Australian Federal Election- July 2, 2016

[YL]

Hi.  Someone will have to explain how the Senate elections work in Australia.  It seems they are for 6 year terms with half each up every 3 years.  But it seems that every-time there is a general election for the House half the Senate is up for re-election as well.  I get this time it is a double dissolution where everyone in the Senate is up for election.  But traditionally how do they square the fact that it it not clear that every House election occurs every 3 years but the Senate term is 6 years.  I think that the way it works is that every other House election half the Senators are up for re-election.  Did I get that right ?

I imagine that if they were to get out of sync, than the Senate elections would still happen separately.

Yes.  That would make sense and match how they doing things in Japan where there is an Upper House election every 3 years no matter what.  The problem is I cannot find an example of an Australian Senate election being held by itself without involving the House. 

There were three between 1964 and 1970.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Please don't wish that upon us.

[henster]

It looks like both Labour/Labor parties are suffering from lackluster leaders Corbyn/Shorten. The fundamentals are certainly there for them to win.

[Phony Moderate]

It looks like both Labour/Labor parties are suffering from lackluster leaders Corbyn/Shorten. The fundamentals are certainly there for them to win.

And that's the only time Corbyn and Shorten will be compared.

[Gary J]

Hi.  Someone will have to explain how the Senate elections work in Australia.  It seems they are for 6 year terms with half each up every 3 years.  But it seems that every-time there is a general election for the House half the Senate is up for re-election as well.  I get this time it is a double dissolution where everyone in the Senate is up for election.  But traditionally how do they square the fact that it it not clear that every House election occurs every 3 years but the Senate term is 6 years.  I think that the way it works is that every other House election half the Senators are up for re-election.  Did I get that right ?

I imagine that if they were to get out of sync, than the Senate elections would still happen separately.

Yes.  That would make sense and match how they doing things in Japan where there is an Upper House election every 3 years no matter what.  The problem is I cannot find an example of an Australian Senate election being held by itself without involving the House. 

There were three between 1964 and 1970.

There are some complications. A Senate term is supposed to start on 1 July. A half Senate election has to be held no more than one year before the 1 July when the term starts. This can lead to long delays before newly elected Senators take office. Australian Prime Ministers usually have House and half Senate elections on the same day, but the two can get out of sequence so separate elections have to be held.

A double dissolution causes more complications. The notional 3 and 6 year terms resulting from the whole Senate election are calculated from the last 1 July before the election, so the actual terms served are shorter than the notional ones. An extract from Section 13 of the Constitution explains what happens.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Adam Carr's done a guide to the election again

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It looks like both Labour/Labor parties are suffering from lackluster leaders Corbyn/Shorten. The fundamentals are certainly there for them to win.

And that's the only time Corbyn and Shorten will be compared.

Or should be.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

So senate results would be fun with a DD. I wonder which crossbechers will return? Xenephon (duh) probably with a running mate or two if he can assemble a non-idiotic bunch. Lambie? Quite possibly, although I doubt the other two puppies will return. Muir? Probably not, although I wouldn't be surprised if he did manage to return. Day? Probably, if he capitalises on anti-Turball liberals. Leyonhjelm? I don't know, tbh.

Queensland should be a good target for non-LNP conservatives. Katter was a busted flush last time around, but he could conceivably return in a less anti-independent environment. Perhaps Pauline could make it to the senate, although she may be past her prime. West Australia could be a good market for conservative independents what with the economy - National WA maybe?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

We know the election will be called at some point between Thursday night and Saturday morning.

[BaconBacon96]

We know the election will be called at some point between Thursday night and Saturday morning.

I thought May 10/11 was going to be the day the election was officially called? Don't they need time to get the bills through Parliament?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

We know the election will be called at some point between Thursday night and Saturday morning.

I thought May 10/11 was going to be the day the election was officially called? Don't they need time to get the bills through Parliament?

The supply Bills will likely be passed by tomorrow afternoon/Thursday morning.

[Ebowed]

Cross posting from AAD.

The underlying assumption behind virtually everything in the Budget is that if we create conditions more favorable to business, they will pass these benefits on to their employees and the community in general (trickle down economics). But we don't need businesses to have an easier time of ripping us off, and saving even more on their tax bill while nothing gets passed on (the reality of these policies), we need the government to take an active role in stimulating our declining economy and providing people with decent jobs, rather than expecting an army of "SMALL BUSINESSES" to contract people out who are so desperate that they are willing to work for half of the actual min. wage to deliver pizzas.

The ABC talking heads made mention of the fact that young people are more entrepreneurial than ever, which means that incentives for start-ups will be well received by this KEY DEMOGRAPHIC. The reality - staring them right in the face, but because they don't have people under 40 on these programs, forget about it - is that young people have figured out that they are getting a raw deal and that working for someone who doesn't care about you and is literally waiting for you to get sick so that they can fire you and replace you with someone who will be hired with less benefits is not a preferable course of action.

They keep bragging about "300,000 jobs added last year" but they are part time jobs that make up for the loss of an equivalent of lost full time jobs.  (Obligatory mention of the fact that the workforce is more casualised than ever, but that supposedly represents 'increased flexibility' or something ridiculous, no doubt)

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann was incredulous when asked why only upper middle income earners received a tax cut. "You think $80,000 a year is a high-income earner?" he snapped, unable to comprehend that that IS high income, that the average wage earner is making about $47,000 a year, and that the vast majority of Australians will not be positively impacted by this "TAX RELIEF" (one of my most detested terms in our Americanised lexicon).

His contention is that $80k is middle income for somebody who works full time. So it's interesting, the implication that full time workers are doing it toughest, but at the same time, not acknowledging that all of the new jobs being added are part-time because that's all anybody can get.

No mention of climate change or investment in clean energy; no mention of the looming closure of automobile manufacturers. No mention of housing affordability except to mock the idea of reigning in negative gearing by insulting renters with the notion that property investors are largely "working class."

More antagonisation for young people on income support, presented under the guise of being slightly less worse than the previous system in place. Let's be clear: giving employers a massive subsidy to hire people to work for $4/hr (which doesn't even come out of the business' pocket) is more of the same corporate welfare we've come to expect from these pricks.

They agreed to delay deregulating university fees until next year, which means wait for the election to pass and then spike up tuition to $100,000.

More hand-outs for defense, and staying the course on torture camps and "Direct Action" (literally paying corporations not to pollute).  And if you ask them why they didn't do anything for low-income people, they actually start talking about how they repealed the carbon tax.  Yes, they think we're that stupid!

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

If you look past (and through) the 'Jobs and Growth' mantra... it's a pretty terrible Budget.
- Freezing the Medicare rebate at $37 for FIVE years (so, lets see how long the Bulk Billing practices are able to remain that) and increasing PBS prescriptions by $5
- Giving me a tax cut of about $5 per week that I don't need and money that could be directed to more important
- Massive increases in military spending
- One off increases for health and especially education that are dependent on really nasty conditions being met
- Changing the definition of 'small business' but increasing the turnover to qualify by 500%
- And the young unemployed jobs program is just garbage.


The killer, in relation to jobs and growth... um, growth and unemployment improve into next year and don't change for the remainder of the forward estimates. So their own modeling, doesn't include any significant increases in economic growth or reduction in the unemployment rate at least for the next four years...

I'll be at the Budget reply tomorrow night, so will see what Shorten does with it.

[MaxQue]

Yes, they think we're that stupid!

Well, you elected them in the first place, so they are probably right...

[reciprocity]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really Australia? That is wholly ridiculous. I am sorry; Unless Graduates on average are making much more than that after a few years or something, I think that figure is ridiculous. I am just shocked that something like that could even potentially happen in Australia.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really Australia? That is wholly ridiculous. I am sorry; Unless Graduates on average are making much more than that after a few years or something, I think that figure is ridiculous. I am just shocked that something like that could even potentially happen in Australia.

FTR - while I oppose the policy, very few degrees will get anywhere near $100k, I think most would end up less than half that, which is still too much. $100k will be the worst-case scenario for law, medicine, veterinary medicine.

But it's a bad policy, with perverse outcomes. 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I've just done my first proper seat-by-seat analysis. On the revised seats 88-57, the ALP needs to win 19 seats to win a majority in their own right. At this point, I have them getting enough. This could well be without the size of uniform swing to them that calculators suggest will be necessary.

[reciprocity]

So odd that now ALP seem to be getting the momentum to win the election. Has there been any actual significant developments at all?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Turnbull is on his way to the Governor General to call the election.

[BaconBacon96]

Only the seventh double dissolution in Australian history...quite the moment.

[Vega]

If only Labor were going to win an election with an actually decent, non-horrible leader. I can't shake the feeling that Shorten will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Imagine if Albanese was the ALP leader!

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

If only Labor were going to win an election with an actually decent, non-horrible leader. I can't shake the feeling that Shorten will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Imagine if Albanese was the ALP leader!

Yes, we would probably lose by more.

[Vega]

If only Labor were going to win an election with an actually decent, non-horrible leader. I can't shake the feeling that Shorten will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Imagine if Albanese was the ALP leader!

Yes, we would probably lose by more.

Perhaps. I shouldn't be too harsh.

Also, I have to say Australian government buildings are very humble. It's admirable in some ways.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

If only Labor were going to win an election with an actually decent, non-horrible leader. I can't shake the feeling that Shorten will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Imagine if Albanese was the ALP leader!

Yes, we would probably lose by more.

Perhaps. I shouldn't be too harsh.

Also, I have to say Australian government buildings are very humble. It's admirable in some ways.

Parliament House isn't grandiose outside, but it is inside, but just not Romanesque

[Vega]

If only Labor were going to win an election with an actually decent, non-horrible leader. I can't shake the feeling that Shorten will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Imagine if Albanese was the ALP leader!

Yes, we would probably lose by more.

Perhaps. I shouldn't be too harsh.

Also, I have to say Australian government buildings are very humble. It's admirable in some ways.

Parliament House isn't grandiose outside, but it is inside, but just not Romanesque

It has a really unique design, which is different from most other Parliament and Legislative buildings.

Also, what is the best news channel/outlet for election coverage? ABC? I know Sky News has an affiliate in Australia.