An article I wrote about the serious defects of a postal plebiscite (back on the annual day reserved for silly jokes) has for some unfathomable reason more than doubled its hit tally in the last 24 hours. Now that a postal plebiscite (but run by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, not the Australian Electoral Commission) has been announced by the government, it's time to update certain aspects of my commentary.
What it appears we will have (unless it is disallowed by the courts) is something so bizarre that it was not anticipated in any of the many polls about a plebiscite. Effectively, it is a national vote on whether the government will allow a conscience vote to be brought on in the parliament. (If the plebiscite proceeds and the "no" side wins, then the government will block a conscience vote, presumably ending any prospects for same-sex marriage for so long as the Coalition stays in power. This rather heavy-handed approach appears to be an attempt to prevent a mass boycott from working.)
Is it constitutional?
I don't know, but we'll probably find out soon enough. At least two sets of campaigners against the proposed plebiscite are filing for injunctions against it. Section 83 of the Constitution requires that appropriations must be supported by law, and no law has been passed for this plebiscite. However there are various standing general-purpose appropriations that governments have flexibility to use for the ordinary running of government, and also in emergencies. The question will be whether an appropriation for this purpose is valid.
Showing posts with label Coalition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Coalition. Show all posts
Thursday, August 10, 2017
Tuesday, June 20, 2017
Poll Roundup: Few Signs Of Life For Turnbull Government
2PP Aggregate: 52.8 to Labor (+0.1 since last week)
Labor would comfortably win election "held now"
Firstly, my congratulations to Antony Green, AO!
In our last exciting episode, the Coalition government had launched a Budget widely seen as a blatant attempt to get a polling bounce, and received no immediate return. So the theory that the Budget would restore the government's standing retreated to the idea that it would take a little while. Another five weeks down the track the Budget hasn't changed a thing, and nor, in fact, has anything else.
After the rush of polls around Budget time we have since been back to our usual watery diet of weekly Essentials and a Newspoll every two or three weeks. The last two Newspolls came in at 53:47 to Labor, while Essential's recent run has gone 54-53-52-52-52. After taking into account the primary votes, I aggregated the recent Newspolls at 53.1 followed by 53.2 to Labor, and the three most recent Essentials as two 52.2s followed by a 51.8. Overall with all the other pollsters now out of the aggregate again, I get a reading of 52.8 to Labor. Here's the smoothed tracking graph:
Labor would comfortably win election "held now"
Firstly, my congratulations to Antony Green, AO!
In our last exciting episode, the Coalition government had launched a Budget widely seen as a blatant attempt to get a polling bounce, and received no immediate return. So the theory that the Budget would restore the government's standing retreated to the idea that it would take a little while. Another five weeks down the track the Budget hasn't changed a thing, and nor, in fact, has anything else.
After the rush of polls around Budget time we have since been back to our usual watery diet of weekly Essentials and a Newspoll every two or three weeks. The last two Newspolls came in at 53:47 to Labor, while Essential's recent run has gone 54-53-52-52-52. After taking into account the primary votes, I aggregated the recent Newspolls at 53.1 followed by 53.2 to Labor, and the three most recent Essentials as two 52.2s followed by a 51.8. Overall with all the other pollsters now out of the aggregate again, I get a reading of 52.8 to Labor. Here's the smoothed tracking graph:
Saturday, April 1, 2017
Postal Plebiscite: Australia's Biggest Bad Elector Survey
(Note added Aug 2017: This article from April has received much interest lately. For new comments go to Electoral Process, But Not As We Know It: Postal Plebiscite V2).
The federal Coalition went to the 2016 federal election with a commitment to hold a national non-binding plebiscite on marriage equality (aka "same-sex marriage") prior to any further parliamentary vote on the issue. The plebiscite was, as noted here before, a bad idea in policy terms, though it was mostly successful in neutralising marriage equality as a campaign issue. The plebiscite plan was voted down in the Senate, leaving the whole issue apparently unable to progress within this term.
The option of simply changing the law seems impossible because religious reactionaries within and supporting the Coalition won't allow it. (They're the ones who don't understand why people keep talking about marriage equality, but would bring down the Prime Minister and/or destroy their own party even in a failed attempt to stop it.) Leaving the issue as a festering distraction til the next election isn't too attractive either, so along comes Peter Dutton with a proposal to have the plebiscite anyway, but to do it by post. Voting would be optional.
The idea of holding a voluntary ballot that does not need the approval of parliament is not new; this option of a "fee-for-service" ballot under Section 7A of the Electoral Act was discussed in the Senate plebiscite report. The option was not costed at the time because there was no proposed legislation to implement it.
The federal Coalition went to the 2016 federal election with a commitment to hold a national non-binding plebiscite on marriage equality (aka "same-sex marriage") prior to any further parliamentary vote on the issue. The plebiscite was, as noted here before, a bad idea in policy terms, though it was mostly successful in neutralising marriage equality as a campaign issue. The plebiscite plan was voted down in the Senate, leaving the whole issue apparently unable to progress within this term.
The option of simply changing the law seems impossible because religious reactionaries within and supporting the Coalition won't allow it. (They're the ones who don't understand why people keep talking about marriage equality, but would bring down the Prime Minister and/or destroy their own party even in a failed attempt to stop it.) Leaving the issue as a festering distraction til the next election isn't too attractive either, so along comes Peter Dutton with a proposal to have the plebiscite anyway, but to do it by post. Voting would be optional.
The idea of holding a voluntary ballot that does not need the approval of parliament is not new; this option of a "fee-for-service" ballot under Section 7A of the Electoral Act was discussed in the Senate plebiscite report. The option was not costed at the time because there was no proposed legislation to implement it.
Saturday, January 28, 2017
Unicameral By Stealth: Tony Abbott's Senate Referendum Call
The Australian (Tony Abbott calls for Senate referendum, warns 'we are turning into Italy') reports that relevance-deprived ex-PM Tony Abbott has called for a referendum to reduce the power of the Senate to obstruct government legislation.
As outlined, the plan would allow for a deadlock between the Houses to be broken by a joint sitting of both Houses without the need for a prior double-dissolution election. It appears that this follows one of two options outlined in this 2003 discussion paper on resolving deadlocks. These options were:
1. A joint sitting can be convened after a bill has been rejected twice with three months between rejections
2. A joint sitting can be convened after every election for the full House and half the Senate, rather than requiring a double dissolution
It appears Abbott favours the first option, but this is not yet totally clear. The 2003 proposals were killed off based on a finding that they would not pass a referendum.
As outlined, the plan would allow for a deadlock between the Houses to be broken by a joint sitting of both Houses without the need for a prior double-dissolution election. It appears that this follows one of two options outlined in this 2003 discussion paper on resolving deadlocks. These options were:
1. A joint sitting can be convened after a bill has been rejected twice with three months between rejections
2. A joint sitting can be convened after every election for the full House and half the Senate, rather than requiring a double dissolution
It appears Abbott favours the first option, but this is not yet totally clear. The 2003 proposals were killed off based on a finding that they would not pass a referendum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)