The Two Weeks That Were – July 7 to July 20

During the past two weeks, parliament didn’t sit at all, so things were a little quieter – but politicians still did things.

For example, Scott Morrison spoke and prayed at the Hillsong Conference, the annual conference the Pentecostal church hosts in Sydney and London. This was a further show of Morrison’s faith, something that has become part of his image since he ascended to the Prime Ministership. Other than the fact that during his prayer he spoke of Australians needing “more love” (whatever that is supposed to mean), he also spoke a little on enshrining religious freedoms in Australia.

This is somewhat concerning. While Attorney-General Christian Porter and Morrison seem to be on a similar page of a smaller, universally respectful addition to the Anti-Discrimination Act, there are some ultra-conservatives, like Concetta Fierravant-Wells, who have been emboldened by the recent Israel Folau drama – and are pushing for something that appears to be more in the vein of protecting only Christian freedoms.

Scott Morrison also spent time in Dubbo and other parts of regional Australia affected by drought, touting a future fund for droughts that he wants to introduce to parliament when it goes back. It was originally introduced before the election, but Labor was concerned that it would divert money from infrastructure funding that they saw as more important. However, regardless of the politics, farmers just want concrete plans and insight into what the government is going to do to help them during this drought and into the future.

Meanwhile, Minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt, has announced that within the term of this government (so, basically in the next three years), there will be a referendum for Indigenous recognition in the constitution. Many advocates are pleased about this development but concerned still about how the “voice to parliament” – another aspect of reconciliation that they feel is important – has not been fully addressed. Some of this is because the government is still hugely divided on the issue. This is because some of the less, shall we say, enlightened members of our parliament are worried that the “voice to parliament” will become a third house of parliament if enshrined in the constitution.

The Government also lowered the “deeming rate” in the past fortnight, which is the amount that the government assumes those on part pensions are earning from their investments and other incomes. This means that couples who rely partially on the aged pension will be around $1000 better off and a single person on the part pension will be around $800 better off. There are questions as to why the deeming rate is decided by the government and not by and independent body or decided on a case-by-case basis depending on how much pensioners actually earn.

The Aged Care Royal commission has been in North Queensland for the last fortnight hearing stories of poor treatment and some shocking information on some of the challenges chefs in aged care facilities face. Chefs say that they have been required to cook meals for residents for $7 per person, per day, with the emphasis on saving money. Cooks claimed that they watched residents waste away as they weren’t getting enough food and that they sometimes had to cook rancid food or reuse uneaten food. Maggie Beer, who is a chef and also has a foundation to improve elderly eating habits says that the evidence is shocking and that $7 per person, per day, is not enough money to provide food for the elderly that not only tastes good but is also nutritious.

Finally this week, Alek Sigley, who was released from North Korea earlier in the month has been accused of spying by the DPRK – and that they let him go on “humanitarian” grounds; and Australia and the United States have held military exercises – known as “Talisman Sabre” – while being monitored by the Chinese navy, who’ve sent a ship to lurk just outside Australia’s territorial waters, but within our maritime economic zone

Tweet of the Week

Behind the scenes on ABC’s Insiders.

Things I’ve Been Looking at Online

Kate McClymont on Israel Folau’s faith and current church – SMH

Are Donald Trump’s racist tweets some sort of campaign strategy? – ABC Online

The Week That Was – October 30 to November 5

The week began with the decision to put forward a policy to cabinet in which refugees trying to get into Australia will never be able to get a visa to Australia, with the exception of children. It’s thought that the policy is aimed to divide Labor, making it harder for them to appear like a good alternative to the government, while the Greens believe that it is the Liberal Party trying desperately to grab back votes from One Nation. The other concern is that if New Zealand were to take in these refugees, it may affect visa-free travel between NZ and Australia, something the Kiwi PM John Key does not like the idea of.

The Bob Day saga seemingly came to an end this week when he announced that his company would not be bought out and that it would be folding, therefore keeping his promise from last week and resigning. However, it is not over, as there are suggestions that Bob Day may not have been legally elected, as he was possibly making money off the government and the tax payer through the rental of his electorate office. Constitutionally, one cannot be a member of parliament and financially benefit from them – and with suggestions that Day’s electorate office is in a bulding that he owns, that disqualifies him, and therefor makes his election void. The question is however, how a vacancy like that is filled. It is still unclear whether the next person in the Family First ticket, or whether there will be a count back and the next highest person or party will get the seat instead.

Meanwhile another issue in the senate has popped up, as it turns out that Senator Rob Culleton may have also been invalidly elected. Culleton had a criminal conviction at the time of the election, but it had been quashed by the time he took up his seat in parliament. He did initially promise to not vote on contentious legislation, but then he decided against that. It has become unclear now as to when the joint sitting for the ABCC legislation will be held, and Labor and the Greens have made clear that the government needs to tell the public what their plans are.

There have also been developments in health and education, with the possibility of pre-schooling being made better available to three year olds and not just four year olds. There is concern though about what seems to be a rethink of the whooping cough vaccine advice, and what the government’s plans actually are.

Finally this week, there has been a redress scheme suggested by the government; concerns over whether Andrew Robb is breaking ministerial guidelines by working for the company with the 99-year lease of the Darwin Ports; Joko Widodo was due to visit Australia, but had to postpone after protests over the Christian governor of Jakarta; international experts have come to look at some of the pieces of MH370 that have been found; and Tony Abbott and his volunteer firefighting crew attended to a bushfire on Sydney’s Lower North Shore.

Tweet of the Week

https://twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/792512653298065408

Things I’ve Been Looking at Online

ABC News Breakfast “offers something fresh” – The Age

The problem with agenda trolls – The Conversation

Don’t read too much into the rise of Donald Trump – ABC Online

Some Information on Double Dissolution Elections

With that announcement from Turnbull on Monday, and the fact that it was always a possibility (I’ve been planning this post for a while), I thought it was a good idea to have a look at double dissolutions.

Part I – Legal Constitutional Stuff
Australia’s Constitution is written in wordy legal language, that for some is hard to decipher (even I had to read it through three or four times). In the Constitution, under section 57, it explains how a double dissolution comes about.

Simply put, if the Senate fails to pass a piece of legislation or the House of Representatives rejects Senate amendments twice, the Governor-General, on the advice of the Prime Minister – can dissolve both houses of parliament and make them all campaign for their seats in an election. However, the Governor-General can’t dissolve Parliament if there is less than six months to the expiration of the current term – which is why May 11 is the last day for that double dissolution to be called this year.

Also, not every piece of legislation rejected twice results in a double dissolution. It depends on how important the legislation is to the Prime Minister and whether or not it is worth going to an election at that time.

Part II – History
There have been six previous double dissolution elections since Federation in 1901. The first in 1914 and the most recent in 1987. Of these six, three resulted in wins for the Prime Minister that asked for the double dissolution and two resulted in defeat. The other is Australia’s most famous double dissolution – The Dismissal of 1975.

In 1975, the Prime Minister Gough Whitlam’s Labor government was dealing with a hostile Senate that was blocking supply bills and the government was going to run out of money. Whitlam decided he’d had enough and went to see Governor-General Sir John Kerr to discuss his options, including a double dissolution. Unbeknownst to Whitlam, the Opposition Leader Malcolm Fraser was already there, round the back. Whitlam, upon meeting with Kerr, was sacked as Prime Minister, a double dissolution election was called and Fraser was made the caretaker Prime Minister. It made people quite mad, mainly because the Governor-General made the decision himself, without advice from the Prime Minister (he made a deal with the Opposition Leader) and without informing the monarch. It resulted in the Labor Party loosing government to the Liberal Party under Fraser.

Since then, the reasoning behind double dissolutions has become more measured, and there hasn’t been a double dissolution in almost 30 years.

Part III – What Happens to the People in the Senate?
Senate elections are a bit more complicated than the election of your local MP. First, the four Senators for each the Territories are aligned with the House of Representatives, so people in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory vote for their Senators in every election.

As for the States, people vote for half of their Senators at every election. With twelve Senators for every state that means people in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia pick six at a normal election. With people voting for twelve in a double dissolution, the quota – the lowest percentage of the vote you can have to guarantee you a seat in the Senate – decreases from about 14.28% to about 7.69%. So if you get 8% of your state’s Senate vote in a double dissolution, you get a seat.

Then someone has to figure out who spends three years in the Senate and who spends six years there. It’s unclear how they figure it out, because the way it was done in 1987 worked because the smaller parties weren’t in the picture and it looked fair. I still don’t entirely get it and Antony Green explains it better than anyone, so here’s the article for you to check out.

Part IV – Changes in Voting
Because of Senate election reforms, how you vote in this almost certain double dissolution changes. Instead putting a “1” above the line or writing the numbers “1” through to goodness knows what number (in 2013 NSW Senate ballots had 110 candidates) below the line, voters now have to put the numbers one through six – or twelve – above or below the line according to their preference. It basically means you have to vote for more people, the idea being you’ll read the paper a bit more closely and not accidentally vote for a party with a similar name to the one you actually want to vote for.

Sources
Antony Green’s Election Blog
Parliamentary Education Office – Double Dissolutions (You can also get other factsheets)