tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/australian-senate-6988/articlesAustralian Senate – The Conversation2024-01-07T19:04:54Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2192042024-01-07T19:04:54Z2024-01-07T19:04:54ZSenate estimates and inquiries: what are they, what’s the difference, and why do we have them?<p>In recent times, we’ve seen plenty of big news stories emerge from senate inquiries and estimates hearings.</p>
<p>Senate inquries have examined hot-button issues as diverse as <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-01/australian-kids-disruptive-classroom-school-behaviour-report/103176212">disruption in school classrooms</a>, the November 8 Optus <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/optus-senate-inquiry-live-updates-kelly-bayer-rosmarin-to-front-committee-over-telco-s-nationwide-network-outage-20231116-p5ekln.html">service outage</a>, and questionable <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/17/ey-fired-australian-partner-accused-of-promoting-tax-minimisation-scheme-letter-published-by-senate-inquiry-reveals">tax minimisation</a> advice from the “big four” accounting firms. </p>
<p>Estimates hearings have, if anything, been even more sensational. Earlier in the year, former Reserve Bank of Australia governor Philip Lowe <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/15/how-high-will-lowe-go-five-things-we-learned-from-rba-governors-parliament-appearance">copped a grilling</a> over inflation and rising rents. Senior public servant Jim Betts likewise endured a couple of very tense exchanges. One was about his <a href="https://www.themandarin.com.au/221252-betts-t-shirt-during-senate-estimates-raises-flag-fist-and-queries/">t-shirt</a>, and the other concerned a degrading “<a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/politicsnow-no-camp-unveils-next-crusade-after-defeating-voice/live-coverage/e88f611f283cd5892977ed6f2219cf95">hotties list</a>” that allegedly circulated among some male graduates in his department.</p>
<p>But what actually are senate estimates? And what’s the difference between estimates and inquiries? </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-it-can-be-a-battle-to-get-information-from-the-albanese-government-212606">Grattan on Friday: It can be a battle to get information from the Albanese government</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The history of senates</h2>
<p>Before getting into the weeds, it’s important to understand why we even have a senate.</p>
<p>The word senate comes to us via old French from the Latin root <em>senex</em>, which means “old man” – the same etymology as “senior” (and the less flattering “senile”). </p>
<p>This is because senates and “upper houses” in parliamentary systems have traditionally been dominated by older representatives of the establishment. As James Madison, one of the framers of the US Constitution, <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed62.asp">argued</a>, senators’ age (and, hopefully, wisdom) helped them resist the “impulse of sudden and violent passions” and the tyranny of the majority. </p>
<p>Even today, the average age of a US senator is over 65. Traditionalists were recently <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66848381">scandalised</a> by the idea of relaxing the dress code to allow hoodies in the chamber. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cG1khlbqI9k?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Little wonder, perhaps, that Paul Keating famously considered our own Senate to be “unrepresentative swill”.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The basic idea of all this, dating back to ancient Rome, is that a senate’s role in the division of powers is to be a stately and deliberative check on populist politicians and policy.</p>
<p>This is why senates and other “upper houses” around the world typically have the power to review and amend legislation passed by their colleagues in the “lower house”.</p>
<h2>The importance of committees</h2>
<p>Even when it is not debating bills in the chamber, the Australian senate continues to play this role in our democracy by scrutinising government business in its committees. These committees conduct their own hearings, investigations and inquiries. </p>
<p>Broadly speaking, and with some exceptions, there are three types of senate committee: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>standing committees, which serve for the full length of the parliament</p></li>
<li><p>select committees, which serve for shorter periods and investigate specific issues</p></li>
<li><p>joint committees, which have members from both the senate and the House of Representatives. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>There are eight standing committees in the Australian Senate. Each covers different broad areas of policy (like economics or education), and conducts estimates hearings in its area.</p>
<h2>So what are senate estimates?</h2>
<p>According to senate <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Chamber_documents/Senate_chamber_documents/standingorders/b00/b05#standing-order_c05-026">standing orders</a>, estimates hearings are committee proceedings in which senators may “ask for explanations from ministers in the senate, or officers, relating to items of proposed expenditure”. </p>
<p>After the budget is handed down in May, senior officials and ministers must front up to standing committees to answer questions about estimates (hence the name) of their expenditure for the coming year.</p>
<p>These hearings are mostly pretty staid affairs. Invariably, however, members manage to find time for political bunfights as well. </p>
<p>Sometimes these more sensational moments are actually about budgets and expenses (<a href="https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/why-australia-post-ceo-christine-holgate-spending-20k-taxpayer-funds-on-watches-tells-a-powerful-tale-of-a-divisive-australia/news-story/9f95229c9a0fd9b90ce1635cb02f3f8b">Cartier watch</a>, anyone?). But they’re just as likely to be squabbles between opposing politicians (who could forget this <a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1098550433522016">testy exchange</a>, for example).</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-post-ceo-christine-holgate-quits-in-cartier-watches-affair-149275">Australia Post CEO Christine Holgate quits in Cartier watches affair</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What about senate inquiries?</h2>
<p>Unlike estimates, senate inquiries are set up as needed to investigate specific policy issues.</p>
<p>For this reason, they are mostly undertaken by standing committees but can also be assigned to select committees. For example, current inquiries into <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Disaster_Resilience/DisasterResilience">disaster resilience</a>, the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Cost_of_Living/costofliving">cost of living</a>, and the shenanigans at the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Perth_Mint_regulatory_compliance/PerthMintCompliance">Perth Mint</a> are being run by select committees. </p>
<p>The other thing to know about senate inquiries is that while they’re not always high profile, there are a lot of them. The senate may only sit for 60-odd days a year, but this doesn’t mean senators get an easy ride. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/question-time-reforms-are-worthy-but-wont-solve-the-problem-of-a-broken-political-culture-160867">Question Time reforms are worthy but won't solve the problem of a broken political culture</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There are 52 senate inquiries happening right now. Each is run by a committee of between six and ten senators. This means that each senator is typically on several committees at once, with responsibility for several inquiries at the same time. That’s in addition to all their other responsibilities. </p>
<p>Once completed, these inquiries publish <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Recently_Tabled_Reports">reports</a> of their findings. Sometimes these reports have a big impact. Other times, they go straight into the proverbial bottom drawer. </p>
<p>Senate estimates and inquiries were once lower profile. They continue to serve their essential oversight purpose, but it can sometimes feel like we’re hearing about them more and more often. This might not be such a good thing.</p>
<p>With greater public profile comes a risk that they will deteriorate further into political theatre and grandstanding. Cynical political operators see them increasingly as an opportunity to score points with the media and please the party machine.</p>
<p>But if senate estimates and inquiries go the way of rowdy question time, the upper house’s ability to provide effective and diligent scrutiny will suffer. We will all lose out as a result.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/219204/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lachlan Johnson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Senate estimates and inquiries are the homes of some of Australia’s most memorable political moments, but what are they really? How do they work?Lachlan Johnson, Research fellow, University of TasmaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2013722023-03-23T00:13:02Z2023-03-23T00:13:02ZThe referendum rules have been decided. What does this mean for the Voice?<p>On Wednesday night, the Senate passed a bill to amend Australia’s referendum machinery laws, ending a long and sometimes tense debate on the rules that will govern the Voice referendum later this year.</p>
<p>Until this week it looked like we would embark on our first referendum since 1999 without broad consensus on the ground rules. Thankfully, the government and opposition reached agreement and the bill passed easily. The House of Representatives is expected to approve it very soon.</p>
<p>The machinery changes range across public education, campaigning and voting. Many of the changes make welcome improvements to our outdated referendum laws.</p>
<p>But there is also a sense of missed opportunity as some well-known problems were left unaddressed.</p>
<p>So, what changes were made and what are the implications for the Voice referendum?</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1638652894147907586"}"></div></p>
<h2>Setting the ground rules</h2>
<p>Questions about referendum machinery – that is, the rules on how a national vote on constitutional change is conducted – often take a back seat to debate about the question on the ballot paper. But getting the machinery right is crucial to ensuring that a referendum is fair, transparent and informed.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_LEGislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6965">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022</a> was <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-government-wants-to-change-australias-referendum-laws-how-will-this-affect-the-voice-to-parliament-195632">introduced</a> in December and passed the House of Representatives earlier this month. Its purpose is to modernise the nation’s referendum rules and bring them into line with election laws.</p>
<p>The bill deals with many technical procedural matters alongside a small number of more contentious topics. One surprise was the government’s decision to <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-government-will-not-send-out-yes-and-no-case-pamphlets-ahead-of-the-voice-to-parliament-referendum-does-this-matter-195806">suspend</a> the usual practice of sending an official pamphlet to each household.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-government-will-not-send-out-yes-and-no-case-pamphlets-ahead-of-the-voice-to-parliament-referendum-does-this-matter-195806">The government will not send out Yes and No case pamphlets ahead of the Voice to Parliament referendum. Does this matter?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In January, the parliament’s electoral committee <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters/ReferendumMachineryBill/Report/section?id=committees%2freportjnt%2f025030%2f80558">reviewed</a> the bill and heard from a wide range of stakeholders. </p>
<p>The committee <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters/ReferendumMachineryBill/Report/section?id=committees%2freportjnt%2f025030%2f80558">recommended</a> measures be adopted to ensure voters have access to “clear, factual and impartial information”. It also supported amendments to foster enfranchisement and participation, particularly among Indigenous peoples.</p>
<p>The opposition, from the outset, supported most aspects of the bill. But it pledged to vote against it unless the government agreed to reinstate the official pamphlet, and establish and fund official “Yes” and “No” campaign bodies.</p>
<p>Until this week, it looked like the government would need the votes of the Greens and the crossbench to pass the bill. Senators Larissa Waters, David Pocock, Lidia Thorpe and Pauline Hanson proposed <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6965">numerous amendments</a>, including measures to strengthen financial disclosure.</p>
<p>In the end, the major parties brokered a deal that saw the government reinstate the pamphlet and the opposition drop two of its three demands.</p>
<p>The bill ultimately puts in place a set of rules and processes that, in many respects, resemble those used at past referendums.</p>
<h2>Educating voters about the Voice</h2>
<p>One of the biggest challenges ahead of a referendum is ensuring voters have the information they need to cast an informed vote.</p>
<p>The bill agreed to in the Senate provides for two channels of official information: the pamphlet and a neutral civics education campaign.</p>
<p>The official pamphlet is a mainstay of Australian referendums, having featured at almost all referendums since it was introduced in 1912. The bill retains the design that has been in place for over a century. Later this year, we will all receive in the post a printed booklet that contains “Yes” and “No” arguments, authorised by MPs, of 2,000 words each, and a copy of the proposed amendments to the Constitution.</p>
<p>While the government’s initial scrapping of the pamphlet was unexpected, it is hard to get excited about its reinstatement. If history is any guide, the pamphlet’s educational value will be minimal and could even be counter-productive. The authors of the “Yes” and “No” cases are free to exaggerate, mislead, fearmonger and dog-whistle. There will be no basic factual statement about the referendum proposal.</p>
<p>Thorpe moved for the Australian Human Rights Commission to write the “Yes” and “No” arguments, while Pocock argued that an independent panel should vet the pamphlet for accuracy and hateful content. In the House, independent Zali Steggall pushed for a broader law on truth in political advertising. None of these suggestions were taken up.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1638667884766568448"}"></div></p>
<p>More promising is the neutral civics education campaign. It is 24 years since our last referendum and we all need a civics refresher. In the coming months we can expect the government to circulate basic information on the Constitution, Australia’s system of government and the referendum process. The Howard government ran a similar initiative in 1999 ahead of the republic referendum.</p>
<p>The bill makes clear that government spending on civics education will be lawful provided that it doesn’t “address the arguments for or against a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution”. This is sensible and is aimed at ensuring that the civics education campaign stays neutral on the Voice proposal.</p>
<p>What we don’t know is who will develop the educational materials and what form they will take. It is crucial that the people involved are trusted by both sides and that the information they produce is clear, factual and relevant to voters. It would be good to hear more detail from the government on this.</p>
<h2>The ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ campaigns won’t receive public funding</h2>
<p>The bill passed by the Senate makes no provision for the establishment and funding of official “Yes” and “No” campaign organisations. This is in line with ordinary referendum practice in Australia, with 1999 being the lone exception.</p>
<p>The opposition had argued that creating official campaign groups would make it easier to enforce rules on financial disclosure. But the Australian Electoral Commission has a lot of experience in educating and overseeing multiple campaigners and should be able to manage a complex campaign environment.</p>
<p>The opposition also called for some public funding to support the campaigns. However, both the “Yes” and “No” sides are fundraising large amounts of money, so adding taxpayer dollars on top of that was arguably unnecessary.</p>
<h2>Shining a light on campaign money</h2>
<p>The bill makes some long-overdue changes to the rules on referendum campaign finance. Campaigners will be required to publicly report donations and expenditure that exceed A$15,200. This is consistent with ordinary election requirements.</p>
<p>This change improves transparency but falls well short of best practice. The disclosure threshold is way too high and this means some large donations will remain anonymous.</p>
<p>Moreover, Australians will not learn who gave money to the Yes and No campaigns until 24 weeks after the date of the referendum. This is information that people should have <em>before</em> they enter the polling booth and cast their vote.</p>
<p>Both the Greens and Pocock moved amendments for tougher disclosure rules, but they were defeated.</p>
<h2>An advertising blackout period</h2>
<p>The bill bans referendum advertisements on radio and television in the final three days of the campaign. The same rule applies at elections. Pocock unsuccessfully sought to extend the blackout period to social media.</p>
<h2>Maximising enrolment and voting</h2>
<p>One concern ahead of the Voice referendum is ensuring that measures are in place to support electoral participation, especially among First Nations people.</p>
<p>Last October, the government <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/the-point/article/budget-2022-first-nations-people-to-get-funding-boosts-for-health-justice/bhg0zq0e6">committed</a> $16 million to assist Indigenous enrolment in advance of the vote. The bill takes a further step by extending the period available for remote mobile polling from 12 days to 19 days. This will allow more time for the Australian Electoral Commission to visit hard-to-access places across the country.</p>
<p>Both the Greens and Thorpe argued unsuccessfully for the adoption of on-the-day enrolment. This would have allowed new voters to cast a ballot on the day and have it included in the count once their eligibility to vote is confirmed.</p>
<p>It is a shame that on-the-day enrolment was not included in the final bill. It would have fostered referendum participation generally but been of particular benefit to First Nations people, given their disproportionately <a href="https://www.themandarin.com.au/207616-aec-adjusts-first-nations-peoples-enrolment-process-to-encourage-participation/">low enrolment rate</a>.</p>
<h2>A robust, if imperfect, referendum process</h2>
<p>The eve of a referendum is the worst possible time to negotiate amendments to the rules. Every proposed change is viewed through the lens of suspicion and self-interest.</p>
<p>It is therefore a huge relief that the government and opposition were able to reach bipartisan consensus on the referendum machinery changes. Australians can go to the Voice referendum confident that the rules in place make for a fair and robust process.</p>
<p>The debates in parliament nonetheless show there is room for improvement. A number of promising ideas on public education and campaign finance were not taken up and in some cases were barely debated.</p>
<p>The amendments passed this week are welcome but there remains a need for a in-depth review of our referendum laws, ideally conducted away from the heat of a looming vote.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/201372/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Kildea has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>The bill that has passed through the Senate provides for a robust referendum, although there is still room for improvement.Paul Kildea, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law & Justice, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1992992023-02-06T06:39:10Z2023-02-06T06:39:10ZLidia Thorpe’s defection from the Greens will make passing legislation harder for Labor<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/508287/original/file-20230206-25-a4sm2x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Senator Lidia Thorpe <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-06/lidia-thorpe-to-quit-greens-over-voice-disagreement/101935534">announced on Monday</a> that she would be leaving the Greens. Thorpe had split with the Greens over the Indigenous Voice to parliament, which she opposes.</p>
<p>Thorpe was elected at the May <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidia_Thorpe">2022 election</a> as a Victorian senator for a six-year term. Although she has left the Greens, she can remain a senator until her term expires in June 2028. If Thorpe resigns from the Senate, the Greens would select her replacement. But as she has resigned from the party but not the Senate, she can continue to sit on the crossbench.</p>
<p>This means Thorpe has resigned from the Greens over eight months after the May 2022 election and over seven months since her current six-year term began in July 2022. She still has nearly five-and-a-half years until her term expires.</p>
<p>The Senate has 72 state senators and four territory senators. Half of the state senators are up for election every three years, so those elected in 2019 will be up in 2025, and those elected in 2022 are up in 2028. All territory senators are tied to the three-year term of the House of Representatives.</p>
<p>In the Senate that was elected as a result of both the 2019 and 2022 elections, the Coalition held 32 of the 76 seats, Labor 26, the Greens 12, One Nation two, the Jacqui Lambie Network (JLN) two, David Pocock one and the UAP one.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/final-senate-results-labor-the-greens-and-david-pocock-will-have-a-majority-of-senators-185365">Final Senate results: Labor, the Greens and David Pocock will have a majority of senators</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Before Thorpe’s defection, Labor and the Greens held 38 of the 76 senators, and Labor only needed one more vote to pass legislation opposed by the Coalition that the Greens supported. Labor was able to get this vote from either the JLN or Pocock.</p>
<p>With Thorpe’s defection, the Greens are down to 11 senators, and Labor will need two other votes to pass legislation opposed by the Coalition that the Greens support. The best options for Labor are either the JLN or both Pocock and Thorpe.</p>
<p>Thorpe’s defection from the Greens over opposition to the Voice has very little support with Greens voters nationally. In a Newspoll that I <a href="https://theconversation.com/albaneses-newspoll-ratings-drop-but-labor-maintains-big-lead-198584">covered Monday</a>, Greens voters supported the Voice by an 81-10 margin.</p>
<p>The one way to cut short Thorpe’s term is for a <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/house_of_representatives/powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_infosheets/infosheet_18_-_double_dissolution">double dissolution election</a> to occur. This requires legislation passed by the House to be rejected or unacceptably amended twice by the Senate at least three months apart. At a double dissolution, all senators are elected at the same time. The last double dissolution was the July 2016 election.</p>
<p>Thorpe is not the first defector from an established party in the Senate, and probably won’t be the last. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Bernardi">Cory Bernardi</a> defected from the Liberals in February 2017, shortly after winning a six-year term at the 2016 election. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mal_Colston">Mal Colston</a> defected from Labor in August 1996.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/199299/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The senator’s move to the cross-bench means Labor now needs the support of more cross-benchers, as well as the Greens, to get legislation passed.Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1929472022-10-20T04:47:06Z2022-10-20T04:47:06ZLidia Thorpe sacked as a Greens deputy leader after failing to disclose relationship with bikie figure<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/490809/original/file-20221020-19-bhu5ra.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Diego Fidele/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Victorian senator Lidia Thorpe has been sacked as a deputy leader of the Greens, after revelations she failed to disclose she was in a relationship with the former president of the Victorian Rebels outlaw motorcyle gang. </p>
<p>At the time she was dating Dean Martin, she was on a parliamentary law enforcement committee that was gathering material about outlaw motorcycle gangs in an inquiry into online drug trading. </p>
<p>Greens leader Adam Bandt did not know of the association until he was approached by the ABC, which broke the story on Thursday. </p>
<p>Bandt said Thorpe had made “a significant error of judgement”. </p>
<p>“At a minimum, Senator Thorpe needed to disclose to me her connection to Mr Martin and her failure to do so showed a significant lack of judgement.”</p>
<p>Bandt said he expected Thorpe to show better judgement in future and in exercising her portfolio responsibilities, which she has retained. He also pointed out she had not held the justice portfolio since the election. </p>
<p>“Senator Thorpe has important work to do on First Nations justice including on progressing Truth, Treaty and Voice and I want her to be able to do that work,” Bandt said. </p>
<p>Thorpe said in a statement she accepted “I have made mistakes and have not exercised good judgement”.</p>
<p>The ABC reported that Thorpe’s staff, worried about the situation, had taken the matter to Bandt’s office and to an independent parliamentary authority, the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. </p>
<p>Bandt said his chief of staff had not passed the information on to him, which had been wrong. </p>
<p>“I have a good and competent chief of staff who makes many good decisions. This was not one of them.” He said his staff had thought the issue had been resolved. </p>
<p>“If I read the report correctly, Senator Thorpe’s staff had been told that the relationship had ended, or they thought that the relationship had ended.”</p>
<p>Thorpe told the ABC she and Dean, whom she met through Blak activism, had briefly dated early last year. She said they remained friends and had collaborated on their shared interest of advocating for First Nations peoples. Thorpe is Indigenous.</p>
<p>Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said that “error of judgement” was “the least description that I would put” on Thorpe’s behaviour.</p>
<p>Bandt indicated Thorpe might face further action from her party room colleagues if they so decided.</p>
<p>The senator has been the centre of controversy on several occasions including over an allegedly combative meeting with an Indigenous woman. </p>
<p>Bandt referred to a finance department review that is under way into the culture of her office, following a complaint by one of her staff.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/192947/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Greens leader Adam Bandt asked for senator’s resignation as the party’s deputy leader in the Senate after what he called a “significant error of judgement”.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1870812022-07-26T02:50:58Z2022-07-26T02:50:58ZRecord 85.7% of Greens preferenced Labor at federal election; electoral reform proposals<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/475961/original/file-20220726-24-ezjpdk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/AP/Kydpl Kyodo</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Under compulsory preferential voting, all formal votes must eventually preference one of the major parties over the other. The electoral commission has released <a href="https://results.aec.gov.au/27966/Website/HouseStateTppFlow-27966-NAT.htm">preference flow information</a> for all minor parties. This means we can tell, for example, how many Greens voters preferred Labor and how many the Coalition.</p>
<p><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2022/07/2022-house-of-reps-figures-finalised.html">Analyst Kevin Bonham said changes</a> in minor party preference flows from 2019 added one point to Labor’s national two party vote of 52.1%. Changes in flows to Labor occurred across the board, with the Greens (12.2% of <a href="https://theconversation.com/final-2022-election-results-coalition-routed-in-cities-and-in-western-australia-can-they-recover-in-2025-184755">overall vote</a>) at 85.7% preferences to Labor, up 3.5% from 2019 and a record high.</p>
<p>One Nation (5.0% of overall vote) was at 35.7% to Labor, up 0.9%. UAP (4.1% of votes) was at 38.1%, up 3.3%. Independents (5.3% of votes) were at 63.8% to Labor, up 4.4%. All others (5.1% of votes) were at 45.3% to Labor, up 0.6%. The Coalition’s percentage share of preferences is 100 minus Labor’s share.</p>
<p>I previously published a critique of the polling at this election, which said the polls overstated Labor’s position on primary votes, but understated their share of preferences. These two errors roughly cancelled, so the overall average of Labor’s national two party vote in the five pre-election polls was 52.4%, close to the actual result of 52.1%.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-did-the-polls-perform-in-the-2022-election-better-but-not-great-also-a-senate-update-184445">How did the polls perform in the 2022 election? Better, but not great; also a Senate update</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Close “three candidate preferred” contests</h2>
<p>Richmond, Brisbane and Macnamara were in doubt for some time after election night as it was not known which of Labor or the Greens would finish second and benefit from the other’s preferences. In <a href="https://results.aec.gov.au/27966/Website/HouseDivisionPage-27966-156.htm">Brisbane</a>, the Greens were in third place, just 0.01% behind Labor on primary votes. They easily overtook Labor by 30.1% to 28.4%, then beat the LNP on Labor preferences.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://results.aec.gov.au/27966/Website/HouseDivisionPage-27966-322.htm">Macnamara</a>, Labor held off the Greens by 33.5% to 32.8% from primary votes of 31.8% Labor and 29.7% Greens. In <a href="https://results.aec.gov.au/27966/Website/HouseDivisionPage-27966-145.htm">Richmond</a>, Labor was 2.5% ahead of the Greens when the Greens were excluded.</p>
<p>I <a href="https://theconversation.com/more-senate-results-hanson-wins-easily-but-labor-still-on-track-for-a-friendly-senate-185051">previously covered</a> Groom, where independent Suzie Holt made the final two on just 8.3% of the primary vote. Labor had 18.7% primary, and Holt <a href="https://results.aec.gov.au/27966/Website/HouseDivisionPage-27966-164.htm">edged out Labor</a> by 24.6% to 24.3% with the LNP already over 50%.</p>
<p>Neither One Nation nor the UAP made the final two in any seat, despite a combined 9.1% of the national primary vote. The closest they came was in <a href="https://results.aec.gov.au/27966/Website/HouseDivisionPage-27966-170.htm">Maranoa</a>. Labor had a primary vote lead of 15.3% to 11.9% over One Nation, but this dropped to just 20.2% to 20.0% when One Nation was excluded.</p>
<h2>Electoral reform proposals</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jul/10/labor-aims-to-legislate-spending-caps-and-truth-in-advertising-says-don-farrell?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other">Guardian reported</a> on July 10 that special minister of state Don Farrell said Labor would attempt to legislate spending caps, truth in political advertising and adherence to the “one vote one value” principle.</p>
<p>The Australian Constitution guarantees each state an equal number of senators, so Tasmania and NSW have 12 senators each, <a href="https://theconversation.com/race-for-the-senate-could-labor-and-the-greens-gain-control-181350">despite NSW</a> having over 15 times Tasmania’s population. There are 12 senators from each state and two each in the ACT and NT, for a total of 76 senators. </p>
<p>The Guardian article reports ACT chief minister Andrew Barr advocated more senators for the NT and ACT. But <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-spurious-linking-of-one-vote-one.html">Bonham</a> said this would make malapportionment worse: while the ACT is underrepresented compared to Tasmania, it is already overrepresented nationally.</p>
<p>Giving the ACT more senators would skew the overall Senate result towards the left. Until David Pocock’s breakthrough win at this election, ACT and NT senators had always split 1-1 between Labor and the Coalition. But the ACT is very left compared to nationally, so extra ACT seats would normally assist the left.</p>
<p>Changing the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice7/HTML/Chapter1/Constitution_alteration">Constitution requires an overall majority</a> at a referendum, and a majority in a majority of states (so four of the six states). Bonham says there is a further clause in the Constitution that protects each state’s representation; that needs the affected state to vote in favour. Tasmanians are unlikely to vote to reduce their state’s disproportionate seat share in the Senate.</p>
<p>There is also slight malapportionment in the House of Representatives, as each state is guaranteed a minimum five of the 151 seats. Tasmania’s population should only entitle it to 3.3 seats. Bonham said expanding the House to 226 seats (a 50% increase) would fix this issue.</p>
<p>If the house is expanded, the Senate must also be expanded by the same percentage as the house. Bonham said expanding the Senate in this way would justify extra senators being added in the ACT and NT.</p>
<p>At the <a href="https://results.aec.gov.au/27966/Website/HouseTurnoutByState-27966.htm">election</a>, there were over 17.2 million eligible voters, an average of 114,000 per seat. Bonham said Australia’s population has increased by 66% since the last major <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice7/HTML/Chapter3/Number_of_Members">expansion of parliament</a> in 1984, so a 50% increase in parliament could be justified. However, adding more politicians is likely to be unpopular with voters.</p>
<h2>Essential: Albanese’s approval down but still high</h2>
<p>In an <a href="https://essentialreport.com.au/reports/11-july-2022">Essential poll</a> taken in the days prior to July 11 from a sample of 1,097, 56% approved of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s performance (down three since June) and 24% disapproved (up six), for a net approval of +32, down nine points. Before the May election, Albanese was at +1 net approval as opposition leader.</p>
<p>68% said they haven’t had COVID, 17% have had it, and it felt like a bad cold, 7% have had it, and it felt way worse than any cold they’ve previously had, and 8% say they currently have COVID (4% mild, 4% serious). A question that was last asked in August 2021 had more COVID deaths thought acceptable to “live with”.</p>
<p>Respondents were asked whether they thought Australia had been better, worse or about the same in handling COVID as other countries. 53% thought Australia had been better than the US and 19% worse. For the UK, this was 50% better, 16% worse. China was 49% better, 22% worse. New Zealand was 24% better, 23% worse.</p>
<p>63% said they did not have a vegetarian or meat-reduced diet (up six since March 2021).</p>
<p>Two months since the election, Newspoll has still not returned. Perhaps they were waiting for the preference flow data that was released last Thursday; this will allow them to use 2022 flows.</p>
<p>With federal parliament resuming this week, Labor has a House majority, but will need the Greens and one of the six other Senate crossbenchers to pass legislation opposed by the Coalition through the Senate. Their most likely crossbench allies are David Pocock and the Jacqui Lambie Network.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/final-senate-results-labor-the-greens-and-david-pocock-will-have-a-majority-of-senators-185365">Final Senate results: Labor, the Greens and David Pocock will have a majority of senators</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Liz Truss likely to be UK’s next PM</h2>
<p>I covered the <a href="https://www.pollbludger.net/2022/07/13/uk-conservative-leadership-contest-early-rounds/">early rounds</a> of the UK Conservative leadership contest and the <a href="https://www.pollbludger.net/2022/07/19/uk-conservative-leadership-contest-final-mp-rounds/">final MP rounds</a> for The Poll Bludger. Liz Truss was in third place, but overtook Penny Mordaunt in the July 20 final MP round to qualify for the Conservative membership vote against Rishi Sunak.</p>
<p>The membership vote is conducted by mail, with the result to be announced September 5. A YouGov membership poll gave Truss a 62-38 lead over Sunak. Truss has promised to slash taxes if elected, including corporate taxes and green levies.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/187081/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Preference flows from the 2022 federal election show changes to the flow to the ALP across the board.Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist), The ConversationLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1850512022-06-17T23:00:28Z2022-06-17T23:00:28ZMore Senate results: Hanson wins easily, but Labor still on track for a friendly Senate<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469581/original/file-20220617-17-45obx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Darren England</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Some links in this article refer to the Australian Electoral Commission results. These links no longer work; archived AEC results are <a href="https://results.aec.gov.au/27966/Website/HouseDefault-27966.htm">here</a>.</p>
<p>Buttons have now been pressed to electronically distribute preferences for the May 21 federal election in the Senate for South Australia, Tasmania and Queensland. I discussed the ACT and NT results that elected David Pocock to the Senate on Tuesday.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/act-senate-result-pocock-defeats-liberals-in-first-time-liberals-have-not-won-one-act-senate-seat-184738">ACT Senate result: Pocock defeats Liberals in first time Liberals have not won one ACT Senate seat</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>All states have 12 senators, with six up for election at half-Senate elections. A quota is one-seventh of the vote, or 14.3%. State senators are elected for six-year terms beginning July 1, barring a double dissolution.</p>
<p>Final primary votes in <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2022/results/senate">Queensland</a> were 2.47 quotas for the LNP, 1.73 Labor, 0.87 Greens, 0.52 One Nation, 0.38 Legalise Cannabis and 0.29 UAP. The result was two LNP, two Labor, one Green and one One Nation. The change from the previous parliament was the Greens winning a seat from the LNP.</p>
<p>Preferences were distributed on Friday. ABC election analyst <a href="https://antonygreen.com.au/2022-queensland-senate-election/">Antony Green</a> said after the exclusion of Clive Palmer (UAP), 57% of his preferences flowed to One Nation’s Pauline Hanson, putting Hanson ahead of Labor’s second candidate, Anthony Chisholm.</p>
<p>Final results were 0.996 quotas for Hanson, 0.974 Labor and 0.720 for the LNP’s third candidate, Amanda Stoker. Hanson was elected fifth, Chisholm sixth and Stoker was defeated.</p>
<p>Final primary votes in South Australia were 2.37 quotas for the Liberals, 2.26 Labor, 0.84 Greens, 0.28 One Nation, 0.21 UAP and 0.21 Nick Xenophon. Rex Patrick, who defected from Xenophon’s Centre Alliance, won just 0.15 quotas.</p>
<p>Preferences were distributed on Wednesday. The <a href="https://www.pollbludger.net/2022/06/14/late-counting-first-senate-buttons-pressed/">Poll Bludger</a> said the third Liberal won the final seat over One Nation by 0.87 quotas to 0.67. At the previous count, Labor was excluded behind One Nation, with 0.56 quotas to 0.61 for One Nation and 0.67 for the Liberals. The Liberals would have won even if Labor had made the final two.</p>
<p>At the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Australian_federal_election#Senate">2016 double dissolution</a> election, Xenophon won three seats with two getting long terms that expire on June 30. Labor and the Liberals were each defending two seats. So the Greens and Liberals each gained a seat with Centre Alliance losing their two seats (one a defector).</p>
<p>Final primary votes in Tasmania gave the Liberals 2.24 quotas, Labor 1.89, the Greens 1.08, the Jacqui Lambie Network (JLN) 0.61 and One Nation 0.27.</p>
<p>Preferences were distributed <a href="https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/External/SenateStateDop-27966-TAS.pdf">Thursday</a>. The second Labor candidate and the JLN’s Tammy Tyrrell reached quota, with Tyrrell joining Lambie and increasing the JLN’s Senate representation from one to two. This was a gain for the JLN from the Liberals. At the final count, Tyrrell had 1.05 quotas and One Nation 0.63, with the third Liberal excluded before One Nation.</p>
<p>The third Liberal was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jun/16/liberal-eric-abetz-to-leave-parliament-as-jacqui-lambie-network-claims-tasmanian-senate-seat?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other">Eric Abetz</a>, who has been a senator since 1994. At this election, he was demoted to third on the Liberal Tasmanian ticket. Analyst <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2022/06/2022-senate-button-press-thread.html">Kevin Bonham</a> said Abetz easily won the biggest share of 39s (last preference) out of all below the line voters who numbered every box.</p>
<h2>Remaining states</h2>
<p>Twenty-two of the 40 Senate seats up for election have now been formally decided, and have gone as expected. I expect the remaining states early next week. Primary votes in NSW are 2.57 quotas for the Coalition, 2.13 Labor, 0.80 Greens, 0.29 One Nation and 0.24 UAP. This will result in three Coalition, two Labor and one Green.</p>
<p>The Coalition has 2.26 quotas in Victoria, Labor 2.20, the Greens 0.97, UAP 0.28, Legalise Cannabis 0.21 and One Nation 0.20. Complete data files on every vote cast in Senate contests are available soon after the distributions. From this data, the <a href="https://www.pollbludger.net/2022/06/14/late-counting-first-senate-buttons-pressed/">Poll Bludger</a> said One Nation preferences flowed far better to the UAP in SA than in 2019. </p>
<p>If this pattern is repeated in Victoria, he said UAP has a much better chance of winning the final seat than 2019 preference flows would suggest. So Victoria will be two Coalition, two Labor, one Green, with the final seat leaning to the UAP instead of the Coalition.</p>
<p>Labor has 2.42 quotas in WA, the Liberals 2.22, the Greens 1.00, One Nation 0.24, Legalise Cannabis 0.24 and the Christians 0.15. Labor is likely to win three senators in WA, the Liberals two and the Greens one, but it’s still possible Labor loses the last WA seat to either the Liberals or One Nation.</p>
<p>If results in the remaining states are as expected, the outcome of this half-Senate election would be 15 Coalition out of 40, 15 Labor, six Greens and one each for One Nation, UAP, JLN and David Pocock.</p>
<p>The Coalition would hold 32 of the 76 total senators, Labor 26, the Greens 12, One Nation two, the JLN two and Pocock and UAP one each. To pass legislation opposed by the Coalition, Labor would need support from the Greens and any one of the six others.</p>
<p>If Labor loses the final WA seat, their path to legislation is more difficult. They would then need the Greens and two of the six others, and would likely depend on the JLN.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469583/original/file-20220617-24-a75j8p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469583/original/file-20220617-24-a75j8p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469583/original/file-20220617-24-a75j8p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469583/original/file-20220617-24-a75j8p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469583/original/file-20220617-24-a75j8p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469583/original/file-20220617-24-a75j8p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469583/original/file-20220617-24-a75j8p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Liberal Eric Abetz has lost his place in the senate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>House: independent in Groom makes final two on just 8.3% primary vote</h2>
<p>In the House of Representatives, primary votes in <a href="https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionPage-27966-164.htm">Groom</a> were 43.7% LNP, 18.7% Labor, 9.6% One Nation, 8.3% for independent Suzie Holt, 7.1% for another independent, 5.9% Greens and 5.1% UAP. After a distribution of preferences, Holt jumped over both One Nation and Labor to make the final two, but she still lost decisively to the LNP.</p>
<p>Analyst <a href="https://twitter.com/mumbletwits/status/1536628805766627329">Peter Brent</a> said Holt had the third lowest primary vote percentage, and the lowest when both major parties contested, to make it to the final two at a federal election or byelection, and is the first to make the final two from fourth or lower on primary votes.</p>
<p>In Australia the two top candidates on primary votes are not guaranteed to be the final two. The distribution of preferences starts by excluding the lowest polling candidate, and their votes are distributed to all remaining candidates. This is followed until there are two candidates remaining.</p>
<p>In past elections, the Australian Electoral Commission has not released the full distribution of preferences for all seats until months after the election.</p>
<h2>Essential poll: Albanese surges to 59% approval</h2>
<p>Essential is the first Australian pollster to poll <a href="https://essentialreport.com.au/reports/15-june-2022">Anthony Albanese’s ratings</a> since the election. In this week’s poll, he had a 59% approval for his performance as prime minister, and just an 18% disapproval (net +41). In Essential’s final poll before the election, Albanese was at +1 net approval for his performance as opposition leader (42-41 approval).</p>
<p>By 44-34, voters supported Australia becoming a republic, down from a 49-28 margin in March 2021.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/185051/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>With Senate results close to being finalised across the country, Labor will need the support of the Greens and one or two other senators to get legislation through the upper house.Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist), The ConversationLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1839312022-05-30T00:17:06Z2022-05-30T00:17:06ZLabor likely to get a friendly Senate and secures House of Representatives majority<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/465876/original/file-20220530-13-3e2ktc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>UPDATE</strong>: On Monday night, the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-30/anthony-albanese-and-labor-to-form-majority-government/101084236">ABC called</a> Macnamara as a Labor hold, giving Labor 76 of the 151 House of Representatives seats, enough for a majority. In the two remaining <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2022/results?filter=indoubt&sort=az&state=all">undecided seats</a>, Labor has taken a narrow lead in Gilmore, while the Coalition is likely to hold Deakin.</p>
<p>The ABC’s call appears to be based on the telephone booth for those in <a href="https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/HousePollingPlaceFirstPrefs-27966-108672.htm">COVID isolation</a> in Macnamara. The Greens needed to win this booth on primary votes to have a realistic chance of overhauling Labor on the “three candidate preferred” measure (see below for an explanation), but Labor won this booth on primary votes with the Greens second.</p>
<hr>
<p>At this election, 40 of the 76 senators were up for election – six from each state and two from each territory. 72% of enrolled voters nationally for the Senate have now been counted, up from 38.5% on election night.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/election-results-update-labor-to-form-government-as-both-major-parties-primary-votes-slump-183111">Election results update: Labor to form government as both major parties' primary votes slump</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Going into the election, the Coalition held 35 of the 76 Senate seats, Labor 26, the Greens nine, One Nation two, Centre Alliance one and Jacqui Lambie one. The remaining two seats were filled by party defectors: Rex Patrick from Centre Alliance and Sam McMahon, who quit the Northern Territory Country Liberal Party and became a Liberal Democrat.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/race-for-the-senate-could-labor-and-the-greens-gain-control-181350">Race for the Senate: could Labor and the Greens gain control?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The seats up for election were Coalition 18, Labor 15, the Greens three, One Nation one, Centre Alliance one and both defectors. Labor, the Greens and other left parties needed to make four combined gains from the Coalition, One Nation, Centre Alliance and defectors to gain control.</p>
<p>As explained in the earlier article, the Senate uses proportional representation with preferences. Voters are instructed to number at least six boxes above the line, though only one is required for a formal vote. </p>
<p>With six senators to be elected in each state, a quota is one-seventh of the vote or 14.3%. With two up in each territory, a quota is one-third or 33.3%.</p>
<p>The state senators elected at this election will have six-year terms starting July 1, unless there is a double dissolution. The territory senators have only three-year terms that are tied to the term of the House of Representatives.</p>
<p>While it is often clear who will win the six seats for a state or two for a territory from analysing primary votes, in some cases we will need to wait until all votes are counted and electronically entered into a computer system that distributes preferences (the button press).</p>
<p>The final day for reception of postal votes is this Friday. Button presses will not occur until at least next week. The count is well advanced in Tasmania and the ACT, and these may be finalised next week. For the other states, it’s likely to take another week.</p>
<p>Both above the line party votes and below the line votes for candidates are <a href="https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/SenateStateFirstPrefs-27966-NSW.htm">initially counted</a> as “unapportioned” for a party. As the count progresses, they are assigned either to “above-the-line” or candidate votes. When the number of unapportioned votes reaches zero, we are near the button press.</p>
<h2>National summary</h2>
<p>The table below shows the likely senators elected for each state and territory. UND means the seat is currently undecided.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/465849/original/file-20220529-40661-q2i5me.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/465849/original/file-20220529-40661-q2i5me.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/465849/original/file-20220529-40661-q2i5me.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/465849/original/file-20220529-40661-q2i5me.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/465849/original/file-20220529-40661-q2i5me.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/465849/original/file-20220529-40661-q2i5me.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/465849/original/file-20220529-40661-q2i5me.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Senate results.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In summary, Labor and the Greens combined needed to gain four seats to control the 39 of 76 senators needed to pass legislation. They are likely to gain seats in Queensland, WA and SA, while in the ACT a climate-friendly independent (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Pocock">David Pocock</a>) is likely to win.</p>
<p>If these are the results, with Labor still a chance of winning three in Victoria and SA, then Labor and the Greens would have 38 of 76 senators combined. Labor would need the Greens and one of Pocock or Jacqui Lambie (now at two senators) to pass legislation opposed by the Coalition.</p>
<p>I believe it is an advantage that the two main parties of the left (Labor and the Greens) are both capable of winning quotas or near quotas in all states. On the right, only the Coalition consistently achieves this. </p>
<p>It would be easier for small right-wing parties to win seats at a double dissolution, when all 12 senators for each state are up, and the quota is nearly halved to 7.7%.</p>
<h2>State results</h2>
<p>With 74% <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2022/results/senate">counted in NSW</a>, the Coalition has 2.59 quotas, Labor 2.14, the Greens 0.79 and One Nation 0.28. The Coalition’s third candidate is too far ahead, and the result will be three Coalition, two Labor, one Green. This will be a Green gain from Labor.</p>
<p>With 72% counted in Victoria, the Coalition has 2.29 quotas, Labor 2.23, the Greens 0.92, UAP 0.27, Legalise Cannabis 0.20 and One Nation 0.20. Two Coalition, two Labor and one Green will win with the last seat a mess that is unlikely to be clear until the button is pressed. The UAP and Coalition are the most likely winners.</p>
<p>With 71% counted in Queensland, the Coalition has 2.48 quotas, Labor 1.75, the Greens 0.85, One Nation 0.51 and Legalise Cannabis 0.36. Two Coalition, two Labor and one Green will win, with the final seat a contest between the third Coalition candidate, Amanda Stoker, and Pauline Hanson. This will be a gain for the Greens from either the Coalition or One Nation.</p>
<p>With 66% counted in WA, Labor has 2.47 quotas the Coalition 2.20, the Greens 0.97, One Nation 0.24 and Legalise Cannabis 0.23. Labor will win two, the Coalition two and the Greens one, with Labor likely to win the final seat, for an outcome of three Labor, two Coalition, one Green. This would be a Labor gain from the Coalition.</p>
<p>With 74% counted in SA, the Coalition has 2.36 quotas, Labor 2.31, the Greens 0.83, One Nation 0.27 and the UAP 0.21. Nick Xenophon was not a factor, winning just 0.19 quotas. The Coalition will win two, Labor two, the Greens one, and the last seat is undecided, with the Coalition ahead. </p>
<p>Xenophon’s former Centre Alliance was defending two seats, so the Greens gain one from CA with the other CA loss a gain for either the Coalition or Labor.</p>
<p>With 81% counted in Tasmania, the Coalition has 2.22 quotas, Labor 1.92, the Greens 1.08, the Jacqui Lambie Network 0.59 and One Nation 0.26. The Coalition will win two, Labor two, the Greens one and JLN one. This will be a gain for JLN from the Coalition. Lambie was not up for re-election, but will be joined in the Senate by Tammy Tyrrell.</p>
<p>With 84% counted in the ACT, Labor has 1.00 quotas, the Coalition 0.75, Pocock 0.63, the Greens 0.29 and independent Kim Rubenstein 0.13. Greens and Rubenstein preferences are expected to strongly favour Pocock, who will gain from the Coalition.</p>
<p>With 46% counted in the NT, Labor has 1.02 quotas, the Coalition 0.92, the Greens 0.38 and the Liberal Democrats 0.26. Labor and the Coalition will each win one seat, with the Coalition gaining from a defector.</p>
<h2>Labor needs just one more seat for a House of Representatives majority</h2>
<p>With 79% of enrolled voters counted in the House of Representatives, the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2022/results?filter=indoubt&sort=az&state=all">ABC is calling</a> 75 of the 151 seats for Labor, 57 for the Coalition, four Greens, 12 for all Others and three still undecided.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-labor-is-likely-to-win-a-house-of-representatives-majority-despite-a-33-primary-vote-183601">Why Labor is likely to win a House of Representatives majority despite a 33% primary vote</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In the last few days, Lyons was retained by Labor after a counting error was resolved in Labor’s favour, while Brisbane was gained by the Greens from the Coalition after they led Labor by 1.0% on the electoral commission’s “<a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/news/results-3cp.htm">three candidate preferred</a>” at the point where one of Labor or the Greens were excluded, handing the seat to the other on preferences.</p>
<p>The three remaining undecided seats are Gilmore, Deakin and Macnamara. Gilmore and Deakin are standard two-party contests with the Coalition narrowly ahead after counting of nearly all Coalition-favouring postals. Labor has a good chance to regain the lead in <a href="https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionPage-27966-120.htm">Gilmore</a> on absent votes that favour Labor; these are election day votes cast outside a voter’s home electorate.</p>
<p>Macnamara is another Labor vs Greens contest that the Coalition won’t win. If it’s Labor vs Greens, Labor wins on Coalition preferences. If it’s Labor vs Coalition, Labor wins on Greens preferences. If Labor finishes third, the Greens beat the Coalition on Labor preferences.</p>
<p>The “three candidate preferred” in Macnamara has the three parties nearly tied with Labor just behind the Coalition and just ahead of the Greens. However, remaining votes are likely to help the Greens.</p>
<p>Labor struggles in these three party contests because right wing minor parties’ preferences go to the Coalition, while preferences of Animal Justice Party voters go to the Greens.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/183931/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>With just three more seats to be finalised in the House of Representatives, Labor will be hoping to pick up at least one of those to obtain a majority. Meanwhile, the Senate is looking promising too.Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1813502022-05-05T02:57:50Z2022-05-05T02:57:50ZRace for the Senate: could Labor and the Greens gain control?<p>As well as the whole House of Representatives, 40 of the 76 Senate seats will be up for election on May 21. There are 12 senators per state and two per territory. At half-Senate elections, six senators for each state and the four territory senators are up for election. Unless there is a double dissolution, state senators have six-year terms and territory senators have three years.</p>
<p>The Senate is massively malapportioned, with Tasmania having the same number of senators as New South Wales, despite the latter’s population being <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/national-state-and-territory-population/latest-release#states-and-territories">more than 15 times greater</a>. This was the price for the smaller states joining the Australian federation in 1901.</p>
<p>For elections to the Senate, all senators up for election in a state or territory are elected by statewide proportional representation with preferences. With six senators up in each state, a quota is one-seventh of the vote, or 14.3%. With two up in each territory, a quota is one-third or 33.3%.</p>
<p>Voters are instructed to number at least 1-6 above the line (to vote for parties), or 1-12 below the line (voting for candidates). However, a “1” only vote above the line is still a formal vote, but in that case there are no preferences beyond the party receiving that vote. Six preferences are required for a formal below the line vote.</p>
<p>In state upper houses like NSW and South Australia, voters are only told to give a first preference above the line, although they can give more preferences. This leads to a larger number of exhausted votes than in the federal Senate. There, candidates will need about 0.8 quotas after preferences to win, while it’s only about 0.5 quotas with optional preferences.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/labors-lead-steady-in-newspoll-and-gains-in-resolve-how-the-polls-moved-during-past-campaigns-181953">Labor's lead steady in Newspoll and gains in Resolve; how the polls moved during past campaigns</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Impact of changes to electoral legislation</h2>
<p>Last year, Labor and the Coalition combined to <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2021/08/party-registration-crackdown-tracker.html">change legislation</a> to require 1,500 members to register a party, up from the current 500, and to disallow parties with similar names to older parties. Owing to the first change, there will be less cluttering on Senate ballot papers, with most states <a href="https://www.pollbludger.net/2022/04/23/drawing-it-out/">seeing a fall</a> in the number of above-the-line boxes from 2019.</p>
<p>The second change was aimed at the Liberal Democrats and the Democratic Labour Party. The DLP was deregistered under the 1,500 rule – see analyst <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2021/08/party-registration-crackdown-tracker.html">Kevin Bonham</a> – but the Liberal Democrats found a loophole that enabled them to keep their name for this election, as ABC election analyst <a href="https://antonygreen.com.au/loophole-allows-liberal-democrats-to-retain-party-name/">Antony Green</a> has explained.</p>
<p>However, Western Australia is the <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/election/candidates.htm">only state where</a> the Liberal Democrats have drawn a box far enough to the left of the Liberals for name confusion to be an issue.</p>
<h2>The Senate playing field</h2>
<p>The Coalition <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate#Current_Senate">currently holds</a> 35 of the 76 Senate seats, Labor 26, the Greens nine, One Nation two, Centre Alliance one and Jacqui Lambie one. The remaining two seats are filled by party defectors: Rex Patrick from Centre Alliance and Sam McMahon, who quit the Northern Territory Country Liberal Party and is now a Liberal Democrat.</p>
<p>During the last term, the Coalition regained a seat from a defector when <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Bernardi">Cory Bernardi</a> resigned from the Senate.</p>
<p>The table below shows the 2022 seats up for election in each state and territory.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/458387/original/file-20220418-12683-mcbvut.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/458387/original/file-20220418-12683-mcbvut.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/458387/original/file-20220418-12683-mcbvut.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458387/original/file-20220418-12683-mcbvut.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458387/original/file-20220418-12683-mcbvut.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458387/original/file-20220418-12683-mcbvut.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458387/original/file-20220418-12683-mcbvut.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458387/original/file-20220418-12683-mcbvut.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Senate seats up for election in 2022.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Coalition will be defending three senators in all states except SA, and that makes them vulnerable if Labor wins the election. Senate results are highly correlated with lower house results, although the major parties’ primary votes are typically a little lower in the Senate.</p>
<p>For Labor and the Greens combined to gain control, they would need to gain four seats in total at this election. The Coalition and One Nation combined could gain control via a two-seat gain, with the Coalition virtually certain to gain from a defector.</p>
<h2>State analysis</h2>
<p>For this analysis, I will use the Poll Bludger’s <a href="https://www.pollbludger.net/fed2022/bludgertrack2022/">BludgerTrack</a> for each mainland state. For translating poll percentages into quotas, one quota is 14.3%, two quotas are 28.6% and three quotas are 42.9%. It’s a pity Newspoll hasn’t yet published state data from its five polls taken since late March.</p>
<p>BludgerTrack is an analysis of lower house polling, and most data were taken before it was known that One Nation would contest 149 of the 151 House of Representatives seats. One Nation will be higher in the Senate, particularly in NSW, Victoria and SA.</p>
<p>In NSW, Labor has 38.5%, the Coalition 38.4%, the Greens 10.4% and One Nation 2.0%. One Nation and UAP preferences would help the Coalition to three seats, with the Greens likely gaining from Labor. Likely outcome: three Coalition, two Labor, one Green.</p>
<p>In Victoria, Labor has 38.1%, the Coalition 35.5%, the Greens 12.8% and One Nation 1.8%. I think this would be close between Labor and the Coalition for the final seat, so it would be either be three Coalition, two Labor, one Green; or three Labor, two Coalition, one Green.</p>
<p>In Queensland, the Coalition has 38.2%, Labor 31.9%, the Greens 14.0% and One Nation 6.9%. One Nation will be boosted in the Senate by Pauline Hanson’s candidacy. This result would be a Greens gain from the Coalition, with two Coalition, two Labor, one Green and one One Nation elected. But Labor has historically underperformed its polling in Queensland.</p>
<p>In WA, Labor has 38.7%, the Coalition 37.3%, the Greens 12.2% and One Nation 5.3%. One Nation and UAP preferences would likely lift the Coalition above Labor for a status quo result of three Coalition, two Labor, one Green.</p>
<p>In SA, Labor has 43.6%, the Coalition 39.3%, the Greens 10.5% and One Nation 2.2%. Nick Xenophon, a former independent SA senator, is contesting this election. But <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2022/04/prospects-for-2022-senate-election.html">Bonham reported</a> a Greens-commissioned SA Senate uComms poll gave Xenophon just 0.37 quotas – not enough to threaten.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/will-a-continuing-education-divide-eventually-favour-labor-electorally-due-to-our-big-cities-180970">Will a continuing education divide eventually favour Labor electorally due to our big cities?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>However, Xenophon is likely to draw votes from both major parties, allowing the Greens to win a seat. This is likely a Labor and Green gain from the two Centre Alliance (one former), with a SA result of three Labor, two Coalition, one Green.</p>
<p>Tasmania’s sub-samples are too small for a separate analysis, but it was easily the most Labor-leaning state at the <a href="https://results.aec.gov.au/24310/Website/HouseTppByState-24310.htm">2019 election</a>, with Labor winning by 56-44, compared with a national result of 51.5-48.5 to the Coalition. </p>
<p>If Labor and the Greens win a combined 4-2 split in any state, it’s likely to be in Tasmania. Lambie will not be up for election this year, but she’s trying to win a second seat for her party.</p>
<p>Bonham reported polling that would give independent ACT Senate candidate David Pocock a chance of defeating the Liberals’ Zed Seselja. But there’s been speculation at past elections that the Liberals could lose this seat, and it hasn’t happened yet.</p>
<p>In the NT, the CLP is virtually certain to regain its Senate seat from defector McMahon.</p>
<p>With two gains for Labor and the Greens likely in SA, one in Queensland and one in Tasmania, on current polling Labor and the Greens would likely have enough for a Senate majority. But polls can change, or be wrong, as they were in 2019.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/as-the-election-campaign-begins-what-do-the-polls-say-and-can-we-trust-them-this-time-180318">As the election campaign begins, what do the polls say, and can we trust them this time?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/181350/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>This year there is a half-Senate election, and it could radically change the make-up of the upper house.Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1316702020-02-12T06:26:02Z2020-02-12T06:26:02ZPauline Hanson stymies bid to hobble Mathias Cormann<p>A bid to hobble Senate leader Mathias Cormann in retaliation for the government’s refusal to produce the report from top public servant Phil Gaetjens on Bridget McKenzie failed after Pauline Hanson withdrew her support and Centre Alliance split.</p>
<p>Under the plan, Cormann would not have been allowed to answer questions in the Senate on behalf of the prime minister, represent him at estimates, or sit at the centre table in the chamber. The ban would have applied until March 6 unless the government tabled the report.</p>
<p>Initially Pauline Hanson signed up to the motion but then at the last moment withdrew her support. One Nation was the decider - if its two votes had stayed with the Labor-initiated motion, it would have passed.</p>
<p>With one Centre Alliance senator abstaining, the vote was lost 35-36.</p>
<p>Centre Alliance’s Rex Patrick spoke strongly in favor of the motion, saying the Senate needed to push back against the government running to a bunker called “cabinet”.</p>
<p>His party colleague Stirling Griff, explaining his abstention, said later he supported the premise behind the motion but the penalty would have had no real consequences other than humiliating Cormann. </p>
<p>Hanson told the Senate on reflection she was against setting a precedent. “Senator Cormann is an elected member of this chamber. He has a right to his place in this chamber,” she said. “It is not up to us to take away that right that was given to him by the Australian people when they voted for him.”</p>
<p>Cormann said the ban proposal was completely unprecedented in the Senate’s history and claimed it exceeded the Senate’s powers.</p>
<p>Earlier this week the government defied a call from the Senate to produce the Gaetjens report on McKenzie’s conduct in the sports rorts affair.</p>
<p>Morrison asked Gaetjens, the secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (and his one-time chief of staff), to advise him on whether she had breached ministerial standards. </p>
<p>This followed an Auditor-General report finding her decisions on grants were politically skewed. </p>
<p>But Gaetjens concluded political considerations had not been the primary determining factor in the grants’ allocation, although he did find she had breached ministerial standards by not declaring her association with gun organisations. On this basis she resigned from the cabinet, and the deputy leadership of the Nationals – which set off a train of events still destabilising the Nationals.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-we-need-to-see-gaetjens-report-on-mckenzie-not-least-for-gaetjens-sake-131144">View from The Hill: We need to see Gaetjens' report on McKenzie – not least for Gaetjens' sake</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In response to a Senate order to produce the report, the government claimed public interest immunity, saying it was a cabinet document. </p>
<p>Labor’s Senate leader, Penny Wong, accused the government of a “disgusting political coverup” in refusing to table the Gaetjens report and other documents.</p>
<p>“This is all about protection of the prime minister, who is up to his neck in the sports rorts scandal,” Wong said.</p>
<p>“We’re being asked to accept that the findings of an independent statutory officer, the Auditor-General, should be overridden by a secret report authored by someone of dubious credibility - because Mr Gaetjens is Mr Morrison’s mate, his former chief of staff, and that inquiry was commissioned by Mr Morrison to get exactly the advice he wanted so that he could do what he had already decided,” Wong said.</p>
<p>Earlier this week, crossbencher Jacqui Lambie launched a scathing attack on the government’s refusal to release the report. </p>
<p>“We’re supposed to trust this so-called independent process that found that senator McKenzie made a mistake in not declaring her shooting club membership, but not that she misused taxpayer funds. </p>
<p>"According to the prime minister, we’re supposed to trust that there was no basis for the suggestion that political considerations were the primary determining factor,” she told the Senate. </p>
<p>“Does he take millions of Australians out there for absolute morons?”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/131670/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>An attempt to hobble Mathias Cormann in retaliation for the government’s refusal to produce the Gaetjens Report on Bridget McKenzie failed after Pauline Hanson withdrew her support.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1311452020-02-04T06:29:48Z2020-02-04T06:29:48ZAdam Bandt will be a tougher leader, but the challenge will be in broadening the Greens’ appeal<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313458/original/file-20200204-41532-au4i22.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Mad Monday usually describes sports teams “on the tear” at the end of season, not embattled governments embarking on a new parliamentary year.</p>
<p>But Monday, February 3, had that devil-may-care feeling when the two second-tier parties of the Australian parliament, the Nationals on the right and the Greens on the left, dropped depth charges into their respective electoral bases by putting their leaderships up for grabs.</p>
<p>For the junior Coalition partner, this occurred via an unsuccessful raid by Barnaby Joyce on the leadership of Michael McCormack.</p>
<p>That marked a woeful start to the parliamentary year for a Coalition already being hammered through its own policy indolence and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-bridget-mckenzie-falls-but-for-the-lesser-of-her-political-sins-131011">scandalous manipulation of public funds</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-sports-rorts-affair-shows-the-need-for-a-proper-federal-icac-with-teeth-122800">The 'sports rorts' affair shows the need for a proper federal ICAC – with teeth</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Things went more smoothly for the Greens, where “mad” Monday brought the unheralded resignation of the party’s well-liked leader, Richard Di Natale. The Victorian senator was swiftly replaced in an uncontested ballot by the party’s sole lower house federal MP, Adam Bandt, the member for Melbourne.</p>
<p>But the interest factor in the power transfer will not necessarily end there. Bandt’s selection raises important questions for the cross-bench party, ideologically, presentationally and functionally. And it may also prove to be a blessing for Labor, which has long bled green on its left flank, particularly in the inner cities.</p>
<p>Like his predecessors Bob Brown and Christine Milne, the outgoing Di Natale confidently predicted the Greens party was on the cusp of a significant expansion as voters opted for the only party not compromised by the fossil fuel industry, particularly coal.</p>
<p>Yet the imminent Green revolution never seems to come, suggesting there may be a natural ceiling on the party’s share of the non-conservative vote, almost all of which flows back to Labor as preferences anyway.</p>
<p>A large measure of the Greens’ electoral optimism derives from the view that, in trying to appeal to both inner-city progressives and blue-collar regional workers, Labor offers weak policies and confusing messages. The <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/apr/12/adani-coalmine-can-labor-get-away-with-choosing-ambiguity-over-integrity">each-way bet on the Adani Carmichael coal mine</a> at the 2019 election is most frequently cited.</p>
<p>But it is also possible there is effectively a cap on the Greens party expansion. This is because of its role as a party of progressive conscience rather than one that must appeal to a broad range of voters and offer policies that can be funded if elected.</p>
<p>As one Labor insider noted: “The Greens don’t need to talk to anyone outside the inner cities, and mostly they don’t try to.”</p>
<p>As a moderate type of Greens senator, Di Natale may have already maximised the party’s appeal among people who might otherwise find their natural home within Labor.</p>
<p>How Bandt performs remains to be seen, but he is widely regarded as more aggressive – purer in his orientation to, and reflection of, the party’s base, yet correspondingly “scarier” for mainstream voters. </p>
<p>“He’s a jump to the left, that’s for sure,” said the Labor functionary, who claimed Bandt is less disciplined and measured in his communication style than was Di Natale.</p>
<p>“He forgets who he is talking to – his base is not the same as the electorate and where Di Natale was ‘reassuring’, Bandt can be just plain scary,” the observer said.</p>
<p>When the young WA Greens senator Jordan Steele-John accused the major parties of being virtual arsonists during the bushfire crisis last November, Bandt leapt to his defence amid the furore. Bandt told ABC’s Insiders program:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I think he’s the youngest member of parliament, he’s part of a generation that is terrified and aghast with what they’re seeing with the climate crisis.</p>
<p>Scott Morrison has been put on notice, and his government has been put on notice for many years now, that if we keep digging up coal at the rate of knots that we’re doing at the moment, it is going to contribute to making global warming worse, and that is going to make bushfires like this more likely and more intense when they happen.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If Bandt’s angularity is to be tempered by the responsibilities of leadership, it was not evident in his first press conference, where he railed against climate inaction and inequality. He said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I refuse to adapt to kids wearing gas masks.</p>
<p>Summer is going from being a time to relax to a time to fear for your life and health.
People are angry and anxious because the government clearly doesn’t have the climate emergency under control and has no plan to get it under control. But people are also angry and anxious because the basics of life are no longer guaranteed … even if you do everything they ask, people are no longer guaranteed a good life. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Finally, Bandt’s leadership has a structural peculiarity built in.</p>
<p>Like the short-lived Palmer United Party after the 2013 election, Bandt leads the Greens from the lower house while every one of his other party members is in the Senate.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/remembrance-of-rorts-past-why-the-mckenzie-scandal-might-not-count-for-a-hill-of-beans-130793">Remembrance of rorts past: why the McKenzie scandal might not count for a hill of beans</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There were many reasons why that structure was disastrous for Clive Palmer, not least that his party had no clear idea of what it stood for, and Palmer himself was both mercurial and absent.</p>
<p>But having the members – on whose loyalty one’s leadership relies – located together in one chamber and the leader in another seems risky, especially in these times when mad Monday is a 365-day possibility.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/131145/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Kenny does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Greens’ new leader has his work cut out to make sure the party is not just viable, but grows.Mark Kenny, Senior Fellow, Australian Studies Institute, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1231752019-09-17T20:32:07Z2019-09-17T20:32:07ZJacqui Lambie mixes battler politics with populism to make her swing vote count<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292704/original/file-20190916-19083-17i17rh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Jacqui Lambie has signalled she will play hardball on a number of key issues to get what she wants in exchange for her vote.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the hit biopic Rocket Man, the ambitious young Reginald Dwight is counselled to hide his working-class roots if he wants to make it in “showbiz”: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>You gotta kill the person you were born to be in order to become the person you want to be.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Arriving in Canberra in 2013, Jacqui Lambie carried just that kind of baggage – the burden of tough starts, frequent setbacks, of being a fish out of water.
The former soldier is now back in the Senate for a second stint.</p>
<p>Her parliamentary reprise was not just something of a surprise, it lent the May 18 federal election a sense of restorative justice after her admittedly gaffe-prone first term was <a href="https://theconversation.com/shorten-recruits-keneally-for-bennelong-as-citizenship-crisis-claims-lambie-87436">cut short in 2017</a> by a Section 44 citizenship hitch.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/lambies-vote-key-if-government-wants-to-have-medevac-repealed-118905">Lambie's vote key if government wants to have medevac repealed</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>She’d arrived in 2013 as a total unknown under Clive Palmer’s eponymous PUP.
Impulsive, frequently angry and clearly ill-prepared, Lambie soon cut ties with the irascible mining magnate, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/nov/19/jacqui-lambie-accuses-palmer-of-sly-personal-attacks-as-pup-rift-deepens">leaving him muttering about</a> her ingratitude and a breach of promise.</p>
<p>Yet in 2019, when the eccentric millionaire ploughed <a href="https://theconversation.com/now-for-the-55-million-question-what-does-clive-palmer-actually-want-116350">upwards of A$60 million</a> into a gaudy, winless nationwide campaign, Lambie triumphed on a shoestring, boosted by Tasmanians to fill the last available Senate spot.</p>
<p>But there was no Elton John-style artifice involved. Forming the Jacqui Lambie Network, she would defiantly trumpet her own name and working-class roots, parading herself as the real deal, pure battler, core-Apple Isle.</p>
<p>It was an exercise characterised by a brutal frankness about her past. Disarmingly so.</p>
<p>“I was a bloody wrecking ball,” she recently <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/jacqui-lambie-3-0-from-psych-ward-to-parliament-wrecking-ball-to-a-new-approach-20190913-p52r0x.html">told Nine Newspapers</a>, about why she was so controversial and had flamed out in her first period in Canberra.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I just had no idea what idea what I was doing. I’d come from ten years, basically between the bed, the couch and a couple of years in the psych ward.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Now she’s back. Better, stronger and wiser for the journey.</p>
<p>Already, the proudly rough-edged advocate for the battler state has had a significant impact while signalling to Prime Minister Scott Morrison that her vote for future government bills will carry a price.</p>
<p>How much? A fortnight ago, it was <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/worldtoday/jacqui-lambie-secures-housing-debt-write-off-for-home-state/11491986">A$230 million to be forgiven</a> for the state’s social housing debt. </p>
<p>The concession followed Lambie’s swift post-election support for the Morrison government’s signature <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-04/full-federal-government-tax-cut-passes-the-senate/11277002">A$158 billion election pledge</a> of income tax cuts for low, middle and high-income earners.</p>
<p>The housing debt waiver was a solid victory for the frail Tasmanian economy. It was reminiscent of the fiercely parochial Brian Harradine – a conservative Catholic independent who used his pivotal vote through the Howard years to get special deals for the smallest state.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-jacqui-lambie-plays-the-harradine-game-119824">View from The Hill: Jacqui Lambie plays the Harradine game</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But Lambie’s response in the moment of victory betrayed her continuing lack of political polish.</p>
<p>Rather than hammer home the full weight of her achievement, she remarked that she should have asked for more, driven a harder bargain. Is this a harbinger of her approach in future fights? Probably.</p>
<p>What is clear is that the government’s concession, and the intent in her response, together underscore the importance of Lambie’s so-called swing vote.</p>
<p>With 35 senators and Cory Bernardi more or less in the bag also, Team Morrison needs a further three to reach the required majority of 39 votes in the Senate – assuming Labor and the Greens are offside.</p>
<p>That is, three out of the five crossbench votes comprising either the two Pauline Hanson votes plus Lambie, or the two Centre Alliance votes plus Lambie. A number of crucial bills loom.</p>
<p>Eager to scrape together a third-term agenda from the parched policy landscape of its unexpected victory, the Coalition is reheating ideas proposed and defeated in previous terms.</p>
<p>Two of them are the <a href="https://theconversation.com/fall-out-from-setka-affair-could-give-coalition-easier-passage-of-union-bill-120586">Ensuring Integrity Bill</a>, which seeks to impose harsh new restrictions on unions and give the government unprecedented executive power to deregister them, and the expansion of <a href="https://theconversation.com/video-michelle-grattan-on-gladys-liu-and-the-governments-plan-to-drug-test-welfare-recipients-123522">drug testing for welfare recipients</a>.</p>
<p>Lambie’s support is likely to be pivotal – depending on what the other two micro-parties do.</p>
<p>Another issue is the proposal to expand the <a href="https://theconversation.com/an-insult-politicians-sing-the-praises-of-the-cashless-welfare-card-but-those-forced-to-use-it-disagree-123352">cashless welfare card</a> to reduce the incidence of welfare being spent on non-necessities.</p>
<p>All are controversial.</p>
<p>On drug testing for Newstart and Youth Allowance recipients, Lambie is <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/morrison-government-faces-battle-over-welfare-drug-test-plan-20190906-p52ot7.html">playing hardball</a>.</p>
<p>After initially signalling some sympathy for the plan – having seen her own son descend into ice addiction – she has since made it clear she will not support the measure unless, first, politicians agree to random drug and alcohol testing, and second, there are adequate rehabilitation facilities on the ground.</p>
<p>Ministers have raised no objections to being drug-tested, but rolling out enough beds for an estimated half-a-million Australians with drug-dependency issues (many of whom would not be on welfare it must be noted) is no small thing, especially as Lambie has said she wants the beds in place before she supports the testing.</p>
<p>Lambie’s abrasive style is such that predicting her attitude to legislation is not straightforward. This is because it is a mixture of working-class battler politics (not unlike traditional Labor values), tinged with a resentful outsider populism that tends to be more right-leaning.</p>
<p>Overlaid on that is Lambie’s adoption of Harradine’s successful Tasmania-first model.</p>
<p>Her emergence as a swing vote in the Senate puts her in a direct contest with Pauline Hanson, who already owns the populist right.</p>
<p>Either woman can potentially hold the whip hand on government legislation depending on the issue, but Lambie has more room to move.</p>
<p>For the government, that means treading carefully, keeping the lines of communication open, copping the odd spray, and hoping for no dramatic changes of opinion. This is never easy with Hanson, and even less predictable with Lambie.</p>
<p>Politics is often derided as show business for ugly people. Lambie seems intent on making it real business for real people – but with a touch of show business for good measure.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123175/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Kenny does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Back for a second stint in the Senate, the Tasmanian finds herself with unprecedented power, holding the crucial swing vote on several key issues in the government’s agenda.Mark Kenny, Senior Fellow, Australian Studies Institute, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1163472019-05-02T00:32:25Z2019-05-02T00:32:25ZExplainer: how does preferential voting work in the Senate?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271917/original/file-20190501-142962-1uylkic.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/melbourne-australia-july-2-2016-ballot-446230945?src=DvOV4nLdTGF1WizqSifEzw-1-4">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Editor’s note: This is an updated version on an <a href="https://theconversation.com/senate-voting-changes-pass-so-how-do-we-elect-the-upper-house-now-55641">article</a> that was published in 2016 when the new Senate voting rules were first introduced.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>The voting system for the Australian Senate combines both preferential voting and proportional representation counting. </p>
<p>This system produces an upper house comprised of eight electorates (six states and two territories), each represented by multiple senators. As a group, these senators much more fairly represent the diversity of opinions in their electorates than the system in the lower house, where each of 151 electorates is represented by only a single member. </p>
<p>The election for the Senate on May 18 will be the world’s largest-ever election using this system, known technically as “<a href="http://www.prsa.org.au/municip1.htm#definition">proportional representation using the single transferable vote</a>”. We will elect six senators in each of the states, and two senators in each territory.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-major-parties-indigenous-health-election-commitments-stack-up-115714">How the major parties’ Indigenous health election commitments stack up</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The key features of Senate voting</h2>
<ul>
<li><p>you have one vote</p></li>
<li><p>you can express preferences for candidates in the order you prefer them, writing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and so on</p></li>
<li><p>if the candidate for whom you vote “1” is elected with more first preference votes than the <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/voting/counting/senate_count.htm">quota</a> needed for election, the surplus votes received are transferred to the next chosen candidate at a value that ensures as much as possible of your voting power of one vote counts towards electing a senator</p></li>
<li><p>a quota is the number of votes a candidate requires to be elected. In each of the states, in this half Senate election, the quota is 1/7 of all the formal votes plus 1 </p></li>
<li><p>if the candidate for whom you vote “1” fails to be elected, the full value of your vote passes to the candidate to whom you gave your “2”. And if that candidate fails to be elected, to your “3” and so on</p></li>
<li><p>the number of candidates elected for each party is, as closely as possible, directly proportional to the support that party’s candidates receive after preferences</p></li>
<li><p>a big majority of voters will be represented by either a senator they voted “1” for, or a senator they gave an early preference to.</p></li>
</ul>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-matter-of-mis-trust-why-this-election-is-posing-problems-for-the-media-116142">A matter of (mis)trust: why this election is posing problems for the media</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>So, what do Australians need to know when they go to vote to choose their senators in this year’s federal election?</p>
<p>The ballot paper requires you to choose from one of two ways of marking it. Voting above-the-line means that you let your vote support parties’ candidates in the order on the ballot paper, whereas voting below-the-line means that you decide the order in which you support candidates. </p>
<p>The order is important because the chance of a candidate being elected decreases the later his or her name appears in that order of priority.</p>
<h2>Voting above-the-line</h2>
<p>The instructions on the ballot papers will tell you that a valid above-the-line ballot will show at least six party boxes, numbered 1 to 6, for at least six party groupings. However, your vote will have potentially more effect if you number more boxes. </p>
<p>In the example below, if you put a “1” in the Liberal box, the first Liberal to gain from your vote will be Malcolm Turnbull, then secondly Alexander Downer, then Tony Abbott, and so on. If you are a Liberal voter that wants to put Tony Abbott first, you can do this, but you have to vote below-the-line (read on for how to do that).</p>
<p>The example we show here is a formal (valid) vote that places the major parties last. This voter supported first the “Climate Sceptics”, but then ranked other minor parties and then the larger parties in the order: Liberal, Labor, Green.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271929/original/file-20190501-39945-18650rn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271929/original/file-20190501-39945-18650rn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271929/original/file-20190501-39945-18650rn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271929/original/file-20190501-39945-18650rn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271929/original/file-20190501-39945-18650rn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271929/original/file-20190501-39945-18650rn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=595&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271929/original/file-20190501-39945-18650rn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=595&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271929/original/file-20190501-39945-18650rn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=595&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Click to zoom.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It could happen that when this voter’s preferences are finally transferred, all the candidates for the first six parties chosen had been elected or excluded. Their vote is then used to help decide the final contest, between Labor and the Greens – in this case favouring Labor. But if the voter had not numbered all the boxes, their vote would have become exhausted: in other words, not further counted towards the election of a candidate.</p>
<p>An above-the-line “<a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/Voting_Australia.htm#vote-saving">vote savings provision</a>” means that even if you mark only one box, your ballot will still be counted. But (for example) if you had marked “1” in the square for Climate Sceptics – and only that square – and the Climate Sceptics candidates had failed to get enough votes to remain in the count, your ballot would have become exhausted, meaning your vote did not count towards electing a senator.</p>
<p>That is why it is best to number as many squares as possible.</p>
<h2>Voting below-the-line</h2>
<p>Below-the-line voters rank individual candidates in the order such voters prefer. You will be instructed to number at least 12 boxes below-the-line.</p>
<p>Suppose you are a Liberal voter, but you don’t like the order of the Liberal candidates on the ballot paper. You may number the boxes of the six Liberal candidates in any order – provided the numbers are sequential and each numeral is different.</p>
<p>If you then want to preference the Shooters and Fishers candidates (numbering 7 to 12), then Palmer United candidates (numbering 13 to 18), but dislike the remaining parties, you may leave their candidates’ squares blank. Your ballot is still formal and will be counted – as in the mock voting paper below.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271930/original/file-20190501-39938-15lx6xd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271930/original/file-20190501-39938-15lx6xd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271930/original/file-20190501-39938-15lx6xd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271930/original/file-20190501-39938-15lx6xd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271930/original/file-20190501-39938-15lx6xd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271930/original/file-20190501-39938-15lx6xd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=660&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271930/original/file-20190501-39938-15lx6xd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=660&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271930/original/file-20190501-39938-15lx6xd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=660&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Click to zoom.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Suppose you want to support particular candidates from different parties – and want to rank Penny Wong, Sarah Hanson-Young and Jacqui Lambie ahead of all the other candidates. You may certainly do that – again provided your ballot includes 1 to 12 and those preferences are sequential.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271932/original/file-20190501-39956-d9wj2l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271932/original/file-20190501-39956-d9wj2l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271932/original/file-20190501-39956-d9wj2l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271932/original/file-20190501-39956-d9wj2l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271932/original/file-20190501-39956-d9wj2l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271932/original/file-20190501-39956-d9wj2l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=595&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271932/original/file-20190501-39956-d9wj2l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=595&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271932/original/file-20190501-39956-d9wj2l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=595&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Click to zoom.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>You might want to rank everyone except the main parties first. Let’s say that you also prefer the Hemp Party and Socialist Alternative first, but then want to vote for the Shooters and Fishers. If you then think Labor is the least bad of the main parties, the best way to use your ballot is to preference all of the small parties’ candidates and then Labor’s. That way, even if all the smaller parties’ candidates are excluded from the count, your next choice gains the value of your vote.</p>
<p>Note that you can rank the candidates of a particular party in any order. In the example below, the voter prefers Donald Trump to the other Shooters and Fishers candidates.</p>
<p>The more genuine preferences you express, the more likely a candidate you favour will be elected rather than one you disfavour.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271933/original/file-20190501-39953-1pfvcd0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271933/original/file-20190501-39953-1pfvcd0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271933/original/file-20190501-39953-1pfvcd0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271933/original/file-20190501-39953-1pfvcd0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271933/original/file-20190501-39953-1pfvcd0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271933/original/file-20190501-39953-1pfvcd0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=595&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271933/original/file-20190501-39953-1pfvcd0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=595&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271933/original/file-20190501-39953-1pfvcd0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=595&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Click to zoom.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/Voting_Australia.htm#vote-saving">rules allow</a> a vote to be counted provided that the first six consecutive numbers are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. If you omit or repeat a number, the ballot will still be counted. So a ballot that has the preferences 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 would be formal – but only preferences one to nine would count.</p>
<p>Your vote is most effective when you express as many preferences as you can or want to – either below or above the line.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/116347/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Morey is the Honorary National Secretary of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia (<a href="http://www.prsa.org.au">http://www.prsa.org.au</a>)</span></em></p>Senate voting is pretty complicated. Here’s how preferential voting and proportional representation work – and how to make sure your vote is counted on election day.Stephen Morey, Senior Lecturer, Department of Languages and Linguistics, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1137112019-03-16T06:52:42Z2019-03-16T06:52:42ZCan a senator be expelled from the federal parliament for offensive statements?<p>In the wake of comments about the Christchurch massacre, members of the public have raised the question of whether a senator can be expelled from the Senate for making offensive statements. </p>
<p>It is now well known that members of parliament can have their seat vacated in the parliament due to their disqualification under section 44 of the Constitution for reasons including dual citizenship, bankruptcy, holding certain government offices or being convicted of offences punishable by imprisonment for one year or longer.</p>
<p>But there is no ground of disqualification for behaviour that brings a House of Parliament into disrepute. This was something left to the house to deal with by way of expulsion.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/dual-citizenship-debacle-claims-five-more-mps-and-sounds-a-stern-warning-for-future-parliamentarians-96267">Dual citizenship debacle claims five more MPs – and sounds a stern warning for future parliamentarians</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What powers do the houses have to expel?</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s49.html">Section 49</a> of the Commonwealth Constitution provides that until the Commonwealth parliament declares the powers, privileges and immunities of its houses, they shall be those the British House of Commons had at the time of federation (1901). </p>
<p>The House of Commons then had, and continues to have, the power to expel its members. The power was rarely exercised, but was most commonly used when a member was found to have committed a <a href="http://www.election.demon.co.uk/expulsions.html">criminal offence or contempt of parliament</a>. Because of the application of section 49 of the Constitution, such a power was also initially conferred upon both houses of the Australian parliament.</p>
<p>The House of Representatives exercised that power in 1920 when it expelled a member of the Labor opposition, <a href="http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/mahon-hugh-7460">Hugh Mahon</a>. He had given a speech at a public meeting that criticised the actions of the British in Ireland and expressed support for an Australian republic.</p>
<p>Prime Minister Billy Hughes (whom Mahon had previously voted to expel from the Labor Party over conscription in 1916), moved to expel Mahon from the House of Representatives on November 11 – a dangerous date for dismissals. He accused Mahon of having made “seditious and disloyal utterances” that were “inconsistent with his oath of allegiance”. The opposition objected, arguing that no action should be taken unless Mahon was tried and convicted by the courts. Mahon was expelled by a vote taken on party lines. </p>
<p>In 2016, a private member’s <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F715fab49-01b7-4d20-89b0-5496732f6bc2%2F0267;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F715fab49-01b7-4d20-89b0-5496732f6bc2%2F0267%22">motion was moved</a> to recognise that his expulsion was unjust and a misuse of the power then invested in the house.</p>
<p>The power of the houses to expel members, as granted by section 49, was subject to the Commonwealth parliament declaring what the powers, privileges and immunities of the houses shall be. This occurred with the enactment of the <a href="http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ppa1987273/">Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987</a>. </p>
<p>It was enacted as a result of an inquiry by a parliamentary committee, which pointed out the potential for this power to be abused and that as a matter of democratic principle, it was up to voters to decide the composition of the parliament. This is reinforced by sections seven and 24 of the Constitution, which say that the houses of parliament are to be “directly chosen by the people”.</p>
<p>As a consequence, the power to expel was removed from the houses. <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ppa1987273/s8.html">Section 8</a> of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 says: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>A House does not have power to expel a member from membership of a House. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This means that currently neither house of the Commonwealth parliament has the power to expel one of its members.</p>
<h2>Could the position be changed?</h2>
<p>Just as the parliament had the legislative power to limit the powers and privileges of its houses, it could legislate to amend or repeal section eight so that a house could, in future, expel one of its members, either on any ground or for limited reasons. </p>
<p>Whether or not this is wise remains doubtful. The reasons given by the parliamentary committee for the removal of this power remain strong. The power to expel is vulnerable to misuse when one political party holds a majority in the house. Equally, there is a good democratic argument that such matters should be left to the voters at election time.</p>
<p>However, expulsion is still an option in other Australian parliaments, such as the NSW parliament. It’s used in circumstances where the member is judged guilty of conduct unworthy of a member of parliament and where the continuing service of the member is likely to bring the house into disrepute.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-a-government-would-be-mad-to-advise-the-refusal-of-royal-assent-to-a-bill-passed-against-its-will-110501">Why a government would be mad to advise the refusal of royal assent to a bill passed against its will</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It is commonly the case, though, that a finding of illegality, dishonesty or corruption is first made by a court, a royal commission or the Independent Commission Against Corruption before action to expel is taken. The prospect of expulsion is almost always enough to cause the member to resign without expulsion formally occurring. So, actual cases of expulsion remain extremely rare.</p>
<h2>Are there any other remedies to deal with objectionable behaviour?</h2>
<p>The houses retain powers to suspend members for offences against the house, such as disorderly conduct. But it is doubtful that a house retains powers of suspension in relation to conduct that does not amount to a breach of standing orders or an “offence against the house”. Suspension may therefore not be available in relation to statements made outside the house that do not affect its proceedings.</p>
<p>Instead, the house may choose to censure such comments by way of a formal motion. Such motions are more commonly moved against ministers in relation to government failings. A censure motion is regarded as a serious form of rebuke, but it does not give rise to any further kind of punishment such as a fine or suspension. </p>
<p>The primary remedy for dealing with unacceptable behaviour remains at the ballot box. This is a pertinent reminder to all voters of the importance of being vigilant in the casting of their vote to ensure the people they elect to high office are worthy of fulfilling it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/113711/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anne Twomey has received funding from the ARC and occasionally does consultancy work for governments and inter-governmental bodies.</span></em></p>The short answer is no. But the longer answer is that it has a complicated history (and the best remedy remains at the ballot box).Anne Twomey, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1002482018-07-26T19:56:08Z2018-07-26T19:56:08ZFactCheck: has Pauline Hanson voted ‘effectively 100% of the time with the Turnbull government’ in 2018?<blockquote>
<p>This year [Pauline Hanson] has voted effectively 100% of the time with the Turnbull government. Honestly you may as well vote LNP if you are voting One Nation because there is no difference.</p>
<p><strong>– Deputy opposition leader Tanya Plibersek, <a href="http://www.tanyaplibersek.com/transcript_doorstop_interview_caboolture_tuesday_10_july_2018">doorstop interview</a>, Caboolture, Queensland, July 10, 2018</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>In recent weeks, senior Labor Party figures have sought to draw attention to the voting patterns of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party, arguing that a vote for the minor party is a vote for the Coalition.</p>
<p>At the Labor campaign launch in the Queensland seat of Longman ahead of Saturday’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/byelection-guide-whats-at-stake-on-super-saturday-99757">crucial byelections</a>, opposition leader Bill Shorten <a href="http://www.billshorten.com.au/address_to_the_longman_labor_campaign_launch_caboolture_sunday_22_july_2018">said</a> it’s “a fact that if you vote One Nation, you are voting [Liberal National Party]. You are not protesting, you are being used to send a vote to the LNP.” </p>
<p>On the same day, shadow finance minister Jim Chalmers described One Nation as “the wholly-owned subsidiary of Malcolm Turnbull’s Liberal Party”.</p>
<p>Earlier this month, deputy opposition leader Tanya Plibersek said that in 2018, Pauline Hanson had “voted effectively 100% of the time with the Turnbull Government”. </p>
<p>Let’s look at the records.</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>In response to The Conversation’s request for sources and comment, Tanya Plibersek said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Pauline Hanson voted with the Liberals to cut school funding and voted to cut family benefits while she voted herself a massive $7,000 a year tax cut. Australian voters deserve to know the truth about Hanson’s voting record in Canberra.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Plibersek’s comment related to votes on <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Brief_Guides_to_Senate_Procedure/No_16">second and third reading votes</a> (including amendments) on legislation. </p>
<p>Plibersek’s office highlighted <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Statistics/Senate_StatsNet/General/divisions">20 such votes</a> in 2018 in which Labor and the Coalition disagreed. Of those, Hanson abstained from one vote, and voted 18 times with the government. (The equivalent of 95% of the time, with the abstention excluded.)</p>
<p>A spokesperson told The Conversation Plibersek used the qualifier “effectively” in her original comment to indicate that Hanson voted with the Coalition almost all of the time. </p>
<hr>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Deputy opposition leader Tanya Plibersek said Pauline Hanson has “voted effectively 100% of the time with the Turnbull Government” in 2018. </p>
<p>Parliamentary records show the figure to be between 83-86%, depending on the measure used.</p>
<p>Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party has cast 169 formal votes in the Senate to date in 2018. Of those, it was in agreement with the government 83% of the time.</p>
<p>If we look at the 99 occasions where the government and opposition were in disagreement, and One Nation cast an <em>influential</em> vote, we see that the minor party voted with the government 86% of the time.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Voting in the Senate</h2>
<p>Votes in the Senate can <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Brief_Guides_to_Senate_Procedure/No_3">be determined</a> “on the voices” or “by division”.</p>
<p>For a vote to pass on the voices, a majority of senators must call “aye” in response to the question posed by the chair.</p>
<p>If two or more senators challenge the chair’s conclusion about whether the “ayes” or “noes” are in the majority, a division is called. </p>
<p>Bells are then rung for four minutes to call senators to the chamber. The question is posed again, and senators vote by taking their place on the right or left hand side of the chair, before the votes are counted by tellers.</p>
<p>Voting records are only published for votes passed by division.</p>
<h2>How has One Nation voted in 2018?</h2>
<p>We can look to <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Statistics/Senate_StatsNet/General/divisions/2018">parliamentary records</a> to test Plibersek’s claim.</p>
<p>Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party is represented in the parliament by party leader and Queensland senator Pauline Hanson, and West Australian senator Peter Georgiou. New South Wales senator Brian Burston was a One Nation senator <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-18/brian-burston-will-run-for-clive-palmers-party-next-election/9879984">until June 2018</a>. </p>
<p>Plibersek’s comment referred to votes on the second and third readings of legislation in the full Senate, excluding <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Chamber_documents/Senate_chamber_documents/Glossary_of_Senate_terms">procedural votes, motions</a> and votes in Senate committees.</p>
<p>But votes that take place in Senate committees, after the second reading, but before the third, are also important. Much of the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Brief_Guides_to_Senate_Procedure/No_16">legislative process</a> is done “in committee”, where various parties propose amendments to legislation, and these are voted on. </p>
<p>So counting only the full Senate votes on legislation as being significant, as Plibersek did, does not give the full picture.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229367/original/file-20180726-106511-1mdw93x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229367/original/file-20180726-106511-1mdw93x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229367/original/file-20180726-106511-1mdw93x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229367/original/file-20180726-106511-1mdw93x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229367/original/file-20180726-106511-1mdw93x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229367/original/file-20180726-106511-1mdw93x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229367/original/file-20180726-106511-1mdw93x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229367/original/file-20180726-106511-1mdw93x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Stages of consideration of bills in the Australian Senate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Brief_Guides_to_Senate_Procedure/No_16">Parliament of Australia, Brief Guides to Senate Procedure</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In this FactCheck, I will consider all the divisions, from a number of different angles.</p>
<p>There have been 187 divisions in the Senate so far this year. Of those, One Nation:</p>
<ul>
<li>voted with the Coalition on 141 occasions (or 75% of the time)</li>
<li>voted against the Coalition on 28 occasions (or 15% of the time), and </li>
<li>abstained from voting on 18 occasions (or 10% of the time).</li>
</ul>
<p>Of the 169 divisions where One Nation voted, it was in agreement with the government 83% of the time.</p>
<p>But it’s important to consider the balance of power.</p>
<p>When the Coalition and Labor vote the same way, minor party votes do not affect the outcome. When the Coalition and Labor are in disagreement, minor party votes are all important.</p>
<p>There have been 110 such divisions between the Coalition and Labor in the Senate in 2018 to date. </p>
<p>In these 110 divisions, One Nation:</p>
<ul>
<li>voted with the Coalition on 85 occasions (or 77% of the time)</li>
<li>voted against the Coalition on 14 occasions (or 13% of the time), and</li>
<li>abstained from voting on 11 occasions (10% of the time).</li>
</ul>
<p>If we look at the 99 divisions where the Coalition and Labor were in disagreement, and One Nation cast an influential vote, we see that the party voted with the Coalition 86% of the time.</p>
<p>By comparison, in the 110 divisions where Labor opposed the government, the Australian Greens supported the Coalition 5% of the time, and the Centre Alliance (formerly Nick Xenophon Team) did so 56% of the time.</p>
<p>The calculations for the Greens and Centre Alliance above do not include abstentions and cases where the party vote was split. <strong>– Adrian Beaumont</strong></p>
<h2>Blind review</h2>
<p>The author’s points and statistics appear to be all in order.</p>
<p>As the FactCheck shows, while One Nation has not voted with the government 100% of the time, it has supported the Coalition in a large majority of cases. <strong>– Zareh Ghazarian</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/100248/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Ahead of Saturday’s crucial byelections, senior Labor Party figures have described a vote for Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party as a vote for the Coalition. What do the records show?Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/725812017-02-07T23:21:59Z2017-02-07T23:21:59ZBernardi should have resigned his Senate seat: here’s why<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/155979/original/image-20170207-14532-suj32v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Cory Bernardi speaks to the media after announcing he had quit the Liberal Party.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Senator Cory Bernardi’s decision to <a href="https://theconversation.com/bernardi-says-his-new-party-will-offer-a-principled-alternative-for-disillusioned-conservative-voters-72582">quit the Liberal Party</a> comes as no surprise to most political observers. For quite some time, and certainly since Malcolm Turnbull’s elevation to the Liberal leadership, Bernardi’s resignation from the party was always a distinct possibility.</p>
<p>However, his decision to quit the party without resigning from the Senate has sparked (the inevitable) condemnation from his former party colleagues. While he might well be feeling “reluctant and relieved”, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/peter-dutton-barnaby-joyce-slam-cory-bernardi-betrayal-20170206-gu6we5.html">many Coalition MPs are savage about this decision</a>. </p>
<h2>The perils of ratting out the party</h2>
<p>Parties have little mercy for those in their ranks who quit the party but continue to occupy their seat in parliament. Such persons are often decried as “deserters” or “rats”. </p>
<p>In this case, the displeasure with Bernardi runs even deeper. From the Liberal Party’s perspective, it believed it had gone to some lengths to accommodate some of the senator’s policy concerns. Yet the efforts to appease Bernardi ultimately proved insufficient to prevent him from tendering his resignation only seven months after the federal election that granted him a six-year Senate term. </p>
<p>On a more practical level, Bernardi’s resignation makes an already complex Senate even more so for the Turnbull government. Once the vacancies triggered by <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/high-court-rules-disqualified-senator-rod-culleton-was-ineligible-for-election/news-story/d1900ac338ab7335381e3449309e164d">Rod Culleton</a> and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-17/family-first-senator-bob-day-leaving-australian-senate/7938776">Bob Day</a> are filled, Bernardi will be among a 21-strong cross bench. The Turnbull government’s numbers have been reduced to 29 senators, 10 votes short of the 39 it needs to transact most business in the chamber.</p>
<p>High-profile, senior Liberal Party ministers, such as <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/peter-dutton-barnaby-joyce-slam-cory-bernardi-betrayal-20170206-gu6we5.html">George Brandis and Christopher Pyne</a>, have argued that Bernardi should resign as senator to give rise to a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casual_vacancies_in_the_Australian_Parliament#Senate">casual vacancy</a>. This would enable the party to select a replacement senator.</p>
<p>The problem for the Liberals is that Bernardi does not believe he is under any particular obligation to do this. For Bernardi, the decision to resign from the Liberal Party is <a href="http://www.corybernardi.com/australian_conservatives_launched">a matter of principle</a>, and therefore justified and imperative.</p>
<p>In constitutional terms, Bernardi is not obliged to quit the Senate just because he has resigned from the Liberal Party. The party can do little to force his hand, except to hope that he might eventually fall foul of the Constitution’s various <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution">eligibility requirements</a> to serve in the federal parliament. This would be unlikely.</p>
<h2>Should Bernardi resign on ethical grounds?</h2>
<p>While there is no constitutional basis for Bernardi to resign from the chamber, there is a compelling ethical case for him to do so. </p>
<p>Before I outline my reasons, I must clarify the scope of my claim. First, the argument is not directed exclusively at Bernardi. This is an argument that should apply to any senator who quits his or her party, short of reasons of their party imploding, or being fired by the party. </p>
<p>Secondly, this argument is not one that I would extend to members of the House of Representatives who resign from their party. It is particular only to party defections when the member was elected in a seat through proportional representation.</p>
<p>My argument is essentially tied to two particular features of the Senate electoral system: the statewide basis of that system and group ticket voting. In combination, these elements greatly heighten the importance of the party label to the electoral success of major party candidates.</p>
<p>The statewide basis of the electoral system creates a geographical obstacle for all but a rarefied group of candidates to build a sufficiently strong personal mandate to secure a Senate quota. For this reason most independent candidates choose to contest lower house electorates rather than nominate for the Senate, where campaigning is conducted over a much wider, often more diverse electoral terrain.</p>
<p>Group ticket voting has further elevated the importance of the party label to the election of Senate candidates. Known colloquially as “above the line” voting, it allows parties to predetermine their preferred order of election of their candidates. While voters are permitted to vote for any candidate in any order that they wish, most do not. Only a very small proportion of voters cast their vote within the party list. </p>
<p>The combination of these features of the Senate electoral system means that most major party senators would struggle to make a convincing case that they were elected on the basis of personal appeal and support. </p>
<p>If we use Bernardi as the case in point, of the 345,767 votes cast for the South Australian Liberals at the 2016 election, he attracted just 2,043 of the first preference vote. Bernardi’s re-election had almost nothing to do with his personal vote and almost everything to do with the Liberal Party label and the favourable number two Senate spot that South Australian party officials awarded him on the party’s ticket.</p>
<p>Established parties can legitimately claim, therefore, that the single most decisive factor that accounts for the election of their senators is the power of the party label. For this reason, senators who quit their party under the current rules should feel compelled on ethical grounds to resign their vacancy, so that the democratic will of the party’s supporters is fulfilled.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72581/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Narelle Miragliotta does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>While there is no constitutional basis for the former Liberal senator to resign from the chamber, there is a compelling ethical case for him to do so.Narelle Miragliotta, Senior Lecturer in Australian Politics, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/680462016-11-02T03:46:19Z2016-11-02T03:46:19ZExplainer: what is the challenge to Bob Day’s Senate seat all about?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144146/original/image-20161102-12173-1hof7cr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Family First senator Bob Day, who has now resigned his Senate seat.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Sam Mooy</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Family First Senator Bob Day has resigned from the Senate, but <a href="https://theconversation.com/now-resigned-bob-day-may-have-been-ineligible-to-sit-in-senate-67984">controversy now rages</a> about whether or not he was validly elected. The argument is that he was disqualified under <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s44.html">Section 44(v)</a> of the Constitution for holding an indirect pecuniary interest in an agreement with the Public Service. This matter concerns whether Day had such an interest in a contract with the Commonwealth. </p>
<p>The facts involved remain unclear, and it is hard to judge whether or not a breach of s 44(v) is likely to have occurred. It is especially difficult because his interest in the agreement was only indirect. The one High Court authority on the issue, <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1975/22.html">the Webster case</a>, is a judgment of a single judge back in 1975. </p>
<p>As it is quite old and has been the subject of much criticism, it is unknown whether the High Court would follow it or develop different criteria for determining what is a disqualifying pecuniary interest.</p>
<h2>Why does it make a difference, given that Senator Day has resigned from the Senate?</h2>
<p>Normally such cases are brought for the purpose of removing a person from the Senate. </p>
<p>The answer in this case is that it makes a difference in relation to who is chosen to replace him in the Senate. This is a particularly sensitive issue in a Senate that the government does not control.</p>
<p>If Senator Day was validly elected on July 2, 2016 and then resigned his seat in November 2016, <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s15.html">section 15</a> of the Constitution would apply. It states that where the place of a senator becomes vacant before the expiration of his term of service, his replacement is chosen by the houses of parliament of the state from which he was chosen, in a joint sitting. So the South Australian parliament would choose Senator Day’s replacement. </p>
<p>Section 15 was amended in 1977 to make it clear that the South Australian parliament can only choose a person from the same party to which the outgoing senator belonged at the time of his or her election. The rationale is that if the people vote for a representative of one party, the replacement of that senator should come from the same party. So it would be up to the Family First party to nominate their choice of senator, which the South Australian parliament, in a joint sitting, would then formally choose.</p>
<p>During the period of the Whitlam government, there had been some fudging of the convention about appointing a person from the same party. For example, the Queensland Parliament <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/qld/content/2005/s1504841.htm">appointed Albert Field</a> to fill a Senate seat vacated by a Labor member. Field was technically a member of the Labor Party, but was opposed to the Whitlam government. </p>
<p>In order to avoid this type of problem, the Constitution was amended so that if a person is appointed from the relevant political party, but then expelled from that party before taking up his or her seat, he or she “shall be deemed not to have been so chosen”. This means that the party effectively chooses a senator’s replacement where there is a casual vacancy.</p>
<h2>What if Senator Day was not validly elected?</h2>
<p>If Senator Day was never validly elected at the July 2016 election, then it is more complicated. In the past, the High Court has resolved the issue by ordering a re-count of the vote, distributing the votes as if the disqualified senator did not exist. This usually means that it is the next person on the party’s ticket who is elected. On this basis, the second person on the Family First ticket in South Australia would most likely be elected. </p>
<p>This is complicated on this occasion, however, by two factors. First, it is possible that there are enough “below the line” votes for Senator Day personally that then went to different candidates, rather than the second Family First candidate, to alter the outcome. </p>
<p>Secondly, there would be doubts about the validity of the “above the line” votes for Family First, because a party requires two candidates to register its ticket above the line. If Day was disqualified, this would mean there was only one. It would therefore be arguable that all the above the line votes for Family First would not be counted, with preferences instead being passed on to the candidates of the next party preferenced on each ballot paper. </p>
<p>This could result in Labor or One Nation picking up Senator Day’s seat. As the Senate <a href="https://theconversation.com/senate-voting-changes-pass-so-how-do-we-elect-the-upper-house-now-55641">voting laws have recently changed</a> to an optional preferential above the line system – a system that <a href="https://theconversation.com/high-court-unanimously-rejects-challenge-to-senate-voting-reform-59170">Senator Day challenged</a> in the High Court – we have no relevant precedent as to how his disqualification would affect the recount in these circumstances.</p>
<p>The time for challenging the validity of the election of a candidate has now expired. However, the houses of parliament can still refer to the High Court, sitting as a Court of Disputed Returns, any question concerning the validity of the election of a senator or member. </p>
<p>The government proposes to ask the Senate to make such a referral on Monday. If the Senate agrees, it will be up to the High Court to decide these difficult constitutional issues. One way or the other, the outcome will have an impact upon the composition of the Senate.</p>
<p><em>This article has been corrected to accurately reflect the pecuniary interest issue.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/68046/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anne Twomey has received funding from the Australian Research Council and occasionally does consultancy work for governments and inter-governmental bodies.</span></em></p>Changes to Senate voting laws and the particular case of Senator Bob Day make for an unprecedented constitutional tangle, and one that will change the make-up of the Senate.Anne Twomey, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/399932015-04-15T20:35:51Z2015-04-15T20:35:51ZGood news: fatal shootings are now less common in Australia, NZ, Canada and even the US<p>Here’s a good news story you probably haven’t read about before: numbers of fatal shootings are falling in Australia, and have been for around 30 years. And we’re not alone. </p>
<p>The rate of fatal shootings has been declining in <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10660886">New Zealand</a>, <a href="http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/27/12/2303.abstract">Canada</a> and – most surprisingly – <a href="http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122535">even the United States</a> over the past few decades. So what’s going on that’s leading to those improved firearm fatality rates? And why is it so hard to have a sensible discussion about effective ways to tackle gun violence?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77898/original/image-20150414-24627-1jnew19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77898/original/image-20150414-24627-1jnew19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77898/original/image-20150414-24627-1jnew19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=556&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77898/original/image-20150414-24627-1jnew19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=556&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77898/original/image-20150414-24627-1jnew19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=556&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77898/original/image-20150414-24627-1jnew19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=699&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77898/original/image-20150414-24627-1jnew19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=699&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77898/original/image-20150414-24627-1jnew19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=699&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Judging from the <a href="http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/gun-violence-plagues-sydneys-streets/story-fn7y9brv-1226333898332">news</a>, you could be forgiven for thinking gun-related murders in all those countries are soaring – and we have seen some tragic, high-profile cases of fatal shootings recently, particularly in the US where there has been a spate of <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2015/04/13/399314868/some-key-facts-weve-learned-about-police-shootings-over-the-past-year">police shootings</a>.</p>
<p>But looking at the longer-term trends, the official statistics offer a different outlook. And interestingly, the downwards trends in firearm homicide rates – especially in Australia, New Zealand and Canada – look fairly similar, despite those countries having very different approaches to gun control.</p>
<h2>Ideology too often trumps evidence</h2>
<p>Unfortunately, Australian firearms policy is seldom scrutinised in the way that other policies routinely are. Ideology – both pro- and anti-gun – often trumps facts.</p>
<p>This stifles debate and prevents us from thinking about how other countries have <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ending-gang-and-youth-violence-cross-government-report">tackled</a> <a href="http://ploughshares.ca/pl_publications/breaking-the-cycle-of-gang-violence-a%E2%80%88toronto-program-aimed-at-intervening-with-youth-involved-in-gang-activity-is-showing-results/">gun violence</a>. </p>
<p>For example, both Canada and New Zealand abandoned universal <a href="http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/online_en-ligne/reg_enr-eng.htm">longarm</a> (rifle and shotgun) <a href="http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1983/0044/latest/DLM72622.html">registration</a>. Instead, they redirected their resources into high-risk populations and situations, such as disadvantaged young men involved in the illicit drug trade.</p>
<p>Those two countries also <a href="https://www.familyservices.govt.nz/">strengthened social services</a> and worked hard to build <a href="http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/tavis/">relationships between police and communities</a> most at risk of gun violence.</p>
<h2>Australia’s hot spots for gun violence</h2>
<p>In Australia, fatal shootings mainly occur in a small number of <a href="http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/cjb57.pdf">urban crime</a> “<a href="http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/bb82v1pdf.pdf">hotspots</a>”. Typically, the perpetrators and their victims are young men from disenfranchised minority communities. They are often motivated by <a href="http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi361.pdf">drugs, turf or other rivalries</a>. </p>
<p>Australian law enforcement agencies want to end that cycle of violence and take guns <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommsen%2F9f027bf5-8b19-483a-a1a8-7fdd56dc5f86%2F0007;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommsen%2F9f027bf5-8b19-483a-a1a8-7fdd56dc5f86%2F0000%22">out of the hands of criminals</a>. But a recent <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Illicit_firearms">Senate inquiry</a> on gun-related violence found that nobody knows quite how many illegal guns are in Australia, or where they are coming from. </p>
<p>Crime guns are likely to come from a wide range of sources. Information held by law enforcement agencies about legally owned firearms is unreliable and of limited use when it comes to understanding the illegal market.</p>
<p>The Australian Crime Commission <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/%7E/media/Committees/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/Illicit_firearms/Report.pdf">conservatively estimated</a> that, in 2012, there were 260,000 unaccounted-for guns in Australia – more than 250,000 rifles and shotguns and around 10,000 handguns. But these are not necessarily in the hands of violent criminals and estimates are <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommsen%2F82436eb6-20c3-4906-84c3-2ea6cbcb9b5a%2F0006;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommsen%2F82436eb6-20c3-4906-84c3-2ea6cbcb9b5a%2F0000%22">inherently inaccurate</a>. </p>
<h2>A missed opportunity</h2>
<p>Although gun laws are a state responsibility, this month’s <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/%7E/media/Committees/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/Illicit_firearms/Report.pdf">Senate report</a> on gun violence recommends ongoing amnesties, under which illegally held guns can be surrendered to police, and better <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommsen%2F82436eb6-20c3-4906-84c3-2ea6cbcb9b5a%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommsen%2F82436eb6-20c3-4906-84c3-2ea6cbcb9b5a%2F0000%22">data sharing</a> between agencies. These are commendable suggestions – but they are unlikely to help reduce gun violence.</p>
<p>The Senate inquiry took almost a year and its reporting date was extended twice. Yet for all that time and effort, and despite its ambitious title – the ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gun-related violence in
the community – <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/%7E/media/Committees/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/Illicit_firearms/Report.pdf">the final report</a> contains a glaring gap. </p>
<p>It did not explore social, economic and cultural factors that contribute to gun violence. It beggars belief that a search for comprehensive, evidence-based prevention strategies was not seen as a political priority.</p>
<p>Instead, the inquiry’s terms of reference focused heavily on whether theft of legal firearms contributes significantly to the criminal market, and whether more <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/inquiry-looks-at-semi-automatic-gun-ban/story-fn3dxiwe-1227089248320">gun bans</a> and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-13/calls-for-crackdown-on-3d-printed-illegal-and-stolen-weapons/5809390">laws</a> are needed. The answer was: no. </p>
<p>At least Australia’s politicians have looked at evidence about what will <em>not</em> work to reduce gun violence. But the lengthy Senate inquiry missed a golden opportunity to look at evidence about what <em>can</em> work to reduce gun violence. </p>
<h2>What more can Australia do to prevent gun violence?</h2>
<p>Fatal shootings have fallen, and that is good news, even if the reasons for those declines are still <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-03/gun-crime-down-drug-arrests-up-in-new-south-wales/5936034">not entirely clear</a>. But more can be done to reduce violence.</p>
<p>While <a href="http://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=207">law enforcement strategies</a> to seize illegal firearms, target gun traffickers and prosecute gun crimes are an important part of the solution, they are not the whole solution. </p>
<p>Strategies that have performed best to reduce gun violence bring together police, justice and corrective system workers (such as probation and parole officers), social workers and health professionals, and representatives from communities where gun crime commonly occurs.</p>
<p>Among other things, successful strategies emphasise the importance of <a href="http://cad.sagepub.com/content/58/2/222">partnership building with communities</a> that are disproportionately affected by gun violence. They are also proportional to the problem, <a href="http://www.smartpolicinginitiative.com/sites/all/files/SPI%20Gun%20Violence%20Spotlight%20FINAL.pdf">place-based</a> and consider the broader <a href="http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2010.300034">socio-economic and cultural context</a> in which crime occurs. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/SPT/Programs/40">Successful programs</a> incorporate behavioural and substance abuse treatment for offenders and support for their families and communities, along with prevention efforts such as <a href="http://www.eif.org.uk/publications/preventing-gang-involvement-and-youth-violence-advice-for-commissioning-mentoring-programmes/">mentoring</a>, culture- and gender-specific interventions, and life skills training for at-risk youth. <a href="http://www.buildchicago.org/">Diversion programs</a> that give youths viable alternatives to gang and drug involvement have also shown promise. </p>
<p>Violence prevention is complex. Decisions need to be made about which among many competing priorities is the best investment of finite resources. Social services or tougher sentences? A war on drugs or harm reduction? Prison rehabilitation programs or more police? It is rarely as simple as one or the other.</p>
<p>Striking the right balance takes political maturity, honesty and the ability to resist quick fixes. Catchy anti- or pro-gun soundbites like “illegal guns started out legal” and “if you outlaw guns only outlaws have guns” are no substitute for rigorous debate. </p>
<p>The Australian community deserves evidence-informed policy. And that means that all of us – not just politicians – have a responsibility to look at the evidence about what works best to prevent violence.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>* Dr Samara McPhedran will be available for an author Q&A on Thursday April 16 between 1-2 pm. Please leave any questions or comments for her below. As she will be trying to respond to as many comments as possible, please make it clear if you would like a response from Dr McPhedran, and ideally keep it short and sharp to make it easier to respond.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39993/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Samara McPhedran does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. Dr McPhedran has been appointed to a number of firearms advisory panels and committees, most recently as a member of the Queensland Ministerial Advisory Panel on Firearms, and as a previous member of the Commonwealth Firearms Advisory Council. She does not receive any financial remuneration for these activities. She holds memberships with, and volunteers for, a range of not-for-profit firearm-related organisations and women's advocacy groups. She is not a member of any political party.</span></em></p>The rate of fatal shootings has fallen in Australia, the US and other nations in recent decades. Yet anti- and pro-gun ideology still makes it hard to have a sensible discussion about gun violence.Samara McPhedran, Senior Research Fellow, Violence Research and Prevention Program, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/344862014-11-23T19:12:07Z2014-11-23T19:12:07ZFOFA fiasco: no quick fix for the advice industry<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65248/original/image-20141123-1049-1ndzk3t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Senator Jacqui Lambie has voted against changes to the Future of Financial Advice reforms.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Alan Porritt/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Last week brought the latest instalment in the continuing Australian financial planning industry saga. Senators Jacqui Lambie and Ricky Muir blocked the Abbott government’s <a href="http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2014L00891/Explanatory%20Statement/Text">rollback</a> of some of Labor’s Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) reforms.</p>
<p>The proposed changes to FOFA watered down some of its more controversial aspects. They included the provisions establishing a “best interests” duty for financial planners and restrictions on conflicted remuneration. Other rollbacks included changes that required fee disclosure statements and the obligation for clients paying ongoing fees to “opt in” by written consent every two years. </p>
<p>The Abbott government maintained the reforms were merely to streamline regulation, prompted by the need to reduce bureaucracy and red tape. However, the recent and continuing <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/timbercorp-victims-set-to-sue-financial-planners-while-liquidator-presses-for-loans-to-be-repaid-20140810-102gco.html">financial planning scandals</a> made such streamlining politically unsustainable.<br>
So we are back to Labor’s original FOFA legislation. But where does this leave the financial planning industry and the thousands of Australians in need of financial advice?</p>
<p>There are claims within the financial planning industry the blocking of the regulation will cause further <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/fofa-reforms-senate-shock-spurs-financial-adviser-scramble-20141119-11q2te.html">instability</a>. This is as firms scramble to meet the FOFA requirements, particularly those relating to fee disclosure and opt in obligations.</p>
<p>Yet FOFA has been law since 1 July 2013, so it is difficult at first glance to understand why the blocked rollback would significantly impact the industry. </p>
<p>It seems that large sections of the industry have been operating on the basis the coalition’s FOFA rollback changes would become law. </p>
<p>It is a view reflected by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. It <a href="http://www.asic.gov.au/about-asic/media-centre/find-a-media-release/2013-releases/13-355mr-asic-update-on-fofa/">said</a> in December 2013 it would take a “facilitative” approach to FOFA enforcement in light of the proposed changes and would</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“not take enforcement action in relation to the specific FOFA provisions that the government is planning to repeal”.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>After the reforms were disallowed in the Senate, ASIC said this week it would take a “<a href="http://www.asic.gov.au/about-asic/media-centre/find-a-media-release/2014-releases/14-307mr-disallowance-of-fofa-regulations/">practical and measured approach</a>” to administering FOFA as it now stands. The regulator says it recognises that compliance with FOFA will require systems changes for many Australian financial services licensees. This facilitative approach to FOFA compliance will continue until 1 July 2015. </p>
<p>It seems unlikely there is any need for panic within the industry as there is still some time before ASIC will enforce FOFA compliance. Nonetheless, those licensees who deferred making costly system changes in line with Labor’s legislation may now find themselves having to make those changes rapidly in a highly uncertain regulatory environment. </p>
<p>In the long run, this situation is likely to lead to less affordable financial advice for Australian consumers. </p>
<p>Despite the reform rollback not going ahead, there still isn’t an easy solution for the financial advice industry. The unchanged legislation now retains greater consumer protection. But it does <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/fofa-doesnt-clean-up-the-financial-advice-minefield-20141121-11riwk.html">little to address </a>what many regard as the fundamental cause of the poor reputation of the Australian financial planning industry – the need to raise the professional, ethical and educational standards of financial advisers. </p>
<p>While consumers will get some greater level of protection through increased fee disclosure, this comes at a price. This protection also relies on consumers taking the time to read and understand the disclosures made by their financial planners. Financial planners can continue to give poor quality advice. What will change is increased upfront fees and greater disclosure around these fees resulting in higher costs. There will be less scope for scaled advice which was part of the Abbott government reforms. </p>
<p>FOFA still fails to set educational or professional standards for financial planners. Until industry entry standards are lifted, FOFA will not deliver accessible financial advice for the Australians who need it.</p>
<p>Absent an urgent rethink by the Abbott government on FOFA, after last week’s events it seems the goal of access to affordable and trustworthy financial advice for Australian consumers is more elusive than ever.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34486/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Julie Walker has previously received research funding from the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia. She is affiliated with Chartered Accountants Australia New Zealand.</span></em></p>Last week brought the latest instalment in the continuing Australian financial planning industry saga. Senators Jacqui Lambie and Ricky Muir blocked the Abbott government’s rollback of some of Labor’s…Julie Walker, Associate Professor in Accounting , The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/320272014-09-25T01:25:58Z2014-09-25T01:25:58ZA Lambie loose in the top paddock of Parliament<p>If a movie is ever made about the life of the well-known PUP senator from Tasmania, we can be sure it won’t be titled “Silence of the Lambie”. After a little over two months in public life, quiet and stillness are not attributes that come readily to mind about Jacqui Lambie. She has created more waves than any prospective Titanic II issuing from the Clive Palmer shipyard.</p>
<p>After calling our Dear Leader a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-03/lambie-claims-abbott-put-career-before-daughters-safety/5568286">“political psychopath”</a> just two days after entering the august upper chamber, she later humorously <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/wellhung-palmer-united-party-senator-jacqui-lambie-boards-the-oversharing-express-on-radio-station-heart-1073-20140722-3ccr2.html">shared</a> with morning radio listeners her favourite traits in a prospective lover.</p>
<p>More problematically, she leapt into the choppy waters surrounding Islamists, ISIS and Islam. There she was clearly out of her depth in an <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-22/clive-palmer-says-australia-needs-unity-after-lambie-interview/5759320">interview on ABC’s Insiders</a>, when she was unable to explain what <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-sharia-law-and-does-it-fit-with-western-law-31972">“sharia”</a> meant while still claiming it involved terrorism. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, she has been undeterred either by what was described as a “train wreck” of an interview, or by the careful distinctions made by leaders of the major political parties, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-24/more-armed-police-and-pat-downs-in-queensland/5765094">police and security agencies</a> between the vast majority of law-abiding Muslims and the jihadists.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/o63FGy3mPWI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Jacqui Lambie on Insiders last Sunday.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59883/original/msgpd49f-1411541201.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59883/original/msgpd49f-1411541201.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59883/original/msgpd49f-1411541201.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59883/original/msgpd49f-1411541201.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59883/original/msgpd49f-1411541201.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59883/original/msgpd49f-1411541201.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59883/original/msgpd49f-1411541201.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59883/original/msgpd49f-1411541201.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Jacqui Lambie’s Facebook post (which is no longer visible on her Facebook page).</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59881/original/t452qtz7-1411540887.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59881/original/t452qtz7-1411540887.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59881/original/t452qtz7-1411540887.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=849&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59881/original/t452qtz7-1411540887.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=849&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59881/original/t452qtz7-1411540887.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=849&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59881/original/t452qtz7-1411540887.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1067&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59881/original/t452qtz7-1411540887.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1067&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59881/original/t452qtz7-1411540887.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1067&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Lambie’s letter defending her Facebook post.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">https://www.facebook.com/senatorlambie</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Rather than back down, Lambie instead went further by <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-22/jacqui-lambie-renews-attack-on-sharia-law/5761342">claiming</a> supporters of sharia law were “maniacs and depraved humans” who will not stop committing “cold-blooded butchery and rapes until every woman in Australia wears a burqa”. </p>
<p>She has also defended sharing an <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/photographer-horrified-after-claims-britain-first-used-picture-of-first-afghan-policewoman-killed-by-taliban-for-ban-the-burka-campaign-9745959.html">anti-burqa Facebook post</a> from anti-immigration group Britain First – which turned out to be a portrait of Afghanistan’s first female policewoman, Lt Col Malalai Kakar, who was killed by the Taliban. (You can see the original post and Senator Lambie’s response on the right.)</p>
<p>Lambie’s statements tell us she has little time for Google to clarify gaps in knowledge; research is a waste of time when it’s easier to have fixed opinions. Sorry, people at <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/summary/summary.w3p;page=0;query=sharia%20SearchCategory_Phrase%3A%22library%22;resCount=Default">the Parliamentary Library</a>.</p>
<p>Given her military background, it is appropriate to call her a loose cannon on the deck of Palmer United. And one that can swivel to hit all and sundry targets that anger her. She has pushed back at Clive’s attempt to rein in her comments by <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/23/jacqui-lambie-not-rule-out-leaving-palmer-united">declaring</a> she would not rule out leaving PUP. </p>
<p>She has the example of Senator <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/senator-john-madigan-hit-with-financial-claims-as-jilted-dlp-fires-back-20140904-10cmh6.html">John Madigan</a> quitting the DLP and of Senator Ricky Muir (remember him?) having a rocky <a href="http://www.afr.com/p/national/motoring_party_tries_to_expel_ricky_y9jiLFre1NoRxT8ahfb9vM">relationship</a> with the Motoring Enthusiasts Party.</p>
<p>This lady is not for turning, to quote Margaret Thatcher. In that respect, both women have an appeal to some voters like that of Pauline Hanson: as “real” people, of the people, as opposed to those purported fakes who claim to represent the people. Hence, in a recent episode of <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/23/jacqui-lambie-not-rule-out-leaving-palmer-united">Australian Story</a> Lambie asserted that politicians:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>live in a political bubble of delusion. Get your damned boots on and get out there and talk to the real people. Leave your office. Get out there and feel their hurt. And then you might make some decent decisions about these people and their lives.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Lambie has played the anti-politician card, which has been one of the main reasons for the existence of the Palmer United Party and the level of Clive’s popularity. It was also a reason for One Nation’s primary vote soaring to <a href="http://australianpolitics.com/states/qld/beattie.shtml">23%</a> in a 1998 Queensland election and to around <a href="http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/Newsfiles/1998/No_77.htm">9%</a> in the 1998 federal election. Similarly, the Australian Democrats successfully played the anti-politics card in the 1970s.</p>
<p>In other words, minor parties and independents arise out of dissatisfaction with current politics and particularly with major parties. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NtOAOCcwLfI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>It’s always easy to lambast Canberra politicians as out of touch, as that can simply mean any of them are not complying with our personal view of the world. It’s also easy to come up with motherhood statements that politicians should be representing Australian people – though it’s hard to satisfy all 11 million voters.</p>
<p>There is a paradox here. On the one hand, minor parties feed off this ferment and the alienation from major parties. Their staying power beyond the short term, however, is another matter entirely. They can be fractious and fail, as we’ve seen with the Democrats, DLP, One Nation and a host of other parties.</p>
<p>On the other hand, features of the major parties that alienate people can also be sources of strength. Parliament needs to be the place of compromises between the various parts of our society that can’t compromise. This has to be done by the despised major parties. So it is good to have a diversity of people representing us in Parliament – though we wouldn’t really want our two chambers to be populated by 226 Lambies, fixed to their opinions.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the major parties have complex structures for filtering candidates, not always successfully to be sure, but certainly in contrast to PUP, which attracted some unusual types without much preparation. So the types of candidates attracted and excited by minor parties can become public embarrassments, which was certainly the case with One Nation. Strengths can become weaknesses.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/j7WblopdUkE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Even before taking her seat in Parliament, Q&A nominated Jacqui Lambie for delivering the highlight of this April show.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But weaknesses can also become strengths. Major parties have the staying power of marathon runners and therefore strategise accordingly to squeeze out competitors like PUP. Abbott and his team can wait and cultivate the fault-lines in PUP.</p>
<p>Lambie is not only in dispute with Palmer but also with fellow PUP Senator <a href="http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/feuding-senators-jacqui-lambie-and-glenn-lazarus-go-from-pups-of-war-to-the-exfriendables/story-fnihsrf2-1227039287637">Glenn Lazarus</a>. Her chief of staff has shown an indiscreet lack of discipline with <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/press-gallery-roped-into-another-stoush-between-clive-palmer-and-jacqui-lambie-20140923-10koq9.html">emails</a> that publicly deride colleagues. Abbott and co. can rely on Lambie reacting in a headstrong way against those she sees as trying to oppress her.</p>
<p>Such a waiting game could see Lambie joining David Leyonhelm, Bob Day, Ricky Muir, John Madigan and Nick Xenophon to make a total of six <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-25/new-senate-crossbenchers-whos-who/5547828">independent or micro-party senators</a>. If all vote the government way on a policy then the Coalition has a majority in the upper house. It’s a fragile scenario but one that would give the government more options than negotiating with the Greens and Labor.</p>
<p>Last year I had thought Palmer would prove to be a Clive-nado when unleashed upon the floor of parliament. He has since become relatively restrained – <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-21/clive-palmers-constituents-criticise-mp-for-comments/5687918">when he’s actually there</a> – learning that being leader of a party is not as easy as launching a party with hoopla.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32027/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Rolfe does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If a movie is ever made about the life of the well-known PUP senator from Tasmania, we can be sure it won’t be titled “Silence of the Lambie”. After a little over two months in public life, quiet and stillness…Mark Rolfe, Lecturer, School of Social Sciences, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/292172014-07-17T02:04:09Z2014-07-17T02:04:09ZObituary: Australia’s carbon price<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/54057/original/qy4579wx-1405560399.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=8%2C17%2C2973%2C1967&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Even before it was born, the carbon price had plenty of friends – and lots of enemies.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx">Carbon Pricing Mechanism</a>, known to its friends as the carbon price and its critics as the carbon tax, passed away today in Canberra, aged two, after a long battle with slogans. </p>
<p>While it won praise from most <a href="http://economics.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/2014-ECONOMISTS%C2%B9-OPEN-LETTER-SUPPORTING-A-PRICE-AND-LIMIT-ON-CARBON-POLLUTION.pdf">academic</a> and business economists at home and abroad, it will perhaps be best remembered for its controversial relationship with Australian voters, the stinging criticism it endured from certain politicians, and comparisons with its nemesis, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbotts-new-direct-action-sceptics-20131027-2w9va.html">Direct Action</a>.</p>
<p>While no-one thought it was perfect, the carbon price was <a href="https://theconversation.com/despite-its-imminent-demise-the-carbon-price-has-cut-emissions-29199">achieving the task that was asked of it</a>, and won expert recognition as an important pillar of any sensible climate policy portfolio. </p>
<h2>Passionate origins</h2>
<p>The carbon price was conceived in the throes of passion of market theory. Pollution has a social cost, so it seemed like a good idea to economists to incorporate these costs into the market system, with its respected properties of being relatively good at allocating resources and minimising costs.</p>
<p>Its backers had big ideas. Incentives to lower emissions would permeate throughout the economy from bolstering low-carbon investment, encouraging consumers to switch into low carbon goods and services, and supporting technological and social innovation. Emissions-reduction efforts could also be easily scaled up by raising the carbon price or reducing the number of permits for sale.</p>
<p>But the carbon price kept its feet on the ground, always aiming for a humble target of a 5% cut in Australia’s emissions by 2020, even though its cousin, the Climate Change Authority, advised it to <a href="http://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/reviews/targets-and-progress-review-3">shoot for 19%</a> to be closer in line with what other countries were doing.</p>
<h2>A difficult birth</h2>
<p>With such a strong market-theory pedigree, one would have thought that the Coalition - usually ardent fans of incentives and market forces - would have gleefully awaited the carbon price’s birth.</p>
<p>Indeed, they were part of the pregnancy. Both the Coalition and Labor contested the 2007 federal election promising an emissions trading scheme.</p>
<p>One of those who later turned against the carbon price, environment minister Greg Hunt, had previously written an undergraduate <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/50162694/A-Tax-to-Make-the-Polluter-Pay">honours thesis</a> on the benefits of pricing pollution. Even future Prime Minister Tony Abbott said in his 2009 book <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlelines">Battlelines</a> that it seemed to be the “best way to obtain the highest emission reduction at the lowest cost”.</p>
<p>But then came the event that presaged the carbon price’s untimely death: the fall of liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull and Abbott’s election as the new leader by one vote, supported by climate sceptics within his party.</p>
<p>Almost overnight, the admiration for carbon pricing disappeared. </p>
<p>Thus, before the carbon price was even born, it was branded as a pointless and bloated fetus, a “great big new tax on everything” – despite the fact that it was designed to return its revenues to the public through tax cuts and benefits, and the fact that this slogan came from a party that actually did bring in a tax on (nearly) everything: the GST.</p>
<p>Amid the controversy, the carbon price finally arrived on July 1, 2012, delivered by the Labor-led minority government after the extremely close election of 2010. </p>
<p>And while its gestation may have been troubled, its life would be even more difficult.</p>
<p>Before the election, then Prime Minister Julia Gillard famously said there would be “no carbon tax under a government I lead”. But she also said that Australia needed to have an emissions trading scheme (and was of course part of a government that had already tried twice to introduce one in the form of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme). </p>
<p>In fact, the carbon price was really an emissions trading scheme, albeit one designed to spend its first three years imitating a tax before moving to a floating price.</p>
<p>Gillard admitted as much, choosing to call it a tax rather than engage in semantics, in the hope that the discussion would quickly move on. It didn’t – Abbott relentlessly pursued the “great big tax based on a lie”. The carbon price would come to regard this as a bit unfair as Abbott would later deny breaking a promise not to introduce new taxes, on the basis that his proposed <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/general/new-legislation/in-detail/direct-taxes/income-tax-for-individuals/temporary-budget-repair-levy/">budget repair levy</a> would only last three years.</p>
<h2>Post-fact politics</h2>
<p>Throughout its career, the carbon price tried to ignore the barracking from the sidelines, and focus on its task of lowering emissions.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://carbonpricemodelling.treasury.gov.au/content/default.asp">Treasury predicted</a> that there would be modest emission reductions and very mild impacts on gross domestic product, employment and inflation. </p>
<p>In contrast, Abbott declared that the hit on Australians’ cost of living would be “almost unimaginable”. Carbon pricing would “destroy the steel industry, the cement industry, the aluminium industry”. Whyalla and Port Pirie would be “wiped off the map”.</p>
<p>And so what happened after two years of carbon pricing? Pretty much just as the Treasury and the other modellers predicted. </p>
<p>Economists found it difficult to find any <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/carbon-price-two-years-on-not-a-wrecking-ball-20140701-zsre9.html">macro-economic effect</a> beyond a small increase in the consumer price index in the first quarter after it was introduced. Hardly the “wrecking ball” predicted by Abbott.</p>
<p>As expected, electricity prices rose (by approximately 10%), and the price impacts elsewhere were negligible. Companies such as <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/latest/no-grocery-price-drop-from-carbon-repeal/story-e6frg90f-1226986437852">Woolworths</a> said that they had absorbed any price impacts and passed nothing on to consumers.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, <a href="https://ccep.crawford.anu.edu.au/publication/ccep-working-paper/4388/impact-carbon-price-australias-electricity-demand-supply-and">emissions</a> covered under the scheme fell. In the electricity sector, the main sector that the carbon price was expected to impact, they fell spectacularly - more than 8% in two years. However, most analysts agreed that the carbon price was only one factor among many in driving this fall, including the effect of the Renewable Energy Target. Still, not bad considering the carbon price’s long-term incentives had been crushed by Abbott’s pledge to get rid of it. </p>
<p>By now, however, the political attacks had become so entrenched that no amount of inconvenient facts could dislodge them. The carbon price’s new moniker was the “toxic tax”, and that was all you really needed to know.</p>
<p>The Coalition and other critics would seek to find new inventive ways to spin the story that the price was not working or damaging the economy. This included <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-01/greg-hunt-carbon-emissions-misleading/4989750">ignoring baselines</a> – how emissions would have been behaving without the policy.</p>
<p>Rises in electricity prices were almost always blamed exclusively on the carbon price and its cousin, the Renewable Energy Target, despite report after report showing their contribution was minor.</p>
<p>Similarly, the carbon price shouldered the blame for any business – from multinational companies to lemonade stands – that ceased or reduced operations, even when the enterprises <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/alcoa-denies-carbon-tax-led-to-closures-job-shedding-20140218-32yfp.html">explicitly denied it</a>.</p>
<p>Its critics also played down the various compensation packages designed to minimise the impact on low-income families and emissions-intensive sectors like the aluminium industry from being adversely affected in international markets.</p>
<h2>This is the end?</h2>
<p>In its dying weeks, the carbon price sometimes couldn’t tell whether it was hallucinating. Within days of Joe Hockey crowing over the strength of the Australian economy, having put on 100,000 new jobs, much of it in the sectors the carbon price was supposed to be destroying, it thought it saw Tony Abbott on television on the other side of the world claiming that carbon taxes are “job killing” and would “clobber our economy”. Now exhausted, the carbon price only had the strength to sigh. </p>
<p>It died six weeks later. </p>
<p>Mourners are asked not to send flowers, but rather to help conserve the water, as Australia has just smashed another temperature record for the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/el-ninolike-conditions-kick-with-annual-temperature-record-smashed-20140702-zssez.html">12 months to June</a>, with increasing signs of <a href="https://theconversation.com/should-we-be-preparing-for-an-el-ni-o-in-2014-23405">another El Niño this year</a>. </p>
<p>There will be no viewing of the body, however new incarnations of carbon pricing are springing up around the world, despite <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-09/tony-abbott-emissions-trading-around-the-world-fact-check/5559430">claims to the contrary</a> by the Prime Minister. This year alone, new emissions trading schemes have begun in seven regions and cities in China, and in California. South Korea is also set to launch a national emissions trading scheme on January 1 next year.</p>
<p>In its final days, the carbon price obsessed over how it could all have been so different and the various events that may have taken its life in a more friendly direction. </p>
<p>Cryptically, its dying whisper was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utegate">“Utegate”</a>.</p>
<p>The Carbon Pricing Mechanism is survived by several relatives, including the Climate Change Authority, Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Renewable Energy Target, albeit all in precarious health. It was preceded in death by its mother, the Department of Climate Change, and its brother, the Climate Commission.</p>
<p><em>The Carbon Pricing Mechanism, 2012-2014.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/29217/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Twomey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Carbon Pricing Mechanism, known to its friends as the carbon price and its critics as the carbon tax, passed away today in Canberra, aged two, after a long battle with slogans. While it won praise…Paul Twomey, Senior Research Fellow - Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets and Faculty of Built Environment, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/291652014-07-15T19:54:22Z2014-07-15T19:54:22ZCarbon tax repeal raises long-term risks for Australian business<p>The bill to repeal Australia’s “carbon tax” is poised to pass the Senate, potentially leaving Australia without a working price on carbon.</p>
<p>In the short term, the repeal may provide some relief for businesses and households as electricity bills fall — <a href="https://theconversation.com/carbon-tax-axed-how-it-affects-you-australia-and-our-emissions-28895">although possibly not as much as official estimates</a>. But in the medium to long term repealing Australia’s carbon price leaves Australian business unprepared if the world gets serious about reducing carbon emissions. </p>
<p>A global agreement to reduce carbon emissions — in an attempt to prevent climate change of more than 2C — could come as soon as the end of 2015 at global talks in Paris. And several economies — including the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm">EU</a>, <a href="http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm">California</a>in the USA, British Columbia in Canada, and pilot programs in seven <a href="http://www.ieta.org/assets/Reports/EmissionsTradingAroundTheWorld/edf_ieta_china_case_study_september_2013.pdf">Chinese cities</a> — already have explicit or implicit prices on carbon. </p>
<h2>Why is a price on carbon important?</h2>
<p>A price on carbon allows businesses to factor the costs that they will have to pay for their carbon emissions into business decision-making. It means that executives can make decisions to switch technology, invest in different technology in other companies, or to do business in a different way to reduce their emissions. </p>
<p>This is a very old principle in dealing with environmental issues. We’ve done it before for sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxide and for chlorofluorocarbons to help prevent acid rain and halt the destruction of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/saving-the-ozone">ozone layer</a>. We put a price on pollution as a way to remove the incentive to keep polluting.</p>
<p>If we don’t have that price in place then companies are able to emit as much carbon dioxide as they like without cost. This is traditionally what has happened. The real opportunity that is lost is that there is then no real incentive to move to new, renewable technology or to roll out existing renewable technology. </p>
<p>The carbon price is fundamental in both stopping emissions and helping organisations switch to low-emission technology and business practices. This will help them compete in a world where carbon is constrained. </p>
<h2>High stakes for business</h2>
<p>Having no price on carbon could have significant impacts on Australian business in the short, medium and long run. </p>
<p>First, there are fewer incentives for business to continue to develop low-emission technologies. Other incentives exist, such as the Renewable Energy Target, and institutions such as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and Australian Renewable Energy Agency can assist businesses and households to change to low-carbon processes. However, the price on carbon is a direct incentive to change the most heavily emitting processes, and to implement new technologies.</p>
<p>Second, Australian business will continue to depend on fossil fuels to generate energy and profitability. If our major trading partners, such as the US and China, move towards low-carbon economies, they will find it increasingly difficult to work with high-emissions businesses in Australia - from a compliance and a corporate social responsibility angle. </p>
<p>Those countries, despite reducing carbon emissions within their borders, would in effect be supporting continued emissions by working with Australian businesses that have not taken up low-carbon processes. We are already seeing companies like the US retail giant Walmart push sustainability up and down their supply and value chains because they don’t want to be associated with <a href="http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6200">high-carbon business</a>. </p>
<p>We have seen something similar in the moves against using sweat shops or child labour — and the same could potentially happen with carbon. International businesses are starting to take responsibility for their actions, with a nudge from policy and a push from the public.</p>
<p>Third, without a price on carbon, Australia will continue to rely on coal as a major energy source and export product. Under a global agreement to deal with climate change and reduce carbon emissions, it is likely that much of this investment in coal — <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-coal-industry-needs-to-prepare-for-global-climate-action-28547">particularly for electricity</a> — would become <a href="https://theconversation.com/unburnable-fossil-fuels-set-to-leave-investors-stranded-13611">“stranded”</a>. </p>
<h2>An end to carbon pricing?</h2>
<p>Although repealing the carbon tax might appear to leave Australia without a price on carbon, it may still leave options open. </p>
<p>The Coalition’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/direct-action-plan">direct action policy</a> with its centrepiece, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/emissions-reduction-fund">Emissions Reduction Fund</a>, could provide an effective price on carbon, although not as it currently stands. </p>
<p>The plan could effectively be a price on carbon if the penalties are strict enough to regulate companies’ emissions effectively.</p>
<p>The trouble for business is that without certainty on what that price or penalty will be, it is extremely difficult to take any real action to deal with carbon emissions in an economically sensible way.</p>
<p>Around the world, it has been difficult to understand what the price on carbon actually is. So businesses run analyses on what the price on carbon could be under a range of future scenarios. The problem with direct action is we don’t yet know how much businesses will be penalised. All that says to businesses is that you might have comply, but we’re not going to tell you how much it will cost. </p>
<p>Rationally, companies will therefore wait as long as possible to do any work on reducing their emissions. And, depending on the penalty, it may be better just to take the hit than actually change business practises or embrace new technologies. </p>
<p>Direct action as it stands doesn’t do what it is meant to do — either to deal with climate change, or help businesses switch to low-carbon profitability at scale. It could achieve this, but it needs to be ambitious and assist in creating low carbon innovation opportunities.</p>
<p>The longer we wait to take action on reducing carbon emissions, the steeper the reduction curve has to be. If we start to make reductions now, we can make more gentle reductions, working on it steadily and efficiently, and then go for bigger ambitions when we know we are on the right track. </p>
<p>But if we wait and wait, we get to a crunch point where we know we have to reduce emissions quickly, and it becomes really painful. It’s like cycling up a hill — if you’re riding up a gentle slope it’s not too much effort, and you can take your time to look around and enjoy the ride. Giving yourself a mountain to climb is a lot harder and a lot more more painful. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/29165/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adam Bumpus receives funding from University of Melbourne. He is affiliated with the University of Melbourne and the Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia.</span></em></p>The bill to repeal Australia’s “carbon tax” is poised to pass the Senate, potentially leaving Australia without a working price on carbon. In the short term, the repeal may provide some relief for businesses…Adam Bumpus, Senior Lecturer, Environment & Development, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/207762013-12-17T18:49:34Z2013-12-17T18:49:34ZHumans struggle with decisions – why make elections so difficult?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37923/original/qmjpzhv9-1387240124.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">With so many choices 'below the line' how are voters confident they've ranked candidates correctly?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dean Lewins</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s been a crazy year for decision making. Not only did we have an election, we now have the <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-are-double-dissolutions-and-how-do-they-work-19236">threat of a double dissolution</a> if the Federal Senate keeps knocking back bills from the House of Representatives. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, Western Australians are likely to be <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-new-senate-election-looms-large-for-wa-voters-19757">headed for fresh Senate by-elections</a> next year after the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) <a href="http://www.aec.gov.au/media/media-releases/2013/e10-31.htm">misplaced 1,375 votes</a> in the last election. </p>
<p>Problems with voting for the Senate are ingrained in the system itself. The electoral system of the Australian Senate has a number of unique and progressive features: preferential voting, proportional representation and choice at the candidate level. </p>
<p>Because of this complexity, flaws in the system have emerged. Here, briefly, is an explanation of the system’s problems and a number of easy-to-implement solutions.</p>
<h2>The Senate model</h2>
<p>Currently, the Senate ballot paper has two parts:</p>
<ol>
<li>“above the line” with the name of the parties</li>
<li>“below the line” with the names of the candidates of each party. </li>
</ol>
<p>Voting “below the line” requires determining the order of preference of at least 90% of the candidates. This can take some time – for example, in the 2013 federal election, New South Wales had 110 candidates.</p>
<p>This is the first defect of the system. Research into the psychology of decision making has shown that people struggle to make rational choices even with two options. </p>
<p>In a <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/211/4481/453">1981 Science article</a>, psychologists <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos_Tversky">Amos Tversky</a> and Nobel laureate <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/2002/kahneman-bio.html">Daniel Kahneman</a> asked participants to make a choice in the following situation:</p>
<p>Imagine the US is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease are proposed:</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37939/original/p5tpp6qd-1387242981.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37939/original/p5tpp6qd-1387242981.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37939/original/p5tpp6qd-1387242981.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37939/original/p5tpp6qd-1387242981.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37939/original/p5tpp6qd-1387242981.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37939/original/p5tpp6qd-1387242981.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37939/original/p5tpp6qd-1387242981.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37939/original/p5tpp6qd-1387242981.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Valeri-DBF</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>If Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved.</p>
<p>If Program B is adopted, there is 1/3 probability that 600 people will be saved, and 2/3 probability that no people will be saved.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In this study 72% of participants chose Program A and 28% Progam B. In another study the same information was presented in a different way:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If Program A is adopted 400 people will die.</p>
<p>If Program B is adopted there is 1/3 probability that nobody will die, and 2/3 probability that 600 people will die.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Given that the information is the same you may expect that the percentage of people choosing each option is similar. In fact, there was a massive reverse of preferences: 22% chose Program A and 78% chose Program B.</p>
<p>This is one among a number of decision making studies showing that most people find it difficult to make rational choices. Taking this into account, the design of instruments for people to make choices (such as electoral systems) should be as simple as possible, so people’s choices reflect their true preferences. </p>
<p>Needless to say, having to establish preferences for 110 options is not simple at all. </p>
<p>Unsurprisingly, the great majority of people refuse to vote “below the line”, instead they vote “above the line” by writing “1” in the box of the party they prefer. By doing so, people accept the preferences predetermined by their preferred party.</p>
<h2>Disproportionate outcomes</h2>
<p>Although proportional representation is achieved, the system delivers bizarre outcomes. In Victoria the <a href="http://www.australianmotoringenthusiastparty.org.au/">Australian Motoring Enthusiast party</a> obtained a seat with only 0.51 % of first preference votes. </p>
<p>Similarly, pending the outcome of a Court of Disputed Returns hearing, the <a href="http://www.australiansportsparty.com/">Australian Sports Party</a> may have obtained a seat in Western Australia with 0.23% of first preferences.</p>
<p>Another problem of the system is that minuscule changes of preference can produce a dramatic change of outcomes. This is called <a href="http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/aef/workingpapers/papers/wp2201.pdf">quasi-chaotic behaviour</a> and is exactly what happened in Western Australia. </p>
<p>A difference of 12 votes (that is, less than 0.0001% of the total vote) produces a change of two seats. The Australian Sports Party and the Greens were assigned the fifth and sixth seats, respectively, over the Labor Party and the Palmer United Party (a verdict that is currently being disputed in the courts). </p>
<p>Curiously, the 12-vote difference was not between those parties, but rather between two other minor parties.</p>
<h2>A better method</h2>
<p>This proposal has the following features: elimination of party tickets, simplification of voting and simplification of counting, while maintaining the preferential system and proportional representation.</p>
<p>Voting is simplified by requesting voters to establish their preferences for parties, not for candidates. This would reduce — in New South Wales, for instance — the choice space from 110 options to 42 options. </p>
<p>This may seem an important cost, but in fact previous elections showed that most people choose not to give preferences to candidates. A corollary of this is the avoidance of “<a href="http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-tablecloth-election,5714">tablecloth</a>” ballot papers.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37922/original/7tv5kbwb-1387239520.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37922/original/7tv5kbwb-1387239520.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37922/original/7tv5kbwb-1387239520.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37922/original/7tv5kbwb-1387239520.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37922/original/7tv5kbwb-1387239520.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37922/original/7tv5kbwb-1387239520.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37922/original/7tv5kbwb-1387239520.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37922/original/7tv5kbwb-1387239520.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Huge ballot papers are nothing new – here’s one from 2011.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">yewenyi</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There are several ways to maintain proportional representation without the “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote">single transferable vote</a>”. The one that requires fewer changes is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borda_count">Borda count</a>. Here’s how the Borda count works:</p>
<p>Let’s assume there are 20 parties, and voters assign a rank from 1 to 20 to each of the parties. The full 20 points are assigned to the party ranked first, 19 points to the party ranked second, 18 points to the party ranked third, and so on until 1 point is assigned to the party ranked 20th. </p>
<p>After this, the total number of points received by each party is easily calculated by adding up the points that each party received by each voter.</p>
<p>Then, a quota is calculated (alternatively, divisor systems like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Hondt_method">D’Hondt</a> or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sainte-Lagu%C3%AB_method">Sainte-Laguë</a> could be used) by dividing the total number of points by the number of seats plus 1 (this is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droop_quota">Droop quota</a>; other quotas – the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_quota">Hare</a> or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperiali_quota">Imperiali quota</a> – could be used). </p>
<p>Finally, seats are assigned to each party according to the number of quotas obtained by each party, and the remaining seats are allocated to the parties with the highest remainders. This counting method is so simple that anyone can do it with an Excel file at home.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37942/original/9qztvxcy-1387243606.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37942/original/9qztvxcy-1387243606.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37942/original/9qztvxcy-1387243606.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37942/original/9qztvxcy-1387243606.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37942/original/9qztvxcy-1387243606.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37942/original/9qztvxcy-1387243606.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37942/original/9qztvxcy-1387243606.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37942/original/9qztvxcy-1387243606.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A simpler system would reduce polling day queues.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">andy@atbondi</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Instead of asking voters to rank parties, a more progressive alternative consists of asking participates to evaluate them — for instance, by giving 2 points to their most preferred parties, 1 point to parties in a second level of preference and 0 points to the least preferred parties. Any scale can be used, including ones with positive and negative numbers. </p>
<p>This system is called <a href="http://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/653/1/thecaseforutilitarianvoting.pdf">utilitarian voting</a> or evaluative voting, of which the <a href="http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=e7h7evxSclIC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=approval+voting&ots=cSyDsRgp9R&sig=88MAsFbtnm9S0t2FrQKcIaM8pQc#v=onepage&q=approval%20voting&f=false">approval voting</a> method (assigning 1 to the candidates one approves and 0 to those one disapproves) is the simplest and most popular form. </p>
<p>This system is more progressive because, in the ranking method, people are not allowed to express indifference. That is, most people may feel indifferent towards two parties they haven’t heard of before, or they may equally like two parties. </p>
<p>In the current ranking system, voters are obliged to decide which one they prefer, but in utilitarian voting, two parties can have the same score, with the counting then following the same procedure as the Borda count.</p>
<p>In <a href="http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/80/30/24/PDF/cahier_2013-05.pdf">research</a> conducted during the 2012 French presidential elections, it was found that “inclusive candidates” — such as current president François Hollande — would have been favoured by this system, and “exclusive candidates” — such as nationalist Marine Le Pen — would have fared worse if the evaluative voting had been used. </p>
<p>In Australian politics, communications minister Malcolm Turnbull would be considered an inclusive candidate because he would receive good evaluations from Liberal voters for his generally liberal views, but also by progressive voters in the Labor and Green parties for his views on climate change and same-sex marriage. </p>
<p>On the other hand, Prime Minister Tony Abbott would be considered an exclusive candidate, receiving top evaluations from conservative voters but low evaluations from most others.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/20776/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Guillermo Campitelli received funding from the Argentine National Research Council (CONICET).</span></em></p>It’s been a crazy year for decision making. Not only did we have an election, we now have the threat of a double dissolution if the Federal Senate keeps knocking back bills from the House of Representatives…Guillermo Campitelli, Senior Lecturer of Psychology, Edith Cowan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/180422013-09-11T05:15:23Z2013-09-11T05:15:23ZHow do we solve a problem like the Senate?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/31157/original/rp5s59rn-1378872252.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Senators from microparties such as the Motoring Enthusiasts Party and the Sports Party were elected on Saturday with a very small percentage of the vote. Can we fix this problem?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The unexpected and developing election story is that the balance of power in the Senate will belong to “microparties” most electors had never heard of before. </p>
<p>In Victoria, people are asking how <a href="http://www.australianmotoringenthusiastparty.org.au">Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party</a> candidate Ricky Muir could be <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/sport-and-motoring-enthusiasts-to-join-senate-in-new-hung-parliament-20130908-2tdqm.html">elected</a>, even though hardly one in 200 electors voted for the party.</p>
<p>Australia’s preferential system for the Senate has been distorted by “above-the-line” voting, writing 1 in a box above-the-line for our party of choice, with that party having predetermined all the preferences by means of <a href="http://www.prsa.org.au/history.htm#gvt">Group Voting Tickets</a>. </p>
<p>In Victoria, the three major parties (Lib/Nat, ALP and Greens) received 83% of the vote. Around 35 small parties got 17%. To get elected, a candidate needed a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droop_quota">quota</a> of around 14.3%. The tiniest parties, including the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party (AMEP), exchanged preferences with each other. That put AMEP ahead of minor parties like Palmer United Party and Sex Party, whose preferences then elected AMEP.</p>
<p>There is now a great desire for reform. At least six suggestions are being promoted: the abolition of above-the-line voting and Group Voting Tickets so voters decide their preferences explicitly; introducing optional preferential voting to reduce the difficulty of marking all the squares correctly; allowing optional above-the-line preferential voting so voters decide their preferences, group by group; introducing a threshold, a minimum percentage of first preference votes needed to be eligible to stay in the count; increasing the deposit fee from the existing A$2000; and increasing the minimum number of members a party must have before it can be registered.</p>
<p>The great strength of the Australian Senate system is allowing voters to choose not just which parties they support, but also the individual candidates within those parties. Until 1984, all ballots were in the “below-the-line” format, at first with <a href="http://www.prsa.org.au/history.htm#CommonwealthE">optional preferential voting</a>, and then since 1934 with full preferential voting - a change that led to high levels of informal voting. Above-the-line voting was introduced in 1983, ostensibly to <a href="http://www.prsa.org.au/history.htm#gvt">reduce informal voting</a>.</p>
<p>Abolishing above-the-line voting and the related Group Voting Tickets would remove microparties’ power to do deals with each other. Without Group Voting Tickets, microparties would need to actually hand out how-to-vote cards at polling booths for voters to be able to implement their preference deals. But removing above-the-line voting alone would still leave voters the task of correctly numbering all the squares. </p>
<p>This is why the most considered observers, like ABC psephologist <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/comment/senate-preference-deals-put-the-joke-on-us-20130909-2tg64.html">Antony Green</a>, suggest that this option be accompanied by reducing the number of squares the voter needs to mark. That minimum number could be the number of persons to be elected, as in Tasmanian lower house polls and - if voting below-the-line - in Victorian upper house polls.</p>
<p>Above-the-line preferential voting would allow a voter to preference only the parties or groups that they choose, whereas the current system allows voters to preference not only parties, but also the individual candidates within them. Such a system would merely facilitate the preferencing of parties, leaving those wishing to indicate a different order of candidates with a much harder task below-the-line. It is a less equal form of democracy, discouraging scrutiny of the actual people being elected.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/31160/original/7khj52v3-1378872805.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/31160/original/7khj52v3-1378872805.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/31160/original/7khj52v3-1378872805.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/31160/original/7khj52v3-1378872805.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/31160/original/7khj52v3-1378872805.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/31160/original/7khj52v3-1378872805.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/31160/original/7khj52v3-1378872805.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Independent senator Nick Xenophon has called for reform to the Senate voting system, as a host of new colleagues prepare to join him in the Senate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Imposing <a href="http://www.prsa.org.au/history.htm#_6">“thresholds”</a> would mean that a party with a lower percentage of first preference votes than an arbitrarily fixed threshold percentage would be excluded from the count. It may be, however, that a party receiving very few first preference votes is nevertheless ultimately the preferred choice of a quota of voters. </p>
<p>We may agree the likely defeat in Victoria of Liberal senator Helen Kroger by the Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party is problematic, but that is because the preference order was not marked by successive choices of the voters, but instead was predetermined by the parties they voted number 1 for. However, those voters might have actually wanted to preference the Motoring Enthusiast candidates. Some reform options would still allow that, whereas an arbitrary percentage threshold - at whatever level it is set - might unfairly deny the voters their <a href="http://www.prsa.org.au/direct_e.htm">directly chosen</a>, well-considered preference.</p>
<p>Increasing deposits and increasing the number of members of parties deal with the parties themselves, and may make candidature costlier. This may still let very wealthy groups fund such abuses.</p>
<p>After the election, what chance is there for reform? Many commentators and MPs – Antony Green, independent senator <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/nick-xenophon-backs-senate-reform-opposes-repeal-of-carbon-tax-20130910-2thg4.html">Nick Xenophon</a> and Liberal senator <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/10/australian-politics-senate-electoral-reform">George Brandis</a> - have each spoken recently in favour of some reform.</p>
<p>Microparties have been elected at the expense of better-known parties, so reform is in the interest of all major parties, as well as being an improvement to Australian democracy. And consider this: if the Senate rejects the new government’s legislation and Tony Abbott calls a double dissolution election, we can, without reform of the Senate electoral process, expect even more horse trading from microparties.</p>
<p>With the lower quota of 7.7%, we might even get two microparty senators per state.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/18042/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Morey is affiliated with the Proportional Representation Society of Australia (Victoria-Tasmania) Branch Inc. He is an Australian Research Council Future Fellow, at La Trobe University, in the field of Linguistics.</span></em></p>The unexpected and developing election story is that the balance of power in the Senate will belong to “microparties” most electors had never heard of before. In Victoria, people are asking how Australian…Stephen Morey, Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Linguistics, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/177682013-09-05T04:06:04Z2013-09-05T04:06:04ZExplainer: how does the Senate voting system work?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/30597/original/q555btf6-1378185791.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Preference deals and a propensity for people to vote 'above the line' gives microparties like Rise Up Australia a greater chance of being elected to the Senate</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Julian Smith</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The record <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/metrelong-ballot-paper-means-voters-will-need-to-read-the-fine-print-20130817-2s3yw.html">large Senate ballot papers</a> have probably already annoyed many early voters. Their great length - over a metre in NSW and Victoria – will soon annoy many more voters. However, the real annoyance will come if new senators with very little popular support get elected.</p>
<p>The reason why this might happen is a distortion of the Proportional Representation system, where, by voting “above the line”, it is the party - not the voter - that decides the preferences.</p>
<p>In this election, more than ever before, large numbers of parties that we have never heard of are on the ballot paper. Preference deal strategies might even lead to some of them getting elected. <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/10/1097406425742.html">Back in 2004</a>, Labor and Australian Democrat preferences in Victoria went to Family First ahead of the Greens. Almost no Labor or Democrat voters knew this when they voted above the line, but this led to Family First’s Steve Fielding’s election to the Senate.</p>
<p>This can happens because the above the line option - where the preferences are decided by the party you vote for, not by you the voter - was introduced for Senate polls in 1983. These preferences are listed in the <a href="http://www.prsa.org.au/history.htm#gvt">Group Voting Tickets</a>.</p>
<p>You can find out what the party you plan to vote for is doing with its preferences by looking at the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) <a href="http://www.aec.gov.au/election/vic/gvt.htm">website</a> or by checking the Group Voting Tickets at the polling booth. However, most people don’t look at them, and even those that want to might find it confusing, given that - in Victoria, for instance - there are 39 different parties and one group of independents on the ballot paper.</p>
<p>The reason for the explosion in the number of parties – something that will continue if there is no reform – is that the smaller parties can make deals with each other. With a very tiny percentage of first preference votes, it is possible that one of them can get elected to the Senate by picking up the preferences of voters that are not aware of where their preferences are going.</p>
<p>This is how it might happen in Victoria. Suppose the results in the Senate in Victoria was something like this:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Lib/Nat 37%</p>
<p>ALP 37%</p>
<p>Green 10%</p>
<p>Others 16%</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Senate voting works on a quota system, and with six senators to be elected, the quota is around 14.3%. By these figures, the Liberal/National Coalition and Labor safely win two quotas - and two senators - each. After their two quotas (28.6%) are used up, they have a surplus of 8.4%.</p>
<p>What happens next is that the candidate with the least number of votes is excluded and then next least and so on. Let’s say that there are 25 <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/microparties-may-help-family-first-win-seat-20130829-2stmy.html">“microparties”</a> all with an average of 0.4% of the first preference vote, which totals to 10% overall. And let’s say that some of the minor parties like the <a href="http://palmerunited.com/">Palmer United Party</a>, the <a href="http://www.sexparty.org.au/">Sex Party</a> and <a href="http://familyfirst.org.au/">Family First</a> get around 2% each.</p>
<p>Now we know that many of these microparties have done deals with each other – and by the exchange of these preferences, one of them – maybe the <a href="http://riseupaustraliaparty.com/">Rise Up Australia</a>, or <a href="http://smokersrights.org.au/">Smokers Rights</a>, or <a href="http://www.climate-sceptics.com.au/">No Carbon Tax</a>, - might manage, after all the tiny parties’ preferences are distributed, to get around 6% of the vote after preferences. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/30598/original/cmtpyb8g-1378186161.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/30598/original/cmtpyb8g-1378186161.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30598/original/cmtpyb8g-1378186161.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30598/original/cmtpyb8g-1378186161.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30598/original/cmtpyb8g-1378186161.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30598/original/cmtpyb8g-1378186161.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/30598/original/cmtpyb8g-1378186161.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">97 candidates are vying for only six Senate seats in Victoria alone.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP Image/Alan Porritt</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These parties can then pick up the preferences of the more serious minor parties, like the Palmer United Party or Family First or the Sex Party, and that might bring them up to around 9% of the vote. They would then be in front of the surplus of the major parties. Quite understandably, the Coalition <a href="http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/coalition-fears-voter-confusion/story-e6frfkp9-1226708617589">have preferenced</a> some of these microparties in front of the Greens and Labor.</p>
<p>There are methods voters can implement to stop this, beginning with checking the group voting ticket for your state. This will show you where your preferences will go. Alternatively you can vote below the line, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/svic/?WT.srch=1&WT.mc_id=Corp_News-Elections-Federal-2013_AdWords_:victoria%20senate%20candidates%202013_b_g_34079091559_&gclid=CLv187HCrrkCFYkipQodbzQA_g">1 to 97</a> in Victoria. As a safety mechanism you can put a 1 above the line in the box belonging to the party of your choice, and that will be counted only if you make a mistake below the line.</p>
<p>In the long term, we need to change the rules of elections. This should be done by first abolishing above the line voting and the Group Voting Tickets. In its place, Partial Optional Preferential voting below the line should be introduced. Voters then only have to vote for as many candidates as there are positions to be filled for your vote to be formal. </p>
<p>Partial Optional Preferential already occurs in Tasmanian lower house elections, and is an option in the Victorian upper house. <a href="http://www.prsa.org.au/history.htm#CommonwealthE">Full preferential voting</a> dates only from 1934. And finally, the requirement for formality should be relaxed so that any sequential numbers above the minimum would be counted even if an error is made.</p>
<p>The effect of this would be that it was no longer worthwhile for the microparties to set up and deal in preferences. We would see an immediate reduction in the number of parties - maybe from 40 down to about 10 in Victoria - and those that are standing would all be genuine candidates.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/17768/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Morey is affiliated with the Proportional Representation Society of Australia (Victoria-Tasmania) Inc. He is an Australian Research Council Future Fellow, based at La Trobe University, studying less described languages in Northeast India
In writing this article, I have been assisted by other members of the PRSAV-T, Dr. Lee Naish and Mr. Geoffrey Goode.</span></em></p>The record large Senate ballot papers have probably already annoyed many early voters. Their great length - over a metre in NSW and Victoria – will soon annoy many more voters. However, the real annoyance…Stephen Morey, Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Linguistics, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.