A Bill for Change

Maybe that cheque isn't quite as blank as Labor would have you believe.

In the lead-up to the election last year, Labor conceded defeat and started campaigning with the line "Don't give Barry O'Farrell a Blank Cheque".

The theory was, I expect, that people would be scared about what the Coalition would get up to if they won too convincingly.

As things eventuated (and as most people expected) the Coalition did of course win the election, and convincingly so - but did not win enough Upper House seats to have an outright majority there.

This of course means that to get legislation through the Upper House they need to bring either Labor or a minor party with them.

The presence of the Shooters and Fishers means that the task is a little easier than perhaps some might like - but nonetheless something is better than nothing.

We saw the Coalition having to give something away earlier this year when it came to getting their Power Sale Legislation through the Upper House. Of course what they had to give was a massively unpopular opportunity for hunting in our National Parks - but, as I said at the time, it was democracy at work.

Earlier this week, however, we saw a far more edifying example of this process.

Last year the Coalition introduced a real dog of a bill on graffiti.

I wrote at the time about why it was such an awful bill, at least in part. In short, there were there main changes to be made in the way that offenders could be dealt with.

The first was to require a court sentencing a person to community service for a graffiti offence to spend time cleaning up graffiti. This is sensible.

The second was to give the court various powers in relation a person's driver's licence if that person is convicted of a graffiti offence.

The powers included:

• Extending the time the person could spend on their L's or P's by up to 6 months
• Suspending a person's licence for up to 6 months, or
• Reducing the threshold number of points before a person can have their licence suspended

I wrote about why it was a dumb idea at the time.

The third change was to remove the power to issue a caution to young offenders. Again, why it was that this change was necessary, and why the additional burden this would place up the court was justified was never properly explained.

In any event, the bill (as expected) sailed through the Lower House. An amendment was moved by Paul Lynch (ALP) to allow police to issue a caution for a first offence, but this was easily defeated. The bill was promptly passed and sent to the Upper House in August 2011.

Here, the Coalition ran into some more trouble. First, Labor moved a amendment. It was explained Adam Searle (ALP):

The changes he suggested were as follows:

• To allow police the power to give a warning for a child where the offence was a first offence, and
• To remove the power over drivers licences.

These amendments were made with only the Coalition opposed, and the bill was passed (with the Greens opposing the bill in its entirety) and returned to the Lower House.

The very next day, the Lower House rejected the amendments. When the bill bounced back to the Upper House in mid-September, the Upper House took the unprecedented step of asking for a "Free Conference" - essentially a working group of 10 Upper House and 10 Lower House members to try and reach a mutually acceptable solution.

The motion for a Free Conference was passed by the Upper House with the Coalition and the Christian Democrats Opposing it.

There matters ground to a halt. O'Farrell pontificated about how the Coalition had made this promise but couldn't get the bill passed, and it appeared that that was were things would lie.

Then, earlier this week, completely out of the blue, the Lower House rejected the request for a Free Conference and sent the bill back to the Upper House.

When it arrived, the leader of the Shooter and Fishers moved an amendement. As best I am able to understand it, the amendment removed the power to extend the period of time a young person must spend on L's or P's, removed the power to suspend a licence, but retained the power to reduce the number of points a person must accumulate before their licence as suspended.

As David Shoebridge said when speaking on the amendment, it improves the act (he said "marginally", but I suppose that is a matter of perspective).

The bill as amended was passed and returned again to the Lower House, where it will no doubt promptly pass.

The deal was reported in the Daily Terror as below:

I stand by my opinion that the bill remains a pretty awful one. It is a vague attempt to do "something" without any evidence whatsoever that the "something" will achieve anything. It is another example of politicians engaging in back-of-an-envelope lawmaking.

But it is good to see a bill being improved (however marginally) through the convoluted and drawn out parliamentary process.

It is also interesting to see the Shooters using their position in the Upper House to do this - so many have written about how the Shooters are merely O'Farrell's lapdogs, but here they have forced him to abandon what was seen a key promise made to take action of graffiti.

It remains to be seen if this is the trend or the exception.

*(I'm a little unsure about some of the procedural details above as, in places, I had some not inconsiderable trouble understanding the Hansard transcript. If I've misunderstood something, please let me know in the comments or on twitter)*

Petty Petitions

Sometimes there is a policy that is all up and no down.


The Coalition policy on petitions was one of this.


A debate in parliament was promised whenever a petition with more than 10 000 signatures was tendered.


In a climate where the Labor government was (among its many faults) seen as horribly out of touch and contemptuous of public opinion, this was a clear point of differentiation - "We will let YOU dictate the agenda."


It was genius, and I have no doubt it swung a significant number of undecideds.


Of course the cynic's response would be "Well yes - but what does "debate" mean?"


I had a look at the Hansard today to see what I could find.


The first place I ended was the Standing Orders (which can be found here). Suffice to say they proved to be instructive reading, especially given that I had not had the opportunity to have a look at them before.


The NSW Parliament website also provides a significant amount of information relating to the form and lodgement of the petitions.


On the second day of the new Parliament (4 May 2011), Brad Hazzard (MInister for Planning and Infrastructure) moved that the Standing Order be amended to insert the 10 000 person petition standing orders.  They are as follows:

As the new Standing Order 124 says, the debate upon the presentation of a petition will run for a maximum of 24 minutes.


The interesting part of the Hansard on the day the Orders were amended was this rather astute comment by Michael Daley (ALP) as he declared that Labor would not oppose the amendment:

On the face of it, he is right.  What these petitions do is bring about a chat - but that is all.  Of course, if anyone in the parliament supports the substance of the petition then it is within their power to bring a notice of motion.


That said, there is no "call to action", as it were.  If the parliament was forced to actually cast votes against the substance of the petition, that may well cause the members to consider their position on the issue rather than tweeting or doing whatever it is members of the house do when they are not hurling abuse at the other side.


In any event, the next day (5 May 2011) Clover Moore presented, on behalf of her constituents, a "Petition requesting an inquiry into development processes on the Barangaroo site and the creation of a dedicated Bays Renewal Committee to coordinate redevelopment around Sydney Harbour"


As per the standing orders, debate was set down for the third sitting day of the following week, that being 11 May 2011.


Ms Moore spoke in support of the petition, outlining the cogent reasons she opposes the development. She went on to say "While I understand that the Government has indicated that it does not endorse the petition's proposed special commission of inquiry, I ask that it at least undertake an expert review of the project."


Brad Hazzard (Lib) then spoke and doesn't seem to say anything much on point, as did Linda Burney (ALP) and Craig Baumann (Lib).


And that was where it ended. I don't now how long it took to gather those 10 000+ signatures, but I suspect that some may see the time taken as being time wasted.


Sure, the issue got discussed.  I don't know if there was much media attention, but I've not been able to find anything.  Certainly there was no change in policy, and the Coalition made it clear that they didn't plan to accede to the petitioner's demands.


It is also worth noting that before these changes were made, the relevant minister was, as per Standing Order 125, obliged to provide a "response" within 35 calender days to any petition signed by more than 500 people.  This obligation remains, and many petitions signed by 500+ people have been tabled before this Parliament.


Such petitions are tabled as a matter of course, the most recent being a petition seeking the "upgrade and retention of hospital facilities, including the development of a level 5 hospital for the northern beaches" tabled yesterday (8 August 2011)

The full list of Petitions signed by more than 500 people can be seen here.


The responses have been tabled, and are available on the NSW Parliament website through the above link.  Whether anyone has bothered to read them is another question entirely.

Part of one of the recent responses

Only 6 petitions have been tabled this session that had 10,000 signatures:

• Requesting increased funding for Northern Sydney Palliative Care Community Services and for Palliative Care Community Services in all areas of NSW
• Requesting that a community health centre be built in Yamba during this parliamentary term
• Requesting the funding and construction of a new Wagga Wagga Base Hospital within four years
• Opposing the proposed Industrial Relations Amendments (Public Sector Conditions of Employment) Bill 2011 and requesting for public sector workers to have access to: pay rises relative to cost of living increases; the Industrial Relations Commission; and good faith bargaining
• Opposing the planned sale of land at Royal North Shore Hospital and requesting that the Government preserve the land for future expansion of the campus and as open space for use by patients and the community, and
• Requesting a major review of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979; the repeal of Part 3A of the Act and the appointment of a Special Commission of Inquiry into the Barangaroo site development processes

All of the above have been debated as per the standing orders. 


Now, I follow NSW politics pretty closely.  I think it fair to say that if the petitioners hoped that the petition would get them some state-wide attention, then they have failed.


I had no idea that people wanted a community health centre in Yamba, and I doubt many people not directly involved did either.


Does that mean the time was wasted?  No.  There has been a debate in the parliament, and no doubt members may have turned their mind the issue and considered their position.  It may well be that the local member or the relevant minister has taken some action behind the scenes to bring about the action sought,


Further, it may well be that the local papers have covered the debate, and additional pressure may not be placed upon the local member.

But I think someone who voted for O'Farrell believing that a petition would provoke some real debate would have to be disappointed by the way the system is operating.

Returning to the politics of allowing a debate to be forced, it appears that the petition idea is not going to adversely affect the legislative agenda of the O'Farrell government in any way.


No doubt there are people and lobby groups across the state thrilled out of their minds about the chance to get their cause debated in parliament.


And yet, it seems, no one in Parliament will actually have their view challenged in any way.  But would anyone who doesn't actively peruse Hansard have any clue about this? I doubt it.


All up and no down.  Smart politics

All Hans On Deck?

A lot was written in the lead-up to the final distribution of Legislative Council Preferences about the fate of Pauline Hanson. There was also a lot of finger-pointing about who would be to blame if she was elected (which I have written about here).


The count has now been released by the NSW Electoral Commission, and it's an interesting read (if you're into that kind of thing).


I'm not going to explain how preference voting works here - if you want to know more, read the many excellent articles Anthony Green has written on the topic.


The first thing I noticed as I looked through the "First Preference by Group and Candidate"  is this. Pauline received 20 004 first preference votes. That is more than ANY OTHER candidate.


Now that is kind of an unfair statement, because as usual most people voted above the line. For example, the Coalition received 1 923 914 votes above the line.


That said, the number 1 spot on the Liberal ticket (Mike Gallagher) only received 12 582 votes.


Let's put it another way. Of all the people who were bothered to vote below the line, Pauline was the OVERWHELMING leader on first preferences.


Pauline was the number 1 spot holder for Group J (that being a ragtag bunch of independents), and that group received 77 926 first preferences, which was no doubt propelled in part by Pauline's presence at the top.


That's a solid 6th place amongst the groups, behind the Coalition, Labor, the Greens, the Shooters and Fishers, and the Christian Democrats. That's ahead of Family First and the Democrats.


Of course, first preference doesn't count for much when you're scrabbling for a seat. A quota is 185 274 votes, so even with that good start (97 930 first preference votes) Pauline still had a long way to go.


As you will know, candidates are eliminated one at a time and their votes distributed to the candidates left in the count.


The Electoral Commission has provided the full count and distribution on its website. 


After 300 counts, the remaining candidates (and their votes, including allocated preferences) are in the table below.


Robert Brown (Shooters and Fishers) 151 878
Paul Green (Christian Democrats) 127 682
Pauline Hanson (Independent) 99 172
Sarah Johnson (Coalition) 90 215
Jeremy Buckingham (Greens) 84 996
Gordon Moyes (Family First) 60 729
Bob Smith (The Fishing Party) 55 228
John Hatton (Independent) 53 415
Charles Matthews (No Parking Meters) 50 544
Andrew Ferguson (Labor) 41 444
Arther Chesterfield-Evans (Democrats) 35 140
David Leyonhjelm (Outdoor Recreation) 31 818


At this stage, there were 17 candidates already elected:


Coalition 10
Labor 5
Greens 2


This meant that there were 4 spots left to fill. Of the remaining candidates, Pauline is in 3rd place, or in 20th overall (counting those already elected).


On Count 301, David Leyonhjelm (Outdoor Recreation) was excluded. The new table was as follows:


Robert Brown (Shooters and Fishers) 153,106 (+1,228)
Paul Green (Christian Democrats) 127,953 (+271)
Pauline Hanson (Independent) 99,290 (+118)
Sarah Johnson (Coalition) 91,213 (+998)
Jeremy Buckingham (Greens) 85,648 (+652)
Gordon Moyes (Family First) 61,227 (+498)
Bob Smith (The Fishing Party) 56,374 (+1,146)
John Hatton (Independent) 53,631 (+216)
Charles Matthews (No Parking Meters) 51,931 (+1,387)
Andrew Ferguson (Labor) 41,926 (+482)
Arther Chesterfield-Evans (Democrats) 35,271 (+131)


You'll notice that Pauline was distributed 118 votes, which is the least of any of the remaining candidates. Nonetheless, she remains in 3rd (20th) place.


On Count 302, Arther Chesterfield-Evans (Democrats) was excluded and his preferences distributed. The new table was as follows:


Robert Brown (Shooters and Fishers) 153,355 (+249)
Paul Green (Christian Democrats) 128,234 (+281)
Pauline Hanson (Independent) 99,528 (+238)
Sarah Johnson (Coalition) 92,542 (+1,329)
Jeremy Buckingham (Greens) 88,960 (+3,312)
Gordon Moyes (Family First) 61,521 (+294)
Bob Smith (The Fishing Party) 56,723 (+349)
John Hatton (Independent) 54,165 (+534)
Charles Matthews (No Parking Meters) 52,234 (+303)
Andrew Ferguson (Labor) 43,358 (+1,432)


Pauline again receives the least preferences of any candidate, but remained in 3rd (20th) place.


On count 303, Andrew Ferguson (Labor) was excluded. The new table was as follows:


Robert Brown (Shooters and Fishers) 153,576 (+221)
Paul Green (Christian Democrats) 128,482 (+248)
Pauline Hanson (Independent) 99,686 (+158)
Sarah Johnson (Coalition) 93,374 (+832)
Jeremy Buckingham (Greens) 92,698 (+3,738)
Gordon Moyes (Family First) 61,924 (+403)
Bob Smith (The Fishing Party) 56,968 (+245)
John Hatton (Independent) 54,428 (+263)
Charles Matthews (No Parking Meters) 52,602 (+368)


Pauline again receives the least preferences, and with Jeremy Buckingham (Greens) receiving a big chunk of the preferences from the Labor candidate, the gap to the 22nd (and, therefore, first losing) candidate is narrowing.


On count 304, Charles Matthews (No Parking Meters) was excluded. The new table was as follows:


Robert Brown (Shooters and Fishers) 154,886 (+1,310)
Paul Green (Christian Democrats) 128,997 (+515)
Pauline Hanson (Independent) 99,916 (+230)
Sarah Johnson (Coalition) 96,570 (+3,196)
Jeremy Buckingham (Greens) 95,188 (+2,490)
Gordon Moyes (Family First) 63,458 (+1,534)
Bob Smith (The Fishing Party) 58,751 (+1,783)
John Hatton (Independent) 55,276 (+848)


Pauline again gets the least preferences, and more than 10 times less than 21st and 22nd.


On count 305, John Hatton (Independent) was excluded. The new table was as follows:


Robert Brown (Shooters and Fishers) 155,309 (+423)
Paul Green (Christian Democrats) 130,322 (+1,325)
Pauline Hanson (Independent) 102,199 (+2,283)
Jeremy Buckingham (Greens) 101,454 (+6,266)
Sarah Johnson (Coalition) 99,838 (+3,268)
Gordon Moyes (Family First) 64,267 (+809)
Bob Smith (The Fishing Party) 59,150 (+399)


On this distribution, Pauline did not receive the least - in fact, she was the 3rd most of the remaining 7 candidates. The gap to 22nd is still smaller yet - only about 2000 votes.


On count 306, Bob Smith (The Fishing Party) drops out, and the preferences are distributed. The new table was as follows:


Robert Brown (Shooters and Fishers) 164,719 (+9,410)
Paul Green (Christian Democrats) 130,483 (+161)
Pauline Hanson (Independent) 102,466 (+267)
Jeremy Buckingham (Greens) 102,276 (+822)
Sarah Johnson (Coalition) 101,183 (+1,345)
Gordon Moyes (Family First) 64,738 (+471)


This time Pauline received the 2nd least preferences. The gap to 22nd is now a touch over 1000 votes.


On count 307, Gordon Moyes (Family First) was eliminated. The new table was as follows:


Robert Brown (Shooters and Fishers) 166,112 (+1,393)
Paul Green (Christian Democrats) 134,804 (+4,321)
Jeremy Buckingham (Greens) 105,472 (+3,196)
Sarah Johnson (Coalition) 104,341 (+3,158)
Pauline Hanson (Independent) 103,035 (+569)


And with that, Pauline drops to 5th (22nd place), having again received the least preferences, and by some margin. Upon her being eliminated, there are only 4 candidates remaining. As there are only 4 seats left to fill (21 seats available, and 17 candidates already elected) the remaining 4 are immediately elected.


In other words, leading up to the last count, Pauline was 2 spots clear of missing out. On the VERY LAST distribution, she dropped 2 spots and missed out.


So, if you're wondering how close it was, the answer is very. Very, very, very close.