Votes and Proceedings House Of
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Senate Crossbench Background 2016
Barton Deakin Brief: Senate Crossbench 4 August 2016 The 2016 federal election resulted in a large number of Senators elected that were not members of the two major parties. Senators and Members of the House of Representatives who are not part of the Coalition Government or the Labor Opposition are referred to collectively as the Senate ‘crossbench’. This Barton Deakin Brief outlines the policy positions of the various minor parties that constitute the crossbench. Background Due to the six year terms of Senators, at a normal election (held every three years) only 38 of the Senate’s 76 seats are voted on. As the 2016 federal election was a double dissolution election, all 76 seats were contested. To pass legislation a Government needs 39 votes in the Senate. As the Coalition won just 30 seats it will have to rely on the support of minor parties and independents to pass legislation when it is opposed by Labor. Since the introduction of new voting reforms in the Senate, minor parties can no longer rely on the redistribution of above-the-line votes according to preference flows to satisfy the 14.3% quota (or, in the case of a double dissolution, 7.7%) needed to win a seat in Senate elections. The new Senate voting reforms allowed voters to control their preferences by numbering all candidates above the line, thereby reducing the effectiveness of preference deals that have previously resulted in Senators being elected with a small fraction of the primary vote. To read Barton Deakin’s Brief on the Senate Voting Reforms, click here. -
Federal Election 1996
DEPARTMENT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY Parliamentary Research Service Federal Elections 1996 Background Paper NO.6 1996-97 • ~ l '-\< ~.r /~( . ~__J .. ~r:_~'_r.T-rr-Ji,_.~:;~;.~:~~;:;;~~~5!~'~ ;aft~::.u...- ... ~ . ..x-"\.~. ~'d__~ 4 ...,,--.;." .. _"'J,.gp. ..... !:l,;:.1t ....... ISSN 1037-2938 © Copyrigbt Commonwealth of Australia 1996 Except to the extent of the uses pemtitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means including information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior written consent of the Department of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official duties. Tbis paper bas been prepared for general distribution to Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament. Wbile great care is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced, the paper is written using information publicly available at the time of production. Tbe views expressed are those of the author and sbould not be attributed to the Parliamentary Researcb Service (PRS). Readers are reminded that the paper is not an official parliamentary or Australian government document. PRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents with Senators and Members and their staff but not with members of the public. Publisbed by the Department of the Parliamentary Library, 1996 Parliamentary Research Service Federal Elections 1996 Gerard Newman Andrew Kopras Statistics Group 4 November 1996 Background Paper No.6 1996-97 Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Brien Hallett, Australian Electoral Commission, and JanPearson for their assistance in preparing this paper. -
Report of the Redistribution Committee
The 2009 Proposed Redistribution of Queensland into Electoral Divisions Report of the Redistribution Committee Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 Section 68 Table of contents Executive Summary 1 Direction for a redistribution of Queensland electoral divisions 2 Quota 2 Enrolment projections 3 Appointment of the Redistribution Committee for Queensland 4 Invitations to submit public suggestions and comments 4 Statutory requirements for the making of a proposed redistribution 6 Technical procedures 8 Analysis of population trends 8 Enrolment in existing divisions as at 19 February 2009 9 Analysis of enrolment trends 10 Enrolment projections for existing divisions as at 9 July 2012 12 General strategy 15 Public suggestions and comments 17 Guidelines for the naming of divisions 19 Name of new division 19 Proposed redistribution of Queensland – by division: 20 Proposed South-East Queensland (South) divisions 22 Proposed South-East Queensland (North) divisions 27 Proposed Country divisions 30 Conclusion 34 Table 1 – Determination of the quota 2 Table 2 – Enrolment projections at 9 July 2012 3 Table 3 – Queensland regions for proposed redistribution 16 Table 4 – Summary of movement of electors between divisions 17 Table 5 – Themes 18 Table 6 – Divisions in order of discussion 21 Table 7 – Enrolment of existing divisions 35 Table 8 – Summary of proposed divisions 36 Table 9 – General description of how proposed divisions are constituted 37 Graph 1 – Queensland population quotas from 1997 to 2009 9 Graph 2 – Variation from the enrolment quota as at end 19 February 2009 for existing divisions 11 Graph 3 – Variation from projected average enrolment as at 9 July 2012 for existing divisions 13 Map Projected enrolment for existing divisions as at 9 July 2012 14 Enclosures Sheet 1 – Maps 1 and 2 Sheet 2 – Map 3 Sheet 3 – Map 4 CD – Containing the public suggestions received and comments received on those suggestions. -
The Meaning of the Seventeenth Amendment and a Century of State Defiance
Copyright 2013 by Northwestern University School of Law Printed in U.S.A. Northwestern University Law Review Vol. 107, No. 3 THE MEANING OF THE SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT AND A CENTURY OF STATE DEFIANCE Zachary D. Clopton & Steven E. Art ABSTRACT—Nearly a century ago, the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution worked a substantial change in American government, dictating that the people should elect their senators by popular vote. Despite its significance, there has been little written about what the Amendment means or how it works. This Article provides a comprehensive interpretation of the Seventeenth Amendment based on the text of the Amendment and a variety of other sources: historical and textual antecedents, relevant Supreme Court decisions, the complete debates in Congress, and the social and political factors that led to this new constitutional provision. Among other things, this analysis reveals that the Amendment requires states to fill Senate vacancies by holding elections, whether or not they first fill those vacancies by making temporary appointments. In so doing, the Seventeenth Amendment guarantees that the people’s right to vote for senators is protected in all circumstances. Using this interpretation as a baseline, this Article reviews state practice with respect to the filling of vacancies under the Seventeenth Amendment. Since the Amendment was adopted in 1913, there have been 244 vacancies in the U.S. Senate. In one-sixth of these cases, the states have directly violated the Seventeenth Amendment’s core requirement that senators be elected by popular vote by failing to hold any election. In addition, in many more cases the states have significantly delayed the required elections. -
The Importance of Boundaries
The importance of boundaries Colin Hughes Emeritus Professor of Politic Science, University of Queensland Research Paper 1 (November 2007) Democratic Audit of Australia Australian National University Canberra, ACT 0200 Australia http://democratic.audit.anu.edu.au The views expressed are the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Democratic Audit of Australia. If elections are to be thought fair, their outcomes should correspond as closely as possible to the inputs of voter preferences. A particular percentage of the votes counted for a party should produce close to the same percentage of the seats won by that party. Down that path lie the topics of partisan bias and proportional representation with multi-member electoral districts as the most common solution. But there is a second criterion of fairness which is that outcomes should correspond to the numbers of electors or people to be represented. That criterion is often called equality, and down that path lie the topics of malapportionment and enforced equality as a solution. The two criteria may not work in the same direction.1 In Australia the problem of equality has been debated mainly with respect to the dichotomy of town and country, ‘town’ usually meaning the State capital(s) which have been invariably by far the largest urban center in each State and ‘country’ the rest, though sometimes the larger provincial cities and towns get lumped in with their local metropolis. Should town voters have the same quantity of representation, measured by the number of electors in the electoral districts, as country voters? There has also been a sub-plot, which is what this paper is about, that concerns the existence of a small number of electoral districts spread over exceptionally large areas in which the population, and consequently the numbers of electors, is relatively thin on the ground and widely scattered. -
Todd Farrell Thesis
The Australian Greens: Realignment Revisited in Australia Todd Farrell Submitted in fulfilment for the requirements of the Doctorate of Philosophy Swinburne University of Technology Faculty of Health, Arts and Design School of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities 2020 ii I declare that this thesis does not incorporate without acknowledgement any material previously submitted for a degree in any university or another educational institution and to the best of my knowledge and belief it does not contain any material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the text. iii ABSTRACT Scholars have traditionally characterised Australian politics as a stable two-party system that features high levels of partisan identity, robust democratic features and strong electoral institutions (Aitkin 1982; McAllister 2011). However, this characterisation masks substantial recent changes within the Australian party system. Growing dissatisfaction with major parties and shifting political values have altered the partisan contest, especially in the proportionally- represented Senate. This thesis re-examines partisan realignment as an explanation for party system change in Australia. It draws on realignment theory to argue that the emergence and sustained success of the Greens represents a fundamental shift in the Australian party system. Drawing from Australian and international studies on realignment and party system reform, the thesis combines an historical institutionalist analysis of the Australian party system with multiple empirical measurements of Greens partisan and voter support. The historical institutionalist approach demonstrates how the combination of subnational voting mechanisms, distinctly postmaterialist social issues, federal electoral strategy and a weakened Labor party have driven a realignment on the centre-left of Australian politics substantial enough to transform the Senate party system. -
Commonwealth of Australia Electronic Public Service Gazette PS16 Weekly Gazette Thursday - 22 April 2021
Commonwealth of Australia Electronic Public Service Gazette PS16 Weekly Gazette Thursday - 22 April 2021 Published by Commonwealth of Australia APSjobs - Vacancies Daily The Gazette contains notifications of certain vacancies and employment decisions for APS and some non-APS Commonwealth agencies as required by the Public Service Act 1999, the Parliamentary Service Act 1999, and their subordinate legislation. To know more about these requirements, see https://www.apsc.gov.au/public-service-gazette-requirements The date of publication of this Gazette is PS16 Weekly Gazette Thursday - 22 April 2021. This date is to be used to determine prescribed days in relation to promotions and movements notified in this issue of the Gazette and related review periods and dates of effect. Gazette Lodgement Inquiries: Phone: (02) 6202 3559 Email: [email protected] Important Information: This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for personal, non-commercial use or use within an organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to APSjobs, Australian Public Service Commission, GPO Box 3176 Canberra ACT 2601, or by email to [email protected] For more information on the terms and conditions of use of the APSjobs website, incorporating the Gazette, see https://www.apsjobs.gov.au/TermsAndConditions.aspx?ifm=true [Job No] ISSN 1835-2480 Australian Public Service Gazette Page 2 of 743 PS16 Weekly Gazette Thursday - 22 April 2021 Reviewing Promotion Decisions Ongoing Australian Public Service (APS) employees who are unsuccessful in applying for a promotion may apply to the Merit Protection Commissioner to have the promotion decision reviewed by a Promotion Review Committee. -
Election Contests
CHAPTER 9 Election Contests A. In General § 1. Constitutional Provisions; Historical Background § 2. Contested Election Laws § 3. State or Local Election Boards B. Jurisdiction and Powers § 4. The House § 5. Election Committees § 6. The Clerk; Transmittal of Papers § 7. The Courts C. Grounds of Contest § 8. Generally § 9. Faulty Credentials; Citizenship § 10. Violation of Federal or State Election Laws § 11. Improper Attempts to Influence or Confuse Voters § 12. Voting Booth and Balloting Irregularities D. Defenses § 13. Generally § 14. Contestant’s Credentials and Qualifications § 15. Abatement § 16. Limitations and Laches E. Practice and Procedure § 17. Alternatives to Statutory Election Contests § 18. Commencing the Contest Commentary and editing by John Theodore Fee, J.D. 963 Ch. 9 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS § 19. Parties F. Notice of Contest § 20. Generally; Time § 21. Service of Notice § 22. Form and Contents of Notice G. Pleading § 23. Generally § 24. Answer § 25. Motion to Dismiss § 26. Motion for More Definite Statement H. Taking of Testimony; Depositions § 27. Generally; Time § 28. Examination of Parties and Witnesses § 29. Scope of Examination; Objections § 30. Subpenas § 31. Affidavits I. Committee Hearing and Review; Dismissal and With- drawal § 32. Generally; Preparation of Briefs § 33. Dismissal and Withdrawal of Contest J. Evidence § 34. Generally § 35. Burden of Proof § 36. Presumptions § 37. Ballots § 38. Determination of Voter Intention K. Inspection and Recount of Ballots § 39. Generally § 40. Grounds 964 ELECTION CONTESTS Ch. 9 § 41. Procedure L. Disposition of Contests; Resolutions § 42. Generally § 43. Committee Reports § 44. Form of Resolutions § 45. Costs and Expenses; Compensation and Allow- ances M. Summaries of Election Contests, 1931–72 § 46. -
Bob Richardson
The Federal Redistribution 2009 QUEENSLAND Comment Number 24 on Public Suggestions Bob Richardson 84 pages Bob Richardson 45 Riverstone Road GORDONVALE 4865 Phone (07) 40 561489 Fax (07) 40562164 i h May 2009 Mr Ed Killesteyn Electoral Commissioner Australian Electoral Commission i h Floor 488 Queen Street BRISBANE 4000 Dear Mr Killesteyn I refer to your request for 'Comments' on 'Suggestions' for the current redistribution ofFederal Electoral Boundaries in Queensland. Please find enclosed my submission made up oftwo parts:- • Comments on the 'Suggested Divisions' in which I forwarded to, including tables and maps, but due to time restraints, no text, prior to 'Suggestions' closing at 6pm on Friday, 24th April, 2009. I have again included the tables for these suggested Divisions as to keep the text and them together. I have included an A4 duplicate ofthe maps I forwarded to you with my 'Suggestions'. You have the 'full size' maps I included in my submission. Street maps showing the suggested boundaries in Leichhardt (Cairns), Herbert (Townsville), and Dawson (Mackay), are also included in this submission. 2 (b) Comments on suggestions by other persons and organisations. I will make detailed comments on some ofthe 'Suggestions' made by other persons and organisations and fax them to you prior to the closing of 'Comments on Suggestions' at 6pm on Friday 8th May 2009, however I wish to express my concern about matter in which the Liberal National Party (LNP) has submitted it 'Suggestions', A 'flimsy' public presentation with no maps or detail so the public could follow where their 'Suggestions' placed the boundaries. -
Chapter Five
5 2WKHULVVXHV Funding and disclosure Funding entitlements 5.1 Part XX of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Electoral Act) provides for public funding of election campaigns to be made available to candidates and political parties who receive at least four per cent of the formal first preference vote. This funding ensures candidates are not disadvantaged in their appeal to electors or unduly influenced in their subsequent actions by lack of access to adequate funding. 5.2 Mr and Mrs Whitton, Mr Arthur Tuck and Mr Goldstiver call for the elimination of public funding to political parties for election campaigns.1 G W Spence and Mr Lockett suggest a restriction be placed on the amount that can be spent on election campaigns to reduce the amount of public funding necessary.2 5.3 The public funding entitlements for the 1998 federal election, including the Newcastle supplementary election, totalled $33,920,787.43. The funding rate was 162.210 cents per vote3 and this has been paid to party agents and independent candidates as shown in Table 5.1. 1 Submissions pp S592 (H&M.Whitton), S667 (M.Goldstiver) and S1844 (A.Tuck) 2 Submissions pp S214 (GW.Spence) and S632-S633 (E.Lockett) 3 Australian Electoral Commission. 1999. Electoral Pocket Book, Canberra, AEC, p 57. 124 Table 5.1 1998 election funding payments Payee Amount - $ Australian Labor Party 13,959,511.97 Liberal Party of Australia 11,488,881.15 National Party of Australia 2,321,589.02 Northern Territory Country Liberal Party 116,916.10 Australian Democrats 2,247,677.46 Australian Greens -
Electoral Law a Final Report
Electoral Law A final Report 16 March 2020 The Law Commissions The Law Commission of England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission were set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965, for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners for England and Wales are: The Right Honourable Lord Justice Green, Chair Professor Sarah Green Professor Nick Hopkins Professor Penney Lewis Nicholas Paines QC The Chief Executive of the Law Commission for England and Wales is Phil Golding. The Law Commission is located at 1st Floor, Tower, 52 Queen Anne’s Gate, London SW1H 9AG. The Scottish Law Commissioners are: The Right Honourable Lady Paton, Chair Kate Dowdalls QC Professor Frankie McCarthy The Chief Executive of the Scottish Law Commission is Malcolm McMillan. The Scottish Law Commission is located at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh, EH9 1PR. The terms of the full final report were agreed on 27 January 2020. The text of this report is available at http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/electoral-law http://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/publications/ i Contents Page CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 2: THE LEGISLATIVE STRUCTURE 4 CHAPTER 3: MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT 6 CHAPTER 4: THE REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS 8 CHAPTER 5: MANNER OF VOTING 12 CHAPTER 6: ABSENT VOTING 14 CHAPTER 7: NOTICE OF ELECTION AND NOMINATIONS 18 CHAPTER 8: THE POLLING PROCESS 20 CHAPTER 9: THE COUNT AND DECLARATION OF THE RESULTS 25 CHAPTER 10: TIMETABLES AND COMBINATION OF POLLS 28 CHAPTER 11: ELECTORAL OFFENCES 32 CHAPTER 12: REGULATION OF CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE 37 CHAPTER 13: LEGAL CHALLENGE 40 CHAPTER 14: REFERENDUMS 46 GLOSSARY 50 ii Summary of final report on electoral law BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION 1.1 The electoral law reform project originated in the Law Commission for England and Wales’ Eleventh Programme of Law Reform. -
Report on the Review of the Report of the Auditor General on The
Committee Report # 9-19(2) Report on the Chief Electoral Officer’s Report on the February 23, 2021 Administration of the 2019 Territorial General Election October 27, 2020 Report on the Chief Electoral Officer’s Report on the Administration of the 2019 Territorial General Election 19th Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly Chair: Mr. Kevin O’Reilly MEMBERS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES AND PROCEDURES Kevin O’Reilly MLA Frame Lake Chair Rocky Simpson MLA Hay River South Deputy Chair Steve Norn Hon. Shane Thompson Jackie Jacobson MLA Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh MLA Nahendeh MLA Nunakput Alternates Hon. R.J. Simpson Rylund Johnson MLA Hay River North MLA Yellowknife North February 23, 2021 SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Mr. Speaker: Your Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures is pleased to provide its Report on the Chief Electoral Officer’s Report on the Administration of the 2019 Territorial General Election. Kevin O’Reilly Chairperson STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES AND PROCEDURES Report on the Chief Electoral Officer’s Report on the Administration of the 2019 Territorial General Election TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .............................................................................................. 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 4 Background ........................................................................................................... 4 Online Voting .......................................................................................................