient or proper for them to vote on election day, can make alternate arrangements and have their voices heard.

Seed planted by Alan — 01 February 2013 @ 11:02

the prime minister had reliedont he Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to support her insistence that the election campaign will only begin in August when she formally tenders her advice to the governor-general, It now turns out that the Broadcasting Services Act 1987 defines the election period, when the opposition gets equal time, as running from the day write are issued or the election is announced. Ouch.

Oh and two senior ministers just resigned, necessitating the third reshuffle in a year. Ouch.

To quote Philip Coorey:

Already, Tony Abbott is calling on Gillard to reconsider her September 14 election pledge and bring it forward. Repeatedly on Saturday he said people wanted strength and stability. He wouldn’t need a focus group to tell him that.

Rudd is circling and if the polls in coming weeks reflect just how bad this all looks, it may be that the fun has just started.

Seed planted by Alan — 02 February 2013 @ 01:03

This is looking to be a disaster of epic proportions for the ALP (or at least for Ms Gillard). A shame, because I think she’s one of the most charismatic national leaders around (certainly more so than David Cameron, François Hollande, or Angela Merkel), with a relatively strong policy platform.

Seed planted by Chris — 02 February 2013 @ 04:34

The problem is that there may be much, much worse to come.

The Victorian police have committed major resources to an investigation of the AWU scandal which could well end up implicating the prime minister.

A few days ago no-one outside the blogosphere and the Murdoch media were prepared to touch it. It is now being picked up by both Fairfax and the ABC. It really is beginning to feel very like the last few days of the Hawke leadership.

Seed planted by Alan — 02 February 2013 @ 04:52

So the ALP are going to pull off a miracle victory like 93?

Seed planted by Chris — 02 February 2013 @ 10:56

This is more evidence of how very different norms prevail in theoretically similar parliamentary regimes. In Canada and its provinces, the idea of a election every four years has become strongly entrenched in recent years, so (unless a government is defeated in the House) it is generally known years in advance when the next election will be held.
The fixed date is not constitutionally entrenched, but the custom has become powerful. The idea now prevailing in Canada is that it is unfair for the government to have the advantage of choosing election dates to suit itself.
Evidently predetermined election dates are a new, and slightly shocking, idea in Australia.

Seed planted by Christopher Moore — 02 February 2013 @ 15:32

6 of the 8 states and territories have provided for fixed terms in their constitutions. Gillard herself opposed the idea of legislating for fixed terms at the press conference where she announced the election.

Seed planted by Alan — 02 February 2013 @ 16:26

I remember Jack Layton making a big deal out of the lack of fixed election dates during the 2011 campaign in Canada. This was in response that several of the ‘poteaux’ (candidates on the ballot to win funding who don’t actually campaign and don’t expect to win) went on vacation during the campaign, as they had already paid for their trips. Most notably, Ruth Ellen Brousseau went on vacation to Las Vegas during the campaign, yet did not visit the riding once (amongst several other allegations, such as her weak French skills in a nearly entirely Francophone riding, as well as questions over her resumé and whether the signatures on her nomination papers were valid). Such was the scale of the NDP wave in Quebec (as well as the reality of FPTP elections in a 4-party system as is the case for federal elections in QC) that Ms Brousseau is now an MP and, I believe, a deputy critic on the front bench team.

Of course, the NDP voted for the non-confidence motion which led to the election in the first place, so Layton really doesn’t have room to talk; the point is, though, that it does not seem that fixed 4-year parliaments are the norm in Canada, at least at the federal level.

Seed planted by Chris — 02 February 2013 @ 17:08

It is my understanding that, either to get around potential constitutional limitations or because whoever passed the law (Harper?) didn’t really want fixed elections, most if not all of the fixed election laws in Canada do not exactly fix terms. The federal legislation specifically has a clause saying that nothing in the act limits the power of the crown to dissolve Parliament. What the fixed election acts actually do is create a formula for determining when the election is. Something like “unless Parliament is otherwise dissolved, the next election will be on the first Sunday in Month X, Y years after the election.” (Paraphrasing of course)

I actually like it that way as it does allow for the government to collapse and head to the polls instead of having to hand over the baton to another unstable government or engineer a failed constructive vote of no confidence. Allowing the PM to just ask for an election at any time is the biggest flaw of the whole thing.

Seed planted by Mark R — 02 February 2013 @ 17:17

Harper passed the fixed terms law and ignored it at his political convenience. Contrary to #35, quite a lot of Canadian jurisdictions have statutory fixed terms,although I do not know to what extent they have Harper VIII clauses like the federal legislation.

The problem with a fixed term where the premier can dissolve rather than resign is that it is not a fixed term. The obvious solution is to transfer the dissolution power to the assembly itself, with a compulsory dissolution in certain very limited cases.

Seed planted by Alan — 02 February 2013 @ 19:09

So essentially you’re saying that a true fixed-term parliament law would instead have resulted in Michael Ignatieff being asked to attempt to form a government, rather than Harper being able to dissolve the parliament by losing a vote of no confidence?

It does seem truly extraordinary that Governor-General Jean granted the dissolution for a minority government when the opposition had already once planned a coalition. Is it simply a convention to grant the dissolution no matter if someone else can hold the confidence of the House?

Seed planted by Chris — 02 February 2013 @ 22:58

Actually, strike that, it was David Johnston, not Michaelle Jean, who was Governor-General at that point. Jean was the one who prorogued parliament twice so the PM could avoid confidence votes earlier in the term.

Seed planted by Chris — 02 February 2013 @ 23:00

As discussed at the time, I thought Michaelle Jean made a very poor decision. The Westminster constitutional conventions are designed to put the decision on who forms the government into the hands of the parliament. You find that principle in every text from Evatt to Cowen to recent viceregal statements. It may just be that the conventions have developed differently in Canada and Australasia. If so, The Canadian practice seems to me to shift the balance massively in favour of the executive and against the parliament.

Granting prorogations or dissolutions to a premier who does not have a majority removes that decision from parliament and puts it in the hands of the governor-general. The NSW constitution requires the governor, in considering a request for a dissolution, at Section24B(6):

the Governor is to consider whether a viable alternative Government can be formed without a dissolution and, in so doing, is to have regard to any motion passed by the Legislative Assembly expressing confidence in an alternative Government in which a named person would be Premier.

If there is a general election following a motion of no confidence than there are MPs who are responsible to the electorate for their vote. If the premier gets to prorogue at pleasure there is no mechanism for the parliament to hold the executive accountable.

Personally, I would transfer the election and removal of a premier to the assembly itself on the Cape Town model. Diving into hundred-year old tomes that frequently contradict themselves and each other is no way to resolve a parliamentary crisis.

Seed planted by Alan — 03 February 2013 @ 02:19

NSW has also adopted the Swedish rule. An early election does not give you a full term, just the remainder of the unexpired term. It is quite hard to think of a better discipline to prevent premiers advising early elections without good reason.

Seed planted by Alan — 03 February 2013 @ 03:52

At some point does the “unexpired term” rule cut off? For instance, if a government were to fall 6 months before elections are due (as very well could happen to the Gillard government if the crossbenchers don’t feel like waiting til October), would there be an election for the remaining 6 months, or would that be for a full term?

I do think the Cape Town model would work well in a country where there is at least some legislative check on the executive’s powers (something lacking in South Africa de facto, though not constitutionally). However, it does allow “a supporting vote of a majority of its members” to dissolve parliament after 3 years, which could allow a President to spring an election surprise on the opposition.

As for the Tasmanian situation, I felt the governor’s explanation letter was superb, and a wise decision to support what was an unorthodox and potentially wildly unpopular decision with a clear statement of constitutional principles. I do think it was poor form of the Premier to form a government, in light of his electoral promises, and that he should have resigned his commission and advised the Governor to ask either the Deputy Premier or the Leader of the Opposition to form a government; though there is not, as far as I know, any constitutional convention requiring the Premier to be a good sport. I’m guessing that promise was not in the party’s election manifesto, though whether the Governor would have considered such a promise to be sufficient reson to ask the Liberal Leader to form a government, i don’t know.

Tasmania has fixed elections, though, and I don’t know whether the governor would ask the Leader of the Opposition to try to form a government if the Greens withdraw confidence from the government. At the very least, we could hope that he would write another letter like this one to show Ms Jean and Mr Johnston (as well as, one would hope, the ghosts of Mr Byng and Mr Kerr) how a viceroy ought to handle situations like this. In fact, I would hope the Tasmanian Governor’s actions establish a new Constitutional convention across the Westminster system of Governors being required to publish rationales for who they ask to form a government, why they agree or disagree to prorogue parliament, and why they chose to issue writs–ideally all times they do so, but at the very least where such a decision is unusual.

Seed planted by Chris — 03 February 2013 @ 05:32

Kerr published a statement of reasons, it’s just not very persuasive. His timing was premature and he does not address that. And the business of having the opposition leader skulking at government house while the prime minister is being dismissed was, to say the last, tasteless. I think Australia has much more of a habit of appointing lawyers to viceregal offices than Canada, which may explain why you get better decisions.

Seed planted by Alan — 03 February 2013 @ 06:42

While I disagreed with the granting of Harper’s requests to prorogue Parliament, I did see it as settling a new convention. From my observations, the convention in Canada now seems to be that whoever has the largest plurality in Parliament can form the government. As far as I know there has only been one exception to that rule, Ontario in the late 1990s, and a change from plurality government to a coalition led by the original opposition occurred less than a month after the first sitting of the Legislative Assembly. As part of this convention, if the plurality government is brought down it very much as the right to go back to the polls instead of handing over the baton. I don’t like the idea personally and I am not sure how entrenched the convention was before Harper started playing it in the media with his claims that his then minority government was elected to lead Canada, but that does seem to be what they have.

When the Tasmanian situation occurred, I was both thrilled and shocked that the governor actually did what he did. I feel that he was one hundred percent right and his explanation was spot on. If partisanship was truly a non-factor, then the governor should have taken the advice to commission a Liberal government. But I just cannot see how any reasonable person could expect Parliament to have confidence in the Liberals when the Greens and Labor have a five seat majority and 60% of the seats.

Seed planted by Mark R — 03 February 2013 @ 08:12

If in fact Canada has adopted that convention it could no longer really be classified as a Westminster system. The government is no longer really responsible to parliament if it can prorogue and dissolve at pleasure.

Seed planted by Alan — 03 February 2013 @ 10:16

I am not defending the system, I am just explaining what I think is a reasonable explanation of the workings of the Canadian system.

When Harper asked Jean to prorogue Parliament because the opposition parties were about to form a coalition, the GG should have refused his advice. By accepting the advice and allowing Harper to survive, a very bad precedent was set.

Seed planted by Mark R — 03 February 2013 @ 11:14

@Mark R

I’m sorry if I gave the impression I was criticising you, that was not what I intended. I just find the level of executive dominance in the Canadian model frankly horrific. Thinking about it, I’d seriously question whether it can even be called democratic, let alone Westminster.

I’m also horrified because I can easily envisage the current prime minister of Australia trying to make a case for prorogation in similar circumstances. Fortunately the caucus cannot be prorogued and the governor-general is a distinguished academic lawyer.

Seed planted by Alan — 03 February 2013 @ 13:29

Returning to the topic of the original post, I now think there will be a leadership change, possibly within the very near future. I would not be surprised if the Coalition react to a Rudd leadership by replacing the opposition leader.

Rudd is now doing a whole lot more than more than circling

A series of self-inflicted political wounds has sapped morale and restarted talk about whether anything would be achieved by another leadership change.
These included the clumsily handled dumping of the Northern Territory senator Trish Crossin and the timing of the election announcement, which was followed closely by the resignations of two senior ministers.

Ms Gillard’s reduced support, confirmed to Fairfax Media by multiple sources from both sides of the caucus, raises the possibility of a second leadership challenge by Mr Rudd, although his supporters said no move was imminent.

The estimate of 45 votes for Mr Rudd is regarded as ”not unrealistic” by a key Gillard backer, who put it ”closer to 40”.

While Mr Rudd would need 52 votes to win, it is thought backing in the mid 40s would be enough to build towards a majority in a leadership ballot. He received only 31 votes to Ms Gillard’s 71 in the count last February.

Seed planted by Alan — 04 February 2013 @ 20:51

Chris @44:
“Tasmania has fixed elections, though…”

Tasmania is one of the last three Australian jurisdictions (along with Qld and the Commonwealth) that has a flexible maximum term for its lower house. (Its Legislative Council does have fixed terms, though).

See Antony Green here http://www.tinyurl.com/b22qten (answering a doozy of a comment by one [K]eri [H]uxley, who is also incidentally a former mayor and NSW Liberal State candidate).

Other Chris @35:
“In Canada and its provinces, the idea of a election every four years has become strongly entrenched in recent years…”

Good on them but when the constitutional maximum term is five years, limiting this to a fixed four is not a great imposition. (Unlike most other federations, Canada’s national Constitution specifically caps the length of a state/ provincial legislature. Ireland’s and India’s are the only other examples off the top of my head where a national constitution limits the maximum time between elections for sub-national bodies.)

Whereas Qld and the Commonwealth have only three-year terms, which are already short, and outlyers in world terms now that Sweden has reversed its 1983-98 experiment and restored quadrennialism.

Generally:

Perhaps we tend to confuse two things that are conceptually distinct, although often found (or absent) at the same time:

(a) a constitutionally fixed term of office (ie, expiry and changeover date)

(b) constitutional constraints on election dates (ie, a narrower window than “must be a weekend or public holiday”).

We tend to confuse the two because the USA has both while UK, Canada, France have neither (although the Brits do seem to have settled on PrMs timing Commons elections to coincide with local elections in May, as a matter of custom rather than law).

However:

I. “Elections for the Assembly must be held on a Sunday not less than 46 months and not more than 50 months after the previous election” (ie, something like Germany’s rule but without the option of dissolution) would have (a) without (b). The term would be more or less fixed but there would be a reasonably wide window to choose the polling date.

(The Australian Senate semi-approximates this: the changeover date is constitutionally fixed – 1 July – but the actual poll can be held any time within the 12 months beforehand which sometimes leads to a delay of 3 to 9 months while the “lame duck” Senators hold on and the PrM can decide to rush or delay Bills depending whether the old or new Senate seems more congenial.)

Conversely,

II. “If the Head of State dissolves the Assembly at any time, an election must be held on the first Allowable Election Day at least 28 days after the dissolution. For the purposes of this present Article, an Allowable Election Day means the first Sunday in the month of March, June, September or December.”

- would have (b) without (a). Early elections could be held, even just one or two years into the term, but the executive would have a severely constrained menu of possible dates to choose. If Sunday 3 March is no good, then they have to wait until Sunday 2 June.

(Some unions, including one or another I once belonged to – possibly the NTEU but Google is no help – have, or had, a rule like this. The union paid to run polling booths so any by-elections had to be deferred until either May or August: May every third year was the general election. Casual vacancies were filled by council appointment until the next regular election season rolled around – of course if it wasn’t May in a general election year and there were no appointees warming vacated seats, no poll was held.)

Seed planted by Tom Round — 05 February 2013 @ 00:53

I was under the impression that the Bartlett government had passed fixed terms before the 2010 election, but I see that they failed to do so and simply chose to hold the election on what would have been the fixed date had the proposal passed.

Seed planted by Chris — 05 February 2013 @ 01:27

Tom@52

The UK has a fixed term under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011

Seed planted by Alan — 05 February 2013 @ 01:36

Alan @53;

No, no, that can’t be right. There’s no way David Cameron would introduce novel European/ American tinkerings into a system (flexible terms, 5-year maximum) that has served Britain well for 703 years… Next you’ll be telling me that he’s considering elected police commissioners, direct primaries for Tory candidates, and other Jacobite heresies that The Chartists Were Not Fighting For.

(-;

Seed planted by Tom Round — 05 February 2013 @ 02:12

Err, Jacobin, not Jacobite.

Seriously, though, I’d question whether the UK has what I so carefully described as “constitutionally fixed term of office” since the Afriyie Govt can simply amend or repealed the Fixed Terms Act like any other piece of legislation.

Seed planted by Tom Round — 05 February 2013 @ 02:17

If it’s the case that the Fixed Term Act is not part of the constitution then at any moment Elizabeth II can emulate Her predecessors of glorious memory and send that bounder Miliband off to the Tower at will.

The UK does have a constitution, it is just not codified or entrenched. And that constitution does fix the term of the Parliament.

Seed planted by Alan — 05 February 2013 @ 03:21

Err, good point. It’s as entrenched as anything else is in the UK. My point re Australia still stands.

Seed planted by Tom Round — 05 February 2013 @ 03:58

Norm Geras on the Yom Kippur issue http://www.tinyurl.com/a6lfq9k:

‘… Though observant Jewish voters have not been disenfranchised, they are denied two other benefits of participating in election day activities. The first is because they are unable to canvass and otherwise help get out the vote. The second is a more nebulous thing perhaps, but important nonetheless. It is feeling part of a symbolic (as well as instrumental) national event, in which the democratic will of the country is being expressed.

An Australian Jewish reader – whose email I quote here with permission – has written to me to say, ‘My decision is not to vote in the alternative ways and to treat this decision as an act of civil disobedience. Consequently, I will not pay fines and [will] defend my decision at the point when the fines constitute a legal debt’….’

Note that the legislation does not make failing to vote an offence of strict liability – only if done (well, not done) without sufficient excuse – and a religious objection is 99% certain to qualify. In fact, if federal law did not allow a religious exemption from voting, it might, just might, run foul of one of the very few rights guarantees in the Commonwealth Constitution (s 116).

Seed planted by Tom Round — 08 February 2013 @ 00:40

Geras’ argument is flawed, though, because observant Jews can’t canvass or get out the vote at ANY general election, not just this one. Unless, of course, by ‘observant Jews’ he means ‘Jews who choose to observe Yom Kippur but not other Shabbatot.’ While it’s understandable that (insert word for those with no objection to campaigning on most Saturdays) object to having an election on the holiest day of the year, that is not what ‘observant Jews’ usually means.

It is true that an election called for Easter Sunday in a place with Sunday voting would be objectionable, and even Easter Saturday would likely cause an outcry (though the traditional AFL games might be part of that). It’s not possible to find a day where everyone can fully participate in the process in a pluralistic society. The elections are either a weekday or some faith’s sabbath. Even if they’re on a weekday public holiday, emergency workers will have to work, and many businesses will pressure workers to work. I think given the opportunities to participate in the process for the previous give weeks, the postal ballot, and the long standing custom of Saturday elections, and claimed ‘religious’ objection to following the mandatory vote law should be rejected.

Seed planted by Chris — 08 February 2013 @ 18:29

> “Unless, of course, by ‘observant Jews’ he means ‘Jews who choose to observe Yom Kippur but not other Shabbatot.’”

Given how many Australian journalists are lapsed Catholics, perhaps there’s some subconscious influence on their reporting from the Catholic rule that weekly Mass attendance is the ideal but attending at least once a year is mandatory – with most “not-very-observant-but-not-wholly-lapsed” Catholics discharging that duty on Christmas Day or Easter Sunday while spending “any given Sunday” otherwise surfing, fishing or at the footy.

Seed planted by Tom Round — 08 February 2013 @ 19:50

The exact equivalent of calling an election on Yom Kippur is calling one for Good Friday or Anzac Day. Both are unthinkable. According to Julia Gillard the day of the AFL Grand Final is unthinkable. The question then, is why a day of equal significance to the Jews is thinkable.

If you were drawing rational state borders in Australia you’d use the Rugby League/Australian Football League line to divide NSW from adjacent areas of Victoria and South Australia. I’d ask why the AFL Grand Final is unthinkable but the grand final days for the other football codes are thinkable, but my neighbours might found out I asked and become unhappy.

The media consensus is that, like many decisions by this prime minister, it was not canvassed widely enough beforehand, the date of Yom Kippur was not taken into account, and the explanations since the announcement are trying to cover for the lack of preparation.

Seed planted by Alan — 08 February 2013 @ 23:58

Where is the rugby league/Australian rules line? Somewhere between Canberra and the Victorian border?

Does the North Shore get it own state because they play rugby union?

Seed planted by Chris — 09 February 2013 @ 00:53

Chris

You have obviously missed out on profound social changes since leaving the country. Melbourne has its own team in both Rugby codes and soccer is now the prevailing code on the North Shore.

Seed planted by Alan — 09 February 2013 @ 09:18

The Barassi Line http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barassi_Line is the traditional dividing line between league and Australian Football supporters.

Obviously the line is not so clear today. Soccer is growing in popularity everywhere. Rugby Union has professional teams 4 states and the ACT. League has a team in Melbourne (though I do subscribe to the theory that Melbourne could support any sport that has a Melbourne team) and some support for a team in Perth if the NRL expands again. The AFL now has at least two teams in every mainland state. Though how well supported the newest NSW and QLD teams are by locals as opposed to expats is up for debate.

As always, the only national sport is cricket.

Seed planted by Mark R — 09 February 2013 @ 09:43

I’ve actually never been to Australia, but my dad spent his early childhood on Sydney’s North Shore. My love of Australian sport, but also lack of knowledge, comes from being exposed to them only through ESPN late night and what little wikipedia says

Seed planted by Chris — 09 February 2013 @ 21:07

Let’s not forget that there is an Australian Baseball League, and, yes, there is a team in Melbourne. I suspect it could be a while longer, however, before the date of the ABL championship would join the set of “unthinkables.”

Seed planted by MSS — 10 February 2013 @ 21:44

Chris @44: “At some point does the “unexpired term” rule cut off? For instance, if a government were to fall 6 months before elections are due… would there be an election for the remaining 6 months, or would that be for a full term?”

Good question. Last time I looked, in Scotland, an early dissolution less than 6 months before the scheduled expiry date pre-empted the latter.

On the other hand, I understand that in Sweden there is no minimum legal limit. You could have an early election in July or August 2014 and then the regular election as mandated by the constitution on the 14 September (what is it with that date?!). Well, Greece managed something similar in 2012 (and look at the UK in 1974, Ireland in 1981-82, and Canada most years since 1945). Costs money, though.

On the third hand, I suppose a polity could adopt a rule that no early dissolutions are allowed within a set time before the House’s term expires (c/f the Australian Constitution’s s 57 that a double-dissolution cannot be held in the last 6 months of the House’s term), just as France has a rule at the other end that the Assembly cannot be dissolved less than a year after the previous election.

Either way, there’d probably be consensus that having two elections a short time apart (eg, within the same six-month period) is undesirable.

If pushed I would probably opt to frame something like “the regular general election is held on schedule UNLESS (a) a special election is held less than 6 months before the regular election date AND (b) the House has resolved, by two-thirds majority, at some time more than 60 days before the regular election date, that the regular election be dispensed with.”

Seed planted by Tom Round — 11 February 2013 @ 02:40

@67

I tend to agree. I think the Swedish rule is essentially self-correcting. There would be a large electoral cost to a premier who, for instance, forced 3 elections inside 6 months. The electorate would regard that as more like carelessness than misfortune.

You’d almost question if any rule at all is necessary beyond ‘early elections return parliaments that serve only the unexpired term of their predecessor’. It’s hard to see the motive for dissolving in January if your new term will end in March.

Seed planted by Alan — 11 February 2013 @ 04:57

Regarding the case of Greek elections in close succession, the constitution mandates a second election if some very strict provisions on forming a new government are not met fairly quickly after a first election.

Seed planted by MSS — 11 February 2013 @ 15:47

The media consensus seems to be that there will be a leadership challenge during the next parliamentary sitting begins on 11 March.

To paraphrase Labor’s campaign slogan in 1972, it’s only a matter of time. Politically, Julia Gillard is a dead woman walking. The Prime Minister may dismiss the latest polls, but the trend is clear. With a trio of polls all pointing in the same direction, they spell her certain demise.
If it doesn’t happen at the hands of her colleagues, it will happen at the hands of the Australian electors in September. Her colleagues may talk of it being a communication problem, but it’s much more than that. The Prime Minister is too low in the esteem of Australian voters to survive. Even her advantage over Tony Abbott among women voters has been eroded away.
Some Australians might admire her steely strength and her negotiating skills, but her propensity for political stumbles have seen her repeatedly fall flat on her face. The September election date and the resignation of Nicola Roxon and Chris Evans were just the latest of them.

The polling released over the weekend is catastrophic.

I suspect that political parties here are now going to be very, very reluctant to remove prime ministers from office. That may be the total legacy of Julia Gillard.

Seed planted by Alan — 18 February 2013 @ 20:23

Didn’t a large number of ALP MHRs say that “they’d rather be in opposition than serve under a Rudd premiership” at the last challenge?

Have their opinions changed, or is the challenger to be someone other than Rudd?

Seed planted by Chris — 18 February 2013 @ 20:43

Chris, I’m at a loss to read what’s going on.

I would guess that a delegation like that at the end of Hawke’s leadership, for that matter like the delegation in black at the of Hayden’s leadership, will visit the prime minister and then visit Kevin Rudd. Before the second Keating challenge many MHRs claimed they would not accept Keating but that all went out the window when Hawke’s leadership collapsed.

Apart from the missteps since the election announcement, I think the body blow is that Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer Wayne Swan’s own standing has collapsed since it was revealed the new mining tax collected only $126 million in its first 6 months. That is about a tenth of the Treasury estimate for revenue from that tax and essentially means the government no longer has the fiscal room to do anything. The forward estimates on spending include spending 3 billion in mining tax revenue which is just not there. The mining tax has pretty much ended Swan’s prospects in politics, although neither he nor Gillard seem aware of it. Swan was crucial in last year’s challenge where the tactics were to force Rudd to challenge and then use rhetorical carpet-bombing to (almost literally) destroy him. When was the last time outside Australia that a cabinet minister called a former prime minister from their party a psychopath?

Gillard came in saying she would resolve the refugee issue, the emissions trading scheme and the mining tax. She has ‘resolved’ the refugee issue by adopting deterrent measures harsher than Howard’s. She ‘resolved’ the ETS by promising there would be no carbon tax and then introducing one. She resolved the mining tax by giving the big miners concessions that gutted the tax and promising spending based on mining tax revenue does not exist.

I don’t exclude the possibility that Gillard will accept the inevitable and resign. I also don’t exclude the possibility that Gillard will try a Joh and seek to retain office after losing the leadership.

Seed planted by Alan — 18 February 2013 @ 21:08

I guess Gillard could try to get crossbenchers say that they want her to remain Prime Minister until September elections, and that they would not have confidence in a government held by anyone else. She’d have to somehow convince them that doing so won’t hurt their election chances, which she may not be able to do.

Would their be any precedent/constitutional room for Ms Gillard to resign the party leadership effective 15 September and for the party to elect a new leader to head the campaign and essentially be its “PM candidate”, without immediately dethroning her from the premiership (as doing so would seem almost certain to result in early elections)?

Seed planted by Chris — 18 February 2013 @ 21:21

I cannot see any cross-benchers willing to leap, like rats in reverse, aboard a sinking ship.

Once they finally move the caucus is not going to want Julia Gillard any where near the Labor government in any shape or form or for any reason. The opposition leader in WA has asked her not to visit the state during their campaign.

She can hardly be asked not to visit Australia while she remains prime minister.

Retaining her until 15 September would merely achieve the worst of both worlds, a dead weight prime minister and an unresolved leadership contest. There would also be many more than one member of caucus simply unprepared to accept any assurances from Gillard as to her future course of action.

At this stage it would be a miracle for Rudd, even with his personal popularity, to save the government. He can moderate the landslide and can start rebuilding a party free of the factions that destroyed his first government.

Seed planted by Alan — 18 February 2013 @ 22:13

The Greens just ended their alliance with the Labor party. They have promised confidence and supply until 14 September. Milne said the leadership is a matter for Labor and they will attempt to work with whoever is the Labor leader. A couple of ministers gave the shoot-the-messenger response which is about all this government has left.

Seed planted by Alan — 19 February 2013 @ 02:10

Now that’s ironic. Last time a Labor Government collapsed mid-term, ie Nov 1975, Malcolm Fraser (a Member of the House of Representatives) announced how the Liberal and National Senators would be voting. Now it’s a Senator, Christine Milne, announcing how the Greens’ Members – err, Member – of the House of Representatives will be voting.

Seed planted by Tom Round — 19 February 2013 @ 02:28

I doubt the Greens will start voting with the Coalition in either house. It seems to me more like a signal to the ALP about getting their act together.

There are 4 MHRs who belong to neither major party. Jatter has never had an agreenebt with the government and said in 2010 his decision would have been different if Kevin Rudd were leader. Andrew Wilkie from tasmania ended his agreement after Gillard reneged on poker machine reform. The Greens argue that Gillard has reneged on the mining tax. Tony Windsor says the leadership is a matter for the ALP. Oakeshott has not commented as far as I know, although recently he’s been criticising the government for not acting on the agreement for an integrity commissioner.

The prospect of cross-bench support for the Gillard leadership looks pretty thin to me.

Seed planted by Alan — 19 February 2013 @ 02:50

Five cross-bench MHRs: Bandt, Katter, Oakeshott, Wilkie, Windsor.

The fact that Tasmania’s HR delegation includes the names Wil(l)kie and Franklin – like the fact that Tony Abbott, well-known as a conservative and a monarchist, was denied the Prime Ministership by MPs named Oakeshott and Windsor – proves my oft-repeated point about Psephos looking down on us mortals from Mt Olympus and laughing.

Seed planted by Tom Round — 19 February 2013 @ 03:12

Psephos laughs even harder when I try to count. The student union where I was council chair amended their standing orders so that someone else could count the votes because I always got it wrong.

Seed planted by Alan — 19 February 2013 @ 03:19

Was there actually a Greek god called Psephos, or is that just a psephologists’ and psehophiles’ inside joke?

Seed planted by Chris — 19 February 2013 @ 04:33

It’s about as true as the rumour that St Chad is the patron of elections.

Seed planted by Alan — 19 February 2013 @ 04:53

Interestingly, St Chad’s Day is quite often primary election day in Texas, or very near to it (when they’re not delayed by court orders over racially gerrymandered maps, which happens at least once a decade, they’re the first Tuesday in March), and occasionally the fates conspire to make that day “Super Tuesday.”

Psephos laughs at us even when we ignore him for a Christian saint.

Seed planted by Chris — 19 February 2013 @ 05:18

At risk of getting a bit hermetic, causing you all to turn mercurial, Hermes/Mercury was the god of messages and thieves, among other things. A lot of Pompeii graffiti associates him with elections in the second role.

Seed planted by Alan — 19 February 2013 @ 05:37

Romans stealing elections? What had the Empire come to by AD 79 if an honest politician couldn’t simply hire enough voters to get himself elected?

My opinion about Rudd has always been biased based on the fact that he seems a hell of a lot better than Gillard and because my wife lived in his electorate before moving to the States. (If I had visited her a few months on either side of my first visit to Australia, I probably could have met him at one of the barbecues he threw for the electorate before becoming PM)

But as a Rudd preferrer (I can’t really call myself a supporter since I have no vote), is there any real chance that he could kick Gillard out and at least fight to keep Labor’s last wicket?

Seed planted by Mark R — 19 February 2013 @ 07:31

@MarkR

I’d be astounded if Rudd does not regain the leadership before the election. Beyond that I just don’t know.

Thing are sufficiently grim for the Gillard leadership that I wouldn’t be completely astounded if she were gone by the end of the week. I am not quite as bad as a friend who is compulsively listening to radio news expecting an announcement at any moment.

Seed planted by Alan — 19 February 2013 @ 07:48

You know you’re in deep doo doo when the ABC’s flagship current affairs program intercuts your appearance at a union conference with the this.

Seed planted by Alan — 19 February 2013 @ 08:55

What are the consequences of “ending the agreement” while still giving confidence and supply?

I do like this quote from Sen. Milne: “the Greens will not add to the instability that Labor creates every day for itself’”.

This is also good: Industry Minister Greg Combet said Senator Milne was engaged in political “product differentiation”. Exactly what political scientists expect of separate parties engaged in post-electoral cooperation! But my question remains: given that the Greens only selectively supported government legislation before and will continue to offer confidence and supply after, is this announcement anything other than reminding voters that they are a separate party? I think not.

Seed planted by MSS — 19 February 2013 @ 18:41

The immediate parliamentary consequences are nil.

One reason for continuing confidence and supply is that a general election before 3 August would require a separate half-Senate election before July 2014.

Were Rudd to become Labor leader now he would face significant pressure to call an early election. I suspect he wants the leadership change when he can call the general election and the half-Senate election at the same time, but events are moving so quickly I’m not sure he will get that luxury.

Seed planted by Alan — 19 February 2013 @ 20:31

Alternatively, if Rudd is really a calculating B’Stard, is to bring down the government now and have an House-only election. If Labor pulls out a miraculous win, good for them. If Labor loses even with Rudd, which would not surprise me in the slightest, then Abbot is forced to face a Senate only election in first year where Labor can make a second effort.

Seed planted by Mark R — 19 February 2013 @ 20:54

What would be the electoral consequences of a general election held in April followed by a half Senate election in July (or even the announced 14 September)?

I assume that at this point it will take St Chad giving the ALP a miracle to return them to government, and at this point it’s trying to reduce the losses and have a winnable 2016 election. This seems to be one of those elections where a “drover’s dog” could lead the Opposition to victory.

Would we likely see a French-style scenario, with the elections so close together, where the second election generally solidifies the position of the winner of the first, or would it be more likely to function as a “giant by-election” and ironically give Labor its strongest position in the Senate in years?

I must say, three-year election cycle is amazingly fast. Rudd was elected Leader just over 6 years ago, was elected PM just 5.25 years ago, and was deposed just 2.6 years ago. Gillard won the 2010 election was just two and a half years ago, and survived Rudd’s first challenge almost exactly a year ago. Even in the US, with bi-yearly House and third-Senate elections, we don’t have anywhere near that much turmoil (or even the potential therefor).

Seed planted by Chris — 19 February 2013 @ 20:54

There is simply no way to do it. Once the House election is called the caretaker conventions apply and the governor-general would not be bound to accept advice on the half-Senate election until after the general election is complete.

The governor-general cannot call an election in advance (and in any case would need the co-operation of the state governors whose premiers would probably advise them not to comply with the governor-general’s request) particularly when it is likely that prime minister chosen at the general election will tender different advice. Once the writs issue the timetable is fixed by the electoral act.

Senators elected at this election will not, in any case, take office until the end of next June. It would be a pointless exercise.

I would imagine that trying to drag the electorate to the polls twice for such obvious partisan advantage on such a weird timetable would result in electoral oblivion. Even calling a House election on a timetable that required a half-Senate election within a little more than a year would generate an enormous backlash, especially in light of repeated Labor promises that the parliament would see its full term.

Seed planted by Alan — 19 February 2013 @ 23:39

Catholic abdications not good for the Anglicans; Calvinist abdications (like atheobaptist foreshadowed dissolutions) not good for the Jews. Here’s Eugene Volokh’s report, and take, on the situation in Holland: http://tinyurl.com/cnqefkh

Seed planted by Tom Round — 05 May 2013 @ 04:22

I think both the House of Orange-Nassau and the country as a whole would be surprised to hear about a Calvinist abdication. The Dutch monarchy is so deeply secular that the sovereign is ‘inaugurated’ in a clergyless and almost crownless ceremony.

Seed planted by Alan — 08 May 2013 @ 12:41

True, Alan, but I wonder if that memo has reached Northern Ireland yet. (The Thatcher Govt deliberately chose to downplay the tercentenary of the 1688 Glorious Revolution for fear of inflaming sectarian tensions over the water). Whether the Orange Order, the Orange Free State, or indeed any number of Orange Counties throughout the USA, the Dutch royal house was historically associated with Calvinism.

Seed planted by Tom Round — 08 May 2013 @ 16:02

Like the Catholic papacy, the Dutch monarchy has also faced controversy under the previous incumbent about service in the German Army during WW2, and under the new bloke about links to the Argentinean junta in the 1970s: http://www.tinyurl.com/c82ay7n

Seed planted by Tom Round — 08 May 2013 @ 17:15

TrackBacks

To graft a scion to this planting, please use the following URL:
http://fruitsandvotes.com/blog/wp-trackback.php?p=6649
(Non-MT bloggers click here to send pings.)

Grafted scions that are not compatible with this planting's stock will die or be pruned out by the Orchardist.

About the comment form

Please note that the name you enter below and the first several words of your comment will appear on the right sidebar of the blog's front page, under "Propagation." New propagators might want to look at the comment policy.

Please do not enter long URLs into the seedbed. Either mark them up using html hyperlinks or convert them to a "tiny URL." Thank you!

95 ideas sprouting »

SeedbedThe soil is ready for planting:

Seedbed
The soil is ready for planting: