Australian Election - a Hung Parliament...who wins?

This was my first ever election, so it was a bit exciting for me to vote and me and my friends got really into it. On the night of the election we were running around the city, and at one stage we sat in McDonalds and watched the election results on tv and had a huge political debate. Keep in mind that we're all 17, 18 years old so we felt really really uncool doing this, so we eventually stopped and went out to go dance to some music.

anyway. It's a bit exciting all this happening though. To be honest I'm glad it happened, Tony Abbot gives me nightmares, and I could see there was going to be a huge Liberal swing, but luckily it wasn't enough for them to form government. It'll be interesting as to how the independents go.

 

I can't believe this election turned out so great as Tony Windsor is my MP.

It is so awesome.

 

The electorate, but only if the Parliament actually hung themselves :roflmao::eek:

I know, that's a really bad bit of dark humour! :eek::eek:

 

If the parliament is hung I would imagine the wives/husbands of said parliament would benefit the most.

 

I love adam bryant,
He is so kind and passionate...
He actually spoke at the Equal Love-
rally gainst the ban on same Sex Marriage
So yeah i think hes pretty awesome and im glad that the greens now have some Power...

 

I have no insight providing a prediction into who will form government, but i would hazard a guess at labor, with the support of greens and independents.

Bob katter is a lunatic, who knows what he is liable to do... But it looks as though the equation is...

72 seats all, 76 for a government to form. 6 crossbenchers, including 1 green who has stated he would prefer to work with labor, 1 WA national who seems to be going a little maverick and may or may not support the coalition, 3 independents who seem fairly on the level and responsible, and 1 insane redneck (bob katter).

i just find it more likely that since 2 of the crossbenchers are basically greens (wilkie contested the last election as a Green), who one would associate more with centre-left policies than centre-right, that means in addition to these two, labor only have to woo 2 of the remaining 4 crossbenchers. Since that void could be filled by two level headed independents easily enough, possibly the support of the new WA national, it just seems more likely that labor will manage a stable government before the coalition.

the coalition would have to woo 3 of the independents. They have no chance at wooing Bandt, and i think an extremely low chance of wooing Wilkie, so they'd need the support of the 3 ex-nationals and the WA national. Which is not inconceivable, but i still feel less likely.

I look forward to interesting times!

 

The AEC are saying that it is 72-72 if you don't count the seat of O'Connor which is held by the National who is pretty much an indy.

Bandt can basically be counted as a member of the ALP which puts it at 73-73.

Crook (The WA National) has refused to talk with Labor as they will not be dropping their mining tax. 73-73. (Also the WA Nationals are an independent party as they do not Coalition with the Liberal Party in WA)

Wilkie is most likely going to side with the ALP. 74-73

Which leaves us with Windsor, Oakeshott and Katter who are all were members of the National Party and you would then think that they would tend to side with the Liberal Party but I see Windsor and Oakeshott going to the ALP and leaving Katter out to dry.

Windsor and Oakeshott want stable government and they realise that it will more likely come from the ALP as the senate is dominated by the left wing parties and Abbott was been an ass to them while Gillard has accepted all of what they have said.

76-74 to the ALP.

 

I should get a career as a political analyst.

 

yeah that was a good call =)

---------- Post added 7th Sep 2010 at 04:14 PM ----------

This is a win for social progression, too. There's a lot of left in both the upper and lower houses now

 

I think a hung parliament is much better. Especially if its a well hung parliament. :lol:

 

True Democracy in Australia is now dead. It is very true.

It’s interesting, considering the law that they used to 'form parliament' is under a system known as the 'pairing system'. However, what they do not realise is, the pairing system DOES NOT EXIST in Australia or its Constitution, its a gentlemen's agreement not real law, so the deals that they have made to form government are considered ILLEGAL by Australian and International Law. This means that there are going to be LOTS of MPs facing federal criminal records.

There is a law in the Constitution that allows, in the event of a hung parliament in a Two-Party Westminster System, that there are THREE parties to take form. Non-Coalition and non-Labor are to form their OWN neutral party within the parliament, and the MAJORITY SEAT HOLDER forms government. So by Constitutional law, Coalition should rightfully be in government at 73 seats to Labor 72 with 5 Neutrals seats forming a minor party.

By having a power-grab between the independents, where the decision of the future of the nation is in the hands of 5 men, is a true loss of democracy. They are deciding whether or not they should instil a government that’s misunderstood and speaks logic or a government that talks about unicorns, flowers, trees, Kevin Rudd and knives (which has a VERY long history of corruption within ALL departments).

Furthermore, Oakeshott and Windsor are going to have a hard time going home because their electorates are now out for their blood, since they all preferred the Coalition, not Labor. So we may have heads on pikes and riots occurring soon. But, that doesn’t matter because it will probably give Oakeshott something to SHUT UP ABOUT. There is NO-WAY that he will be the grinning monkey-face village idiot when he returns home, like there is no-way that he shall have a career by the next election comes around.

Though, that may be sooner than most think. There is a motion to make a vote of no confidence in the government coming up, which if it wins will see them ousted long before they get home. If that fails, then there is always the policy that allows the independents to WALK and settle with the Coalition. If Labor reneges on even ONE their promises, which will happen since the Labor government has proven to not deliver its promises before, it will mean that their supporters will cross the floor and side with a Coalition government or they will remain neutral seats.

The Nation is watching the Red-Head Weasel foreign PM, very closely, as she walks along the jaggered knife's-edge. Just one little trip and it is alllllllllllll over.

Danielle, that was a great prediction and it seems that it would be a great career move, lol. Though, it was evident from when the campaigning started that it would be down to Oakeshott, Windsor and Katter in the long run...

 

I have not read the constitution but if there was a law that said that then I am sure that the Coalition would have already picked up on it and would been in government.

A vote of no confidence will not make it through the parliament as the independents do not want an election, the greens don't want an election and neither does Labor. We will have a three year government because it is wise politically for everyone in the government to continue for the full term.

I live in the electorate of New England and people might be upset but they certainly aren't out for blood and the fact is that Tony has one of the largest majorities in the country and attracts supporters from both the left and right of politics and if he delivers for the electorate than his majority is only likely to increase.

If people truly wanted the Coalition then they should have voted for them and if people truly wanted Labor than they should of voted for them. Australian voters bought this situation on themselves and thus should have to deal with it

 

Well said Kitty Boy

 

No offense, man, but that's mostly plain wrong, as far as I know. Firstly, the fact that something is not expressly authorised/required at law doesn't make it legally wrong, let alone a basis for criminal prosecution. Certainly there's nothing in the Constitution either in favour or against the pairing system (which, as I understand it, is the agreement between two members of opposing parties not to vote if the other one can't for a legitimate reason; like they're discussing for the Speakership); and while there might just be something in statute or order rules about it, those are all easily alterable by Parliament, which I imagine they would take care of at the outset.

As for you're second point, I've never read anything in the Constitution that even mentions a hung parliament. Which is hardly surprising since it doesn't mention the idea of political parties either - it's possible for every MP to be an independant.

Come on, if there was any legal irregularity in the conduct of this election and negotiations, we surely would never have gotten this far without it being challenged.

 

yeah, i don't think that's an accurate description of the current legal or political situation at all, it's just a little too paranoid. And btw kittyboy, why did you bother to bring up the fact that julia gillard is foreign (foreign weasel anyway)?

 

Actually there is.

Oakeshott’s and Windsor’s electorates majorly prefer coalition to any other party. Hence their reluctance to return to their constituency. Oakeshott, against the express wishes of his electorate, entered a gentleman’s agreement with Gillard and the Labor party and as a result received a Ministry Portfolio, as well as federal finances in personal endeavours. This in the eyes of federal law is illegal, as Oakeshott, not his electorate, stood to personally gain. He received political power and federal finances to further his own political career, financial and social positioning. Oakeshott, in effect, sold out his electorate for his own benefit and 15 minutes of fame.

Gillard stated that based on the Constitution and its law that she, in a right to be Prime Minister, must control the majority of the house in order to achieve and maintain a stable government. However, there is nothing in the Constitution that even mentions that a ‘pairing system’ must be in place to maintain a stable government, or even that a ‘pairing system’ even exists. She knowingly used the Constitution, and lied of the legitimacy of ‘pairing system’, and a legally ineffectual gentleman’s agreement as an excuse to gain control of the majority of the house in order to create a stable government, as well as minimise the opposition’s power.

Gillard in effect, using political power and federal funding, bribed Oakehsott to gain his support, support that is not rightfully Labor’s. This bribing, in the form of a Ministerial Portfolio and federal and private financing, is considered by federal law to be called political bribery, which can have phenomenal consequences. So at some point, if they haven’t been bought, Oakeshott and Gillard will have been paid a visit from the ICAC investigators.

Within logic, taking the results of the last hung parliament and Constitutional structure, the party more preferred (highest percentage of total National votes) should lead with the second preferred party (second highest percentage of total National votes) acting as opposition. This should leave the remaining seats of the house to form an undecided neutral block in the parliament, which are able to vote based on conscience. To balance out this 3rd block in the house the government and opposition then create a full-house conscious voting contingency, much like the senate, which allows all representative to cross the floor.

Regarding the alteration of the Constitution by government, it will never happen. At the current moment, Gillard is trying to secure a referendum that will ensure that she, and any other unwanted government in the future, can not be removed until their set three year term has run its course. However, it will not get through as having a referendum, to extend her own political survival, so close to an election will not go favourably with the people.

While the Constitution does not mention anything about hung parliament or political parties, it does not, however, mention anything, in the event of a hung parliament, about attaining the majority of the seats in the house being necessary to form a stable government. Due to a relaxation in laws and the term of a caretaker government, has allowed for Labor’s methods to slip through the cracks. Which just goes to show how uneducated the modern Australian is in political matters.

I am a proud Australian, I am proud to be an Australian. I love this country with all my heart. However, that does not stop me from saying that the people of modern Australia are dense. From the time of the Constitution’s introduction people knew exactly what was going on with the political forefront of Australia. While today most of the Australians that vote are naïve immigrants and idiotic popularists who are as thick as 15 planks and don’t understand nor comprehend the pattern of failure that previous governments have made.

Danielle, you must then understand that Windsor is looking for a way to end his political career, and that has pretty much happened in Tamworth which is near revolt. He may be loved by majority, but the preferences of the electorate are towards that of the Coalition. By him handing his own personal opinion and preference to the Labor party, though he may have had a reason to, just shows that he no longer has the ability to communicate with his Coalition-preferred constituents. He will be watching the Labor led government so that they do not renege or over-spend on their National Broadband Network, which is why he gave his preference to Labor in the first place, and in turn the electorate will be watching him so that he can be held accountable if his actions cause damage.

The holes in Labor’s claim to power, and their manner of claiming power, are already known to many political commentators and analysts, hence why in the next few weeks there is going to be a major shift in political demographics and opinion. Particularly where there is an obvious breach of federal law. I suggest reading both the Constitution and a copy of Federal Laws, just so you get a deeper insight into it.

A vote of no confidence is completely possible, if the government does not fall apart first, the Independents are feeling the full aftermath of their actions and that will most likely spur them into siding with the Coalition in the move for a vote of no confidence, which is surely coming soon. Windsor is already regretting his support of Labor, which is clear in his refusal to agree too many of Labor’s policies and reforms. If the vote is beaten, and the government holds together, it will be a very shaky path for them to walk, as one failed promise will cause all non-Green and non-Labor support to walk to the Coalition.

Allowing a crippled government to remain in power for the full duration of its term is not a politically wise move and it can have devastating consequences, see the issues regarding Rudd’s axing. Finally, I completely agree with you Australia has done this to itself, and only Australia can deal with this problem. However, just how many times can Australia make the same mistakes it has made in the past before we realise that if people actually thought about things properly we wouldn’t ever be there again?

I made note of Gillard being a foreign, a Welchwoman, because I severely doubt the quality of her knowledge of our history and political, social, economical and international dealings, regardless that she may have moved here in her early childhood, as she knowingly followed Rudd in his destructive path.

 

I live in the New England electorate and that is not the truth and even if it was Windsor still attracts a lot of support from the left and will most likely get more support from the left now.

 

Only realised this arvo that Julia won - I didn't really take much notice to the election though as I can't vote so I really have interest in paying attention to all those annoying commercials and flyers they hand out

 

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/constit.pdf. If you have any objections that are actually constitutional in nature, please show me the section. It's not even in the written law that the executive government is formed by a person who holds the support of the majority of the lower house - it's merely a very strong convention, albeit an extremely practical one, since a government who didn't wouldn't be able to pay its bills (cf. most of the Stuart kings).

Now, while it may be politically good for MPs to do what their electorate wishes, it is not at all required. We elect each individual member to Parliament; once they get there, they can vote exactly how they choose to. In fact, fundamental Westminster theory states that members are elected to the house, and then join together with likeminded fellows to form voting blocks (ie parties), rather than the reverse. This is why MPs are free to leave their own party and join another during their term - the voters may not ilke it, but there's nothing in the system to stop it. Think more like how the US Congress operates (the strict division of powers in the US is actually much more like the British system was after the Glorious Revolution - but 'Westminster' style democracies evolved in a different way). Obviously, the exigencies of government mean that this sort of ideal is untenable in practice, but the will of their electorates only restricts Oakeshott and Windsor if they want to get re-elected.

Any MP can be appointed to a ministerial portfolio, and it's a well-established means of rewarding allies. So far from being untoward, it's almost expected. Similarly, federal funding for his policies or his electorate is perfectly legitimate, as long as it's authorised by both houses - the government can spend its money however it wishes. It's just the normal negotiation that characterises political life - I'd even say it shows one of the strengths of the system; that 'minority' interests are able to have some influence and gain support in the face of the great juggernaut parties, neither of which most of the electorate is especially happy with. True, any federal contributions to his personal finances, directly or indirectly, would be a matter for investigation, but I haven't heard anything about it being the case.

As for the pairing system... just because it isn't specifically authorised in the extant law doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it - individual MPs are free to vote or abstain as they choose. It's a political, rather than a legal arrangement; but that doesn't necessarily diminish its force. In the House we have at the moment, it seems to be a sensible move.

On the other hand, I totally agree with you about constitutional reform for fixed terms in the lower house - if there was a truly hung parliament with 3 parties that could never agree on anything, government would be completely paralysed for 3 years. Fixed terms are only possible when the executive is chosen by another means.

Sorry for the epic, probably boring post, btw :icon_redf