Why the government was wrong to reject an Indigenous ‘Voice to Parliament’



File 20171026 13367 16x3jf2.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Indigenous people feel powerless in their own country, as articulated in the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
AAP

Harry Hobbs, UNSW

Indigenous leaders have decried Malcolm Turnbull’s rejection of the Referendum Council’s recommendations as a “real kick in the guts”, having “broken First Nations’ hearts”, and derailed the process and likelihood of Indigenous constitutional recognition.

The council had recommended a referendum be held to change Australia’s Constitution to establish an Indigenous “Voice to Parliament”. While details were to be worked out in discussion with Indigenous communities, it was envisaged that such a body would empower Indigenous people to have a voice on legislation and policy that affects them.

This idea followed an 18-month process of consultation and debate, including six months of regional dialogues with Indigenous people across Australia. At these dialogues, Indigenous people documented their feelings of voicelessness in Australian politics.

The process culminated in a constitutional convention at Uluru, where around 250 delegates agreed to the Uluru Statement from the Heart.


Further reading: Listening to the heart: what now for Indigenous recognition after the Uluru summit?


Why was the Voice to Parliament rejected?

Turnbull, Indigenous Affairs Minister Nigel Scullion and Attorney-General George Brandis set out the three reasons why cabinet rejected the Voice to Parliament.

  • First, the government did not believe such a body was “desirable”, arguing that the “radical” proposal undermines equality and the principle of one-person one-vote.

  • Second, the government considered it was unclear how the Voice to Parliament would work.

  • Third, and consequently, the government argued that it would “inevitably become seen as a third chamber of parliament” and would therefore not be “capable of winning acceptance in a referendum”.

These reasons mirror those of an Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) research brief that was distributed to all federal MPs in July this year. The IPA argued an Indigenous voice to parliament is “radical”, “divisive and undemocratic”, and “vague”.

The IPA noted further that “Indigenous Australians already have a voice to parliament” – like all citizens, they have an opportunity to vote in elections.

Are these reasons fair?

The government’s reasons have been attacked as “dishonest” and “disingenuous”.

The Voice to Parliament was widely regarded as modest change. Instead of a judicially enforced prohibition on racial discrimination, the body was designed to provide “active participation in the democratic life of the state”.

This is important. The body would actually rectify a persistent democratic fault in Australian society. Although Indigenous people enjoy “full equality” in the electoral arena, their position as an extreme numerical minority makes it difficult for them to be heard by government.

As the Uluru statement articulates, Indigenous people feel powerless in their own country. A Voice to Parliament would merely empower:

… the First Peoples of Australia to speak to the parliament and to the nation about the laws and policies that affect them.

In this sense, such a body would not challenge Australian democracy. It would instead realise its ideals. For this reason, it was supported by many constitutional conservatives.

Further, it is unfair to dismiss the proposal as lacking detail, as it was shaped to allow parliament to design the body. In any case, issues of design had not been ignored. The Cape York Institute provided a 78-page report to government detailing design options.

Finally, in defending the decision not to proceed to a referendum, Scullion said the government knew it “would have absolutely zero chance of success”. It is unclear, however, how the government knows this for certain.

Scullion explained further that:

I don’t need evidence … we have done a lot of polling, not on this particular [] matter, but on other matters.

Ultimately, it is impossible to tell whether the body would achieve support at a referendum. Although many surveys indicate support for constitutional change, they were all conducted in the absence of a specific proposal. No polling has been done on a Voice to Parliament.

Where to now for constitutional recognition?

A Voice to Parliament is not yet dead. At the Garma Festival in August, Bill Shorten committed to the body, recognising that it represents a strong consensus aspiration of Indigenous people.

However, without government support, a referendum will not be held.

The government has said it will establish a joint parliamentary committee with the opposition to examine alternative proposals for constitutional change to benefit Indigenous people. It remains:

… confident that we can … develop constitutional amendments that will unite our nation rather than establish a new national representative assembly open to some Australians only.

But it is difficult to see how this is possible.

Indigenous people were asked directly what recognition meant to them. They have responded, and the government has dismissed their views. It is likely, then, that Indigenous people will campaign against a proposal devised by parliament. They will continue to push for a “voice”. Their struggle does not end.

Treaty, now?

The Uluru statement also proposed the establishment of a Makarrata Commission. The commission would supervise a process of agreement-making between Indigenous people and governments, and truth-telling about Australia’s colonial past.

It is not yet clear whether Turnbull supports these proposals. However, to some degree, it is immaterial.

Steps toward treaties have already been made in several Australian states and territories. Indigenous people in Victoria and South Australia are discussing how negotiations with state governments should be conducted. The Northern Territory has also committed to a process of treaty negotiations.


Further reading: Will treaties with Indigenous Australians overtake constitutional recognition?


Treaties are constitutional recognition. They can also be realised without a referendum.

Treaties have long been a desire of Indigenous people. However, they have re-emerged in recent years as Indigenous people have become frustrated at the national process of constitutional recognition. It is only natural that efforts will redouble in this area.

But while treaties are important, they will not empower Indigenous peoples at the national level. A Voice to Parliament remains a key aspiration.

In the Uluru statement, Indigenous people invited non-Indigenous Australians to:

… walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.

The ConversationThe Turnbull government has chosen to ignore this call. But there’s still time for the rest of us to accept this invitation.

Harry Hobbs, PhD Candidate, Constitutional Law and Indigenous Rights, UNSW

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Advertisements

George Brandis suggests Joyce and Nash didn’t really make their ministerial decisions


Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Labor says decisions made by Barnaby Joyce and Fiona Nash are open to legal challenge but Attorney-General George Brandis suggests the two former ministers were not the ones who actually made them.

Joyce and Nash were disqualified from parliament by the High Court on Friday for having been dual citizens when elected.

The opposition says at least 20 executive decisions and 47 ministerial announcements made by Joyce could be open to challenge.

These include the controversial decision to relocate the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority to Armidale in his New England electorate, various grants and appointments, and any decisions under the Water Act, where he had power to determine claims for payment to water access entitlement holders.

The list comes from a paper Labor sought from the Parliamentary Library on the ministerial decision-making powers exercised by Joyce and Nash, and specific important decisions they made.

Joyce had ministerial responsibility for agriculture and water resources. Nash was minister for regional development and regional communications.

The opposition says at least eight executive decisions and 43 ministerial announcements made by Nash could be subject to challenge. These included elements of each of the regional NBN rollout, the mobile blackspots program and the rural decentralisation program, as well as grants under the Building Better Regions Fund.

Labor has as well released updated advice from senior silks Matt Albert QC and Matt Collins QC about the legal status of decisions made by the former ministers.

The Constitution allows a minister to hold office for three months while not being a member of parliament.

The legal advice says that any decision made by Joyce or Nash after three months had lapsed from their appointment as ministers was open to challenge.

“Any decisions made by Joyce and Nash, purportedly in their capacity as a minister, on and after October 20, 2016, are open to challenge.

“The likelihood of proceedings being brought to challenge such decisions is high, having regard to the significance and seniority of their relevant portfolios,” the advice says.

Brandis said the government was looking very carefully at the question of the validity of the former ministers’ decisions. But “I doubt that there are many if any decisions that would be relevant in any event”, he said on Sky.

“Most decisions that ministers make are in fact made by the cabinet on the recommendation of ministers. Appointments are made by the governor-general or the federal executive council on the recommendation of ministers. So I think you will find that there is no legal consequences here at all.”

Tony Burke, manager of opposition business, told the ABC there would be “vested interests” with an interest in challenging decisions of Joyce.

“When you’re in charge of Australia’s quarantine service, there’s importers and exporters who make or lose money depending on decisions you make.

“There’ll be a series of decisions there with vested interests now combing through, and there being a whole lot of legal doubt over those decisions on the simple basis that Barnaby Joyce didn’t do what Matt Canavan did,” Burke said.

“Matt Canavan turned out to have been legally in parliament. But at least he took the precaution to step aside so that there was no risk to there being illegitimacy to his decisions.

“Barnaby Joyce and Malcolm Turnbull decided, oh no, nothing to see here, let’s just ignore the last 25 years of how the High Court ruled on this and pretend that it’s all going to be different this time.”

The ConversationBurke said there was a reason why the government had not revealed the solicitor-general’s advice. “I don’t believe for a minute it was as strong as they were claiming,” he said.

https://www.podbean.com/media/player/g8gar-796795?from=site&skin=1&share=1&fonts=Helvetica&auto=0&download=0

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Federal Coalition will be watching the Queensland election anxiously



File 20171029 13355 18dhrar.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Any appearance in the Queensland campaign by Malcolm Turnbull can be expected to be minimal.
Joel Carrett/AAP

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

People distinguish between levels of government when casting their votes. Nevertheless, a state result can reverberate federally, whether it is sending a protest or for other reasons.

We only have to remember 2015 to understand that the outcome of the November 25 Queensland poll carries implications for the Turnbull government.

Queensland is notable for big swings. In 2015 the shock defeat of Campbell Newman, who had won in a landslide against Labor, delivered an enormous blow to the then prime minister, Tony Abbott, and was a factor in the first (“empty chair”) move against his leadership.

Labor Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk has announced the state election as the Turnbull government is reeling from Friday’s High Court judgment, which knocked out of parliament Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, now campaigning in a New England byelection, as well as Joyce’s deputy Fiona Nash, who has no immediate way back.

While being careful to sound respectful of the High Court – after earlier (wrongly) anticipating its decision – the Coalition is smarting from a judgment that adhered to black letter law rather than accepting the more creative interpretation of the Constitution’s Section 44 that the government urged.

Attorney-General George Brandis on Sunday described it on Sky as “almost brutal literalism”. Well, it’s the Coalition that has always railed against judicial adventurism.

One question in the judgment’s wake will be whether the ministerial decisions that Joyce and Nash took are challenged. Labor’s Tony Burke suggested on the ABC that “vested interests” could consider contesting, for example, decisions Joyce made in quarantine matters.

Surely the risk would be highest in relation to decisions taken when the pair knew the constitutional ice could break under them. That was always an argument for their standing aside, as Matt Canavan did (in the end he survived and has been restored to the cabinet).

To clean up untidy ends, Turnbull delayed until Sunday night his departure for Israel to attend the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Beersheba.

Deputy Liberal leader Julie Bishop is acting prime minister while he’s away, with Turnbull insisting the acting parliamentary leader of the Nationals, Nigel Scullion, was “absolutely in support of this arrangement”. That assertion followed suggestions of some tetchiness between the parties on the matter.

Just in case Bishop might get any inflated opinion of her situation, Turnbull pointed out that “when I’m overseas, I continue to discharge all of my duties as prime minister. All decisions that are taken by the prime minister are taken by me.

“The acting prime minister is a role that is really designed to cover circumstances where, for example, it was urgent for a document to be signed, with my consent, obviously, but I’m not in the country to sign it. Or, of course, in the event of some disaster occurring while I was travelling.” There will be no deputy prime minister while the New England byelection is on.

Turnbull has a busy schedule of international travel in coming weeks, including APEC and the East Asia summit. Any appearance in the Queensland campaign can be expected to be minimal. As Newman told Sky: “Malcolm Turnbull doesn’t go down well in Queensland”. Newman also noted Joyce would have been good there, but he is tied up south of the border.

No wise person would bet too heavily on the Queensland result. Insiders on both sides of politics are predicting One Nation is likely to hold the balance of power. The parliament has been hung – the ABC’s analyst Antony Green says that given Queensland is moving to fixed terms the ALP will run hard on the importance of avoiding minority government. “Stability is a big issue in Queensland,” Green says.

Queensland is a critical state for the federal Coalition and so for its fortunes at the next election. A serious rebuff to the Liberal National Party there would create deep alarm in the Coalition.

A lot of variables make the state election particularly hard to read. The parliament’s size has been increased and boundaries redrawn. Voting will be a compulsory preferential system rather than the previous optional preferential.

Green says: “Both sides of politics need to increase their vote to win … But both have lost first preferences since One Nation came back on the scene”.

One Nation is a significant player, in terms of both how many seats it could pick up and what will happen with its preferences.

This is Pauline Hanson’s stamping ground – though she got caught out by being overseas when Palaszczuk called the election, despite it having been much flagged beforehand.

Green predicts One Nation could win five or six seats but not the 11 it secured in 1998. “It can win seats off the LNP. It’s tougher for it to win them off Labor.”

Much will depend on what the LNP does with preferences, Green says. The LNP has ruled out any across-the-board preference deal. One Nation has said it will put sitting members last. Labor will preference against One Nation.

While the strength of the One Nation state vote won’t be a accurate guide to the minor party’s influence in Queensland federally, it will be a pointer to how much momentum Hanson has.

Postscript

Labor has maintained a 54-46% two party lead in the Newspoll in Monday’s Australian – the 22nd consecutive Newspoll in which the Coalition has been behind.

Both leaders lost ground on their net approval, although the Prime Minister took the bigger hit. Malcolm Turnbull has gone from a net satisfaction rating of minus 24 to minus 28, while Bill Shorten’s net rating has deteriorated from minus 22 in the last poll to minus 24.

Turnbull’s lead as better prime minister is unchanged at 41-33%.

The Coalition primary vote has fallen a point to 35%; Labor is steady on 37%. Greens on 10% and One Nation on 9% were unchanged.

The ConversationThe poll of 1623 was taken from Thursday to Sunday, amid controversy around Employment minister Michaelia Cash, as well as Friday’s High Court decision.

https://www.podbean.com/media/player/g8gar-796795?from=site&skin=1&share=1&fonts=Helvetica&auto=0&download=0

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Joyce will be safe in New England but the High Court disrupts the government


Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

In more than an understatement, Malcolm Turnbull opened his news conference after the High Court’s swingeing blow to the government by saying this was “clearly not the outcome we were hoping for”.

And indeed, not the outcome Turnbull had so unequivocally predicted when, in August, he told parliament that Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce “is qualified to sit in the house and the High Court will so hold”.

As the weeks have gone by the government has become less and less confident that the position of Joyce and his deputy, senator Fiona Nash, would be upheld. At the same time, the betting on the survival of the third National, Matt Canavan, firmed, as the complexities of Italian law were examined.

Joyce himself says he wasn’t surprised he was disqualified. “In my gut I thought this is the way it was going to go,” he told reporters on Friday. As things have turned out, Joyce’s gut was a better predictor than Turnbull’s barrister background.

In a not-so-subtle dig, Joyce told the ABC’s 7.30 that tactically, it would have been better to have gone to a byelection immediately when he became aware he was a New Zealand citizen by descent, but he had deferred to the solicitor-general’s advice – which played up the prospect of a court victory.

Of the seven current and ex-MPs before the court in the dual citizenship cases, only Canavan and Nick Xenophon have had their eligibility upheld. Not that Xenophon is staying around in federal politics – he made his farewells on Friday and after clearing some odds and ends he will be off to create a storm in South Australian politics.

As well as kiboshing the two Nationals, the court knocked out One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts, who is now pitching for Queensland politics; it also rejected the eligibility of the two Greens, Larissa Waters and Scott Ludlam, who’d already resigned from the Senate.

The December 2 New England byelection that Joyce will now contest is a huge distraction for the government. As it battles with the states to get its energy policy in place, and deals with other issues in coming weeks, a mini judgement day is the last thing it needs.

The government has moved to get the byelection over as quickly as possible, with writs issued immediately.

In the only good news Joyce received on Friday, Tony Windsor, the one-time independent member for New England, announced he won’t contest the byelection.

Windsor had tormented Joyce by a submission to the High Court arguing against his eligibility, and by keeping open the option of entering the race if there was a vote.

But, apart from any other considerations, he probably judges that his chances of taking the seat would be poor. Even though he is not a candidate, the Nationals expect he will be running interference in the campaign.

It is nearly unthinkable that Joyce won’t win, whomever he now faces. Labor polls poorly in the seat. A protest vote could go to the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party, One Nation, and independents. But recent polling, which was done assuming Windsor ran, has shown Joyce in a comfortable position.

The court decision leaves the cabinet something of a mess. A temporary patch-up has had to be done until after the byelection, with Turnbull taking Joyce’s ministerial duties – he was sworn into agriculture and water resources on Friday – and other ministers acting in Nash’s roles. This obviously means there will be some limbo in the affected portfolios.

A permanent reshuffle has to wait. When it comes the Nationals are expected to lose a frontbench position, because in a recount for Nash’s seat a Liberal is set to replace her.

After the dust settles the Nationals will also have to elect a new deputy.

With Joyce and Nash out, the Nationals’ voice will be more muted in cabinet for a time, although at least Canavan is back, returned on Friday to his resources ministry.

The Nationals have been preparing for this court outcome (if only they had been as diligent in checking their MPs’ constitutional eligibility). Joyce has been paying a noticeable amount of attention to his seat in recent weeks. On Friday night the Nationals were setting up their Tamworth campaign office, and people were appearing in Barney Army t-shirts.

Leadership arrangements were also smoothly put in place, by the Nationals’ parliamentary party and the party’s organisation. Joyce is staying overall party leader while the party’s Senate leader, Nigel Scullion, becomes the interim leader of the parliamentary party.

But, in a sign of the immediate disruption the High Court fallout is causing the government, Turnbull has delayed his trip to Israel – he was due to leave Saturday to join the commemoration of the 100-year anniversary of the Battle of Beersheba.

And late Friday, the government couldn’t say who will be acting prime minister when Turnbull undertakes the Israel trip or goes to APEC soon. While Nationals might accept that Julie Bishop would be more obvious than Scullion for that role, they were not pleased to see the Bishop name in the media. They will be wanting Turnbull to observe the niceties of proper consultation.

The opposition will use the coming weeks to cause what mischief it can. Joyce being disqualified means the government has lost its majority on the floor of the house, although Turnbull told the media “we have a majority of members in the House of Representatives, even in the absence of Barnaby Joyce”. This is, if you count in the casting vote of Speaker Tony Smith.

The government has a buffer, thanks to the crossbench and the Speaker, against any no confidence vote. But prepare for coming Labor shenanigans in parliament. It won’t try a no-confidence motion that would look bad and be lost. But it could, for example, join with crossbenchers to push for a motion for a royal commission on banking, and something on penalty rates, trying to lure Queensland National George Christensen across.

Labor is also questioning the ministerial decisions Joyce and Nash made. Labor deputy leader Tanya Plibersek said: “Every decision made by both Barnaby Joyce and Fiona Nash since October last year is under a legal cloud. Labor will now take some time to work carefully through the implications of the [High Court] decision.”

Just to complicate the situation further, there is a general anticipation of an imminent announcement of a Queensland state election, with neither side of politics confident in predicting the likely outcome but both anticipating that One Nation could hold the balance of power.

How the Liberal National Party polls in Queensland will have Canberra fallout, because it will be read as a pointer to the general mood there – and Queensland will be critical to the federal Coalition at the next election.

The ConversationAs for New England, while no-one anticipates Joyce will fail to retain the seat, the sort of result he gets will be important to how the government ends a difficult year.

https://www.podbean.com/media/player/g8gar-796795?from=site&skin=1&share=1&fonts=Helvetica&auto=0&download=0

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

High Court rules Joyce and Roberts ineligible. SSM plebiscite turnout high


Adrian Beaumont, University of Melbourne

In July and August, six Senators and Deputy PM Barnaby Joyce were referred to the High Court as they may have been ineligible to stand for election or sit in Parliament. These cases were all considered under Section 44(i) of the Constitution, relating to having a foreign citizenship.

Greens Senators Larissa Waters and Scott Ludlam had resigned from the Senate once their dual citizenship was discovered, but the High Court still had to determine if they were validly elected. Nationals Senators Fiona Nash and Matt Canavan, One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts and Senator Nick Xenophon did not resign.

Today, the High Court ruled that Waters, Ludlam, Nash, Roberts and Joyce were all ineligible to have been elected at the 2016 election, while Canavan and Xenophon were eligible. The four Senators found ineligible will be replaced after a special recount by the next on their party’s ticket.

As Joyce sits in the lower house, a by-election in his seat of New England is required, and will be held on 2 December. Joyce has divested himself of his NZ citizenship, and will run for this by-election. Independent Tony Windsor, who Joyce defeated 58.5-41.5 at the 2016 election, will not contest the by-election, so Joyce should win easily.

With New England vacant, the Coalition still holds 75 of the 149 current House seats, a bare majority. Unless Joyce loses the by-election, the Coalition retains its majority.

There are often big swings at by-elections, but in most by-elections, the government’s majority is not at risk. The stakes are higher in this by-election, which should help Joyce to mitigate the swing against him. It is very likely that Joyce will retain New England, and return to Parliament.

SSM turnout data and polling

As at last Friday 20 October, the ABS estimated it had received 11.9 million forms for the same sex marriage plebiscite (74.5% of the electorate). The ABS’s estimate is now based on forms scanned, rather than on the weight of containers with forms. On 13 October, an estimated 10.8 million forms had been returned under the old method. Only 300,000 forms were returned in the following week, so the ABS believes the old method was an underestimate.

In this week’s Essential, 75% said they had already voted, and a further 8% said they would definitely vote, implying a turnout of 83%. Those who had already voted favoured Yes by 60-34, while the remaining 25% favoured Yes 39-33.

High turnout could help Yes win an absolute majority of the whole electorate, not just of those who vote. Such a victory would give Yes more legitimacy, making it harder for conservative politicians to excuse delaying parliamentary action.

Today is the nominal deadline to post the envelope, but envelopes will be accepted until 6pm on 7 November. The result will be declared on 15 November.

ReachTEL 53-47 to Labor

A Sky News ReachTEL poll, conducted 25 October from a sample of 2400, gave Labor a 53-47 lead, unchanged since late September. ReachTEL is using respondent allocated preferences. At this stage, media reports do not include the forced choice that would have been asked of the 9% “undecided”. From the limited information that has been released, Kevin Bonham estimates the two party vote by last election preferences was 53.7-46.3 to Labor.

Turnbull’s better PM lead over Shorten narrowed to 51-49 (52-48 in September). ReachTEL uses a forced choice question for better PM, which tends to favour opposition leaders more than polls with a don’t know option. Shorten is much more likely to win a ReachTEL better PM poll than Newspoll.

39% of respondents had an NBN connection, and by 44-35, these people were dissatisfied with their connection. 92% are concerned about electricity prices increasing in the next year, including 68.5% very concerned. 52% selected cutting power prices as the most important priority, with 27% for reducing emissions and 20% reliability. Just 28% had heard a lot about the National Energy Guarantee.

This poll was taken Wednesday night, before most of the public were aware that the AWU investigation had backfired on Michaelia Cash. While the Cash affair is embarrassing for the Coalition, it may not move the polls as the public is cynical about all politicians, and expects some bad behaviour.

Essential 52-48 to Labor

This week’s Essential, from a sample of 1860, is unchanged on last week, with primary votes of 37% Coalition, 36% Labor, 9% Greens, 8% One Nation and 3% Nick Xenophon Team. Last week’s sample appeared bad for Labor, and that sample is still in the two-week aggregate. Labor’s lead may increase when that sample washes out next week.

By 35-18, voters approved of the NEG, with 47% unsure. By 35-32, they approved of not having a Clean Energy Target. By 41-32, voters disapproved of phasing out renewable energy subsidies by 2020. 31% thought power prices would increase as a result of the NEG, 16% decrease and 31% thought it would make no difference.

Voters would trust Labor by zero to 12 points over the Liberals on a range of energy issues. On all issues, at least 50% thought there was no difference between the major parties or didn’t know.

ReachTEL seat polls: Kooyong, Warringah and Wentworth

ReachTEL conducted three seat polls on 19 October for the left-wing Australia Institute. In Josh Frydenberg’s Kooyong, the Liberals led by 57-43, a 6 point swing to Labor since the 2016 election. In Turnbull’s Wentworth, the Liberals led by 57-43, an 11 point swing to Labor. In Abbott’s Warringah, the Liberals led by 60-40, a mere one point swing to Labor. Samples were 850-920 for each seat.

I think the low swing in Warringah is because ReachTEL asked for parties, not candidate names; this is reasonable as the identities of Labor’s candidates are unknown. Abbott is likely to be a significant drag on the Liberal vote in Warringah should he re-contest at the next election.

Japan election: landslide for governing coalition

The conservative LDP, with its Komeito ally, has governed Japan since its foundation in 1955, with only two brief periods in opposition. An election for Japan’s lower house was held on 22 October.

In Japan, electors receive two votes, one for a single member electorate and one for a proportional block. Unlike NZ and Germany, there is no attempt to compensate parties that do badly in electorates using the proportional allocation; these seats are simply added to electorate seats. At this election, there were 465 seats (down 10 from 2014), with 289 electorate seats and 176 proportional block seats.

In the electorates, the LDP steamrolled the opposition, winning 218 of the 289 electorates, with a further 8 electorates for its Komeito ally. In the proportional blocks, the governing coalition won 87 of the 176 seats, with 49 for the centre-left coalition and 40 for the populist right Hope Party and its ally. The LDP benefited from a divided opposition in the electorates, winning 48.2%, with 20.6% for their nearest opponent, the Hope Party.

The ConversationOverall, the governing coalition won 313 of the 465 seats, down 11 from 2014, but still more than a 2/3 majority, with the LDP alone winning 284 seats. The centre left won 69 seats, the populist right 61 and Independents 22.

Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Turnbull government says no to Indigenous ‘Voice to Parliament’


Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

The government has rejected the Referendum Council’s call for a national Indigenous representative assembly to be put into the Constitution, effectively taking the debate about constitutional recognition back to square one.

Malcolm Turnbull, Attorney-General George Brandis and Indigenous Affairs Minister Nigel Scullion, responding to the council’s report, said: “The government does not believe such an addition to our national representative institutions is either desirable or capable of winning acceptance in a referendum”.

The proposal for the body came late into the debate about recognising Indigenous people in the Constitution. It was driven by prominent Indigenous leader Noel Pearson, and taken up by the May convention of Indigenous people in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, before being put forward by the council.

The cause of getting an Indigenous voice also gained support from some constitutional conservatives who preferred it to adding to the Constitution or rewriting parts of it.

The longer the debate about a constitutional change has gone on, the less chance there has seemed of community consensus. It has become clear that Indigenous people will not countenance a minimalist position, while a more radical proposal would not get the support required in a referendum, which must obtain an overall majority and win in a majority of states.

ALso, many Indigenous people are now more interested in pursuing a treaty than the earlier-canvased options for constitutional change.

The council proposed that the “Voice to Parliament” would have “the right to be consulted on legislation and policies that relate to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples”.

The government’s Thursday statement said: “Our democracy is built on the foundation of all Australian citizens having equal civic rights – all being able to vote for, stand for and serve in either of the two chambers of our national parliament.

“A constitutionally enshrined additional representative assembly which only Indigenous Australians could vote for or serve in is inconsistent with this fundamental principle.

“It would inevitably become seen as a third chamber of parliament. The Referendum Council noted the concerns that the proposed body would have insufficient power if its constitutional function was advisory only.”

The challenge was to find a constitutional amendment that would succeed and which did not undermine the principles of unity, equality and one-person one-vote, the statement said. The government wants consideration to return now to work done over the past decade “largely with bipartisan support”.

The rejection of the Voice to Parliament was backed by Tony Abbott, who as opposition leader and prime minister promoted constitutional recognition of Indigenous people. He favoured a minimalist model and at one stage aimed for a May 2017 referendum, to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the historic 1967 referendum.

Abbott said in a Facebook post on Thursday that recognition should “come in a way that brings all of us together and this proposal, for a further level of indigenous representation, was unlikely to achieve that”.

But Labor’s shadow assistant minister for Indigenous affairs, Pat Dodson, one of several Indigenous members of federal parliament, described the government decision as “a real kick in the guts for the Referendum Council”.

Pearson told the ABC Turnbull had “broken the first nations’ hearts of this country” expressed in the Uluru Statement.

“The prime minister and his cabinet have arrogated to themselves the entire judgement of this fundamental issue of how do we recognise Indigenous Australians,” he said.

“Why not just put it to the Australian people, as we are putting to a plebiscite the question about same-sex marriage at this very moment?”

The Uluru Statement Working Group said it was disappointed at the government’s decision. Its co-chair, Josephine Crawshaw, said Turnbull understood that a minimalist approach would not satisfy many Indigenous people.

The Conversation“Our aspirations are high, but the prime minister appears to believe that the Australian people will not support those aspirations. This is a very unfortunate view for the prime minister to hold, particularly when he has the highest platform to inspire all Australians to achieve great things for this country and for all its people.”

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The High Court sticks to the letter of the law on the ‘citizenship seven’


File 20171027 13355 8drbd7.png?ixlib=rb 1.1
The High Court has ruled Scott Ludlam, Larissa Waters, Fiona Nash, Barnaby Joyce and Malcolm Roberts ineligible to have stood for parliament at the 2016 election.
AAP/Shutterstock/The Conversation, CC BY-ND

Gabrielle Appleby, UNSW

Today, the High Court announced the fate of the “citizenship seven”, with only senators Nick Xenophon and Matt Canavan surviving the legal ordeal. (Although the victory will be of limited relevance to Xenophon, who has in the meantime announced his resignation from the Senate to return to state politics in South Australia).

In the case, the High Court, acting as the Court of Disputed Returns, found that four of the six senators referred to it, and the only member of the House of Representatives (Barnaby Joyce), were disqualified under Section 44 of the Constitution. With the exception of Xenophon and Canavan, it was found that the MPs had never been validly elected.

The court has declared all five seats vacant. The senators will be replaced through a recount from the 2016 election. The House of Representative seat of New England will go to a byelection on December 2, which Joyce will contest.

In the meantime, Labor has refused to offer the Coalition a pair for Joyce’s absence, and the Coalition will maintain government on a knife-edge, with 74 seats plus the support of the crossbench, and, if necessary, the Speaker’s casting vote.

Leaving to one side the immediate political consequences of the decision, what did the High Court say about the interpretation of the restriction on foreign citizens running for parliament in Section 44? And is this the last time we will have to think about the matter?

The possible interpretations of Section 44

The crux of the constitutional case was the interpretation of Section 44 of the Constitution – specifically sub-section (i). That, relevantly, provides:

Any person who … is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

Importantly, if a person is found to be in breach of Section 44 at the time they nominated for election, they will never have been validly elected.

The High Court has held that if a person has never been validly elected, their parliamentary votes during the time they purported to sit would still be valid.

However, questions have been raised as to the validity of the decisions of ministers who were not validly elected. This means there are possibly further unresolved issues around the validity of decisions made by Joyce and Fiona Nash, who, unlike Canavan, did not step down from their ministerial posts while the High Court made its determination.

Another important point that the court has previously clarified is that foreign citizenship is determined according to the law of the foreign state concerned.

None of the interpretations that were urged by the parties on the High Court were strictly literal readings of the words “citizen of a foreign power”. All the parties accepted that there had to be some level of flexibility, allowing a person who was technically a foreign citizen to nonetheless be able to run for parliament.

The real argument in the case, then, was how much flexibility could be read into the section.

The reason all the parties accepted that there had to be some flexibility in the words, was that the High Court had held as much in a 1992 decision of Sykes v Cleary. Relevantly, this case did not concern people who were unaware of their foreign citizenship, and so did not directly address the main point that was in issue for the citizenship seven.

Rather, the case stood for the proposition that a person may be a dual citizen and not disqualified under Section 44 if that person has taken “reasonable steps to renounce” their foreign nationality.

In the course of his dissenting judgment, however, Justice Deane made a comment that the provision should really only apply to cases “where the relevant status, rights or privileges have been sought, accepted, asserted or acquiesced in by the person concerned”. In this way, Deane suggested there was a mental element to being in breach of the provision.

Many of the interpretations urged on the court drew on this idea. They ranged from requiring voluntary retention or acquisition of citizenship or requiring actual knowledge of foreign citizenship, to a test of whether a person was on sufficient “notice” to check their citizenship status, to a need for the person to have real allegiance to the foreign power.

The High Court opts for certainty

The High Court opted for an interpretation of the Constitution that promotes certainty for future cases.

In a (rare) unanimous decision, it adopted a reading that, as far as possible, adhered to the ordinary and natural meaning of the words. It accepted that the literal meaning would be adopted, with the only exceptions those that had been established in Sykes v Cleary.

The court refused to read further exceptions into the provision based on knowledge, notice or actual allegiance. It said to do so would import a worrying element of uncertainty into the provision, which would be “apt to undermine stable representative government”.

The application to the ‘citizenship seven’

Once the High Court resolved the interpretation of Section 44, it had to apply this interpretation to each of the citizenship seven. The only two MPs who they found not to have fallen foul of this strict reading were Xenophon and Canavan.

Xenophon had what was referred to as “British overseas citizenship”. This had been inherited through his father, who migrated from Cyprus while it was still a British territory. The court accepted that Xenophon, while technically a type of British “citizen”, held no right of entry or right of abode, and thus he did not have “citizenship” for the purposes of Section 44.

Canavan’s facts were more complicated. His alleged citizenship turned on a change in Italian citizenship law that occurred because of a decision of the Italian Constitutional Court when he was two. The court received expert evidence on the Italian legal position, and it ultimately accepted that they could not be satisfied that Canavan was, in fact, a citizen of Italy.

Each of the other senators and Joyce accepted that there were, technically, citizens of a foreign country at the time of their nomination. But they argued they had not known of this when they nominated for parliament. The court’s strict interpretation of Section 44 offered them no comfort.

Is this the end of the parliament’s Section 44 dramas?

In the immediate aftermath of the High Court’s decision, the government has announced it will refer the decision to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to discuss, among other things, possible amendments to Section 44.

The issue, it would seem, is no longer the uncertainty around whether a person is or is not disqualified. Because of the strictness of the High Court’s interpretation, all potential parliamentarians are on notice to check thoroughly their citizenship status. Part of the referral to the committee is to investigate ways to “minimise the risk of candidates being in breach of Section 44”.

Rather, the more fundamental issue is now whether this is a desirable state of affairs given the large numbers of Australian citizens who are dual nationals, and who may not wish to renounce their citizenship to run for parliament. Thus, we as a nation stand to lose potential parliamentarians by excluding a pool of people that is likely to grow, not diminish.

Further, there is another question as to whether Section 44, when interpreted in this way, is apt to achieve its purpose. The High Court accepted that the purpose of Section 44 was to ensure that MPs do not have a split allegiance or loyalty.

The ConversationMany might argue that this purpose is still an important one. Even if that is accepted, it would seem that denial of eligibility to a dual national is a particularly blunt instrument to achieve it. On the one hand, it captures many people who do not even know they are dual citizens. On the other hand, the relatively easy step (in most cases) of renouncement means that those people who do have a split allegiance, but who want to run for parliament, have only to fulfil these formalities to do so.

Gabrielle Appleby, Associate Professor, UNSW Law School, UNSW

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

High Court knocks Barnaby Joyce out in dual citizenship case as byelection looms in New England



File 20171027 13309 716b24.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
The High Court declared Barnaby Joyce ineligible to sit in parliament.
AAP/Mick Tsikas

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

The government has been forced to a December 2 byelection and lost its majority in the lower house after the High Court declared Deputy Prime Minister and Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce ineligible to sit in parliament.

The court also struck down the eligibility of deputy Nationals leader Fiona Nash, who is set to be replaced by the next candidate on the Coalition election ticket – Liberal Hollie Hughes.

But the third Nationals MP before the court, Matt Canavan, who quit the ministry after advice he was an Italian citizen, has been ruled eligible. He will return to cabinet immediately, and was sworn in late Friday. “On the evidence before the court, one cannot be satisfied that senator Canavan was a citizen of Italy,” the court said.

Seven current and former MPs were before the court, which was judging whether they were eligible under Section 44 of the Constitution – which prohibits dual citizens standing for parliament. The court was unanimous on its decision in all the cases, with the eligibility of five rejected and two upheld.

Senate crossbencher Nick Xenophon’s eligibility has been upheld – but he is resigning from federal parliament in the next week or so to contest the South Australian election. His party, the Nick Xenophon Team, will choose his replacement. Xenophon had an unusual form of British citizenship through his father, who came from Cyprus when it was a British territory.

One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts, who had British citizenship, is out. Pauline Hanson announced Roberts would stand for the seat of Ipswich in the coming Queensland election.

Former Greens senators Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters, who had resigned from parliament, were found to have been ineligible to stand. Ludlam was born in New Zealand, and Waters in Canada.

Malcolm Turnbull told a news conference in Canberra the decision was “not the outcome we were hoping for”.

Some of the decisions contradict the legal advice the government had – in particular about Joyce, who inherited New Zealand citizenship via his father. Turnbull told parliament in August: “The leader of the National Party, the deputy prime minister, is qualified to sit in the house and the High Court will so hold”.

Turnbull will take Joyce’s portfolio of agriculture and water resources on an interim arrangement, and was sworn in late Friday.

Joyce heard the news while he was in his electorate. He goes into the byelection virtually certain to be returned – especially after the former independent MP for the seat, Tony Windsor, announced he would not stand.

Joyce apologised for the “inconvenience” of the byelection. “I respect the verdict of the court.”

He said he was always apprehensive. “I don’t actually stand here totally surprised,” he said. “In my gut I thought this is the way it was going to go.”

The Nationals’ Senate leader, Nigel Scullion becomes the interim party leader during the byelection. But Joyce remains leader of the party.

There will be a week of parliament before the byelection, which could be difficult for the government – but it will not be under threat, because it would have crossbench support against any no-confidence motion.

Independent MP Cathy McGowan said: “I will continue to supply confidence and support to the government”.

While Labor will seek to make some mischief, Speaker Tony Smith has a casting vote if there is a tied result on votes.

Turnbull, at a very brief news conference, insisted the government still had a majority in the house (on the basis of the Speaker’s casting vote).

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten tweeted:

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Deputy Labor leader Tanya Plibersek said: “Australia now has a hung parliament with a minority government”.

“We are deeply concerned Australia is facing a period of uncertainty”, because Turnbull had kept Joyce and Nash on his frontbench. She said Labor would be looking at the decisions made by the two ministers in the preceding weeks.

The ConversationTurnbull said the government would refer Section 44 of the Constitution to the parliamentary committee on electoral matters to consider whether it should be changed – which would require a referendum.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Turnbull’s government must accept responsibility for delivering an equitable NBN for all Australians



File 20171024 30605 ctcvsf.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
NBN delivery is variable across different states, but also within the same local council areas.
from www.shutterstock.com

Tooran Alizadeh, University of Sydney

On Monday night Four Corners asked Australia to consider “What’s wrong with the NBN?”.

Prior to the episode airing, a lot of the debate focused on the NBN’s business model, and that it may not be profitable.

I, however, am not sure if the financial returns need be our biggest concern when referring to public service and critical infrastructure. My answer to the question “what’s wrong with the NBN?” is quite simple: the NBN is inequitable.


Read more: The NBN: how a national infrastructure dream fell short


A “train wreck”

This week started with a fiery speech delivered by the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull. He said the NBN was a mistake, blamed the former Labor government for the set up, and described the NBN’s business model as a “calamitous train wreck”.

Turnbull’s remarks triggered a number of responses, including one from former Labor Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. He attached responsibility of NBN’s failure to the current government, as they “changed the model completely” compared to the original design.

More broadly, the Four Corners program itself created mixed reactions on social media. It was criticised for being “weak”, and not “challenging enough”, but also praised as “exceptional”.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

I find it incredibly frustrating to see a national critical infrastructure project diminished to political ping pong. In my opinion, bipartisan commitment is required in order to deliver an equitable NBN for all Australians.

Inequity from the start

Introduced by Labor, the original NBN was announced in April 2009. The plan was to provide terrestrial fibre network coverage for 93% of Australian premises by the end of 2020, with the remaining 7% served by fixed wireless and satellite coverage. In other words, Labor’s NBN was mainly equitable in terms of the advanced technology adopted across the board.


Read more: Three charts on: the NBN and Australia’s digital divide


However, research on the early NBN rollout pointed out the issue of timing. Even under the most optimistic estimations, it was going to take over a decade to build the nation-wide infrastructure. So, there were always questions about who was going to get the infrastructure first, and who had to wait over a decade for a similar service.

The results of the 2013 Federal election changed the fate of the NBN. The elected Coalition government decided the NBN rollout should transition from a primarily fibre-to-premises model to a mixed-technology model.



Various/The Conversation, CC BY-ND

FTTP = fibre to the premises; FTTN/FFTB = fibre to the node/basement;
HFC = Hybrid Fibre-Coaxial


This added to the complexity of the NBN, and created new layers in the inequality concerns around the NBN. In the Coalition’s NBN, many could be waiting quite some years and yet still only receive a lower quality level of access to the service.

Inequity in 2017

Now we’re past the halfway point of NBN delivery, and inequality of the service is clear at two levels.

Large scale

Recent research shows there is a clear digital divide between urban versus regional Australia in terms of access to the NBN. Regional Australia is missing out, both in terms of pace and quality of delivery in the mixed-technology model. This pretty much means that WA and NT are the worst off parts of the nation, because of the spread and dominance of regional and remote communities within them.

“Fine grain” scale

As described on Four Corners, mixed-technology NBN within local government areas and neighbourhoods means some people are better off than others.

Some receive fibre-to-premises service while others have fibre-to-node. The quality of the service also depends on how far someone lives and works from a node, which basically suggests even people on the same fibre-to-nodes service could have varied level of (dis)satisfaction with their internet and phone services.

Research published in 2015 captured some of the frustrations on the ground at the local government level. Differing qualities of internet services available were perceived to have direct implications for local economic development, productivity, and sense of community at the local level.

The two layers of NBN inequality mean that while some customers may be happy with their NBN, many experience a frustrating downgrade of service after moving to the NBN. This may help explain the increase in the number of NBN complaints across the nation.


Read more: Lack of internet affordability may worsen Australia’s digital divide


Let’s start moving forwards

Politicising the NBN and blaming one party over another has been part of the national misfortune around the NBN. But, I believe, the inequality of the NBN is part of a bigger trend in infrastructure decision making in Australia that fails to fully account for the socioeconomic implications. Other examples of this trend are seen in major (controversial) transport projects around the nation (e.g. East West Link in Melbourne, WestConnex in Sydney).

Current and future Australian governments must accept responsibility, and find a way forward for the NBN that is built on the notion of equitable service.

We can start with questions such as who needs the service the most, and who can do the most with it. These two questions refer to the social inclusion and productivity implications of the NBN.

The ConversationThe NBN, as a publicly funded national infrastructure project, has to be equitable to be a truly nation building platform. As long as it is failing some, it is failing us all as a nation.

Tooran Alizadeh, Senior Lecturer, Director of Urban Design, University of Sydney

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Newspoll 54-46 to Labor as Turnbull’s ratings slump. Qld Newspoll 52-48 to Labor


Adrian Beaumont, University of Melbourne

This week’s Newspoll, conducted 12-15 October from a sample of 1580, gave Labor a 54-46 lead, unchanged from three weeks ago. Primary votes were 37% Labor (down 1), 36% Coalition (steady), 10% Greens (up 1) and 9% One Nation (up 1). This is Turnbull’s 21st consecutive Newspoll loss as PM.

32% were satisfied with Turnbull’s performance (down 3) and 56% were dissatisfied (up 4), for a net approval of -24, down 7 points. Shorten’s net approval was -22, down two points. According to Kevin Bonham, this is Turnbull’s worst net approval since July, and Shorten’s worst since June.

By 63-23, voters favoured continuing renewable energy subsidies. However, 58% said they would pay nothing more for electricity or gas to implement a clean energy target. In a mid-September Essential poll, voters thought renewables better for electricity costs than fossil fuels by a 41-27 margin.

The general public would like more investment in renewables, and expects that renewable energy would not increase current power prices. However, the Coalition backbench is strongly opposed to renewable energy. By siding with the backbench, Turnbull is undermining his standing with the public.

Labor should ferociously attack the Coalition’s new energy policy that was announced today. In recent global elections, major left-wing parties have performed best when they have clearly distinguished themselves from conservatives. Where the left has become close to the conservatives, they have performed dismally, with Austria (see below) the latest example.

While Newspoll was good for Labor, Essential and YouGov below are not as good. All three polls this week agree that One Nation’s vote is up by 1-2 points.

Last week, The Australian published the July to September quarter Newspoll breakdowns by state, region, sex and age. Since the 2016 election, there has been an 8 point swing to Labor in Queensland, WA and outside the five capitals, but milder swings elsewhere.

SSM plebiscite turnout and polling

As at Friday 13 October, the ABS estimated it had received 10.8 million same sex marriage forms (67.5% of the electorate). The turnout is up from 62.5% on 6 October and 57.5% on 29 September. Weekly updates will be provided until 7 November, the final day for reception of SSM envelopes.

In this week’s YouGov poll, 67% of respondents had already voted, a very good match for the ABS. Among these, Yes led by 61-35. The remaining 33% favoured Yes 54-28, including 13% who were very likely to vote.

Wednesday morning update 18 October: In Newspoll, 65% said they have already voted and another 19% definitely will, implying an 84% turnout. Among those who have already voted, Yes led by 59-38, and by 49-37 among those who have not yet voted. For the whole sample, Yes led by 56-37 (57-34 three weeks ago). By 50-43, voters were opposed to the postal plebiscite (46-44 opposed three weeks ago).

Essential 52-48 to Labor

This week’s Essential, conducted over the last two weeks from a sample of 1850, gave Labor a 52-48 lead, a 2 point gain for the Coalition since last week. As Essential uses two week rolling averages, this implies that this week’s sample was close to 50-50. Primary votes were 37% Coalition (up 1), 36% Labor (down 2), 9% Greens (down 1), 8% One Nation (up 1) and 3% Nick Xenophon Team (up 1). Additional questions are based on one week’s sample.

Voters approved 65-15 of the Clean Energy Target, 74-10 of renewable energy subsidies and 62-18 of Labor’s 50% renewable energy target. These questions can be said to be “pony polls”, in that the voter is asked whether they approve of something that sounds nice, without considering cost or other issues.

61% (down 10 since February) thought the government was not doing enough to ensure affordable, reliable and clean energy, 15% thought it was doing enough (up 3) and 5% that it was doing too much (up 2).

42% thought Abbott should resign from Parliament (down 1 since April), 14% that he should be given a ministry (down 4), 16% remain a backbencher (up 2) and 9% challenge Turnbull (not asked in April).

In contrast to Newspoll, last week’s Essential gave Turnbull a net -1 rating, up from -5 in September. Shorten had a net -7 rating, up from -11.

Essential asked which people’s interests the major parties best represented, with expected results. Labor was seen as best for low-income working people (+33 vs the Liberals), people on welfare (+28) and students (+22). The Liberals were best for big business (+51) and high-income working people (+49).

By 55-36, voters thought it likely there would be a war between North Korea and the US. 33% said terrorism was the biggest concern for their personal safety, with 20% selecting a car accident and 13% nuclear warfare.

YouGov primary votes: 34% Coalition, 32% Labor, 11% Greens, 11% One Nation

YouGov continues to have Labor much lower than other polls. Primary votes in this week’s YouGov, conducted 12-16 October with a sample of 1067, were 34% Coalition (steady), 32% Labor (down 1), 11% Greens (steady), 11% One Nation (up 2), 3% Nick Xenophon Team (down 1) and 4% Christian parties (steady).

As usual, YouGov’s two party result, using respondent allocation, is skewed to the Coalition; they lead 51-49, though the previous election method would give Labor about a 52.5-47.5 lead according to the Poll Bludger.

56% thought Australia should have stricter gun laws, 34% thought they should remain about the same and just 7% thought they should be less strict. By 45-37, voters thought the Constitution should not be changed to allow dual citizens to run for office.

Qld Newspoll 52-48 to Labor

A Queensland Newspoll, conducted 10-12 October from a sample of 917, gave Labor a 52-48 lead, a one point gain for the LNP since the July to September Newspoll. Primary votes were 37% Labor (steady), 34% LNP (steady), 16% One Nation (up 1) and 8% Greens (steady). The next Queensland election must be held by early 2018.

42% were satisfied with Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk’s performance (up 1), and 45% were dissatisfied (down 1), for a net approval of -3. Opposition leader Tim Nicholls had a net approval of -11, up five points.

The narrowing in Labor’s two party lead is partly because Newspoll are now assuming that One Nation preferences flow to the LNP at a 60% rate, up from 55% previously. Unlike most state Newspolls, this poll was taken over three days last week, rather than a period of months.

Austria election: conservative/far-right coalition likely outcome

The Austrian election was held on 15 October. The conservative OVP won 31.5% of the vote (up 7.5 points since the 2013 election), the centre-left SPO 26.9% (steady) the far-right FPO 26.0% (up 5.5), the liberal NEOS 5.3% (up 0.3), the Greens breakaway party PILZ 4.4% and the Greens 3.8% (down 8.7). Turnout was 79.4%, up 4.5 points.

Seats are awarded roughly proportional to vote share with a 4% threshold. The OVP won 62 of the 183 seats (up 15), the SPO 52 (steady), the FPO 51 (up 11), the NEOS 10 (up 1) and PILZ 8. Thus the FPO holds the balance of power, and will probably join the OVP in a conservative/far-right coalition government. Although a few votes remain to be counted, the Greens appear to have missed the threshold, losing all 24 of their seats.

The centrist parties, the SPO and OVP, had been in coalition for the last two terms. According to this article in The Guardian, both parties became more right-wing in an attempt to appeal to FPO voters. From what we have seen in other countries, this strategy only helps the far-right.

In the December 2016 Austrian Presidential election, Greens candidate Alexander Van der Bellen defeated the far-right Norbert Hofer 53.8-46.2, showing that a left-wing candidate could win. However, the SPO did not embrace a left-wing agenda.

The ConversationThis election was an utter disaster for the Austrian Greens. The Greens won 12.4% in 2013. With the major parties becoming more right-wing, this should have been an opportunity for the Greens to increase their vote. However, the Greens split into the PILZ and Greens before the election, and only the PILZ made it back into Parliament.

Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.