tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/fraser-anning-46113/articlesFraser Anning – The Conversation2019-03-28T00:33:55Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1140112019-03-28T00:33:55Z2019-03-28T00:33:55ZHow Fraser Anning was elected to the Senate – and what the major parties can do to keep extremists out<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266226/original/file-20190327-139349-wnv7pl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Senate voting system is complicated, as demonstrated by Fraser Anning being elected on just 19 votes.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dan Peled</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the wake of the far-right terrorist atrocity in Christchurch on March 15, there has been much condemnation of independent senator Fraser Anning’s <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/outrage-as-fraser-anning-blames-nz-attacks-on-muslim-immigration">anti-Muslim comments</a>. Anning won just 19 personal votes below the line, so how was he fairly elected?</p>
<p>In the Senate, voters can either vote “above the line” or “below the line”. Above the line votes will go to the party’s candidates in the order they are placed on the ballot paper. Below the line votes are personal votes for a candidate.</p>
<p>At normal federal elections, six senators per state are elected, and a quota is one-seventh of the vote, or 14.3%. As the 2016 election was a “double dissolution”, where all senators were up for election, 12 senators per state were elected, and the quota was reduced to one-thirteenth of the vote, or 7.7%.</p>
<p>Electoral <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook45p/SenateVotingReform">reforms were implemented</a> at the 2016 election. Voters were asked to number at least six boxes above the line, though a “1” only vote would still be accepted. The effect was that voters would direct their own preferences once their most preferred party was excluded from the count. Previously, parties controlled their voters’ preferences, and still do in Victoria and WA, leading to bizarre results.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/victorian-upper-house-greatly-distorted-by-group-voting-tickets-federal-labor-still-dominant-in-newspoll-108488">Victorian upper house greatly distorted by group voting tickets; federal Labor still dominant in Newspoll</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Voting below the line was also made easier. Voters were asked to number at least 12 boxes, though only six numbers were required for a formal vote. Previously, every box below the line needed to be numbered.</p>
<p>In the <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/voting/counting/senate_count.htm">Senate system</a>, any candidate who has a quota is immediately elected, and their surplus is distributed. Major parties elect multiple senators by this method, as almost all of the top candidate’s surplus goes to the second candidate, and so on.</p>
<p>When there are no more surpluses to distribute, candidates are excluded from the count starting with the candidate with the smallest number of votes, and their preferences distributed. During this process, candidates that reach quota are elected, and their surpluses distributed. </p>
<p>With the current Senate system’s semi-optional preferential voting, there will often be two or more candidates short of a quota with all preferences finished. In this case, the candidates further ahead are elected.</p>
<h2>How this applies to Anning</h2>
<p>The whole <a href="https://results.aec.gov.au/20499/website/SenateStateFirstPrefs-20499-QLD.htm">One Nation ticket</a> had over 250,000 votes (9.2% or 1.19 quotas) in the Queensland Senate. Over 229,000 of these votes were above the line ticket votes, and virtually all the rest were personal votes for lead candidate Pauline Hanson.</p>
<p>Hanson was immediately elected, and her surplus was passed on to One Nation’s second candidate, Malcolm Roberts, who had just 77 below the line votes. In the race for the last seat, the Liberal Democrats started the preference phase of the count with 0.37 quotas, and Roberts (0.19 quotas) was also behind Nick Xenophon Team (0.27 quotas), Family First (0.25 quotas), Katter’s Australian Party (0.23 quotas) and Glenn Lazarus Team (0.22 quotas).</p>
<p>With nine candidates left, two of whom were certain to be elected (Labor’s Chris Ketter and the LNP’s Barry O'Sullivan), Roberts already had 0.45 quotas, thanks to voter-directed preferences from Australian Liberty Alliance (0.14 quotas) and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers (0.14 quotas). At this point, Roberts was tied for the lead with Family First from the seven contenders for the last seat, and ahead of everyone else.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"761042071180279808"}"></div></p>
<p>With assistance from Glenn Lazarus Team and Katter’s Australian Party preferences, Roberts defeated Family First for the last seat by 0.78 quotas to 0.69.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/final-senate-results-30-coalition-26-labor-9-greens-4-one-nation-3-nxt-4-others-63449">Final Senate results: 30 Coalition, 26 Labor, 9 Greens, 4 One Nation, 3 NXT, 4 Others</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>When Roberts was <a href="https://theconversation.com/high-court-knocks-barnaby-joyce-out-in-dual-citizenship-case-as-byelection-looms-in-new-england-86470">disqualified by the High Court</a> in October 2017 over Section 44 issues, he was effectively replaced in the count by Fraser Anning, One Nation’s third candidate. That is how Anning won his seat despite earning just 19 personal below the line votes.</p>
<p>Although the new Senate system makes it easier to vote below the line, above the line votes <a href="http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2016/08/senate-reform-performance-review-part-2.html">were still over 90%</a> of all formal Senate votes in all jurisdictions except Tasmania and the ACT at the 2016 election, according to analyst Kevin Bonham. Only one candidate was elected against the party ordering of candidates on personal below the line votes: Labor’s Lisa Singh in Tasmania.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/tasmanian-senate-result-5-labor-4-liberals-2-greens-1-lambie-63117">Tasmanian Senate result: 5 Labor, 4 Liberals, 2 Greens, 1 Lambie</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Anning’s 19 personal votes and Roberts’ 77 are far fewer than those received by any other winning candidate in Queensland. The other 11 winners (five LNP, four Labor, one Green and Pauline Hanson) all received at least 1,000 personal votes. Prior to the election, there was no interest in any One Nation candidate other than Hanson.</p>
<h2>Can the major parties prevent the election of extreme candidates?</h2>
<p>In Queensland 2016, the major parties were not responsible for Roberts’ election. Both Labor’s fourth candidate, Ketter, and the LNP’s fifth candidate, O'Sullivan, started the preference phase of the count well short of a quota. O'Sullivan eventually made quota, but Ketter was elected with 0.97 quotas. O'Sullivan’s tiny surplus assisted Family First rather than Roberts.</p>
<p>In general, the total vote for the major parties has been declining in the past two decades, and as a result, their influence on who wins has been reduced. The combined share for the two major parties in the Queensland 2016 Senate was just 61.7%. By contrast, the last time One Nation was strong, gaining <a href="http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/2001/2001senateqld.txt">10.0% of the Queensland Senate vote</a> in 2001, the total major party vote was 75.1%.</p>
<p>In the lower house, Labor will put One Nation behind the Coalition on its how to vote cards, but there has been <a href="https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/tony-abbott-once-argued-for-one-nation-to-be-preferenced-ahead-of-labor-and-the-greens/news-story/a305ed69e0b08ca3e763caf01b5427a1">some infighting</a> within the Coalition over whether to return this favour.</p>
<p>On March 28, Scott <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-28/one-nation-will-be-preferenced-lower-than-labor-pm-announces/10947720">Morrison announced</a> that the Liberals would preference Labor ahead of One Nation in all seats; this applies only to the Liberals, not the Nationals, and it is not clear what the Queensland LNP will do. There had been pressure on the Liberals following revelations that <a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-james-ashby-rocks-a-few-boats-including-his-own-114324">One Nation solicited donations</a> from the US National Rifle Association.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-james-ashby-rocks-a-few-boats-including-his-own-114324">View from The Hill: James Ashby rocks a few boats, including his own</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>One Nation won <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/qld-election-2017/guide/mira/">one seat at the 2017 Queensland</a> election because the LNP preferenced it above Labor, so putting One Nation below Labor will assist Labor in any seats where One Nation is ahead of the Liberals.</p>
<p>In the Senate, neither major party is likely to put the other major party in its top six preferences for above the line voters. It is likely that, as far as vote recommendations go, both major parties will treat the other major party the same as One Nation in the Senate.</p>
<p>Even if the major parties placed the other major party in the top six preferences on their how to vote material, the follow the card rate was low in 2016. According to Bonham, about 30% of Coalition voters in the mainland states followed the card, 14% of Labor voters and 10% of Greens voters. No other party had a follow the card rate above 10%.</p>
<h2>Coalition wins majority at NSW election</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/nsw/2019/results">ABC has called</a> all 93 lower house seats for the March 23 New South Wales election. The Coalition won 48 of the 93 seats (down six since the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_New_South_Wales_state_election">2015 election</a>), Labor won 36 seats (up two), the Greens three (steady), the Shooters three (up three) and independents three (up one). The Coalition will have a three-seat majority.</p>
<p>Seat changes are compared with the 2015 election results, and do not include Coalition losses in the Wagga Wagga and Orange byelections. If measured against the pre-election parliament, the Coalition lost four seats.</p>
<h2>Brexit delayed until at least April 12</h2>
<p>On March 21, a European leaders’ summit was held. Leaders of the 27 EU nations, not including the UK, agreed to delay the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47660019">date of Brexit</a> until April 12 (originally March 29). If UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s deal passes the House of Commons, Brexit would be delayed until May 22 to allow necessary legislation to pass.</p>
<p>European parliament elections will be held from May 23-26. If the UK were to participate in these elections, a longer extension could be given, but the UK must inform the European Commission of its intent to participate by April 12, hence the new deadline.</p>
<p>I wrote for <a href="https://www.pollbludger.net/2019/03/22/brexit-minus-eight-days-possibly/">The Poll Bludger</a> about Brexit on March 22. House of Commons Speaker John Bercow has ruled that May’s deal cannot be brought back to the House, but there is a workaround – if May had the votes. May’s deal was defeated by 149 votes on March 12, after a record 230-vote loss on January 15.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114011/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>Scott Morrison has announced the Liberals will preference One Nation below Labor at the federal election. But that is unlikely to make a substantial difference to the make-up of the parliament.Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of MelbourneLicensed 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/1094252019-01-08T02:06:12Z2019-01-08T02:06:12ZParliamentary entitlements: what’s allowed and what’s not?<p>Queensland Senator Fraser Anning has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jan/06/scott-morrison-criticises-ugly-racial-protests-but-fails-to-condemn-fraser-anning">used taxpayer funds</a> to pay for flights to Melbourne to attend a protest with far-right extremists. </p>
<p>Anning’s use of taxpayer money for what many argue to be inappropriate reasons is another in a line of Australian MPs using their parliamentary entitlements in ways that have riled the public.</p>
<p>Who can forget former Speaker Bronwyn Bishop’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/choppergate-no-more-what-the-review-of-politicians-entitlements-will-mean-56196">helicopter ride</a> to attend a party fundraiser, which in the end cost her the job.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/bronwyn-bishop-finally-resigns-as-speaker-45559">Bronwyn Bishop finally resigns as Speaker</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Such incidents have fuelled a public perception parliamentary entitlements are excessively generous. Fraser Anning defended his attendance at the rally, saying: “It’s official business. I am a senator. I didn’t go there for a picnic.”</p>
<p>Ministers do need to travel to perform official duties relating to their portfolio. MPs have to represent their electorate, as well as perform their parliamentary duties in Canberra. Public funds should be provided to allow them to carry out their duties effectively and without impediment. </p>
<p>But some MPs have been accused of rorting the system with exorbitant or improper entitlements claims. So, what are parliamentarians entitled to claim?</p>
<h2>Official business, representing value for money</h2>
<p>Above their base salary, politicians can claim certain additional “entitlements”, which are better conceived of as work expenses and allowances.</p>
<p>Bishop’s so-called “choppergate” scandal <a href="https://www.finance.gov.au/publications/parliamentary-entitlements-review/">led to a review</a> of the parliamentary entitlements system and, consequently, the establishment of the <a href="https://www.ipea.gov.au/legislative-framework">Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority</a> in July 2017. The Authority is responsible for monitoring and reviewing the travel and other parliamentary entitlements.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.ipea.gov.au/legislative-framework">new parliamentary expenses framework</a> is based on two main principles. </p>
<p>First, MPs are able to claim reasonable costs incurred for the dominant purpose of conducting parliamentary business. MPs must not seek to disguise as official business an activity whose dominant purpose is personal or commercial. </p>
<p>Secondly, the costs incurred must represent value for money. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/turnbull-makes-a-good-start-on-expenses-but-needs-to-go-further-71403">Turnbull makes a good start on expenses, but needs to go further</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Under <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017A00037">current legislation</a>, MPs can claim for domestic travel expenses, including the cost of commercial flights, cars and private vehicles for travel within Australia. With prime ministerial approval, ministers can also claim overseas travel costs, as well as the travel costs of their staff and spouse. </p>
<p>These entitlements are limited to travel relating to parliamentary or electorate duties, or party political duties connected with their membership of parliament. </p>
<p>Under “family reunion” benefits, MPs’ spouses and dependants may join them in Australia several times a year. </p>
<p>MPs are also entitled to claim a travel allowance for each night they have to stay away from home for parliamentary business. But there is a ten night limit for party political duties outside Canberra and electorate duties outside the MP’s electorate.</p>
<h2>What falls under the rules?</h2>
<ul>
<li>Flights to Canberra and accommodation costs during the parliamentary sitting period</li>
<li>an MP’s travel within their electorate to meet with constituents</li>
<li>overseas flights by a minister on portfolio business that have been approved by the prime minister</li>
<li>flights interstate to attend a formal meeting of the political party or a national, state or territory party conference. These are political party expenses connected to the MP’s role in parliament<br></li>
<li>travel by ministers as part of their portfolio duties, such as travel interstate by the minister for Education to negotiate with the states on education policy. </li>
</ul>
<h2>What doesn’t fall under the rules?</h2>
<ul>
<li>Flights interstate to attend a friend’s wedding. This is a personal expense and not parliamentary business</li>
<li>a private jet chartered to fly to Canberra for a parliamentary sitting. Under the new principles, this is probably not value for money for a scheduled event</li>
<li>flights interstate to attend a party fundraiser. This is a party political expense unconnected to a MP’s role in parliament.</li>
</ul>
<h2>What about the grey areas?</h2>
<p>It becomes murky when politicians have mixed motives in undertaking travel. For instance, former health minister Sussan Ley <a href="https://theconversation.com/sussan-ley-and-the-gold-coast-apartment-murky-rules-mean-age-of-entitlement-isnt-over-for-mps-70993">travelled</a> to Queensland to make an announcement at a breast cancer clinic as part of her ministerial role. During her trip, she bought a A$795,000 apartment at an auction from a Liberal donor, which was said to be “neither planned nor anticipated”. </p>
<p>In such cases, politicians tend to argue their travel was for the dominant purpose of undertaking official business and their private affairs are incidental to this.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/sussan-ley-and-the-gold-coast-apartment-murky-rules-mean-age-of-entitlement-isnt-over-for-mps-70993">Sussan Ley and the Gold Coast apartment: murky rules mean age of entitlement isn't over for MPs</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>While such situations may comply with the rules, they tend to fail the so-called “pub test”. Although she didn’t break any rules, the public outcry led to Sussan Ley resigning from her role as the health, aged care and sport minister. Her statement <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-13/sussan-ley-tenders-resignation-parliament-expenses-scandal/8180602">read</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Whilst I have attempted at all times to be meticulous with rules and standards, I accept community annoyance, even anger, with politicians’ entitlements demands a response.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>What happens when rules are breached?</h2>
<p>So, is Fraser Anning’s trip to Melbourne for the weekend protests within the rules?</p>
<p>It depends on whether the trip was for the dominant purpose of parliamentary business. Anning’s electorate is in Queensland, which means there is less justification he was representing his electorate by travelling to Melbourne. </p>
<p>Anning’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jan/06/scott-morrison-criticises-ugly-racial-protests-but-fails-to-condemn-fraser-anning">argument</a> was that Queensland was experiencing similar issues with crime gangs as Victoria.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1081850765948284929"}"></div></p>
<p>However, attending a protest in Melbourne about purported Victorian crime issues would seem to have, at best, a tenuous connection with his duties of representing the Queensland electorate.</p>
<p>The Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority can make a ruling on whether the claim was in accordance with the law. If the claim contravenes the law, the MP has to repay the money. Where the MP has not repaid their claim within 28 days, an additional 25% penalty may apply to the debt.</p>
<p>As holders of high elected office, MPs are the custodians of public trust. But some MPs have made claims from taxpayer funds that are out of step with public expectations. It is incumbent on the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority to carefully police such claims.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/109425/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yee-Fui Ng 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>In the last few years, some MPs have made extravagant claims on their parliamentary entitlements. So, what are they actually allowed to use the money for?Yee-Fui Ng, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1018042018-08-20T04:36:33Z2018-08-20T04:36:33ZPoll wrap: Coalition slumps to 55-45 deficit in Ipsos, and large swing to federal Labor in Queensland<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232621/original/file-20180820-30611-dfkhe0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The latest Fairfax Ipsos poll has brought bad news for Malcolm Turnbul - and good news for Bill Shorten.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>This week’s <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/fairfax-ipsos-poll-voter-support-collapses-as-peter-dutton-leans-towards-challenging-malcolm-turnbull-20180819-p4zye9.html">Fairfax Ipsos</a> poll, conducted August 15-18 from a sample of 1,200, gave Labor a landslide 55-45 lead, a four-point gain for Labor since late July. Primary votes were 35% Labor (up one), 33% Coalition (down six), 13% Greens (up one) and 19% for all Others (up four). Ipsos consistently has the Greens higher than other polls.</p>
<p>The respondent allocated two party figure was also 55-45 to Labor. During this term, Labor has usually performed worse on respondent allocated preferences than using the previous election method, and the Ipsos July poll had a 50-50 tie by this measure.</p>
<p>46% approved of Malcolm Turnbull (down nine), and 48% disapproved (up ten), for a net approval of -2, down 19 points since July. This is Turnbull’s first negative net approval in Ipsos since December 2017; Ipsos gives him better ratings than other pollsters. Bill Shorten’s net approval was -11, up five points. Turnbull led Shorten by 48-36 as better PM, a big decline from a 57-30 lead in July.</p>
<p>By 47-44, voters supported cutting the company tax rate from 30% to 25% over the next ten years (49-40 in April). In an additional question from last week’s Newspoll, voters thought the Senate should block, rather than pass, the tax cuts for companies with a turnover over $50 million by a 51-36 margin.</p>
<p>56% thought the government is doing too little to address climate change, 28% thought they are doing about the right amount, and just 13% thought they are doing too much. By 54-22, voters supported the National Energy Guarantee (NEG), including over 59% support from both major parties’ voters.</p>
<p>In last week’s article, I referred to divisions within the Coalition over the NEG and the company tax cuts as an explanation for Turnbull’s Newspoll ratings slump. Since then, those divisions have became much worse.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/poll-wrap-turnbulls-newspoll-ratings-slump-labor-leads-in-victoria-longman-preferences-helped-lnp-101380">Poll wrap: Turnbull’s Newspoll ratings slump; Labor leads in Victoria; Longman preferences helped LNP</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In an attempt to fend off a potential challenge from Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton, Turnbull on <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-20/cabinet-ministers-admit-disunity-amid-turnbull-dutton-spill-talk/10138850">Monday abandoned</a> the emissions target part of the NEG, in effect yielding to the 13% who say the government is doing too much on climate change. </p>
<p>This 13% of all voters is greatly over-represented within the parliamentary Coalition and among right-wing media commentators. By reserving their right to cross the floor on the NEG, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/aug/15/coalition-mps-lobby-colleagues-against-crossing-the-floor-on-energy">some Coalition MPs</a> have shown how out of touch they are with the electorate on climate change. This probably also contributed to the swing in this Ipsos poll.</p>
<p>Despite Turnbull’s current woes, I think it would be a mistake for the Liberals to replace him with Dutton. While Dutton would appeal to One Nation voters who have left the Coalition over dissatisfaction with Turnbull’s perceived moderation, more moderate Coalition voters would likely desert. About 60% of One Nation preferences will probably return to the Coalition, but if moderates leave, Labor is likely to benefit directly from the Coalition’s lost primary support.</p>
<p>Only three weeks ago, just before and immediately after the July 28 Super Saturday byelections, the Coalition and Turnbull had some of their best polling this term. Ipsos is more volatile than other pollsters, and it was taken at a time of great division within the Coalition. Now that Turnbull has dumped the emissions targets, the internal divisions may subside, and the Coalition’s polling could improve.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/polls-update-trumps-ratings-held-up-by-us-economy-australian-polls-steady-101175">Polls update: Trump’s ratings held up by US economy; Australian polls steady</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>On August 15, the <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/latestProducts/6345.0Media%20Release1Jun%202018">ABS reported</a> that wages grew at a 0.6% rate in the June quarter. Continued slow wage growth is likely to be a crucial issue at the next election.</p>
<p>Fieldwork for the two polls below was taken before last week’s parliamentary sitting.</p>
<h2>Federal Queensland Galaxy: 50-50 tie</h2>
<p>A federal <a href="https://www.pollbludger.net/2018/08/14/essential-research-52-48-labor-21/">Queensland Galaxy poll</a>, conducted August 8-9 from a sample of 839, had a 50-50 tie, a two-point gain for Labor since May. Primary votes were 37% LNP (down three), 34% Labor (up one), 10% One Nation (steady) and 9% Greens (down one). This poll was conducted from the same sample that gave state Labor a 51-49 lead (see <a href="https://theconversation.com/poll-wrap-turnbulls-newspoll-ratings-slump-labor-leads-in-victoria-longman-preferences-helped-lnp-101380">last week’s article</a>).</p>
<p>This poll represents a 4% swing to Labor in Queensland since the 2016 election, and such a swing would probably result in Labor gaining many seats. According to The Poll Bludger’s <a href="https://www.pollbludger.net/bludgertrack2019/">BludgerTrack</a>, eight LNP Queensland seats are held by less than 4%, including Dutton’s Dickson (a 2.0% margin).</p>
<p>There was no One Nation candidate in <a href="https://results.aec.gov.au/20499/website/HouseDivisionPage-20499-252.htm">Dickson in 2016</a>, when Dutton suffered a 5.1% swing against. A redistribution slightly increased Dutton’s margin from 1.6% to the current 2.0%. If Dutton becomes PM, he will probably receive an extra personal vote boost in Dickson, which could enable him to hold it. Otherwise, Dutton is vulnerable to the Queensland-wide swing in this Galaxy poll.</p>
<p>56% of Queenslanders <a href="https://twitter.com/PollBludger/status/1029467822647214080">opposed tax cuts</a> for companies with turnovers over $50 million, just 16% fully supported these cuts, and 12% wanted the big banks excluded from the tax cuts. Many pollsters are making mistakes by asking whether voters support tax cuts for “all” businesses; the issue is the tax cuts for businesses with turnover over $50 million, not all businesses.</p>
<h2>National Essential: 52-48 to Labor</h2>
<p>Last week’s national <a href="http://www.essentialvision.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Essential-Report-140818-1.pdf">Essential</a> poll, conducted August 9-12 from a sample of 1,032, gave Labor a 52-48 lead, a one-point gain for Labor since three weeks ago. Primary votes were 39% Coalition (down two), 37% Labor (up one), 10% Greens (steady) and 6% One Nation (steady). Essential’s two party estimate uses 2016 election preference flows and it would probably be 51-49 using Newspoll’s new method.</p>
<p>Turnbull’s net approval dropped three points since early July to a net zero, while Shorten’s net approval increased six points to -10. Turnbull led Shorten by 41-27 as better PM (42-25 in July).</p>
<p>By 54-25, voters thought the current drought across eastern Australia is likely to be linked to climate change.</p>
<p>88% approved of drought relief for agriculture, 76% of subsidies for renewable energy and 73% of the private health insurance rebate. Just 33% approved of the fuel rebate for the mining industry and 36% approved of negative gearing.</p>
<p>Voters were not alarmed by the proposed merger between Nine and Fairfax. By 47-28, they thought the merger would be good for quality of news coverage, and by 42-34 they thought it would be good for diversity of news media.</p>
<p>In the context of large Internet company bans on alt-right speakers, 48% thought that an individual’s right to free speech does not mean these companies need to provide a platform, while 32% thought these companies should allow such people to speak even if they disagree with the speaker.</p>
<h2>Electoral system not to blame for Fraser Anning</h2>
<p>There has been much controversy following Queensland Senator Fraser Anning’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-14/fraser-anning-maiden-speech-immigration-solution/10120270">speech to the Senate</a> on August 14. There have been suggestions the electoral system is at fault as <a href="https://results.aec.gov.au/20499/website/SenateStateFirstPrefs-20499-QLD.htm">Anning won just 19 personal</a> votes at the 2016 double dissolution election.</p>
<p>Anning was the third candidate on One Nation’s Queensland Senate ticket. One Nation won 1.19 quotas, electing Pauline Hanson immediately. They then performed very well on preferences from populist parties, earning a second seat for Malcolm Roberts, who had just 77 personal votes.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/final-senate-results-30-coalition-26-labor-9-greens-4-one-nation-3-nxt-4-others-63449">Final Senate results: 30 Coalition, 26 Labor, 9 Greens, 4 One Nation, 3 NXT, 4 Others</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In October 2017, the High Court <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-41772372">disqualified Roberts</a> over the citizenship fiasco, and Anning was elected to replace him.</p>
<p>Other than in Tasmania and the ACT, whose state electoral systems encourage below the line voting in the Senate, over <a href="http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2016/08/senate-reform-performance-review-part-2.html">90% of Senate votes</a> at the 2016 election were above the line ticket votes, according to analyst Kevin Bonham. In most cases, the number of personal below the line votes received by a candidate is irrelevant to the electoral process.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/101804/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 latest polls show the government’s internal divisions are taking their toll- and some of its members are seriously out of step with the general public on energy policy.Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1017322018-08-17T03:14:44Z2018-08-17T03:14:44ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on the NEG showdown and a ray of parliamentary unity after Fraser Anning’s racist speech<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DrYAuqpnpsU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Michelle Grattan speaks with University of Canberra Vice-Chancellor Deep Saini about the week in Australian politics. They discuss the next hurdles in legislating the National Energy Guarantee now that it has passed the party room, cross-bench Senator Fraser Anning’s racist maiden speech, and the unified reaction from parliament in condemning it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/101732/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>Michelle Grattan speaks with Deep Saini about the week in Australian politics.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1016112018-08-15T07:49:24Z2018-08-15T07:49:24ZView from The Hill: A ray of bipartisan good comes out of obscure senator’s hate speech<p>Immigration has become one of the most divisive issues in Australian politics. It has created open fractures within government ranks and sparked dog whistling; it’s being exploited to nefarious political ends by fringe and not-so-fringe players.</p>
<p>But an appallingly racist diatribe, by a senator who not one in a thousand Australians would have heard of, on Wednesday brought almost all the parliament together to reassert some core values of Australia’s policy.</p>
<p>Delivering his <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F3cee6e8f-15b4-468c-91dd-05ded6631e43%2F0136%22">maiden speech</a> on Tuesday, Fraser Anning called for a ban on all further Muslim immigration and invoked the words “final solution” – the term referring to the Nazi extermination of millions of Jews – when calling for a popular vote on immigration.</p>
<p>Anning arrived in parliament by chance, replacing the equally controversial Malcolm Roberts from One Nation, who fell foul of the citizenship crisis. But Anning immediately <a href="https://theconversation.com/hanson-loses-replacement-senator-before-he-is-even-sworn-in-87355">parted ways with</a> One Nation, and has recently joined Katter’s Australian Party.</p>
<p>Among much else, the Queensland senator told parliament on Tuesday that “the one immigrant group here and in other Western nations that has consistently shown itself to be the least able to assimilate and integrate is Muslims”.</p>
<p>“The first terrorist act on Australian soil occurred in 1915 – when two Muslim immigrants opened fire on a picnic train of innocent women and children in Broken Hill – and Muslim immigrants have been a problem ever since.”</p>
<p>Such are the rituals of first speeches that many Coalition senators and even crossbencher Derryn Hinch (who has been beating up on himself publicly ever since) went over to pay Anning the traditional congratulations afterwards.</p>
<p>But after that reactions were quick, and by Wednesday morning condemnation was raining down on Anning from almost everywhere.</p>
<p>Labor with the support of the government moved a motion in the Senate and the House; the leaders in both houses spoke.</p>
<p>The motion, which did not mention Anning by name, acknowledged “the historic action of the Holt Government, with bipartisan support from the Australian Labor Party, in initiating the dismantling of the White Australia Policy”.</p>
<p>It gave “unambiguous and unqualified commitment to the principle that, whatever criteria are applied by Australian Governments in exercising their sovereign right to determine the composition of the immigration intake, race, faith or ethnic origin shall never, explicitly or implicitly, be among them”.</p>
<p>The motion was the same (except for the addition of the word “faith”) as the one prime minister Bob Hawke moved in 1988 after opposition leader John Howard had suggested a slowing of Asian immigration. Then, the Liberals <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/the-lost-art-of-crossing-the-floor-20060812-gdo5rd.html">voted against</a> the motion, though with three defections. </p>
<p>In our frequently depressing and often toxic political climate, Wednesday’s bipartisanship was a small but significant and encouraging moment of unity on what we stand for as a nation.</p>
<p>Senate leader Mathias Cormann, an immigrant from Belgium, said: “This chamber in many ways is a true reflection of what a great migrant nation we are.”</p>
<p>“We have … representatives of our Indigenous community. We have in this chamber representatives of Australians whose families have been here for generations, who are the descendants of migrants to Australia of more than 100 years ago.</p>
<p>"We have in this chamber first-generation migrants from Kenya, Malaysia, Belgium, Germany and Scotland. What a great country we are. Where first-generation Australians can join First Australians and those Australians whose families have lived here for more than 100 years and all work together to make our great country an even better country.”</p>
<p>While the mainstream had its act together, on the fringe it was a wild ride.</p>
<p>Pauline Hanson denounced Anning’s speech. “I have always advocated you do not have to be white to be Australian,” she said. And “to actually hear people say now that, as Senator Hinch said, it is like hearing Pauline Hanson on steroids – I take offence to that”.</p>
<p>Never mind that in her own <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F16daad94-5c74-4641-a730-7f6d74312148%2F0140;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F16daad94-5c74-4641-a730-7f6d74312148%2F0139%22">maiden speech</a> as a senator Hanson had declared that further Muslim immigration should be stopped and the burqa banned. “Now we are in danger of being swamped by Muslims who bear a culture and ideology that is incompatible with our own,” she <a href="https://theconversation.com/pauline-hanson-20-years-on-same-refrain-new-target-65433">said</a> in September 2016.</p>
<p>Later on Wednesday Hanson introduced her private member’s <a href="https://www.senatorhanson.com.au/2018/08/15/australians-deserve-a-say-on-the-levels-of-migration/">bill</a> “to give voters a say on whether Australia’s immigration levels are too high by casting a vote at the next general election”.</p>
<p>Then there was that force of nature, Bob Katter, who said he supported his new recruit “1000% … I support everything he said”.</p>
<p>It is never easy to navigate one’s way through Katter speak – on Wednesday it was at times close to impossible.</p>
<p>“Fraser is dead right – we do not want people coming in from the Middle East or North Africa unless they’re the persecuted minorities. Why aren’t you bringing in the Sikhs? Why aren’t you bringing in the Jews?” he told a news conference in Cairns – he could not fly to Canberra and parliament because of a sinus procedure.</p>
<p>As for the “final solution” reference: “Fraser is a knockabout bloke, he’s owned pubs and he’s not stupid – he built his own aeroplane. But he hasn’t read all the history books.</p>
<p>"He didn’t go to university, he was out working building pipelines for the coal and the gas and the oil with a hard hat on. He’s a member of the hard left, not the lily pad left. He didn’t go to university to know the significance of all these words.</p>
<p>"Fraser would have no idea about what that meant. For those of us, like myself that are fascinated by history and have read the history books – it is one of the worst statements in all of human history.”</p>
<p>“He like myself, has had constant meetings and addressed Jewish groups around Australia. We are strongly behind the Jewish people.”</p>
<p>Hanson wasn’t the only one complaining of being insulted. Katter turned on a journalist who referred to his Lebanese grandfather. </p>
<p>“He’s not. He’s an Australian. I resent, strongly, you describing him as Lebanese. That is racist comment and you should take it back and should be ashamed … No prouder Australian than my grandfather.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/101611/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>In our frequently depressing and often toxic political climate, Wednesday’s bipartisanship was a small but significant and encouraging moment of unity on what we stand for as a nation.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.