Comments
Interesting analysis, Kevin.
Just one point which is that the electorate of Nelson does not include Blackmans Bay, however it does include Kingston.
Do you think the Leg Council could be reformed to make it more dynamic?
Posted by Tom N on 23/04/06 at 09:17 AMWhoops! I was remembering Nelson as including Blackmans Bay on account of a booth near Kingston that my mother got thrashed by Jim Wilkinson in when she stood for Nelson in 2001. But in fact the booth I had in mind was Kingston Beach.
I think the Leg Council is a lost cause and should simply be abolished.
A “more dynamic” Legislative Council would be simply obstructive (as the Council was to a great degree before its powers were reformed). Greater interest could be created by simultaneous elections, but that would frequently lead to either the same results as the main elections (creating duplicity) or sharply contrasting ones (creating weak government in the Lower House).
The Legislative Council has never been an effective protection against bad legislation (I cannot remember one really bad bill killed off or beneficially reformed in the last 20 years) and has frequently meddled with good laws for no valid reason, or forced the government to change its plans (Labor’s recent poor policy on the sex industry, motivated by the Upper House intending to block its reforms, being a classic case of this).
Get rid of it, save taxpayer money, maybe use some of the savings to return the Lower House to its former size and resolve the workability problems that the 25-seat house creates.
With the possibility of federal intervention if things go really badly astray, and the constant scrutiny of legislation through modern public debate, Australian states simply don’t need upper houses.
Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham on 23/04/06 at 10:35 AMKevin
That’s a good argument. I certainly agree that the Leg Council’s influence on the sex industry legislation led to a very poor outcome.
However if we look at the example of Queensland where there is no upper house corruption was allowed to thrive during the 1970s and 1980s.
What about the idea of simultaneous elections for all Legislative Council divisions, but not at the same time as the Leg Assembly election?
Posted by Tom N on 24/04/06 at 12:41 AMHi Kevin,
I enjoyed reading your analysis and the conclusions drawn from it. I remember the legislative council’s disgraceful behaviour on the Franklin dam. The council should have been abolished decades ago.
However, the reason I write is because you have used the word “duplicity” when I think you mean “duplication”. “Duplicity” means deceit, deception, fraud, disloyalty, treachery….
....actually maybe “duplicity” is the right term.
Philip Branch (pedant)
Posted by Philip Branch on 24/04/06 at 02:15 AMMs Corby and myself are currently doorknocking both Moonah and Lutana to try and enlarge the Green vote there. Most of the responses have been neutral (though a lot of people are surprised that there are people other than Doug Parkinson doorknocking the area) but there appears to be a small but significant Green support base in the area.
As for the abolition of the Legislative Council in favour of one house, may I remind you of the horrors of the Bejelke-Petersen government in Queensland. There must be checks and balances.
Posted by Darren West on 24/04/06 at 11:55 AMDarren, do you mean Bejelke or Bejeesus?
And any checks or balances should not necessarily have to be Green.
Besides the Leg Council is supposed to be an independent house of review. Or have we become colour blind to the big picture. If it becomes tainted with any colour that’s when it becomes more irrelevant than it already is.
It’s really just Tasmania’s first ‘club’ and for some reason we think the sky might fall in should it no longer exist.
Why not pull out all the benches and related antiquities and instal beds for the homeless kids we saw on local ABC on Friday evening.
These kids are probably victims of lost parents who contribute to the State’s second biggest source of revenue - gambling. If you had a POOH (pokies out of hotels) policy as you go doorknocking, then you might get overwhelming support.
I’d vote for you, Green, Blue or Red, Bejeesus!
Posted by Paul Tapp on 25/04/06 at 12:34 AMThanks Philip, quite correct, I indeed meant “duplication” (my response to Tom was typed in something of a hurry).
Tom - I think even holding them simultaneously at a different time would be a problem. If you held them at a time when a government was severely on the nose over some temporary issue then an entirely obstructive Upper House could be elected.
On the argument against unicameralism based on corruption, the reason there was corruption in Queensland was not that Queensland has a unicameral parliament but that Queensland is Queensland. There are plenty of examples of non-unicameral systems with corruption, and plenty of examples of unicameral systems without it.
Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham on 25/04/06 at 01:46 AMTo my amusement, I today received a posted and addressed leaflet from Doug Parkinson looking forward to my continued support on Election Day.
This surprised me because I am in fact a resident of the electorate of Nelson - I live on Macquarie Street above the Southern Outlet.
Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham on 26/04/06 at 04:09 AMAllow me to draw your attention to my own humble effort on the elections.
Posted by William Bowe (The Poll Bludger) on 27/04/06 at 08:33 AMWhat are the Greens’ chances of winning a second senate seat next year?
Posted by Monty Roberts on 08/05/06 at 09:17 AMMonty, do you mean two Senate seats in Tasmania? If so, the chances are very very low. Last time they couldn’t even poll the 14.3% quota for a single seat in their own right and came fairly close to losing to Family First on ticket preferences. The Greens’ Senate vote has historically tended to lag behind their State vote and even with Bob Brown at the helm, should he stand again, I really can’t see them polling over 17% for the Senate (indeed I will be surprised by anything over 15.5%). So their second candidate would, at best, be left with a small fraction of a quota which is not enough to get elected unless something very odd happens with the ticket preference flows from other parties.
Suppose I should post some comments to wrap up the Legislative Council comments above.
In Rowallan I predicted three to one for Greg Hall but said it could even be four or five to one. It was about four and a half to one in the end with Hall currently on 82.3% to 17.7%.
In Wellington the outcome has been very similar to my first scenario but with just a slightly lower primary vote for Parkinson than expected in this case. However he has done very well off Zucco’s preferences and currently has a 62.7 to 37.3% margin over Corby on preferences, for a 3.2% swing to him, backing my pre-election comment that there would not necessarily be any swing to the Greens. While the Greens did win four booths on primaries, all of those were close while, as predicted, Parkinson again had massive margins in several working class booths in the north of Wellington. With most of the vote again going to the Labor and Green candidates it doesn’t seem that the idea that one should elect an independent to the Upper House for the sake of it has any real traction in Wellington.
Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham on 08/05/06 at 10:53 AMNo chance Monty. Both Bob Brown and Christine Milne have scored under a quota in the last two senate elections.
Posted by Barry Brannan on 08/05/06 at 11:09 AMgoodmorning im jasmine and im bored hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey
Posted by jasmine on 07/12/06 at 11:09 AMTo my amusement, I today received a posted and addressed leaflet from Doug Parkinson looking forward to my continued support on Election Day.
This surprised me because I am in fact a resident of the electorate of Nelson - I live on Macquarie Street above the Southern Outlet.
Posted by Roger on 12/02/08 at 10:12 AM
