tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post2586541681834257977..comments2024-03-17T21:29:12.457+11:00Comments on Dr Kevin Bonham: Bob Day Chaos Thrills The CrowdKevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-6832995253552461552016-11-07T11:45:00.817+11:002016-11-07T11:45:00.817+11:00There are no rules for replacing a Senator whose p...There are no rules for replacing a Senator whose party has entirely ceased to exist, and I think the fairest solution in that circumstance would be a full recount minus that Senator (again electing his running mate as it turns out). However there was the case of Steele Hall, who was elected under the Liberal Movement banner, then rejoined the Liberals, then resigned. The LM no longer existed - some members had rejoined the Liberals while some had formed the New LM which then merged with the Australia Party to form the Australian Democrats. The replacement selected for Hall by the SA parliament was Janine Haines, a Democrat who had been #3 on the ticket that elected Hall. <br /><br />I suspect that loss of registration would not alone be deemed sufficient condition for a party having ceased to exist, and also that insolvency and deregistration of the party could take longer than determining Day's eligibility, so in this scenario appointing Day's replacement successfully might be the party's last gasp before collapsing. Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-26814301159164226402016-11-07T10:07:34.738+11:002016-11-07T10:07:34.738+11:00Given that Family First was funded by Bob Day'...Given that Family First was funded by Bob Day's companies to a huge extent, which could be clawed back in a liquidation, forcing FF into insolvency... let's say Day is not declared ineligible but FF no longer has party registration when the time comes to pick his replacement, is there any precedent for that? Any rules for replacing a retired or deceased Senator without a party? Arkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07657579577532223814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-1445962371970468052016-11-03T12:32:13.903+11:002016-11-03T12:32:13.903+11:00I think that this may trigger some action on requi...I think that this may trigger some action on requiring candidates to provide evidence of qualification and a lack of disqualification.<br /><br />It may also trigger some action on section 44 reform.T0000000000001https://www.blogger.com/profile/05135088419363685867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-57701751138887148012016-11-03T11:04:34.432+11:002016-11-03T11:04:34.432+11:00A day being a long time in politics (etc) this art...A day being a long time in politics (etc) this article was written before Culleton made noises about abstaining. If Culleton follows through with these noises and abstains (or if, for instance, he resigns and creates a copy of the Day situation) this changes things and does indeed mean Day's absence is a loss for the Coalition. <br /><br />But in the ancient times when the article was written, the mathematics was as follows: a majority of 76 is 39 because 38-38 is a tie. But a majority of 75 is 38 because 38-37 is a win. If Day was in favour of a bill and 38 other Senators supported it, then it would pass whether he was there or not. If Day was against a bill and 38 other Senators supported it, then it would pass if he was absent but fail if he was there. Moreover, if he is absent then he cannot use his vote as leverage to extract anything.<br /><br />Having both Day and Culleton absent (if that happens) is a big disadvantage for the Coalition, as it is the same as one voting for and one against every bill, meaning the Coalition needs the vote of 8/9 crossbenchers instead of the usual 9/11.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-63677229012391887002016-11-03T10:45:57.062+11:002016-11-03T10:45:57.062+11:00I think you're mistaken as to "Coalition ...I think you're mistaken as to "Coalition benefits" here. One vote less for the Coalition is relatively one vote more for Labor, especially on the ABCC bill, of which Day was a certain supporter. <br /><br />On other bills, maybe not, but Day's absence is not the great advantage for the Coalition that you suggest, because Day has a high record of voting with the Coalition. If he misses out on voting with them because he's disqualified and his replacement is not in place, then it's Advantage/Labor.<br /><br />Ditto for Cullerton, if he keeps his promise and abstains. If he goes contrarian, breaks his promise to abstain and votes with Labor on something, then all hell breaks loose.<br /><br />Alcheringahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09858302443123304787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-469662894134008782016-11-03T10:43:12.735+11:002016-11-03T10:43:12.735+11:00She would be also retrospectively ineligible and t...She would be also retrospectively ineligible and there would be another full recount minus both Day and Gichuhi, which according to Grahame Bowland's simulations would elect Anne McEwen. Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-29173955247451087872016-11-03T02:52:55.739+11:002016-11-03T02:52:55.739+11:00So...what happens if Gichuhi (who would reasonably...So...what happens if Gichuhi (who would reasonably have expected to never get anywhere near the Senate) hasn't renounced her Kenyan citizenship-by-birth yet? Would the High Court allow her to backdate it, or would they rule that, per Sue v. Hill, she's ineligible?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16633515339073072931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-51949220022624245992016-11-02T23:01:41.313+11:002016-11-02T23:01:41.313+11:00Thanks Kevin - good analysis ...Thanks Kevin - good analysis ...Mark Graphhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10462713733051104779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-84481211711278132162016-11-02T11:20:06.831+11:002016-11-02T11:20:06.831+11:00Of course the question is whether Family First are...Of course the question is whether Family First are then happy to have Gichuhi take the seat, or whether they prefer someone else and ask her to resign. This happened in 1988 when Robert Wood (NDP) was disqualified. The NDP asked his replacement Irina Dunn to resign so Wood could resume his seat. Dunn not surprisingly refused and was kicked out of the party, sitting as an Independent. One would think Family First couldn't possibly be so stupid, but then again they are Family First, so who knows.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-4872034476040100712016-11-02T11:13:00.307+11:002016-11-02T11:13:00.307+11:00My answer would be that yes, in theory, this is po...My answer would be that yes, in theory, this is possible. The disqualification of one Senator could result in a full recount that unseated one or more sitting Senators as well as the disqualified Senator. This problem is why Hare-Clark recounts only the departing member's votes for a casual vacancy and not the full election, although that creates issues of its own.<br /><br />I'm sure it was much less unlikely under the old Senate system than the new, but I wouldn't be sure Nick McKim would be safe if a Tasmanian major party Senator or Jacqui Lambie were to be unseated, for example. The question would be whether anyone could find grounds to convince the High Court to impose a different solution. Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-26983173009451017402016-11-02T07:13:58.678+11:002016-11-02T07:13:58.678+11:00Thanks for your work, it's informative as alwa...Thanks for your work, it's informative as always! Going through the recount has me thinking - would it potentially be possible for a recount with a candidate excluded to elect two (or more) different Senators compared to the original list due to differences in preference flow and exclusion order, similar to how Gichuhi could win by a larger margin than Day? <br /><br />This would probably require Tasmania-esque levels of BTL voting, but it might create a conundrum about whether the ineligibility of one Senator could affect the election of another. Pangwenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14070458270261845685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-16765629130483546252016-11-02T05:39:05.180+11:002016-11-02T05:39:05.180+11:00Thanks Kevin.. and Bugger "a recount would ju...Thanks Kevin.. and Bugger "a recount would just see one Family First Senator replacing another"Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12765509461859267381noreply@blogger.com