WA Senate shenanigans
In which I make another short political post.
A lot has happened since the election. The ball has started rolling on the Australian edition of the UK's expenses scandal, although ours looks likely to be a bit more low-key. Still, combined with the lack of a definite honeymoon for the Abbott Government, and it would be churlish to deny a certain feeling of schadenfreude.
Meanwhile, Clive Palmer has been losing respect from me from his repeated and utterly moronic suggestions that the Australian Electoral Commission has been rigging elections against him. Considering the fact that he actually won Fairfax in the end, it's hard to see how this works; Palmer has been sounding increasingly unhinged on the subject, and I find myself distinctly colder on him than I was. (Glad I didn't end up putting his party anywhere near the top of my ballot.) His ramblings on Q&A suggesting some sort of military conspiracy are unlikely to have gained him many friends either, prompting the unlikely spectacle of Larissa Waters, Nick Xenophon and Mark Latham chortling good-naturedly to each other about the utter loon with whom they were sharing the panel.
Having said all that, the AEC has found itself in a distinct spot of bother with the WA Senate recount, ordered after a margin of 14 votes between the Australian Christians and the Shooters Party resulted in the election of Labor's Louise Pratt and Palmer's Zhenya Wang ahead of the Greens' Scott Ludlam and Wayne Dropulich of the tiny Australian Sports Party. (The Australian Senate: Home of the World's Most Complex Electoral System!) Apparently the AEC has managed to misplace over 1,000 votes, and it is hard to see how any result after this will stand up to a court challenge. It therefore seems almost certain that Western Australia will head to the first Senate by-election since ... wait for it ... 1907.
In 1907, Anti-Socialist Senator-elect Joseph Vardon's election was declared void after a tiny margin over one of the Labour candidates. This resulted, absurdly, in the South Australian Parliament having the opportunity to appoint whomever they wished as a replacement; they complied with a Labor candidate, James O'Loghlin. The High Court quite rightly declared that a vacancy had not occurred under section 5 of the Constitution, since Vardon had neither resigned nor died, but had had his election voided. The court therefore ordered a fresh election, contested by only Vardon and O'Loghlin, for one of the state's (then) three vacant seats, an election which Vardon won fairly comfortably. This was the one and only time a Senate "special election" has occurred in Australian political history.
The Western Australian by-election will be very different, since the Senate's electoral system has changed drastically since 1907. This time a full election for all six vacancies will be required, presumably with a new set of candidates (although one can only imagine they will include all of the key players from September). The election will probably be held early in the new year, and it will be interesting to see the preference machinations that go on, and the kind of campaign that is run. Past experience with Senate-only elections (the Senate was out of sync with the House in the 1960s which resulted in a number of Senate-only elections) suggests that governments rarely do well - it will remain to be seen if the Coalition picks up any honeymoon at all. Indeed, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the election is likely to see a surge in minor party support, but just who the beneficiaries will be remains to be seen. Whatever happens, this will change the result completely and could have a significant impact on the balance of power in the Senate.
A lot has happened since the election. The ball has started rolling on the Australian edition of the UK's expenses scandal, although ours looks likely to be a bit more low-key. Still, combined with the lack of a definite honeymoon for the Abbott Government, and it would be churlish to deny a certain feeling of schadenfreude.
Meanwhile, Clive Palmer has been losing respect from me from his repeated and utterly moronic suggestions that the Australian Electoral Commission has been rigging elections against him. Considering the fact that he actually won Fairfax in the end, it's hard to see how this works; Palmer has been sounding increasingly unhinged on the subject, and I find myself distinctly colder on him than I was. (Glad I didn't end up putting his party anywhere near the top of my ballot.) His ramblings on Q&A suggesting some sort of military conspiracy are unlikely to have gained him many friends either, prompting the unlikely spectacle of Larissa Waters, Nick Xenophon and Mark Latham chortling good-naturedly to each other about the utter loon with whom they were sharing the panel.
Having said all that, the AEC has found itself in a distinct spot of bother with the WA Senate recount, ordered after a margin of 14 votes between the Australian Christians and the Shooters Party resulted in the election of Labor's Louise Pratt and Palmer's Zhenya Wang ahead of the Greens' Scott Ludlam and Wayne Dropulich of the tiny Australian Sports Party. (The Australian Senate: Home of the World's Most Complex Electoral System!) Apparently the AEC has managed to misplace over 1,000 votes, and it is hard to see how any result after this will stand up to a court challenge. It therefore seems almost certain that Western Australia will head to the first Senate by-election since ... wait for it ... 1907.
In 1907, Anti-Socialist Senator-elect Joseph Vardon's election was declared void after a tiny margin over one of the Labour candidates. This resulted, absurdly, in the South Australian Parliament having the opportunity to appoint whomever they wished as a replacement; they complied with a Labor candidate, James O'Loghlin. The High Court quite rightly declared that a vacancy had not occurred under section 5 of the Constitution, since Vardon had neither resigned nor died, but had had his election voided. The court therefore ordered a fresh election, contested by only Vardon and O'Loghlin, for one of the state's (then) three vacant seats, an election which Vardon won fairly comfortably. This was the one and only time a Senate "special election" has occurred in Australian political history.
The Western Australian by-election will be very different, since the Senate's electoral system has changed drastically since 1907. This time a full election for all six vacancies will be required, presumably with a new set of candidates (although one can only imagine they will include all of the key players from September). The election will probably be held early in the new year, and it will be interesting to see the preference machinations that go on, and the kind of campaign that is run. Past experience with Senate-only elections (the Senate was out of sync with the House in the 1960s which resulted in a number of Senate-only elections) suggests that governments rarely do well - it will remain to be seen if the Coalition picks up any honeymoon at all. Indeed, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the election is likely to see a surge in minor party support, but just who the beneficiaries will be remains to be seen. Whatever happens, this will change the result completely and could have a significant impact on the balance of power in the Senate.