Public investment in electricity generation – a hot-button issue in Queensland?


John Quiggin, The University of Queensland

One of the most striking features of the Queensland election campaign is that all major parties are advocating public investment in electricity generation.

The real choice to be made is whether this investment will promote the goal of a decarbonised energy system, or whether it will seek to delay this transition and prolong Australia’s reliance on coal-fired electricity.

Labor and the Greens are advocating public investment in renewables, while the LNP and One Nation want a new coal-fired power station.


Read more: Twitter analysis shows Queensland Labor has put Adani behind them


This choice, in turn, depends on attitudes to mainstream climate science. If the findings of mainstream science are accepted, a complete phase-out of coal-fired power, and its replacement by renewables, must take place over the next couple of decades. This implies a target of 50% renewables by around 2030.

The Queensland Renewable Energy Expert Panel modelled the achievement of a 50% renewables share for Queensland. The Expert Panel identified economic benefits of a renewable investment program including an average gain of 6,400 jobs.

Queensland has retained publicly owned electricity generators, primarily focused on coal-fired power. It would make sense for the public to diversify more into renewables.

Where the parties stand

At its recent conference, Labor committed to continued public ownership in the electricity sector and a 50% renewables target by 2030. The conference motion proposed a publicly owned energy corporation committed to protecting customers’ interests and building at least 1000 MW of clean energy.

The Greens propose more comprehensive public ownership with investment of $15 billion over the next 5 years to build publicly-owned clean energy and storage, estimated to create 5,500 jobs every year. The Labor-Green emphasis on renewables is consistent with the movement of the global mainstream.

Last week, at the UN Climate Conference in Bonn, 19 nations including the UK, New Zealand and Canada joined the Powering Past Coal Alliance, pledged to phase out coal-fired power altogether.


Read more: Bonn voyage: climate diplomats head into another round of talks


In sharp contrast, One Nation’s policy is based on the claim that climate change is a hoax, promoted by the United Nations as part of its sinister Agenda 21 policy, which, according to the One Nation platform, seeks to control you and your life .

This position is, at least, internally consistent. The willingness of conservative, liberal and labour governments around the world to sign up to a common climate change policy is seen by One Nation as evidence that the UN is making progress towards its goal of world domination.

The LNP takes a more ambivalent position. While backing coal and opposing renewables, its Queensland state conference narrowly rejected a motion calling on Australia to withdraw from its Paris commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

‘HELE’ of a big gamble

The key idea used to reconcile these contradiction is the idea that we can meet our commitments using “high efficiency, low emissions” (HELE) coal-fired power stations.

HELE power stations rely on the process of ultra-supercritical generation. That sounds impressive, but the reality is more prosaic. The term supercritical refers to the fact that at high temperatures and pressures, fluids are neither liquids (in this case, water) nor gases (steam) but display characteristics of both. Supercritical boilers are 10-20% more efficient than subcritical boilers.


Read more: Ultra, super, clean coal power? We’ve heard it before


The first supercritical boiler was invented in the 1920s. The technology was fully commercialised by the 1990s. Coal-fired power stations built in Queensland since 2000 operate on supercritical technology.

‘Ultra-supercritical’ plants, first installed around 2000, operate at even higher temperatures and pressures, but the additional increase in efficiency is limited, by the physics of the Carnot cycle, to between 10 and 15 per cent. The HELE acronym is misleading: emissions are lower than those of 20th century plants, but higher than any other generation technology.

So, the moment any substantial carbon price is imposed the proposed power plant will cease to be financially viable and will become a stranded asset. Investment in such a project is a bet that all the world’s scientists and every other government in the developed world have got things wrong or, alternatively, that Australia can go it alone on this issue.

It’s hard to see any financial institution taking a risk like this. Given the warnings already issued by regulators about the dangers of investing in stranded assets, a loan that goes bad will leave the lender open to litigation and regulatory sanctions. Will banks be willing to lend the necessary billion dollars or so on such collateral.

The ConversationShould the LNP gain office, then, their policy will face a critical test. Even with a substantial public investment, will any private firm be willing to take an equity stake in what looks certain to become a stranded asset? If not, will the Queensland public be forced to bear the entire risk?

John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of Queensland

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

Advertisements

Contradictory polls in Queensland, while the Greens storm Northcote in Victoria



File 20171120 11473 1tdlvxl.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Hi-vis time: Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk greets voters on the hustings.
AAP/Dan Peled

Adrian Beaumont, University of Melbourne

The Queensland election will be held in five days, on November 25. There has been no statewide polling from either Galaxy or Newspoll since an early November Galaxy. These two pollsters have given Labor higher primary votes than ReachTEL, and assume One Nation preferences will not favour the LNP as strongly as ReachTEL, which uses respondent-allocated preferences. As a result, Labor has led by about 52-48 in Galaxy and Newspoll, while they have been behind 52-48 in ReachTEL.

A Queensland ReachTEL poll for the parent advocacy group The Parenthood, which was conducted on November 13 from a sample of 1,130, gave the LNP a 52-48 lead by respondent preferences. This is unchanged from a late September media-commissioned ReachTEL. Primary votes were 32.7% Labor (down 2.1), 32.2% LNP (down 1.0), 17.7% One Nation (down 1.9) and 9.5% Greens (up 1.4).

A second ReachTEL poll, for the left-wing Australia Institute, which was also conducted on November 13 from a sample of almost 2,200, gave the LNP a 52-48 lead from primary votes of 34.0% Labor, 32.3% LNP, 17.9% One Nation and 8.3% Greens.

These two polls show One Nation in decline since the September ReachTEL, but this decline has gone to “Others” instead of the major parties.

Despite being a little behind Labor on primary votes, the LNP leads by 52-48 in both polls. Respondent preferences from non-major party voters flowed to the LNP over Labor at a 56-59% rate. If Greens preferences are going to Labor at a 75% rate, preferences of One Nation and Other voters are favouring the LNP at a near 70% rate.

At the March Western Australian election, One Nation preferences flowed to the Liberals at a 60% rate, according to the ABC’s Antony Green. In that case, there was a preference deal between One Nation and the Liberals, whereas in Queensland One Nation is putting most sitting members second last ahead of the Greens, irrespective of party.

If ReachTEL’s strong preferences from One Nation to the LNP occur at the Queensland election, it would be bad news not just for state Labor, but also federal Labor. Most federal polls assume One Nation preferences split evenly, as they did in 2016.

In an additional poll question released November 18, presumably from the early November Galaxy, voters opposed the proposed A$1 billion Commonwealth loan for Adani by a 55-28 margin.

Seat polling

Newspoll conducted six seat polls on November 15-16 from samples of 500-700 per seat. The seats surveyed were Mansfield, Whitsunday, Gaven, Ipswich West, Bundaberg and Thuringowa. There was a large swing against Labor in Thuringowa, with One Nation leading 54-46. In Bundaberg, the LNP led by 53-47, after Labor won by 0.5% in 2015.

In the other seats, Labor’s vote was holding up better, with small swings to Labor in Whitsunday, Mansfield and Gaven. A ReachTEL poll in Maiwar for GetUp! had a 50-50 tie, a three-point swing to Labor.

According to Kevin Bonham, the average of 11 Galaxy/Newspoll seat polls in Labor vs LNP contests is a 0.9 point swing to the LNP. However, seat polling has not been accurate in past elections.

Where the election will be won or lost

After being reduced to just seven seats at the 2012 election, Labor won 44 of the 89 seats at the 2015 election, forming government with the support of independent Peter Wellington. For most of the last term, Labor relied on the support of Labor defector Billy Gordon, who had won Cook. Labor’s Cairns MP Rob Pyne also defected in 2016.

After a redistribution, there will be 93 seats at this election. From the ABC’s pendulum, Labor would win 47 seats on 2015 results, the LNP 41, the Katter party 2 and there would be three defectors – two from Labor and one LNP. If the defectors are assigned to the party that would win the seat on 2015 results, Labor has 48 seats and the LNP 43. Labor can afford to lose one net seat without losing its majority.

At this election, One Nation’s vote is likely to be in the high teens, and they will do better in regional Queensland than in south-east Queensland. Galaxy seat polling indicates that regional Queensland is swinging against Labor, but polls of Glass House and Bonney, both in southeast Queensland, recorded small swings to Labor.

Labor is likely to have trouble holding regional seats such as Bundaberg (Labor by 0.5%), Maryborough (1.1%), Burdekin (1.4%) and Mundingburra (1.8%). The question is whether they can make up for any losses in regional Queensland by winning south-east Queensland seats such as Everton (LNP by 2.0%), Bonney (2.2%), Maiwar (3.0%) and Aspley (3.2%).

Labor could gain these LNP-held southeastern seats on a backlash against the LNP’s preference recommendations favouring One Nation in 50 of the 61 seats it is contesting. The last time One Nation was a force was at the 1998 and 2001 elections, before the LNP was formed. In 1998, the Liberals lost five seats, all to Labor, to fall to nine. In 2001, the Liberals were reduced to just three seats.

Galaxy and Newspoll seat polls have only shown One Nation winning Thuringowa, and in contention to win Logan, but the LNP’s how-to-vote cards are favouring Labor in Logan. Pauline Hanson almost won Lockyer at the 2015 election, so it is a prime target for One Nation. In 1998, One Nation won 11 seats on 22.7% of the statewide vote, but current polling has them well short of 1998, and they are unlikely to win more than a few seats.

Greens gain Vic seat of Northcote from Labor at byelection

A byelection in the Victorian seat of Northcote was held on the weekend, due to the death of Labor incumbent Fiona Richardson. The Greens’ Lidia Thorpe defeated Labor’s Clare Burns by a thumping 55.6-44.4 margin, a swing of 11.7 points to the Greens since the 2014 state election. Primary votes were 45.3% Greens (up 9.0) and 35.4% Labor (down 5.6). The Liberals did not contest, and the Liberal Democrats won only 4.1%, well below the 16.5% the Liberals had won in 2014.

Labor put in a strong effort to retain Northcote, yet they were still thrashed, losing a seat they had held at every election since it was created in 1927. The inner-Melbourne seats are trending towards the Greens, and Labor should probably focus their resources on the conservative parties, rather than spend money in seats that are likely to be lost anyway.

The ConversationA ReachTEL poll, conducted for the CFMEU on November 9, had a 54-46 Labor lead – a large miss. This is not the first time ReachTEL has grossly underestimated the Greens in an inner city seat. At the 2015 NSW state election, ReachTEL gave Labor a 56.5-43.5 lead in Newtown, which the Greens won by a crushing 59.3-40.7.

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

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

Why big projects like the Adani coal mine won’t transform regional Queensland


John Cole, University of Southern Queensland

Queensland election campaigns often focus on big projects for the regions, such as for roads, power plants and mines. But research suggests that mega projects, such as in gas and coal, have not transformed skills or improved employment prospects in regional Queensland.

Take away the temporary booms from construction and other short-term jobs, and employment growth overall is no better than before the global financial crisis. Certainly Queensland’s regions are no more resilient. Instead of these mega projects, what’s needed are new sources of economic value in knowledge, services, and technology.


Read more: Here’s 49 small communities innovating as well as the big cities


Between 2010 and 2013 investment in coal mining surged 400% in the Bowen Basin. Further south, in the Surat Basin and at Gladstone, four international consortia spent more than A$70 billion fast-tracking a coal seam and liquid natural gas industry.

These projects fell far short of generating new skills and enduring businesses in the regions. Continuing dependence on resources and agriculture also creates its own vulnerabilities, as both are challenged by market and investment volatility, and increased climate risk.

Overall the focus on mega projects has weakened social and economic resilience in communities across Queensland. Resilience refers to the capacity of regional communities to handle risks and manage change. Resilient regions deepen and diversify their economies.

Megaproject sugar highs

Annual construction spending in the resources sector peaked at A$36.6 billion in Queensland in 2013-14, and has dropped by 70% since. Unemployment has doubled in Queensland’s northern, central and outback regions.

The impact is seen in Townsville, Rockhampton, and Gladstone, who are now pitching to become bases for “Fly In Fly Out” workers. Rather than drive their own local economic development, these cities are punting on the next big mining project.

Gladstone is already the pin-up of the construction boom-bust development model. The port city boasts a highly trained workforce in alumina and aluminium processing, cement, liquid natural gas and chemical manufacturing. Still, it waits on the next big mining construction boom.


Read more: If Queenslanders vote on economic issues the Labor government is looking good


What regional Queensland really needs is politicians to abandon short-term economic fixes, in favour of a sustainable long term vision. Policies would have greater impact if they focused on skills and enterprise training. Stronger regional collaboration to broker opportunities for smart businesses is essential.

Just north of Brisbane, Moreton Regional Council is showing the way by transforming a former industrial site into a university campus. Tertiary education will come to the fast growing region along with a research and technology park, creating the jobs of the future.

Regional Queensland can also learn from the European Commission’s “smart specialisation” structural assistance programs that help regions build knowledge-based competitive industries through strategic public funding and support for research and development etc.

By 2020, smart specialisation in Europe is expected to deliver 15,000 new products to market, 140,000 new startups and 350,000 new jobs.

Integral to the European strategy is strong collaboration between the research and university sectors, and regional industries. Strong cooperation between levels of government is key to the success. The industries are as varied as cheese manufacturing in Spain, new transport systems in Finland, and materials manufacturing in France.

The Europeans have found that changing business culture and boosting entrepreneurship are just as important to creating opportunity as large infrastructure projects.

What Queensland should do

Queensland should rethink its big projects for a big country approach. Regional jobs that depend on project investment without generating local income are not sustainable. Small business and community must be restored to centre stage in development strategy.

Small and medium businesses collectively account for more than 99% of all business in Queensland, and three times as many people work in the state’s A$20 billion manufacturing sector (169,000) as work directly in the resources sector (48,000).

But small and medium businesses lack the profile of the “big end of town”, and the large resources companies have been effective at selling the narrative that they are central to the A$300 billion Queensland economy.


Read more: Bust the regional city myths and look beyond the ‘big 5’ for a $378b return


The priority for developing Queensland’s regions should be investment that generates small business growth, local income, new skills and communities. Particular emphasis has to be given to attracting and retaining talented people.

The state government can best help regional Queensland by heeding the Productivity Commission’s call to help regional Australia adapt and exploit the opportunities of ever present change. This requires greater local initiative, making the most of competitive strengths, and training people to better engage with the world.

The global services sector is a $US47 trillion industry. For regional Queensland to tap into this sector will require skills in fields as diverse as big data, biotechnology, genetics, robotics, communications, and digital manufacturing.

A good start has been made in the Advance Queensland Regional Innovation Programs which have challenged regions to think outside the box, collaborate, and come up with their own strategies. It complements the federal government’s Building Better Regions Fund.

The ConversationThis approach challenges the current politically dominated top down model of regional development. It’s a vision for regional Queensland that extends beyond resources, agriculture, tourism and construction to the people themselves.

John Cole, Executive Director, Institute for Resilient Regions, University of Southern Queensland

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

Newspoll 55-45 to Labor as Turnbull’s better PM lead falls to 2. Qld and Alabama polling


Adrian Beaumont, University of Melbourne

This week’s Newspoll, conducted 9-12 November from a sample of 1630, gave Labor a 55-45 lead, a one point gain for Labor since last fortnight, and their largest Newspoll lead since February. Primary votes were 38% Labor (up 1), 34% Coalition (down 1), 10% One Nation (up 1) and 9% Greens (down 1). This is Turnbull’s 23rd consecutive Newspoll loss as PM, 7 short of Abbott.

29% were satisfied with Turnbull’s performance (down 2), and 58% were dissatisfied (down 1), for a net approval of -29. Shorten’s net approval was up five points to -19. The biggest story in the personal ratings was Turnbull’s lead as better PM over Shorten narrowing from 41-33 to 36-34, by far Turnbull’s lowest Newspoll lead over Shorten since he ousted Abbott to become PM.

This result will increase leadership speculation, and hard right commentators will say the Coalition should return to a proper conservative leader. However, while this is Turnbull’s worst better PM rating, Shorten often led Abbott while Abbott was PM. The better PM measure favours incumbents more than would be expected given voting intentions.

Newspoll asked a best Liberal leader question with three options: Turnbull, Julie Bishop and Peter Dutton. Bishop led Turnbull 40-27, with 11% for Dutton. Among Coalition voters, Turnbull was ahead 42-39 with 7% for Dutton. Dutton won 24% with One Nation voters.

If we count Labor/Greens as left, and Coalition/One Nation as right, there has been little change between the total left and right votes in the last six Newspolls. The total left vote has been 47% in all six, and the total right 44-45%. One Nation’s preference flow to the Coalition is likely to be stronger than the 50% at the 2016 election, which Newspoll uses, so Labor’s two party lead is probably overstated.

The fall in Turnbull’s better PM lead is likely due to the citizenship debacle, with voters thinking he has lost control of the situation. By 45-42, voters favoured changing the Constitution to allow dual citizens to run for Parliament.

The Bennelong by-election will be held on 16 December. Former NSW Premier Kristina Kenneally today announced she would contest the by-election for Labor. Kenneally has a high public profile. While Labor was smashed at the 2011 NSW election, the damage was done long before Kenneally became Premier, and she has not been blamed for that loss. Kenneally appears to be a very good choice for Labor.

With Essential and YouGov below confirming the trend in Newspoll, Kevin Bonham’s poll aggregate is now at 54.2% two party to Labor, a 1.0 point gain for Labor since last week, and Labor’s best for this term.

Lambie’s probable disqualification will un-un-elect McKim

Two weeks ago, I wrote that Tasmanian Liberal Senator Stephen Parry’s disqualification would see One Nation’s Kate McCulloch defeat Green Nick McKim for the 12th and final seat, reversing the 2016 election result.

Jacqui Lambie has revealed she has a Scottish father, and has resigned from the Senate. If both Parry and Lambie are disqualified, the Senate recount reverts to electing McKim instead of McCulloch. So it now appears that the High Court will not have to rule on whether an elected Senator who has done nothing wrong himself can be unelected.

SSM plebiscite polling

The result of the same sex marriage plebiscite will be declared at 10am Melbourne time tomorrow. In Newspoll, 79% said they had voted, up 3 since last fortnight. Of these 79%, Yes led 63-37 (62-35 from the 76% who had voted last fortnight).

In Essential, 45% thought the postal survey a bad process that should not be used in the future, 27% a good process that should be used in the future, and 19% a good process that should not be used.

If Yes wins, 58% in YouGov thought the government should pass a law legalising same sex marriage straight away, 18% ignore the result, and 14% wait before passing a law. By 46-42, voters thought MPs who personally oppose same sex marriage should vote for the bill.

Essential 54-46 to Labor

This week’s Essential, conducted over the last two weeks from a sample of 1820, gave Labor a 54-46 lead, a one point gain for Labor since last week. Primary votes were 38% Labor, 36% Coalition, 9% Greens, 8% One Nation and 3% Nick Xenophon Team. Additional questions use one week’s sample.

Turnbull’s net approval was down 11 points to -12 since October, and Shorten’s net approval was down six points to -13. Unlike Newspoll, Turnbull maintained a 40-28 lead as better PM (42-28 in October).

By 44-40, voters thought Turnbull’s proposal to resolve the dual citizenship crisis did not go far enough. By 49-30, they thought disqualified MPs should repay public funding of their election campaigns. By 44-31, voters disapproved of privatising the NBN when completed.

YouGov primary votes: 34% Labor, 31% Coalition, 11% Greens, 11% One Nation

This week’s YouGov poll, conducted 9-12 November from a sample of 1034, gave Labor a 52-48 lead by respondent preferences, a 3 point gain for Labor since last fortnight. Primary votes were 34% Labor (up 1), 31% Coalition (down 5), 11% Greens (up 1) and 11% One Nation (up 2). By previous election preferences, this poll would be about 55-45 to Labor.

Hanson had a 48-45 unfavourable rating (50-42 in early September). Greens leader Richard di Natale had a 33-29 unfavourable rating (39-26). Nick Xenophon had a 53-28 favourable rating (52-28). Abbott had a 56-36 unfavourable rating (57-34).

By 61-16, voters thought a full audit into all parliamentarians regarding dual citizenship a good idea. By 63-26, they thought it unacceptable to legally avoid paying tax. By 55-27, voters said they would not take part in a tax avoidance scheme, which is probably not an honest assessment.

Qld ReachTEL poll of One Nation voters, and more Galaxy seat polls

A ReachTEL poll of over 3400 voters was conducted for the Sunday Mail. From the Poll Bludger’s write-up and comments, it appears this poll was of just One Nation voters, not all voters. Sky News reported this poll as 52-48 to the LNP, but they appear to have extrapolated One Nation preferences in this poll (74.5% to LNP), and applied those preferences to other polls.

If 3 in 4 One Nation preferences are going to the LNP, Labor has shot itself in the foot by changing the electoral system from optional preferential to compulsory preferential voting last year. Labor can hope that this poll had self-selection issues, with hard right One Nation supporters more likely to participate than those who are simply disillusioned with both major parties.

In deputy Premier Jackie Trad’s South Brisbane, the Greens had a 51-49 lead over Trad according to a Galaxy poll taken last week. However, this poll assumes that LNP voters will assign their own preferences, rather than follow their party’s How-to-Vote card. In practice, over half of major party voters follow the card. With the LNP putting the Greens behind Labor on all its cards, Trad should retain South Brisbane easily.

In Burdekin, the LNP had a 51-49 lead over Labor, a 2 point swing to the LNP since the 2015 election.

Following Moore’s alleged sex encounter with 14-y/o, Alabama Senate race tightens

The Alabama Senate by-election will be held on 12 December. Last Thursday, the Washington Post reported that extreme right Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore had had a sexual encounter with a 14 year-old girl when he was 32.

The three polls taken since this revelation are between a 4-point lead for Democrat Doug Jones, and a 10-point lead for Moore, averaging at Moore by 2 points. There have been 12-point shifts in Jones’ favour from the previous editions of both JMC and Emerson, and a 5-point shift in Opinion Savvy.

The ConversationWhat happens next depends on whether voters quickly get over the scandal, or whether it festers, and continues to damage Moore. If the former happens, Moore should win comfortably, but the latter outcome would give Jones a real chance. An example of a scandal that festered in Australia was Bronwyn Bishop’s Choppergate affair.

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

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

Twitter analysis shows Queensland Labor has put Adani behind them


Axel Bruns, Queensland University of Technology

There’s still plenty of time to go in the current Queensland state election campaign, but early signs from the social media trail offer some encouragement for Labor premier Annastacia Palaszczuk. She is receiving considerably more retweets than Liberal Opposition Leader Tim Nicholls, and chatter about the controversial Adani mine project has declined in recent days.

Twitter and Facebook are now a standard part of the campaigning toolkit for all major parties. Previous state and federal campaigns suggest that voters who’ve already seen a party’s messages in their social media feeds may be a little more open to a chat when the local candidate comes doorknocking. (Labor’s internal review of its 2013 campaign stresses the combination of online and in-person campaigning, for example.)

On Twitter, we’ve identified 60 Labor and 48 Liberal National Party candidates, as well as central party and campaign accounts. The Greens are represented by 34 accounts, while One Nation and Katter’s Australian Party each have only a handful of tweeting candidates. Combined, over the first two weeks of the campaign, they’ve sent some 3,300 tweets in total, and received some 54,000 @mentions and retweets.

Twitter @mentions and retweets per party, 30 Oct. to 12 Nov. 2017.
Axel Bruns / QUT Digital Media Research Centre

These are far from evenly distributed, however. @mentions of parties and politicians tend to favour the incumbent, and this is not surprising: more of the debate on social media and elsewhere will be about the track record of the current government, rather than about the promises of the opposition.

At 30,000 tweets, Labor accounts have received nearly double the @mentions of the LNP (17,000) to date, and this is in line with patterns in previous state and federal elections.

It’s the retweets that tell a more remarkable story. The nearly 7,000 retweets for Labor candidates’ tweets amount to more than twelve times the 570 retweets received by the LNP. During an election campaign, retweets usually do indicate some level of endorsement.

The pattern in this election is considerably different from recent elections. In 2016, for example, the incumbent federal Coalition received far fewer retweets than the Labor opposition. In the 2015 Queensland election, Campbell Newman’s incumbent Liberal National Party government also struggled to attract retweets for its messages.

These patterns do not point to a significant mood for change or substantial willingness amongst Twitter users to promote the LNP’s campaign messages. Conservative commentators may want to chalk this up to a purported left-wing bias in the Australian Twittersphere – but that claim is not borne out by our analysis, showing Twitter contains sizeable communities of both left-wing and right-wing supporters.

Adani and One Nation generate heat for the major parties

Labor also seems to have weathered the early onslaught of critical coverage well.

The first week of the campaign saw a substantial volume of debate about the controversial Adani mine project, which divides opinion between the southeastern population centres around Brisbane (where concerns about environmental impacts are high) and the regional centres near the mine (which anticipate greater job prospects from the mine).

During week one some 1,500 tweets per day, both by and to candidates, contained the word “Adani”. Hashtags related to the controversy (#adani, #stopadani, #coralnotcoal, and others) were the most prominent topical hashtags in our overall dataset, in addition to generic tags like #qldvotes, #qldpol, and #auspol.

The story is further complicated by the fact that, in his role at PricewaterhouseCoopers, Premier Palaszczuk’s partner was involved in Adani’s application for a A$1 billion loan. Palaszczuk announced at the end of the first week of campaigning that she would veto that loan if the application were successful.

Judging by our Twitter data, this veto threat appears to have neutralised the Adani debate to some extent. “Adani” tweets by and to candidates declined from 1,500 to less than 600 in week two. The overall volume of tweets by and to these accounts has also dropped from over 5,000 to some 3,700 per day in week two.

This shift in position may indicate that Labor believes that supporting Adani will lose more votes in the southeast than it will gain further north. Our social media patterns seem to bear out this view.

Meanwhile, with Pauline Hanson’s much-publicised arrival on the campaign trail the second week has seen more discussion about the role that One Nation may play in the next parliament. In particular, the announcement on the evening of Friday 10 November that the LNP will preference One Nation over Labor in more than half the seats in Queensland has already generated substantial debate. Some 20% of tweets by and to candidates on the following Saturday included keywords related to One Nation and/or preferencing.

While the LNP announcement – after the evening news on a Friday – was probably timed to minimise media scrutiny of its decision, it remains to be seen whether this debate will carry over into the third week of the campaign. Labor will no doubt seek to exploit this preference arrangement to attract traditional conservative voters who remain critical of One Nation.

The ConversationAnd finally, if you’re still uncertain about which hashtag to use to join the debate: in tweets by and to candidate accounts, plain old #qldvotes leads #qldvotes2017 by more than ten to one so far. It’s a landslide.

Axel Bruns, Professor, Creative Industries, Queensland University of Technology

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

With One Nation on the march, a change to compulsory voting might backfire on Labor


Doug Hunt, James Cook University

The Queensland Labor government’s change back to compulsory preferential voting could increase informal voting and actually backfire, with a strong flow of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation preferences to the Liberal National Party.

What appeared to be a masterly, if cynical, move from Labor now looks far from smart. This is especially so as opinion polling shows a strong flow of One Nation preferences to the LNP, making it the beneficiary of full preferential voting.

Paradoxically, Labor preferences may assist the LNP in some rural seats where One Nation comes second to the LNP. One Nation, which looks set to win a few seats, will itself be helped by preferences from Katter’s Australian Party and also from the LNP.

The difference between optional and compulsory preferential voting

In April last year, Queensland parliament increased the number of electoral districts from 89 to 93. This move, initiated by the LNP with the support of crossbench members, was trumped by Labor, also with crossbench support. Labor amended the Bill to additionally re-introduce compulsory preferential voting.

The introduction by Labor of compulsory full preferential voting owed nothing to democratic electoral theory. Like all previous voting system changes, Labor expected to get some advantage.

Labor proposed two related reasons for the change: to reduce informal votes and achieve consistency between state and federal elections. However, optional preferential voting has meant that Queensland elections have the lowest rate of informality across all Australian parliaments. This is despite Queensland being having a high informal vote in federal elections.

The return to full preferential voting will actually increase the number of informal votes. An informal vote is a ballot paper where the voter has failed to put a number every box, or otherwise not complete it properly.

Compulsory, or full preferential, voting requires an elector to number every box beside each candidate on the ballot paper sequentially in order of the voter’s preference. If no candidate achieves a majority of “1” votes on the first count, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated from the ballot, and their votes allocated to the remaining candidates according to the eliminated candidate’s second preference.

This process continues until one candidate reaches a majority (50% plus one) of votes. The aim is to elect the most preferred candidate, rather than the simple plurality required under first-past-the-post voting.

FPV Formal Ballot Paper Example.
Electoral Commission of Queensland

This is the system used in federal elections and in all other states except New South Wales, which uses optional preferential voting. Queensland elections were conducted via full preferential voting from 1962 until 1992. Optional preferential voting was then introduced following a recommendation of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission.

Under optional preferential voting, voters can choose how many, if any preferences they allocate to candidates. They can simply vote 1, or they can vote for some or all candidates in order of their preference. Counting proceeds as with full preferential voting.

This system maximises choice for voters, ensuring that they don’t have to indicate any preference for someone they don’t wish to elect. Optional preferential voting therefore seems like the most democratic form of voting.

On the other hand, full preferential voting arguably maximises the democratic principle of public participation, by ensuring that voters’ second (and so on) preferences pass on to other candidates. Their votes are therefore not wasted. So, elections more accurately reflect the will of the people, as the winner can claim the support of most voters.

Under optional preferential voting, if large numbers of electors limit their preferences to one candidate, someone without majority support may be elected.

What history tells us

The real reason for a return to full preferential voting was to assist Labor in garnering preferences from the Greens. These preferences typically flow heavily to Labor – as high as 80% in many cases.

However, optional preferential voting meant that Greens voters increasingly just voted 1 for their own candidate, robbing Labor of votes. ABC election analyst Antony Green calculated that had full preferential voting been in place in 2015, Labor would have won an additional eight seats and an absolute parliamentary majority.

Labor also hoped to pick up preferences from other candidates in order to stave off Greens challenges in inner-city districts.

The optional preferential voting experience in Queensland shows that over time, the proportion of the electorate not stating full preferences generally increases. Academic John Wanna warned of a defacto first-past-the post system, calling it a “denial of a true democratic outcome”.

In 2012, 70% of electors voted 1 only. This proportion fell to 55% in the 2015 election, apparently due to disaffection with the Newman LNP government, when many voters deliberately put the LNP last on the ballot paper.

In 2016, Labor appeared in a winning position with the change to compulsory preferential voting. 2017 is different.

The difficulty in predicting the outcome of Queensland’s state election is compounded not just by changes to the electoral system, but by volatile political factors.

Chief among these is the resurgence of support for One Nation. In the 2015 election, standing in only 11 electorates, the party garnered a statewide vote of less than 1% – though Hanson herself lost narrowly to the LNP in the seat of Lockyer.

Recent opinion polls suggest support for One Nation at around 18%, prompting commentators to assign it a “kingmaker” role in a likely hung parliament.

So it’s impossible to gauge the impact of a return to compulsory compared with optional preferential voting with certainty. In most seats, it won’t change the outcome.

However, some seats will likely be decided differently under full preferential voting. In a close election, that can determine which party wins on 25 November.

The ConversationIronically, given the LNP’s vehement criticism of the change to full preferential voting last year – it was the ‘death of democracy’, according to one parliamentarian – they are likely to be the main beneficiary of the changed system.

Doug Hunt, Adjunct Associate Professor, College of Arts, Society and Education, James Cook University

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

Labor increases Newspoll lead to 55-45% as Shorten moves within striking distance as better PM


Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Newspoll has delivered a sweeping new setback to Malcolm Turnbull, with a big cut in his “better prime minister” rating and Labor increasing its two-party lead to a massive 55-45%.

The blow comes as the government and opposition prepare for a byelection in the Sydney seat of Bennelong, expected to be on December 16, following Saturday’s resignation of Liberal backbencher John Alexander, who said he was a likely British citizen.

The Coalition will be particularly panicked by the fall in Turnbull’s rating as better prime minister, from 41% to 36%. Bill Shorten’s rating rose one point to 34%. Turnbull’s two-point lead over Shorten is the narrowest margin there has been between them.

The government has always looked to this measure to argue Turnbull’s strength against Shorten, even in the face of the bad two-party results.

In the 23rd consecutive Newspoll in which the Coalition has trailed, the ALP increased its two-party vote from 54-46% a fortnight ago, and its primary vote from 37% to 38%. The Coalition’s primary vote went down one point to 34%. The escalating citizenship crisis has dominated the two weeks.

Turnbull’s net satisfaction worsened slightly from minus 28 to minus 29, while Shorten’s improved from minus 24 to minus 19. Pauline Hanson’s One Nation rose one point to 10%; the Greens fell one point to 9%.

Bennelong, once held by John Howard, is on a margin of a little under 10%, making it safe in normal times but potentially vulnerable in the present chaotic climate.

Alexander said that although he had not received formal confirmation from the British that he was a UK citizen via his father, “the probability of evidence is that I most likely am”. He will recontest the seat.

With Barnaby Joyce and Alexander both out of parliament the government will be operating from a minority position when the House of Representatives returns on November 27. It has 74 of the 148 occupied seats, 73 on the floor when the Speaker, who only has a casting vote, is excluded.

Though the government is not at risk of a no-confidence motion, thanks to having sufficient crossbench support, Labor will make the lower house as difficult as possible.

Turnbull said the byelection date was “a matter for the Speaker” but the government wanted it “as soon as possible”. Labor started campaigning in the seat on Sunday.

Both sides became more shrill at the weekend in their claims about the alleged dual citizens among the ranks of their opponents.

The government is threatening to refer at least two ALP MPs, Justine Keay and Susan Lamb, to the High Court, and perhaps more. It could not do this on its own, with its present numbers.

In response, the opposition has issued a “hit list” of Liberals, including Julia Banks, Nola Marino, Alex Hawke, Tony Pasin and Ann Sudmalis.

A Labor source said that if Malcolm Turnbull “wants to fire this missile, we’ve got the ammo to go nuclear”. Turnbull was “locking and loading the gun at his own MPs”.

Several Labor MPs moved to renounce their dual citizenship before their nominations but did not get their confirmations until afterwards. The ALP claims they should not be referred to the court, because they took reasonable steps but given the High Court’s black-letter approach in its recent decisions, it is not clear how it would treat such cases.

Turnbull, who is trying to manage the unfolding crisis from a distance during his Asia trip, said: “Bill Shorten has got to stop running a protection racket for his own dual citizens”.

Turnbull said Labor had welcomed the court’s literalism. But “the worm has turned and now we see one Labor MP after another who could not pass that literal test.

“Now, if Labor says they’ve got counter-arguments, terrific. Let them make them in the court.

“There is no question that Labor has a number of members who not only were, but knew they were … foreign citizens at the time they nominated for parliament. That makes them ineligible.”

The manager of opposition business in the House of Representatives, Tony Burke, said the difference between the Labor and Liberal MPs was that “Those who are in the spotlight for the Labor party took reasonable steps before the nomination date. Those who are in the focus from the Liberal party took no steps at all before the nomination date.”

Burke on Sunday was campaigning in Bennelong, where Labor is homing in on the seat’s ethnic component.

Following the Queensland Liberal National Party preferencing One Nation in many seats for the November 25 state election, Burke said a petition was being launched “to demand that Malcolm Turnbull end the preference deals with One Nation”.

Labor will also make the government’s proposed toughening of the citizenship law an issue in Bennelong.

“A prime minister with any authority would be able to stop a preference deal with One Nation. John Howard would have been able to stop a preference deal with One Nation,” Burke said.

The Conversation“But Malcolm Turnbull, a prime minister with no authority and a government with no majority, has failed to stand up for the people who live here. Make no mistake, when you attack multicultural Australia, which is exactly what One Nation is all about, you attack the community that lives here in Bennelong.”

https://www.podbean.com/media/player/k3zus-7afe23?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.

Undecided Queensland voters disillusioned with Palaszczuk, suspicious of Nicholls


Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Queensland “soft” voters are deeply disillusioned with both the Palaszczuk government and the Nicholls opposition, with many predicting a hung parliament from the November 25 state election, according to focus group research.

These voters are dismayed by the quality of Queensland’s political leadership, and struggling to find reasons to vote for the Labor government or the Liberal National Party alternative. Their votes are drifting somewhat toward minor parties and independents. If there’s a hung parliament, the majors will have themselves to blame.

Soft voters’ feelings about the controversial proposed Adani Carmichael coal mine – a high-profile issue in the campaign’s early stages – are complicated, with many believing the mine will be economically beneficial, but doubts about a publicly funded loan for its railway, and deep cynicism about Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk’s backflip on the issue.

Federally, many of these voters see Malcolm Turnbull’s ability to turn a “yes” result on same-sex marriage – if that’s the outcome of the postal ballot – into legislation quickly as a decisive test of the prime minister’s leadership.

The groups, two in each of Brisbane and Townsville, were conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday last week. The participants hadn’t yet decided how they would vote. Ages ranged from 18 to 75, with a mix of gender and socioeconomic backgrounds. Landscape Research conducted the research for the University of Canberra’s Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis.

Brisbane participants were predominantly drawn from the Queensland marginal electorates of Ferny Grove (ALP 0.82%) and Everton (LNP 1.77%), in the marginal federal LNP electorate of Dickson. Townsville participants were predominantly drawn from the marginal electorates of Mundingburra (ALP 2.76%) and Townsville (ALP 5.69%) in the marginal federal Labor electorate of Herbert.

The participants’ criticism of the big parties and their interest in small players reflect trends shown in recent quantitative polling.

“Major parties concentrate too much on negatives and not new policies,” complained a retired Brisbane retail worker; a Townsville worker said: “everyone’s going to independents. They’re sick of lies.”

“No matter what happens here, the independents will have a louder voice,” said a Townsville police officer.

Despite their criticisms of the major parties and the state’s leadership, these voters are more optimistic than pessimistic about Queensland’s future, seeing at least small signs of economic improvement, more jobs, and hospitals and schools being built. “The economy is starting to turn around, we’ve been through the worst of things,” said one.

The main issues of concern shared by soft voters in both places are the cost of living, including power prices, roads and traffic congestion, and crime. In Townsville water security is a particular priority.

On Adani, there are some worries about possible environmental implications, including for the Great Barrier Reef. But many are attracted to the potential economic benefits – wealth and direct and indirect jobs.

Nevertheless, these voters hesitate about funds from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) helping an overseas company make a profit, when the money could be used for other things, such as Townsville’s water.

People were scathing about Palaszczuk’s about-turn, in announcing a re-elected Labor government would veto NAIF funding for the mine’s railway. They see her pandering to “greenies” at the expense of hard-working Queenslanders. Some regard the fallout as “disastrous” for her, who’s also criticised for calling the election immediately after she denied she’d do so.

“She’s a straight bare-faced liar,” was the acerbic assessment of one Townsville participant.

For many, Palaszczuk hasn’t done enough to get their vote again; some pointed to her rocky start in the campaign, and concerns lingered about union influence on Labor.

But despite her perceived drawbacks, many of these soft voters are still leaning toward voting Labor. Their reasons include that Palaszczuk is better than the alternative; they like their local MP; and they want this time to have majority government and believe the ALP has a better chance than the LNP of achieving that. “Better the devil you know,” a Brisbane female executive assistant felt.

For some, Tim Nicholls embodies the ghost of Campbell Newman, the former premier dispatched in the massive swing of 2015. Nicholls and his team carry the baggage of the past. “I don’t trust the LNP because those people are still there,” one participant said.

But others favour the LNP on economic grounds; they “potentially manage the economy better,” in the view of a Townsville small-business-owner.

Given their negativity toward the major parties, some soft voters are looking seriously at minor party and independent alternatives. In Townsville, One Nation and Katter’s Australian Party (KAP) are appealing. One Nation and KAP have done a preference deal.

In Brisbane, some older voters are also considering One Nation; some younger Brisbane voters are looking at the Greens.

Senator Pauline Hanson, who was overseas when the election was called, had started to hit the Queensland election trail when the focus groups were meeting.

A Brisbane retired public servant was “leaning towards One Nation for a change. I’m sick of the childlike behaviour of the major parties.”

For a Townsville electrician, it’s about sending “a message to the major parties that we’re not happy with them. I’m leaning towards KAP for a change. They’ll be a strong voting block with One Nation.”

The soft voters differ dramatically about One Nation and Hanson. “I appreciate that she doesn’t think she’s King Shit,” said a Townsville property developer, “she seems more humble”. But a Townsville stay-at-home mum believed “someone like that would just set us back decades,” just when “as a society we’re just getting to the point where we’re being more inclusive”.

“I would be quite positive if Katter had the balance of power, but I’d be absolutely devastated if One Nation had the balance of power,” said a Townsville participant.

While many are predicting a hung parliament/minority government, people see pros and cons in that sort of outcome. The downside would be instability and chaos; “It sounds like a continuation of the political shit storm,” said a young Townsville occupational therapist.

On the other hand, having crossbenchers holding the untrustworthy majors to account is a positive. “It might make the major parties wake up a bit to what the realities are,” a retired Brisbane small-business-owner said.

For some, a hung parliament puts too much power in the hands of a few, elected by a minority of voters. The government can be held to ransom by the whims of an unrepresentative “looney” minority. “It takes the power off your vote again because you voted for someone and they could go and form a coalition with someone that you very strongly disagree with,” said a personal trainer from Brisbane.

At this stage of the campaign, younger undecided voters in particular admitted they were still disengaged and lacked enough information to make informed choices.

Mostly, these soft voters don’t see significant implications flowing federally from the Queensland result. But they do caution the LNP that the federal Liberals’ performance won’t help them; they also think the federal Liberals fortunes couldn’t be worsened by whatever happens here.

“I wouldn’t let Malcolm Turnbull anywhere near the place,” said a retired Brisbane solicitor; a Townsville participant described the federal government as “a lame duck”. Some believe the rise of independents in Queensland is a wake-up call for the federal Coalition.

Unprompted, these voters cite as top-of-mind federal issues dual citizenship -–which they see as politics at its worst, “farcical”, “ridiculous” – Manus Island, and same-sex marriage.

On the Manus crisis they are polarised (“we should be ashamed”; “they’re illegal immigrants”), at a loss to suggest a solution, and unsure what the federal government is or should be doing.

Despite the Manus crisis, which was escalating as the groups met, some Dickson voters remain enthusiastic about their local member, Immigration Minister Peter Dutton (“I think he’s great”; “he’s doing an excellent job”).

But his popularity among some is being tested by their dislike of the Turnbull.

A retired printer said it was a question of who one was voting for. “If I’m looking at my federal electorate, I’m looking at Dutton, who just happens to be a Liberal guy, but I really don’t like the leader of the party and if there’s a choice to vote another way I’ll be voting against Liberal because of him, Turnbull, and not liking the consequences of dumping Dutton.”

On same-sex marriage, these voters are critical of the cost of the postal ballot (one chose not to vote in protest). But if a “yes” win is announced on Wednesday, they want Turnbull to deliver a parliamentary result – otherwise it will confirm their view that he is weak and beholden to the conservative part of his party.

As a Brisbane female small-business-owner bluntly put it: “This is the litmus test. I feel like this is going to be: how much do you actually listen to us? And if you don’t listen to us, you can go get stuffed.”

The ConversationThese groups will meet again in the last week of the campaign, when we will bring you their views. Meanwhile, watch for The Conversation’s FactChecks on the Queensland election.

https://www.podbean.com/media/player/k3zus-7afe23?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.

Why Adani may still get its government loan


Brendan Gogarty, University of Tasmania

Even though Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk announced she would be vetoing the around A$1 billion loan to Adani for a rail link to its proposed Carmichael coal mine, funds could still flow to the company.

Currently in caretaker mode for the Queensland election, the premier would need the consent of the opposition party to exercise such a right. That is very unlikely given the LNP’s longstanding support of Adani’s mine.

This means any veto could not be exercised until late November, or more realistically, December 2017.

As the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) loan doesn’t need state approval (but rather explicit veto) it could also mean the money will make its way to Adani, without any direct action by the state government.

How would Commonwealth money make its way to Adani?

The NAIF body was established in 2016 and administers A$5 billion in Commonwealth funds. It’s been empowered to award grants to the northern states and Northern Territory for infrastructure projects. Practically, however, these jurisdictions are used as financial conduits to pass this money to large corporations operating in northern Australia.

The NAIF is established under the “tied-grants” provision of the Constitution, Section 96, which states:

…the [Commonwealth] parliament may grant financial assistance to any state on such terms and conditions as the [Commonwealth] parliament thinks fit.

This section was intended to provide for a short-term (around ten years) mechanism for central funds to be granted to the new states affected by the restructuring of national public finances, after federation. However, the Commonwealth parliament continued to use this section well into the 20th century (and increasingly today) to grant funds to cash-strapped states.

Over time, the Commonwealth started to impose terms that required the states do things that were outside of the Commonwealth’s legislative power – such as education or, indeed, infrastructure development.

The early-20th-century High Court concluded that this was acceptable, as long as the state technically consented to the terms and conditions of the grant.

While the NAIF legislation does not require such consent, under rules issued by the Commonwealth minister the NAIF has to:

… commence consultation with the relevant jurisdiction as soon as practicable after receiving an investment proposal

In Adani’s case, the Investment Rules indicate that the “jurisdiction” is the “state or territory the infrastructure project is located”, namely Queensland. The state government after reviewing project and investment may provide:

… written notification that financial assistance should not be provided to a project.

If that is the case then the NAIF is not permitted to provide the grant money to the applicant (Adani). But that doesn’t mean the state hasn’t consented to the loan.

The problem is that the High Court has never really addressed what the word “state” means in Section 96. Specifically who should the money be paid to: the “parliament of the state”; “government of the state” or, as seems to be implied in the Palaszczuk statements the “premier of the state”?

Conventionally, when we talk of “state consent” to funds, we envision a complex process by which money is paid into a central state fund under the control of state parliament. However, the NAIF legislation appears to allow for merely the state government to consent in a very minimal way, simply by passing the money directly to Adani without the state parliament ever reviewing or approving the transaction.

The NAIF legislation also doesn’t specify who in the government might consent. To date, it is the treasurer who seems to have been most actively involved in working with the NAIF, and indeed Adani. It seems that, so long as the state has been “consulted”, unless it takes active steps to stop the loan, it will go ahead.

Does Palaszczuk have a ‘veto’ power?

The premier’s reasoning for the veto is a continuation of her government’s legacy of having “no role to date in the federal government’s NAIF Loan Assessment Process for Adani” and no “role in the future”.

These statements seem to be contrary to earlier ones by the Queensland treasurer, Curtis Pitt, that the government would “do what is required” to facilitate Commonwealth funds going to Adani. In fact, as early as November 2016, Pitt declared in state parliament:

Since we came to office, we have been working very closely with the Commonwealth government to facilitate … the NAIF – in North Queensland… It is through the NAIF facility, which the state wholeheartedly supports, that Adani can get the infrastructure support that it needs.

As a result, it would seem that everything needed to pass the NAIF funds to Adani is provided for. The only thing to actively stop it is a formal, written statement by Palaszczuk to the NAIF refusing the loan (not to the prime minister as she claimed). Given Palaszczuk’s statement that she intends to write this statement, it is clear that no formal notice has yet been issued to the NAIF.

However, it would seem that a “Master Facility Agreement” between Queensland and the NAIF has already been agreed to and set up. This agreement seems to envision the treasurer of Queensland passing the money to Adani, without it ever going into the state’s bank accounts. Hence, in May this year, the Queensland treasurer confirmed that:

Our role, for constitutional reasons, is the legal financing contract, the loan agreement including the drawdown and timing, repayment of interest — all of those things have to have state involvement constitutionally.

So, unless the Queensland opposition takes the very unlikely step of agreeing to a veto, Palaszczuk would appear to lack the power to issue one herself until after the election.

The ConversationIn the interim, NAIF has no legal restrictions on issuing the loan and, with the apparent agreement of the Queensland treasury, this money is likely to flow through to Adani. While Palaszczuk can say her government gave no active assistance to Adani, without active measures to block the loan, it would certainly be a silent partner in the process.

Brendan Gogarty, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Tasmania

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

Coalition loses majority after Alexander resigns. Qld polling and preferences


Adrian Beaumont, University of Melbourne

Liberal John Alexander today resigned as the Member for Bennelong, owing to concerns he had British citizenship by descent through his father. As Barnaby Joyce has also been ousted pending a 2 December by-election in New England, the Coalition now has 74 of the 148 occupied lower house seats, not quite a majority. Since the Speaker cannot vote except to break a tie, they have 73 of 147 votes on the floor. If all five cross-benchers vote with Labor, Labor would win divisions.

The Senate alone sits next week, with the full Parliament to hold a two-week sitting from 27 November. Joyce is likely to be absent for both these weeks. Even if he wins convincingly, the electoral commission will take some time to formally declare the New England result.

If the Coalition does not want to attempt minority government for these two weeks, Turnbull could ask the Governor-General to prorogue (suspend) Parliament until after the New England and Bennelong by-elections are held.

At the 2016 election, Alexander won Bennelong by 59.7-40.3 vs Labor, a 2 point swing to the Liberals. Alexander said he will re-contest Bennelong at the by-election, and this makes Labor’s task more difficult. In most by-elections, the incumbent party loses the personal vote of the sitting member, but not in either New England or Bennelong.

Labor’s Maxine McKew famously ousted incumbent PM John Howard from Bennelong at the 2007 election, but Alexander regained it for the Liberals in 2010, and has held it since.

17 candidates have nominated for the New England by-election, likely increasing the informal vote. Many of these candidates will forfeit the $1000 deposit for failing to win at least 4% of the vote. The most original candidate name was “MEOW-MEOW, Meow-Ludo Disco Gamma” from the Science Party. Joyce is the overwhelming favourite, with Independent Rob Taber and Labor’s David Ewings likely to contest second.

3 of 4 Senate vacancies filled, but questions over Hughes

Following recounts of Senate votes for four ousted Senators, yesterday the High Court declared Greens Andrew Bartlett elected to replace Larissa Waters, Greens Jordan Steele-John elected to replace Scott Ludlam and One Nation’s Fraser Anning elected to replace Malcolm Roberts. These Senators will be sworn in when the Senate resumes Monday.

Nationals Fiona Nash’s replacement has been complicated as Liberal Hollie Hughes, the next on the joint Coalition ticket in NSW, took up public service work following her failure at the 2016 election, and may be disqualified under Section 44(iv) of the Constitution. The full High Court will consider Hughes’ case next week. If Hughes is disqualified, Liberal Jim Molan is next on the Coalition ticket.

Qld Galaxy seat polling and preference recommendations

The Queensland election will be held in two weeks, on 25 November. Galaxy conducted seven electorate polls, presumably on 9 November from samples of about 550 per seat. The seats polled were Logan, Mundingburra, Hervey Bay, Rockhampton, Cairns, Bonney and Glass House.

In only one seat, Logan, was One Nation second on primary votes with 32%, but they were losing to Labor 52-48 after respondent-allocated preferences. In the other seats, One Nation’s vote was at most 25%.

Mundingburra was the only seat shown as changing hands on this polling, with the LNP leading 52-48, a 4 point swing to them. However, Glass House and Bonney were both tied 50-50, representing swings to Labor. Labor-turned-Independent candidates in Cairns and Rockhampton were not a threat.

Labor and the Greens will put One Nation last on their how-to-vote cards in all seats. One Nation will put sitting members second last ahead of the Greens, with a handful of exceptions, primarily for the two Katter party MPs. According to the ABC’s Chris O’Brien, the LNP will recommend its voters preference One Nation ahead of Labor in at least 50 of the 93 seats.

The ConversationI think the LNP’s preference decision is likely to be a negative in south-east Queensland, where well-educated conservative voters may be unhappy with their party preferencing a perceived racist party.

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

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