Australia General Discussion

[Barnes]

Are there 'wings' of the party that Rudd and Gillard represent in this feud?  Or is it purely a clash of personalities?

I've always thought of Gillard being on the Labor right, which doesn't translate to her being "right-wing" of course.

[Barnes]

Gillard is a member of the Victorian ALP left. Part of Rudd's problem was that he's not a member of a faction, so it means he has no natural base of support.

I actually didn't know that about Gillard, thanks Polnut. 

So, what do you make then of this stuff? This is basically where I was getting my right-wing idea from.

[Barnes]

I'm under the impression that the factional wings of the party matter rather less than they used to. Is there any basis to that?

I would agree to that (as far as a Georgian's knowledge goes ).  I just read somewhere that the divisions in the ALP are more "more organisational than ideological."

I wonder if there's any merit to that?

[Barnes]

Seems to me that Australians prefer whomever isn't in power at the moment.  Is that actually the case over there, guys?

[Barnes]

What's the likelihood that Adam Bandt actually keeps his seat in the next election?  I would assume it's not very high, but you never know...

[Barnes]

The ALP has released a Campaign Review for last year's federal election.  The party attributes its lose to, rather obviously, party disunity and campaign mismanagement, but it makes for an interesting read, nonetheless.

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/australianlaborparty/pages/2378/attachments/original/1403229510/2013_Campaign_Review_FINAL.pdf?1403229510

[Barnes]

I submitted to that review process and I think there was a lot of agreement among all of them.

It seems very well thought out and presented.  Labor has certainly made an impressive turn-around in management in the past year; now whether or not the polls accurately reflect their standing or just general dissatisfied with the government remains to be seen...

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s4033228.htm

Have stranger things happened?

Oh most certainly - usually when Paul Keating was battling it out in the House.

[Barnes]

So pretty good news right? RET etc. has been saved from the ideologues. What's the chance of Palmer's emissions trading scheme passing? I'm guessing none.

Also LOL @ the Greens opposing fuel tax indexation. This Parliament is amusingly wacky.

Most certainly no chance. Most likely the Carbon Tax will be repealed in a few weeks followed by Direct Action also being rejected by the Senate, leaving Australia with no way at all to address climate change - a prospect that wouldn't be very troubling to the Coalition

As far as the fuel tax indexcation, the Greens are split on the issue with a large part of their caucus arguing that it's really a cruel method of addressing emissions by repressively targeting the worse off in society with little actual benefit with regards to reduction.

[Barnes]

Sorry if I missed this from somewhere else, but is there any indication of who the Coalition might offer up to serve as President of the Senate come July 7?

[Barnes]

Antony Green has a great piece outlining the proposed reforms to the Senate electoral system:
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2014/06/how-the-senates-new-electoral-system-might-work-lessons-from-nsw.html

If you haven't been following this issue before, now's a chance to aquatint yourself with it.

[Barnes]

This is likely an outlier, but Newman's lead in the polls is almost certainly gone. Regardless, the LNP's majority is so massive that they'll very likely retain government even if they lose the 2PP.

[Barnes]

I don't think the ALP is ahead - but the LNP primary vote is being vacuumed up by Palmer, but as Hugh and I both stressed during the Federal Election, don't assume the PUP vote will flow strongly to the LNP.

Newman is probably doomed, he won his seat by a pretty narrow margin, if the state-wide swing is as big is it probably will be... he's gone and moving him to a safer seat now will probably cost them more seats.

Oh, that's right, he's in one of those Brisbane seats. Yeah, he'll definitely need to relocate.

[Barnes]

Why has Katter's Party evaporated since the last Queensland election?

Katter was a total flash-in-the-pan... plus it massively under-performed. People are happy to support protest parties when they do well... not when they balls-up utterly. 

Yeah, Katter's always been a joke. How's that merger with Palmer going?

[Barnes]

Happy New Senate Day! PUP will literally be the wild card to the government's passing of any legislation.

God help us all...

It's rather thrilling isn't it?

Of course, God only knows what American Palmer will cart out next to talk about climate change. Ralph Nader, perhaps?

[Barnes]

Can Shorten really become the PM in 2 years? I know Australia is really unprone to government changes and than Labor was heavilly defeated, but Abbott is really unpopular and gaffe-prone.

Abbott has never really been popular, it's just that Labor eventually became more unpopular than him for a long enough window for him to win the election.  That said, the Coalition has quite a healthy majority, but Australian changes of government are known to be achieved by very sizable swings (discounting Whitlam in '72). 

As we all know, it's really not possible to predict any outcome two years before an election, but I certainly think that Labor has established a real lead and if an election were held today they would come within a fair shot of winning, if not indeed achieving a majority.

[Barnes]

The Governor of Tasmania, Peter Underwood, has died.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-08/tasmania-governor-peter-underwood-dies-aged-76/5580058

[Barnes]

The Kangaroo Court formerly known as the Senate has once again rejected the Carbon Tax repeal bills by a vote of 37-35. This came about by the Committee of the Whole surprisingly recommending the defeat of the bills and the Senate then agreeing to the committee's report.

PUP and Muir voted with Labor and the Greens; Xenophon, Leyonhjelm, Day, Madigan supported the Coalition. The bills now move back to the House of Representatives.

[Barnes]

It is rather telling that a Labor government without a majority in either house of Parliament could pass legislation more effectively than the current government.

[Barnes]

Can the House overrule the Senate or try to convince 2 senators?
Or they'll have to compromise?

The bills will be re-introduced in the House next week. 

The actions by the Senate have yet to create a Double Dissolution trigger with the Carbon Tax repeal bills; however, one was created in June when the old Senate rejected the repeal of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.  If you don't already know, here's how DD's work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Dissolution

As for the next vote in the Senate, who knows? This huge crossbench is really unpredictable, so the Carbon Tax is really only safe for today. 

[Barnes]

Actually, they have a trigger, and Abbott has vowed to pull it in the past, so...

...is it too much to dream of a 9 month government?

There is a trigger with the CEFC repeal bill, just not specifically with the Carbon Tax repeal bills.  I highly, highly doubt (though I hope) Abbott will call a DD.  Those threats are brought up by most governments every now and then - and while Abbott has certainly made himself clear on the matter, I'm sure he knows that throwing away a Parliament elected nine months ago would be folly.

[Barnes]

There IS a trigger with the carbon tax repeal bills, at least according to Latika Bourke.

And even though Abbott vowed to pull the trigger if the Senate didn't pass the repeal, obviously he won't. Partly because he'd lose the election pretty convincingly, but mainly because they'll pass next week after the House amends the bill to meet with Palmer's demands.

Oh dear, looks like I didn't read clearly enough. Sorry, gents.

Regardless, whether he has one trigger or twenty, Abbott won't be calling an election.

The Government and PUP couldn't agree over some PUP amendments today, causing PUP to vote against repeal.  As previously stated, Abbott will incorporate Palmer's amendments into the bills next week - most likely securing their success the next time they come to the Senate.

[Barnes]

Things are all up in the air in Victoria again over Geoff Shaw.  Napthine will be moving to expel him from Parliament today (Thursday), but Labor's going to oppose it.

The turnaround from both sides is rather remarkable from this period in June.  However, to me, it rather makes sense.  Remember, in June the question was whether Shaw's expenses scandal was grounds enough to expel him - the Parliament resolved that is wasn't.  Now the question is whether he should be expelled because of a comment made in a newspaper interview and the premier's opinion on the sincerity of his apology statement.  Expulsion on those grounds would be a very slippery precedent.

[Barnes]

Things are all up in the air in Victoria again over Geoff Shaw.  Napthine will be moving to expel him from Parliament today (Thursday), but Labor's going to oppose it.

The turnaround from both sides is rather remarkable from this period in June.  However, to me, it rather makes sense.  Remember, in June the question was whether Shaw's expenses scandal was grounds enough to expel him - the Parliament resolved that is wasn't.  Now the question is whether he should be expelled because of a comment made in a newspaper interview and the premier's opinion on the sincerity of his apology statement.  Expulsion on those grounds would be a very slippery precedent.

What's the point, the election is only two months away, let the people of Frankston decide Mr. Shaw's fate, should he choose to run again as an independent.

That's really the issue here.  It's fairly clear that Napthine was just trying to avoid a by-election in June, but now that holding one is no longer possible he's totally in favor of removing Shaw.

[Barnes]

Things are all up in the air in Victoria again over Geoff Shaw.  Napthine will be moving to expel him from Parliament today (Thursday), but Labor's going to oppose it.

The turnaround from both sides is rather remarkable from this period in June.  However, to me, it rather makes sense.  Remember, in June the question was whether Shaw's expenses scandal was grounds enough to expel him - the Parliament resolved that is wasn't.  Now the question is whether he should be expelled because of a comment made in a newspaper interview and the premier's opinion on the sincerity of his apology statement.  Expulsion on those grounds would be a very slippery precedent.

What's the point, the election is only two months away, let the people of Frankston decide Mr. Shaw's fate, should he choose to run again as an independent.

That's really the issue here.  It's fairly clear that Napthine was just trying to avoid a by-election in June, but now that holding one is no longer possible he's totally in favor of removing Shaw.

He wasn't trying to avoid a by-election - he was trying to avoid a motion of no-confidence and triggering an early election.

Doesn't a motion of no-confidence require a majority to succeed? Shaw's absence means the numbers would have been 43-43, without the Speaker's vote, although 44-43 in Labor's favour if there had been a Frankston by-election, which Labor would have likely won.

Which leads me to another question - Can the Speaker of the Victorian Legislative Assembly vote in motions of no confidence?

A majority of course, but not an absolute majority (50% + 1), an exception would be in France, or in countries like Germany which have constructive votes of no confidence.

In the Westminster system, the speaker only votes to break a tie.  By constitutional convention, the speaker always votes to maintain continuity within the house.  So, in this case, the speaker would vote with the government.

And as far as avoiding a by-election and/or a MoNC go, they're both part of the same larger game.

It's all theoretical now, but the Liberals really have done a foolish thing by firing up this charade once again instead of actually campaigning on their own policies and contrasts with Labor.

[Barnes]

What an embarrassing statement from Cormann.

Cormann is always good for cheap laughs.