Category Archives: Democracy

“Can you Chair the Meeting, Please?” III

Points of order, machinery issues/motions, and rulings: this third article helps inexperienced Chairs of formal or semi-formal meetings understand them, and concludes our series.

In our first article we briefly covered the formal or semi-formal nature of meetings, and what that means, and what it means that the Chair is in charge.  You can have a look at it here https://ethicalconsultingservices.wordpress.com/2017/10/26/chair-meeting-1/

In our second article we covered the five basics of an efficient meeting: an agenda, reports, proposals, discussion, decisions. It’s available here https://ethicalconsultingservices.wordpress.com/2017/10/31/chair-meeting-2/

In this article we’re covering Topics Four and Five: points of order and machinery issues/motions, and rulings.

Fourth, understand points of order and machinery issues/motions.

There are plenty of decisions made in meetings which are called “machinery” or procedural, because they are (allegedly, sometimes …) about making the meeting run smoothly.  These include motions like:

  • “That the speaker be allowed an extension of time of 5 minutes”
  • “That debate be ended, and the motion be now put”
  • “That owing to the meeting running late, item 6 on the agenda be dealt with last and item 10 on the agenda be dealt with now”
  • “That the meeting dissent from the Chair’s ruling that Kevin Rudd is eligible to vote”.

The standing orders of many organisations require machinery motions to go to a vote with very restricted debate, or with no debate.

If a dissent motion is moved, the Chair probably needs to vacate the Chair and hand it over to someone else until the dissent motion is dealt with, at which time you resume Chairing.  If a motion to dissent is carried, the Chair must make an alternative ruling (sometimes making no ruling is an alternative).

Sometimes, the Chair can propose a machinery or process actions to the meeting, and members may be comfortable to accept it without a vote – in most cases you would call this a ruling.  You might express it something like this: “As we are running out of time, I propose we deal with item 11 on the agenda now, and adjourn the other items to the next meeting.  If no-one has a better suggestion, I’ll rule this way.”  You would only do this sort of thing if you were confident it was necessary and would be approved.  If you are not sure it would be approved, you could say this instead: “As we are running out of time, I propose we deal with item 11 on the agenda now, and adjourn the other items to the next meeting.  Would someone like to move that?”

Points of order are process/machinery suggestions from attendees other than the Chair.  People will say things like:

  • “This speaker is off topic and you should rule her out of order”
  • “Bob has spoken already in this debate – if he wants to speak twice then I want to speak twice”
  • “Julie isn’t debating the issue, she’s just being nasty about people”
  • “We’ve already decided this – we shouldn’t discuss it again and again and again”.

Points or Order are sometimes very helpful, pointing out things the Chair hasn’t noticed.  The Chair must make a ruling on every point of order, and debate stops until you make your ruling, but a Chair needs to be alert to sneaky debaters who sometimes try to make a debating point rather than a procedural point; for example:

  • “Point of order!  The speaker is talking rubbish” or
  • “Point of information … the facts are …”

are not points of order at all – they are debating arguments which should be made during debate.

You don’t have to agree with the point of order when you rule on it – you are allowed to say, and should say when appropriate “There’s no such thing as a ‘point of information’ – please sit down” or “That isn’t a point of order” or “I reject your point of order because Bob hasn’t spoken previously – that was a point of order he made earlier, which doesn’t count as speaking in the debate.”

(From Amazon website)

Fifth, understand the rulings you can make.

Rulings are decisions the Chair makes, about how the meeting should run.  You mightn’t realise it, but you are making implied rulings from the Chair all the time: who is eligible to speak, who speaks next, whether there have been enough speakers on a motion, calling an uncontroversial motion carried, and so on – the meeting just flows around this kind of ruling.  Sometimes, though, when the meeting is going astray, you need to make a formal ruling, to get it back on track.  Some examples:

  • “I rule you are going off topic and need to refocus or finish speaking”
  • “No, you can’t speak again – you’ve already spoken in this debate”
  • “Your language is offensive to others present and I’m ruling you out of order.  Sit down.”
  • “We dealt with the issue you’re talking about last meeting.  If you want to overturn a past decision, you need to move a rescission motion, and now isn’t the right time.”

Make rulings sparingly, and only when necessary or very desirable – if you make them too often, people will start to worry you’re suppressing democracy!

 


 

These are very basic rules about Chairing – there are whole books on the topic – so if you are going to Chair more often, you might want to think about more formal training.

A few final tips:

 

You can download the whole of these three articles in one file, here http://bit.ly/2yeRE1y.

 

 

 

Queensland Government is in “Caretaker Mode”

Now the State election has been called – see https://ethicalconsultingservices.wordpress.com/2017/10/29/queensland-state-election-basics/ – the Government moves into what is called “Caretaker Mode”.

Caretaker Mode is all about both maintaining public sector impartiality, and ensuring no decisions or commitments are made which will bind a new, possibly unwilling Government, post-election.

Many public servants interpret this incredibly widely – far more so than is intended or appropriate, and this can be a real nuisance for anyone trying to do business with the State Government.

Official guidelines for the conventions which apply during the caretaker period are set out in the Cabinet Handbook, section 9, here https://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/publications/categories/policies-and-codes/handbooks/cabinet-handbook/caretaker-conventions.aspx.

In summary:

  • Caretaker conventions are merely conventions and not binding at law – but are nearly always adhered to;
  • Caretaker period starts the moment the election is called and lasts until either te result is clear or a new Government appointed;
  • Things to avoid during the caretaker period: appointments of significance, implementing new policies, entering into major contracts or undertakings;
  • Normal Departmental operations are to continue, but with care to ensure there’s no presumption about who will win the election;
  • Departments should not at Ministerial request develop new policy initiatives;
  • Opposition access to public servants is through requests to the Minister and any such discussions are confidential, but public servants may not discuss the merits of policy options with the Opposition and should keep no official notes;
  • Departments prepare two sets of briefing documents for the incoming Government: one for a returned Government, and the other for a new Government;
  • All Cabinet documents are readied for destruction;
  • All Bills in Parliament lapse and must start again from scratch after the election, and any Acts not yet proclaimed by the Governor must await the intentions of the incoming Government.  In some circumstances subordinate legislation may be approved;
  • The Premier will determine whether Government advertising campaigns continue – anything highlighting the role of Ministers or covering matters of political controversy are usually stopped;
  • Ministers generally don’t go to Council of Australian Governments meetings which occur during the caretaker period.

In detail:

Here’s a downloadable PDF file for your reading pleasure, courtesy of Ethical Consulting Services! http://bit.ly/2hnbr4p

 

 

 

“Can you Chair the Meeting, Please?” II

Are you new to chairing very formal or semi-formal meetings?   This article will give you the basics on agendas, reports, motions, debates and decisions – it is the second of a three-part series.

In our previous first-time-chairing article, we laid out the formal or semi-formal nature of meetings, and what that means (Topic One), as well as setting out what it means that the Chair is in charge (Topic Two) – check it out here https://ethicalconsultingservices.wordpress.com/2017/10/26/chair-meeting-1/.

We also identified Topic Three – the five basics of an efficient meeting:

  • an agenda,
  • reports,
  • proposals,
  • discussion, and
  • decisions.

Those 5 cover pretty much everything, and they’re the subject of this article.

We’re going to cover Topic Four (points of order and machinery issues/motions) and Topic Five (rulings) in the third and final article in the series, next week.

The Agenda

… is the list of things to be discussed – it should reflect what’s important.

If there’s no agenda, make it the first meaty bit of business you deal with: ask the meeting “what does this meeting need to deal with?” and once you’ve got a few suggestions you can ask “which are the ones we should deal with first?”  If there is an agenda, and you don’t like it, you can ask the meeting if there are any additions or changes proposed to the agenda.  If there’s no agenda at meeting after meeting, that’s a big flashing billboard saying, “These meetings are inefficient – the Chair and Secretary must together provide agendas for future meetings”.

If anyone tries to raise issues not covered by the agenda, you need to be alert to the interests of those who couldn’t get there: if the issue is contentious or impacts on those missing, you might want to say, “We shouldn’t be making a decision about this since missing members didn’t get notice of it and it is important they have their say – can we refer this item to the next meeting for decision, so everyone knows it is coming up?”

There is nearly always a decision (or several decisions) made at each and every every agenda item – for example, to note a report.  A good Chair will encourage a decision at each item, if no-one in the meeting initiates a proposal

Reports

… provide information to guide the meeting on decisions they might need to make.

They are usually flagged in the agenda e.g. “Item 6(a) … Report from the Finance Committee” and there should normally be someone there to talk about it.  One big meeting destroyer is over-long reports, usually under-prepared.  When you call on someone to deliver a report (By saying “We’re up to the Finance Committee report on the agenda – who will deliver this report?”) you can also say something like “We’ve got a lot of business to get through – can you speak for 5 minutes and we will have time for questions afterwards?”

Good reports include proposals to the meeting, arising from the report.  Poor reports don’t have any concrete outcomes and sometimes do no more than provide information.

Proposals

… usually called motions, proposals are about action – a motion without an action component should be immediately suspect – if there is no action why bother?

Almost every agenda item should result in a proposal and if something happens in the meeting and no-one moves a motion in consequence, the Chair should initiate a proposal by asking a question: “Would anyone like to move that we adopt the recommendation?” or “What should we do about this report?  Does anyone want to propose anything?” or similar.

As Chair, you can ask for motions to be redrafted for clarity or to add missing bits, but you would normally only do so if the meeting seemed to need it – you should always ask for motions to be written down if they are more than a single, short sentence, to make it easier for a proper record of decisions to be kept, and to make sure there is no ambiguity in what is being proposed.  Every motion requires someone to propose it – the “mover” and someone additional to support it – the “seconder”.

Once someone moves a motion and exercises their right to speak, the Chair then always asks for a seconder and names them.  Motions without a seconder present at the meeting don’t get discussed any further – if the mover’s speech hasn’t won over a seconder, it means they motion has little support, so the meeting shouldn’t spend time on it.

Once motions have been moved, seconded and debated, they must be put to the vote – see “decisions” below.

Controversial or important motions normally appear on the meeting notice and agenda, so people with an interest in the issue can make sure to attend.

The Discussion

… is supposed to help the meeting understand enough about an issue to make an informed decision.  Discussion is often the biggest destroyer of effective meetings, because so many participants don’t understand discussion should happen in only three circumstances:

  • a question and answer after a report;
  • debating whether to accept, reject or amend the motion; and
  • the meeting decides to suspend the rule (suspend standing orders) to have a free-for-all discussion.

For informal meetings you or the meeting may choose to relax some of those rules, but if you do then let people know you’ll go back to more formal rules if things bog down or go in circles or degenerate.

Many participants don’t understand they only get to speak once, never get to speak over others (except when making a point of order or procedural motion – see below) go way off-topic, or would talk forever.  When people are doing any of these things, you must pull them up.  If the meeting might run over time, you can suggest, or ask the meeting to impose time limits on speakers, thus: “We’re in danger of going over time, so I suggest we limit speakers to five minutes only – is everyone OK with that or should I put the time limit to a vote?” or similar.

Most times, discussion involves debating a motion.  All standing orders have important things to say about the rules of debating, and these are very common requirements:

  • Mover and seconder get to speak first, then you must invite speakers against the motion;
  • If there is no opposition, go straight to a decision;
  • If anyone wants to speak against, up to two speakers against go next;
  • After the first two speakers against, it’s one speaker for, followed by one against, and repeat;
  • As soon as one “side” or the other runs out of speakers, the mover always gets a right of reply to what’s been said in debate; and
  • After the “right of reply” speech, no-one else gets to speak, and you must get the meeting to make a decision.

Decisions

… are the whole point of a meeting; they are supposed to be well-informed, and about things which are clear – it’s the Chair’s job to make sure of that, and it’s why most motions should be written down, and why we have discussion.  Meetings often decide these sort of things:

  • to admit new members,
  • to accept the minutes of a previous meeting as being true and accurate,
  • to accept inward correspondence and endorse outward correspondence,
  • to reject a recommendation to increase Board sitting fees, and
  • to set the date and time for the Annual General Meeting.

All decisions happen through the Chair asking the meeting to vote.  The Chair says, “all those in favour say ‘aye’”, calls out how many have voted yes, then says “all those against say ‘nay’” and calls out how many have voted no.  Sometimes the Chair might need to ask, “are there any abstentions” and calls out the number of abstentions, when issues have been controversial.  The Chair always announces the result this way: “I declare the motion lost [or carried]”.  So many inexperienced Chairs forget to call for those against and declare it carried or lost!

If you are lucky, your standing orders set out a way to resolve tied votes.  Usually, a tied vote is declared lost.  Sometimes, the Chair has what’s called a casting vote, to be exercised only when a motion is tied, as a way to break the deadlock.  In this case, depending on your standing orders, the Chair gets a second vote.  Some rules say that the Chair can’t vote on anything at all except to use a casting vote.  You need to know which way your standing orders go!

All decisions must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting, similarly to this example below, although you usually don’t need to record numbers for and against:

Moved: Mike Smith/Seconded: Stephen Robertson

That the Treasurer’s report be received, and that the proposed budget for next financial year be approved.

Lost with 3 for, 4 against, and 3 abstentions.

 

 

In the next and final first-time chairing article, we’ll cover Topics Four and Five: points of order and machinery issues/motions, and rulings.  That’ll be out next week.

Please offer any thoughts you’ve got, about what needs to be added or changed!

 

 

 

 

Queensland State Election 2017 Basics

The Queensland State Election was called on Sunday 29 October, and Election Day will be Saturday 25 November 2017.

Here are three reasons it’s historic:

  • it is the last time the Government gets to pick the Election Day – after this one, Queensland moves to a fixed, four-year election term;
  • it is the first time preferences will be compulsory since 1992, when they were made optional*; and
  • the number of seats has been increased from 89 to 93, which means to win Government a party or coalition needs 47 or more seats.

New or updated enrolments close on 3 November, and nominations of candidates close on 7 November.  If you need to update your enrolment the best place to do it is via the links on this page: www.ecq.qld.gov.au/voters-and-voting/enrolment.

Because the number of seats has increased, electoral boundaries have been changed all over the place.  Here’s a table of changes driven by new boundaries, from psephologist Antony Green www.abc.net.au/news/elections/qld-redistribution-2017/#ChangeTable.

Green’s analysis of the political impact is here www.abc.net.au/news/elections/qld-redistribution-2017/#PoliticalImpact, and his new electoral pendulum is here www.abc.net.au/news/elections/qld-redistribution-2017/#Pendulum.

You can access his overall guide to the election here http://www.abc.net.au/news/qld-election-2017/.

… and here’s a link to the latest polling  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland_state_election,_2017#Opinion_polling.

 

 

* Corrected – thanks to Cameron Milliner for noticing the error!

 

“Can you Chair the Meeting, Please?”

It’s terrifying the first time, but much easier if you are on top of the basics.

If you’re on any kind of committee, or in a political party branch, it will happen sooner or later: you’ll be taken by surprise when the Chair is away, or quits, and someone says, “Can you chair the meeting, please?”

The basics can be covered in just five topics!

First*, these are formal or semi-formal meetings, not social chats, with a purpose to it – usually, reaching informed agreement on something – and the Chair is responsible for ensuring that objective is reached.

Somewhere, there’s a set of meeting rules, maybe called “standing orders” which tell you how you run the meeting to get to the objective.  If don’t know of any such thing, ask; if there’s no rules offered up then make sure you have a read through a set of reasonably complete standing orders or meeting rules (e.g. this sample http://bit.ly/2z5Yias) which sets out most of the basic rules.

Second, understand the Chair is in charge, but is bound by the rules and any lawful decisions made by the organisation.  You might need to insist on your role being recognised: e.g. no-one talking over you, and if someone disagrees with a decision you make they don’t get to just stand up and say, “you’re wrong” they must understand only the meeting can overturn your decision.  The downside is this: as Chair you need to be careful about what you say (“rulings” are addressed in a later article) so as not to interfere with informed decision-making, and you shouldn’t actively participate in debate on proposals.

Third, understand the five components of an efficient meeting: an agenda, reports, proposals, discussion, decisions.  Those 5 cover pretty much everything.

We’re going to cover each of those five components of Topic Three in our second first-time-chairing article, next week, and we’re going to cover Topic Four (points of order and machinery issues/motions) and Topic Five (rulings) in the third and final article in the series.

Please offer any thoughts you’ve got, about what needs to be added or changed!

 

* As a result of some feedback, we’ve amended this a little!

 

 

 

When is the Next Queensland Election?

Last week several business organisations, including one of which we’re members, echoed calls from Liberal-National Party Leader Tim Nicholls, and demanded the Palaszczuk Labor State Government call an election immediately.

Apart from this echo chamber, it’s hard to detect any groundswell of demand for an immediate election – it’s due by 5 May, and the (usually but erroneously presumed three-year) Parliamentary term isn’t up until late January 2018 (the anniversary of the last election) or more appropriately 14 February (the anniversary of the Palaszczuk Ministry) – or, legally and correctly, 5 May*.

Premier Palaszczuk has said several times she intends the election will be in 2018.

There are always constraints in choosing an election date, and here are some presently operative in Queensland:

  • The Queensland election process must take a minimum of 26 days, from announcement (issuing of the writs) to Election Day – incumbent parties normally give little more than the minimum notice, for tactical advantage;
  • Don’t look like you’re calling it early for expediency or advantage – voters aren’t dumb and can usually see through that;
  • Don’t cut across
    • football finals (in this case, AFL and NRL, which expire on 30 September and 1 October, respectively);
    • school holidays (which commence from 17 November for year 12 students, from 24 November for years 10 and 11, and 8 December for the rest) because
      • so many people are away and will get cranky at the inconvenience of voting, and
      • if voters are away they will mostly miss appreciating the value of all of that money you’re spending on election ads …

… schools mostly resume on 22 January 2018;

  • Christmas and New Year;
  • The Commonwealth Games run from 4 to 15 April: if the Government changes in the month before the games, or there is campaigning across the games, there will be major distraction from the Games and this may harm the success of the game;
    • It is too late to announce the election after the Games and meet the 5 May deadline;
    • So, probably, no election after 10 March or perhaps not after 3 March;
    • November 11 (another Saturday) is out because it is Remembrance Day;
  • If you announce an election between Christmas (really, mid-December) and Australia Day, you will either cause chaos because so many Members of Parliament and public servants are away, or you’ll tell them they can’t take leave which gives the game (and tactical advantage) away:
    • Members of Parliament, and particular Ministers, take their holidays between the last Cabinet meeting of the year and the first of the next year – the Monday nearest Australia Day: if you call an election before Australia Day, you’re doing it while many sitting Members of Parliament are still away – that’s arguably quite unfair to non-Government MPs;
    • The Queensland public service shuts down from Christmas Eve (this really commences in mid-December) until late January, say Australia Day;
  • Most polling places are in school halls or similar, and it can be an incredible nuisance to get proper access to school halls during school holidays;
  • The Party in power hasn’t finished selecting all of its candidates yet, although the few remaining are not in highly targeted seats;
  • And, as Michael Todd reminds us: after this election Queensland moves to four-year fixed terms, with the election on the last Saturday of October (starting in 2021) – choosing a late October/early November date tends to bring this election into alignment with the future.

Premier Palaszczuk

These things in combination mean the election could be announced

  • Anytime up until 2 October, for a 28 October Election Day, if the Premier is prepared to explain why it can’t be next year as she has previously said, or
  • Anytime up until 9 October, for a 4 November Election Day, with the same proviso, or
  • Not between 10 October and Australia Day for the reasons advanced above, and
  • Not for a date after 10 March, to avoid the Commonwealth Games and their build up, and
  • Just possibly after an early Cabinet meeting on 22 January, for 17 February, or
  • More likely, sometime in the two-and-a-bit weeks after Australia Day, for an Election Day of 24 February, 3 March, or 10 March.

The Queensland Premier (and her staff) has not been consulted in the drafting of this article, and nor has she consulted us!

 

* See http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/qld/consol_act/caaa1890289/s2.html and http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/qld/consol_act/ea1992103/s82.html

 

 

 

20 years ago today

Twenty years ago today was Northern Territory Election Day: 30 August 1997.

The Australian Labor Party had never governed in the Territory, and never looked like they would win the 1997 Election.  Labor polling showed them heading for a bloodbath – they were starting with only 7 seats in the 25-seat Legislative Assembly, but Party polling showed they were on track to lose several more.

From early that year, Labor’s caucus led by Maggie Hickey seized on the many issues of weakness for the governing Country-Liberal Party (CLP) and worked with real focus in the run-up to Election Day.  Labor’s polling showed the electorate had little regard for the CLP, and the aggressive advertising campaign closely paraphrased the research findings.

The TV ads, in particular, were controversial and met with a mixed reception, but all evidence is that the average voters, mostly, loved them:

The result?  Labor lost one seat, for local reasons quite unconnected with the main campaign.

 

 

8 August 2017: Opportunity for Government, or for Litigation?

Federal Parliament House

Australia is supposed to have seventy-six Senators: right now we have no more than seventy-four, possibly only seventy-two, and possibly far fewer, because of application of s44 of the Australian Constitution.  And when Parliament resumes on 8 August, expect political and legal fireworks.

This reduced number of Senators is important, because it might make it easier for the Government to get their legislation passed.

Here’s why: while Australia’s Liberal National Party Coalition government has the support of a majority in the House of Representatives, no legislation can pass without the support of a majority in the Senate, where the Government is in a minority. This means all legislation which passes through the Senate, and subsequently becomes law, must garner support from non-government parties, and with fewer Senators the total number of Senators required to support legislation reduces.

If we indeed have 74 Senators,

  • 29 are from the Coalition,
  • 26 are from Labor,
  • 7 from the Greens,
  • 4 are from One Nation,
  • 3 from the Xenophon Team, and
  • one each are from the Liberal Democrats (Leynholm), Justice Party (Hinch), Australian Conservatives (Bernardi), Jacqui Lambie Network, and independent Gichuhi (who is ex-Family First).

With only seventy-four Senate votes in play, to secure Senate passage of government legislation, the Liberal National Party Government needs nine votes from amongst the 19 cross-benchers; Labor needs 12 to block the passage of any legislation, or pass their own resolutions.

The Government now needs the support of one less non-Government Senator than before, to see legislation passed, and this situation will continue for months as the process of replacing ineligible Senators isn’t quick – see https://ethicalconsultingservices.wordpress.com/2017/07/17/ludlam-senate/.  This presents the Government with opportunities to advance unpopular legislation through the Senate – the two ineligible “Senators” are seen as more likely to have opposed components of the Government’s legislative program.

Malcolm Roberts

We are down to no more than seventy-four Senators because two Greens Party Senators have acknowledged they are ineligible – see www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-government/queensland-greens-senator-larissa-waters-resigns-over-dual-citizenship/news-story/ecb99e946835145fd8f6dacdbf55e131.  We may have only seventy-two Senators because detailed questions have been raised about the eligibility of two others – see www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/malcolm-roberts-expert-anne-twomey-believes-one-nation-senator-may-have-breached-constitution-20170727-gxkeol.html and www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/the-dissenting-argument-from-a-former-governorgeneral-that-could-save-matt-canavans-skin-20170727-gxjxkr.html.

Matthew Canavan

Both Senators Roberts (One Nation Party) and Canavan (Liberal National Party) say they are eligible.  There’s no doubt this will be tested in the Court of Disputed Returns – probably at the same time as determinations are made about Larissa Waters’ and Scott Ludlum’s replacements.

The Australian Senate resumes on 8 August 2017, and we can be very sure if either Senator Roberts or Senator Canavan seek to exercise a vote, or perhaps even take their seat, someone is going to go to Court, claim those Senators are ineligible, and seek via legal action to stop them acting as a Senator.

And to add to the potential for chaos, while it is a typically over-blown and under-researched article, the Australian newspaper has questioned the eligibility of 21 Members of Parliament further, from all of the Liberal Party, the National Party, and Australian Labor Party: www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/mp-dual-nationality-fiasco-extends-to-bloodlines/news-story/5ad03ba3d47cf4eae0a5b1066ea5c59b?login=1 (paywalled).

In the House of Representatives, the Government has only a one-seat majority – should any one Government member* in the House acknowledge ineligibility, or be found ineligible, they will lose their working majority in the House, the capacity of the Government to govern at all becomes questionable, and we may be headed to a very early election.

By 8 August, all of our Parliamentary parties need to have their plans in place for how to react: because the success of the Government’s legislative program, or the very existence of the Turnbull Government, might hinge on the outcome, there’s little hope of bipartisanship.

Here’s a link to information on the Australian Electoral Commission website explaining eligibility laws: www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/backgrounders/constitutional-disqual-intending-candidates.htm

 

*  Or one more Government member than non-Government members.

Labor Prime Minister Ineligible?

Scott Ludlam

Was Australia’s, and the world’s, first Labor Prime Minister invalidly elected?

Scott Ludlam’s and Larissa Waters’ announcements they are not eligible to be Senators www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/greens-mp-scott-ludlam-forced-to-quit-senate/news-story/c92e91f84c9db4abc3d11e92eb96abf5 and www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-government/queensland-greens-senator-larissa-waters-resigns-over-dual-citizenship/news-story/ecb99e946835145fd8f6dacdbf55e131 throws plenty of juicy but well-answered questions into the public arena, but because they are so badly trained and do so little research, most journalists and commentators will get their facts wrong – see yesterday’s article here.

But there’s an even more interesting issue of which we are reminded: was Australia’s and the world’s first Labor Prime Minister invalidly so?

Chris Watson’s birthplace and birthdate were once the subject of some confusion, but it’s now clear he was born in Chile: http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/watson-john-christian-chris-9003.

Chris Watson

Did Chilean law at that time mandate that someone taking citizenship of another country automatically lost Chilean citizenship?  If not, did he ever renounce his Chilean citizenship?  Almost certainly not.

Was he ever an Australian citizen?  The Grassby/Ordoñez biography* (pages 31-32) suggests he claimed to be British-born, and never bothered with the formality of becoming an Aussie.

So, how could he be elected to the Australian Parliament in 1901 and later become Australia’s** first Labor Prime Minister in 1904?  Quite possibly not lawfully!

 

*  Grassby, A. and Ordoñez, S.  (1999) .  John Watson.  Melbourne: Black Inc.

** … and the world’s!  Did we mention that already?

 

 

Scott Ludlam & the Australian Senate: what happens now?

Scott Ludlam

Scott Ludlam’s announcement he’s not eligible to be a Senator www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/greens-mp-scott-ludlam-forced-to-quit-senate/news-story/c92e91f84c9db4abc3d11e92eb96abf5 throws plenty of juicy but well-answered questions into the public arena, but because Australian journalists and commentators are too often badly trained and do little research, most will get their facts wrong.

Here’s some fast facts:

  • Scott can’t resign from the office of Senator, because he’s not a Senator: his ineligibility means his election was invalid and he’s never lawfully been a Senator.  You can’t resign from being something that you’ve never been.
  • Declaration of the poll, on each of those occasions he’s been elected and reelected, by the Australian Electoral Commission doesn’t make him a Senator if he never was eligible; the AEC doesn’t have the power to inquire into eligibility – they simply require candidates to declare they are eligible.
  • Because he can’t resign, someone – probably the AEC – will need to start a Court of Disputed Returns action in order to have Scott’s election declared invalid and a recount ordered.
  • Or, he could try to take his seat in the Senate* at the next sittings, or re-occupy his Senate office, or take his next Senate pay cheque, in which case someone – probably the Liberal Party or National Party – would seek an injunction to prevent it, which would eventually have the same outcome as a Court of Disputed Returns action.
  • Because Scott isn’t resigning, the casual vacancy mechanism relating to mid-term replacement of Senators isn’t activated and The Greens don’t get to nominate a replacement.
  • The recount mentioned above will probably see the third candidate on The Greens’ Senate ticket at the last election – Jordon Steele-John – declared elected.
  • In theory, Scott has a debt to the Commonwealth of all of the salary he has been paid, and all of the expenses of his office.  Normal practice is that the debt is calculated, demanded, and then waived.  However, others have different ideas: www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/16/george-brandis-attacks-scott-ludlam-and-says-he-could-be-forced-to-repay-debt.
  • This is a guy who has been doing what has generally been acknowledged to be a good job**, is hard-working, and is open about having suffered depression, and these revelations will have come as a huge shock; all of his staff, too, are now without jobs or income: so even those who dislike The Greens intensely might wind back the gloating a little.

The ABC’s Antony Green makes additional interesting points here http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2017/07/scott-ludlam-resigns-what-happens-to-his-senate-seat.html.

The Senate may initially be harder to predict until a new Senator is appointed – probably months away – but things will be easier for the Government in the interim:

Of the 75 Senators post-Ludlam, 29 are Coalition, 26 Labor, 8 Greens, 4 One Nation, 3 Xenophon Team, and one each to Liberal Democrats (Leynholm), Justice Party (Hinch), Australian Conservatives (Bernardi), Jacqui Lambie Network, and independent Gichuhi (who is ex-Family First); usually, to secure Senate passage, the Government will need nine votes from amongst the 20 cross-benchers, and Labor needs 12. Prior to the Ludlam revelation, the Government needed ten and Labor needed thirteen.

Prior to the Ludlam revelation, the Government needed ten and Labor needed thirteen.  The smaller number will make it easier than before, for the Government to stitch together nine further votes and hence a Senate majority, because they will have to wrangle fewer of the cross-bench votes, and complicated ideologies and personalities, so to do.

 

*  Of course he won’t: he’s not that dishonest or stupid.  Many friends say he is quite nice.

**  Political disagreements aside, of course.