The South Australian election

So a minority government with a minority of the votes, but a working majority in the Parliament, has been returned in South Australia.

This is how an op-ed in The Australian describes what has happened:

[Independent MP Geoff] Brock has disregarded the views of his electorate, the majority of the stakeholder groups he consulted, and the views of regional South Australia in backing Labor.

In a representative democracy that is how things can work out.

Rural voters need to get with the program; if they want a Liberal government, they need to vote for Liberal candidates.

This entry was posted in Elections. Bookmark the permalink.

248 Responses to The South Australian election

  1. Rabz

    No, the Gerrymander needs to be dismantled.

  2. C.L.

    An ‘Independent’ has once again suspended democracy.

    Flashback to Tim Blair’s recent post.

  3. A Lurker

    Reposting my comment from the open fred…

    I think that a new electoral ruling should be enacted nationwide that all Independents should prior and publically advertise what party they would support if there were a hung parliament/council.

    If they were to break their promise to their electorate, then they would be fined, and that electorate would immediately go back to the polls for a by-election.

  4. adrian

    In a representative democracy that is how things can work out.

    which is not what SA is anymore. this has happened four or five times now, where the libs win a strong majority 2PP vote and then do not form gov’t.

    how is this democracy?

  5. Michael

    Do they want a Liberal Government? Or do they want a balance-of-power independent? I think they’ve got what they want.

  6. Key ma

    How we can count a Labor government? see below there why no reply from a Labor Premier ?
    State of South Australia (SA)
    Honourable Premier Jay Weatherill
    Re: Building your state’s health economic research & development by Supporting a report of “Building a 21st Century Primary Health Care System”
    Dear Premier, 19th February 2014
    When I made my inquiry to Australian Research Council (ARC) relating to ARC Future Fellowship scheme on 31th Marc 2010, together attached my sent letter to The Prime Minister at the year 2009, where I had pointed out to Kevin Rudd that there were steps that will allow Australia to pioneer in achieves the worlds “Health Economy” to benefits to Australian economy in sectors of agriculture, manufacture, health service, finance and exportation together that will boost Australian employability significantly and sustainably in the following manner:
    • Inventing health improvement patterns;
    • Growing high antioxidant healthy grains and plants;
    • Manufacturing high antioxidant healthy grain powder products;
    • Exporting its health improvement knowledge and pattern; and
    • Exporting health improvement resources (including human resources). Australian Research

    Australia now supported Primary Health Care Reform by an Australia Report to Support Australia’s First National Primary Health Care Strategy and endorsed by Department of Health and Aging:

  7. SA, NSW, and Victoria were the states that kept Gillard as PM after the Rudd putsch. Wouldn’t be surprised if the Libs lost power in the next Victorian election too.

  8. duncanm

    Key ma..

    I have no idea what you’re talking about, but if you approached the government with a letter written that haphazardly, I’m not surprised they brushed you off.

  9. Andreas

    As soon as it came down to two independents it was obvious Labor would form government, there should be no surprises there. Everyone should no by now that ‘independent’ = Labor stooge.

    It’s the fact that 53% cannot win a clear majority that is the major problem. Can the Liberals challenge this result in the courts? Because SA cannot afford another 4 years of Labor.

  10. Rabz

    #1236337, posted on March 24, 2014 at 9:48 am

    Hi Alan, is this thing on?

    :?

  11. James B

    The Liberals have done NOTHING but fuck rural Australia. They took their guns, their statist laws have prevented rural development, and more.

    Those in rural areas would do good to vote for a party like the SFP or the LDP.

  12. The Pugilist

    Sinc, isn’t this whole election malarkey in SA a good practical example of Arrow’s impossibility theorem/the fallibility of all voting systems?

  13. Anthony

    Why can’t independents be paired?

  14. Aynsley Kellow

    As a Tasmanian, it is a relief to see another state do the heavy lifting in the mendicant state stakes — and to see some of the turkeys the elected continue to vote for Christmas.

    Their electoral system is deeply flawed. As was pointed out recently, the US Electoral College has returned a President about three times who commanded a narrow minority of the popular vote, and it can happen occasionally in the House of Reps in Australia when the vote is close. But, repeatedly, in SA that has been the outcome — this time with the ALP gaining 47% of the TPP vote. It is this repetition that is dangerous, as it undermines the legitimacy of politics over time. Remember Joh in QLD, who exploited a gerrymander put in place by Labor. The new government can claim no mandate and is inevitably febrile. It will not be able to address the many issues confronting the state, and Weatherill’s success in conjuring up an ABbott bogeyman might have worked by scaring the children and horses, but it leaves the state with no government likely to drive reform.

    The best for them would have been to go to another election, but that might have cost an independent or two their seat (in cabinet as well as parliament).

  15. Percy

    They took their guns

    This does still cost the Libs votes in the bush. Plenty of my mates that know nothing of politics still punish he Libs over the gun issue, not realising that their Labor vote is assisting a greater evil. They always vote SFP in the Senate though. One by one I’m bringing them over to the LDP.

  16. Percy

    Apologies for the front to backness of my quoting above

  17. Ant

    I’m surprised SA Labor would even want another 4 years. They’re crap now, just as Gillard’s mob were when those “independent” grubs reinstated them. In 4 years there’s an excellent chance that they’ll face an Anna Bligh styled slaughter, especially seeing that the federal funding spigot is going to be tightly controlled.

  18. adrian

    Their electoral system is deeply flawed.

    agreed, it is simply not a democracy.

  19. H B Bear

    Can’t really blame all mainland Tasmanians for this one. Their electoral boundaries are obviously as hopeless as the rest of the place.

    Good luck with Labor. I hope Weatherill has another policy other than begging money off the Feds.

  20. Roger

    Rural voters need to get with the program; if they want a Liberal government, they need to vote for Liberal candidates.

    Actually, all Brock could deliver was a Labor government or a hung parliament and another election. We would prefer he opted for the latter, but it was his decision to make on his principles; that’s the way our representative system works and his electorate can throw him out at the next election if it doesn’t turn out to their liking. But a Liberal win in Frome would still not have resulted in a Liberal government – only reform of the SA gerrymander would have done that.

    Brock is a highly regarded local member, an average bloke who got into local politics to fix roads and has built his career from there based on service to the electorate and not himself or his party. That appeals to all shades of regional voters, thus many Liberals voted for him. What can the Libs learn from that? What rural/regional issues aren’t they addressing that they don’t have the confidence of the rural and regional voters of Frome? At the very least it suggests the Libs can’t take naturally conservative regional votes for granted. Brock will further pursue the interests of rural South Australians as regional development minister, quite a coup. It will be interesting to see what he can achieve in that role. heaven knows SA needs regional development!

    So, there’s a back story here you’re missing, Prof., and it is the rural/regional-urban divide in Australia. Like it or not, naturally conservative regional voters seem increasingly likely to vote for alternatives to the Liberal Party, historically it was the Nationals but increasingly it is others, with sometimes disastrous results (PUP). This presents a challenge for the Libs akin to the rise of One Nation back in the 1990s and they’d be foolish not to address it vigorously through better local candidates and policies for the regions. In the meantime, one can’t really blame regional voters for wanting better representation.

  21. tomix

    Re the “gerrymander in Qld – the sparsely populated western Qld seats had a third of the number of voters as some Brisbane suburban seats, but it’s a fact that at the 11 State elections between 1957 and 1986, the ALP never went close to a 2PP majority, despite always contesting all seats.

    Some say the ALP win in 1989 was solely due to vote fraud in marginal seats.

  22. Up The Workers!

    Four years ago, two large rodents named “Windsor” and “Oakeshott” surprised all Australia by swimming out to board the sinking hulk: “Titanic Labor”. The world’s only known case of rats not just BOARDING the sinking ship, but unfurling the sails and weighing the anchor.

    Now we see another maritime rodent boarding the same rotting, sinking ship, just as a large, flying Piggy jumps overboard.

    What is going on in the Labor barnyard?

  23. This should mean next time round the Liberals will be elected easily.Labor governments of this age do not improve.
    Brock can’t be considered independent by accepting a ministry.

  24. tomix

    Should add that many of those western Qld seats were still held by the ALP until the 1974 election cull, when they lost all their seats west of the Great Dividing Range, and most of their Brisbane seats.

    That’s when the “gerrymander squawking really took off.

  25. Roger

    Sabena,

    Despite accepting the ministry, Brock says his vote is only guaranteed on supply and confidence. That’s fairly independent in the circumstances, but, yes, it will be interesting to see how it turns out.

  26. PoliticoNT

    Isn’t the word we’re looking for malapportionment? It was a huge issue in WA but the Court Govt’s Commission on Government sorted it out. All that’s going to happen in SA is that Labor will hang on by its fingernails until 2018, then be utterly devastated in the polls. After which the Liberals will try and sort out the mess. After which there will probably be Liberal governments for 20+ years.

    And so on.

  27. Rabz

    I hope Weatherill has another policy other than begging money off the Feds.

    Yep – more and higher taxes. Exactly what the dullards did in Victoria, NSW and Queensland before they were turfed.

    They are beyond implementing any other sort of policy.

  28. C.L.

    Isn’t the word we’re looking for malapportionment?

    Yes. Gerrymandering refers to the brazen re-drawing of an electorate to take in particular constituents.

  29. Rob MW

    Peculiar generally to the States, but specifically to SA, there is no difference between a socialist Labor government and a socialist Liberal government. One only has to look at how the Liberal’s in SA voted on Labor’s and the Green’s ‘lock em all up’ environmental laws and other social engineering laws in that State.

    But I suppose that is what one gets when dealing with the only State that lives on the end of a drain (the Murray/Darling). Must be something in the water !!!!!

  30. Roger

    Malapportionment or Gerrymander?
    Depends on the original intention, I suppose.
    What is the SA history?

  31. Rabz

    The EDBC must also ensure, as far as practicable, that the redistribution is ‘fair’, so that if candidates of a particular group attract more than 50% of the popular vote, including preferences, they will win the majority of House of Assembly seats and be elected in sufficient numbers to form government. This ‘fairness’ criterion is unique to South Australia.

    That worked out well, didn’t it?

  32. John Comnenus

    The problem in SA is that the electoral commissioner continues to be unable to draw boundaries that would allow the LNP to form govt after clearly winning the election. The LNP has only once been able to oust a sitting ALP Govt in SA. That occurred when they won 61% 2PP. As Pyne said this morning the LNP has won 3 of the last 4 elections but the ALP has been able to form Govt each time. That is why the Govt is illegitimate – because the parliament consistently fails to reflect the will of the people.

    One thing the LNP needs to raise in every election is to pointedly, directly and publicly ask each independent in a conservative electorate to categorically confirm whether they will side with the ALP in the case of a hung parliament. If the independent refuses to answer or won’t commit to not helping the ALP form Govt then the Libs sole platform in the relevant seat is to campaign on the theme that a vote for an independent is a vote for the ALP.

    They need to do this through local media, mail outs and on the net. They cannot afford to wait til after the election. Separately they need an investigation into to SA EC. The equation for a LNP win got harder, not easier, between the last two elections. They need to use every legal, administrative and regulatory lever they have to pressure the SA EC into drawing up boundaries that are fair.

  33. John Comnenus

    The Joh Bjelke Weatherill govt was formed through a Jayremander.

  34. Peter

    Best argument around for the constituents in any seat being able to recall their MP and force a by-election.

    If the member genuinely IS representing the views of a majority of his electorate, it isn’t going to happen. If he isn’t, then it will.

    Just remember that we elect MPs to REPRESENT us, not to RULE us for a set period once elected. The divine right to rule went out with Charles I’s appointment with the headsman. Unfortunately, we have no current mechanism by which we may enforce our right to be well represented.

    On another subject,,,, yes, many bush voters do still blame the Coalition for irrational gun-laws. In doing so, they forget that Labor was the first to adopt them as policy, put them on the agenda and implement them where possible.

  35. Aynsley Kellow

    “as far as practicable, that the redistribution is ‘fair’”. Other electoral commissions do not seem to have the kind of trouble they do in SA – they simply adjust the boundaries to ensure equal value of votes, say ±5%. What other principles are dominating in SA? Community of interest?

    Australian electoral commissions used to be gold standard. Aft the WA Senate mess, the SA result, and some postal votes being fed through a letter opening machine in Tasmania that worked like a shredder, we seem to have slipped a bit.

  36. James of the Glen

    “agreed, it is simply not a democracy” – Adrian.

    Indeed, Brock has deliberately disenfranchised most of his electorate, not to mention the state.

    His “stability and certainty” whine has a familiar ring and is aimed mainly at his wallet and super.

    “Brock will further pursue the interests of rural South Australians as regional development minister, quite a coup. It will be interesting to see what he can achieve in that role. ” – Roger.

    Oh, such brave schmaltzy hope. Another “independent” member and minister of late, Rory McEwan of Mt Gambier, supposedly conservative and regionally helpful, aided and abetted Rann Labor selling off the South-East of SA pine forests to finance the $575 million Adelaide Oval circus. Industry in that region is now facing great uncertainty with the closure of a pulp mill and likely closure of the large Kimberly-Clark tissue factory.

    ” It will be interesting to see what he can achieve in that role”, says Roger. From past experience, almost nothing. What fanciful slosh.

  37. Aynsley Kellow

    Readers might like to see the recent story up at The Oz <a href="“>here for an indication of the legitimacy of this government. Backroom deal done while Brock was basically telling the Libs he couldn’t possibly make a decision before the middle of this week.

    Note also that Wetherill (of the Left – in a relationship with Penny Wong while at U of A) did a deal with the Right to get rid of Rann while Rann was overseas on a trade mission. Nice morals. Whatever it takes I guess.

  38. Roger

    James,

    Let’s judge Brock by what he does, not what McEwan did, eh?
    It’s called a fair go, mate.

  39. James of the Glen

    And while Roger is still singing Kumbaya with, ” heaven knows SA needs regional development! “, he forgot to add the verse about SA now having the 3rd highest (and climbing) electricity prices in the developed world (Denmark, Spain, SA, …).

    The aim of Labor to jack these even higher with more crony wind turbine disasters effectively hunts off any regional development in SA. Hypocrisy writ large.
    What a con, Roger.

  40. Roger

    Aynsley,

    However, unsatisfactory Liberal voters may find it, the government led by Weatherall is legitimate by virtue of occupying the treasury benches. That’s our system. We don’t elect governments by plebiscite. As for back room deals and allegations of dishonest dealings by Brock, I’d be disappointed too, but let’s hear his side of the story before condemning him – it’s called natural justice.

  41. Roger

    I don’t support Green schemes or higher electricity prices, James.
    You seem to be all over the shop with your accusations.

  42. Squirrel

    There’s no excusing repeated results which produce a government supported by a minority of voters, but that said, the Liberals probably need to lift their game at the State/Territory level and get somewhat better at finding and keeping leaders who are palatable to the electorate, particularly the crucial middle ground.

  43. James of the Glen

    Don’t worry about the “ehs” and “mate” façade, when the same person has disenfranchised his electorate.
    Some “fair go”. About as unAustralian as they come.

  44. Roger

    Disenfranchised his electorate…eh? How do you work that one out mate? Do you understand how our system works?

  45. James of the Glen

    “You seem to be all over the shop with your accusations”.

    You seem to be particularly obtuse, Roger.

  46. tasch2

    Another example of the LNP being able to convince voters but not those that matter. Perhaps they should take a look at themselves.

  47. James of the Glen

    ” How do you work that one out mate? Do you understand how our system works?”

    Much better than you, Roger maate. C’mon, give us another verse, Rog.

  48. Roger

    Here’s a suggestion, James, why don’t you do something constructive for the body politic (other than whingeing here, that is) and write to Brock about your concerns on power costs and regional development, after all, he’s the one with considerable leverage over a Labor government. But don’t write him off until he let’s you down. Hint: be polite if you want to get a hearing, mate.

  49. Roger

    My point exactly, tasch2.
    Sinc and James seem to think regional voters should just toe the line and the forelock.
    It doesn’t work that way anymore; regionals will not be taken for granted n SA or elsewhere.
    It’s called democracy.

  50. Roger

    er…that should be “toe the line and tug the forelock” :0)

  51. Pyrmonter

    John Comnenus:

    - Libs won from Labor in 1979, with about (IIRC) 53% 2pp; then in 93 with 61%. They’ve won a 2pp majority in ’75, ’89, ’10 and ’14 with Labor or Labor/independent governments. In ’97, the Libs won 2pp, but relied on independent and National support; in ’62 and ’68, Labour won 2pp, but Libs governed with the support of an independent.

    The Electoral Boundaries Commission report for this election is here:

    http://www.ecsa.sa.gov.au/publications?view=document&id=100

    IMHO, they stuffed up, but I don’t think deliberately; they’re trying to do a nearly impossible task. The greater responsibility rests on the Lib campaign, and in particular, candidate choices and support. Seats like Newland, Mawson, Ashford, Florey and Wright should have been open. Surprise of the night (although not for long term observers) was the Libs’ good performance in Torrens: on the ’10 boundaries, might almost have fallen to the Libs.

  52. JC

    Roger

    At what point in the 2PP does the government became illegitimate?

  53. James of the Glen

    Roger, best you leave your poor form suggestions about politeness, and over-use of “mate”, back in the box from where you get your political knowledge and Pollyanna visions of Brock’s wonderful behaviour and sure redemption.

    Off you go.

  54. Roger

    What do you think, JC?
    (seriously interested)

  55. John Comnenus

    Pyrmonter, I forgot to add ‘in the last 30 years’. Sorry. But thanks for the detailed update.

  56. Roger

    While waiting, I’d suggest the bottom line is that while a government has the governor’s support it remains legitimate constitutionally, if not necessarily morally – but that’s a whole other can of worms.

  57. Gab

    While waiting,

    How about you answer Jc’s question to you instead of waiting.

  58. JC

    I think at 53% the government is illegitimate. It also requires an “independent” to hold it up. An independent personally gaining from his support.

  59. Fred Lenin

    It is only right that we alp/green/ communist fascists won the SA election we deserved it ,all that work we did ,rigging the boundries,supporting our “independent comrades”,lying ,cheating,threatening people ,its quite exhausting.. Now we can get on with our real job,begging from canberra ,and encoraging our federal comrades,.We i tend to have all our electricity created by renewable sources by 2015″, we can do this as we have no industry consuming lots of energy ,perhaps we will declare SA a WorldHeritage Park for the untidy nayshuns and federal funding ,this will happen with the help of comrade perfesser giLIARd,who is beating rudd in the u.n. race ,serves the misojinist bugger right ,Mr wong will help too,we cant lose.Forward into the 1920 s with joh bjelke weatherill! Unin crims of the world you nits!

  60. Token

    Rural voters need to get with the program; if they want a Liberal government, they need to vote for Liberal candidates.

    Did the SA Liberals campaign against the 2 Labor Independents, getting the Independents on record to state what they would do in the case of a hung parliament?

    There needs to be a process of getting grass roots people to ask the question and transferring the quotes onto election posters.

  61. JC

    While waiting, I’d suggest the bottom line is that while a government has the governor’s support it remains legitimate constitutionally, if not necessarily morally – but that’s a whole other can of worms.

    So you would use the same argument further up the libs 2PP. How about 70%? 90%? As long as the governor commissions a government.

  62. Roger

    JC

    No, I’d have to disagree. As I said to A., we do not elect government by plebiscite.
    Parliamentarians form a government by obtaining a majority on the floor of the house. As long as they can maintain supply and confidence, and therefore the confidence of the governor, they are legitimate. The 53% issue, is a problem, I’ll grant, but it can only be resolved by a redistribution of electoral seats. You’re confusing majority will with the power to form government. In the Westminster system, they are two different things, as has been illustrated in countless elections previously here and abroad.

  63. Token

    Nice to see that the re-election via the 30 year old gerrymaner of the party representing public sector union members, a senior member of the SA election bureaucracy has joined us to tell us to STFU as the rigged electoral system has worked as the Liars Party & unions designed.

  64. Gab

    I’m still waiting for Roger to answer JC’s question although Rog’s tap dancing around that is entertaining.

  65. twostix

    Disenfranchised his electorate…eh? How do you work that one out mate?

    Is this a joke?

  66. Roger

    Um, I just answered it Gab. What do you think?

  67. Token

    It is only right that we alp/green/ communist fascists won the SA election we deserved it ,all that work we did ,rigging the boundries,supporting our “independent comrades”,lying ,cheating,threatening people ,its quite exhausting.

    If SA voters refuse to pull their finger out and demand a system that is not rigged by the Liars Party before ane election, they can’t expect much sympathy after another election delivers the same crooked result.

    Seriously guys, don’t be expecting any more federal funds via GST or corporate welfare. You guys allowed the broken system to stay in place, deal with the consequences.

  68. JC

    I’m not confusing a thing Roger. I asked you a simple question which I will ask again. At what point in the 2PP would a government become illegimate? You refuse to answer the question?

  69. The Pugilist

    Explosive claims in the Australian
    It seems both Brock and Such’s wife both sold Marshall a pup. If true, the ‘independents’ were telling South Australian’s one thing – that they were genuinely considering options – and yet they were always planning to go with Labor…

  70. Roger

    twostix,

    No, it’s not a joke, it’s how our system works. There seems to be some confusion here on this. His electorate elected him as their state parliamentary representative. As an independent, he is thereby authorised by them to make his own decision on how he votes in parliament on the merits of the issues. That he has done. If his electors don’t like it, they can turf him out at the next election, which might very well be sooner than term. We may not like it, but that’s how the system works. His electors are not disenfranchised – they exercised their right of franchise at the ballot box!

  71. Token

    It seems both Brock and Such’s wife both sold Marshall a pup.

    Marshall should assume that in a 2 Party system, the candidate lined up against you stays in power by keeping your party out of government.

    It still amazes me that after 3 years of Oakeshott, Winsor & Wilkie making it clear that every “independent” is just a Labor candidate under an alternate party name, the SA Liberals were so thick.

  72. twostix

    Just like after the wholly illegitimate and now known to be utterly corrupt Gillard Junta took power by disenfranchising New England and Lyne, once again out of the woodwork come the apologists for electoral rorting and the disenfranchisment of conservative electorates by corrupt MP’s in order to “deliver” government to the unelectable communist party.

  73. Roger

    Actually, JC, I’ve already answered that question twice, the second time with greater detail. In the Westminster system a government becomes illegitimate when it loses supply or confidence, both scenarios which require an absolute majority against it on the floor of the house. Maybe that just wasn’t the answer you were looking for?

  74. Token

    No Roger, South Australia has specific legislation that requires it electoral body to adjust the make up of electorates to reflect the 2PP make up. They breached their charter, but did so due to the executive government refused to live up their constitutional duty.

    All up, South Australian voters have been shafted by collusion between an arm of the public service breaching its duty.

    They have been similarly shafter in all but 1 election in the last 30 years, so it is the fault of the voters for not forcing the politicians to punish the rogue agency & sack the responsible board.

  75. JC

    There’s no confusion about how the system works, roger. We all know how it works and we dont need your rediculous explanation.

    Answer the question.

  76. Roger

    twostix,

    You’re putting words into my mouth or just failing at mind reading. I think Oakeshott and Windsor both had personal agendas which coloured their decision to support Gillard. In that, they let down their electorates. But no-one can argue that as independents they didn’t have the legal right to do what they did. In any case, that particular minority government has just about destroyed the Labor Party for a generation and I doubt the LIb-Nats would have relished minority government in any case.

  77. Rabz

    The 53% issue, is a problem, I’ll grant, but it can only be resolved by a redistribution of electoral seats.

    In the same way it was resolved by the post 2010 SA election ‘redistribution’?

  78. Roger

    Sorry JC, but I have answered the question.
    Explain to me how I haven’t, please.

  79. Roger

    Token, I don’t disagree with you. But does that make the new government illegitimate?
    Not legally, I suggest. Morally, possibly. You need a grass roots movement for fair redistribution.

  80. Joe Goodacre

    Minority government or not, that’s still a lot of people voting for Labor and the Greens in SA…

    Short of a dictator, it’s hard to fathom what would constitute for those people a Labor government bad enough to change their vote to Liberal.

  81. At what point in the 2PP would a government become illegimate? You refuse to answer the question?

    It doesn’t. The overall 2PP is irrelevant under the current system, and even calculating it is somewhat pointless.

  82. JC

    The federal government should withhold all funds until a new election is called and electoral redistribution redrafted.

  83. Roger

    JC

    Please answer my question.

    Needless to say, I find it strange that you regard my explanation of how Westminster operates as “rediculous”.

  84. The Pugilist

    Sorry for the length. This is from the article I linked to above…It seems Brock is even more deceptive than Windsor and Oakeshitt put together.

    For the past week, he has appeared a willing participant in Weatherill’s bid for Labor to retain power, despite the Liberal Party statewide receiving 45 per cent of primary votes compared with Labor’s 36 per cent; with the Liberals being likely to receive 53 per cent of the two-party-preferred vote to Labor’s 47 per cent.

    Until yesterday morning’s shock announcement that he would join Weatherill’s cabinet to allow Labor to form a minority government, Brock led everyone on by staunchly maintaining he would “not be rushed” into a decision until the middle of the week.

    On Friday, he cancelled planned meetings with both leaders, saying he could not meet with them until today because he was awaiting more details on local council projects to present for their consideration. “We’re in caretaker mode, the state is not going to stop, the final count hasn’t happened. We need to chill out a little bit,” he told reporters.

    It appears Weatherill knew how he liked to “chill out” on a Saturday night. After arranging to meet him at his Port Pirie home, the Premier and his chief of staff Simon Blewett left Adelaide about 2pm on Saturday for a 2 1/2-hour drive to Port Pirie for a pizza night.

    While Weatherill was on his way north to secure another four-year term for Labor, Marshall was being played for a fool by Brock. During phone calls between Marshall and Brock on Saturday afternoon, the inexperienced Liberal leader was told no decision would be made until mid this week.

    Brock had indicated to Marshall last week that he was leaning towards the Liberals but wanted to speak to Such first.

    During his discussions with Marshall on Saturday afternoon, with Weatherill already on the road heading north, Brock insisted he needed to get constitutional advice before making a decision and urged Marshall to try to secure with Canberra a commitment to help the viability of the Nyrstar lead smelter in Port Pirie.

    Brock also insisted to Marshall that he wanted private time with his family at the weekend. Taking him at his word, Marshall spent the rest of Saturday in his parliamentary office, seeking his own constitutional advice and placing calls to Canberra about Nyrstar.

    “He (Brock) led us to believe he wanted to spend the entire weekend with his family, no decision was imminent and that he’d get information through to both sides this week,” a senior Liberal insider said yesterday.

  85. If they are unhappy with their system, we have a best practice lower house system here in Tasmania we’d be willing to lend them.

    Nine seats at five members a piece.

  86. Roger

    Pugilist,

    If that is indeed how events transpired, Brock has done himself a disservice and his electorate may react accordingly. Let’s hear what he has to say first, though.

  87. Roger

    Still waiting, JC.
    Gab, why don’t you niggle him as you did me?

  88. Much better than you, Roger maate. C’mon, give us another verse, Rog.

    This from the idiot who threatens anyone who disagrees with him.
    How’s your referral to ANZMI going James?

  89. JC

    Driftforge

    The electoral boundaries are supposed to closely tabulate to the two party preferred. This hasn’t been occurring in SA for the past 25 odd years because the liars party are gaming the system asual. The SA result has no legitimacy. It resembles but not identical to the system we see operating in Zimbabwe.

  90. Gab

    Still waiting on your answer to JC, Rog. I can understand you may find it a difficult question to answer but have a go anyway, pet.

    To recap:

    At what point in the 2PP would a government become illegimate? You refuse to answer the question?

  91. Roger

    Am I to conclude from your silence, JC, that you now accept my answer?
    Gab, you were interested enough to interject, what do you think?

  92. Roger

    Gab, it’s a meaningless question that can only be put by someone who doesn’t understand how our system works.

  93. twostix

    There seems to be some confusion here on this

    There’s no “confusion”.

    Twice now in five years, under identical circumstances, conservative rural electorates have been disenfranchised by corrupt MP’s operating at the behest of the governing leftist political party in order to keep the party in power after it loses an election.

    And twice now we’ve had Junta supporting apologists running around telling use there’s no problem with that, “hey it’s legal” they say.

    Well so was Mugabe’s last electoral win. Perfectly legal.

  94. Rural voters need to get with the program; if they want a Liberal government, they need to vote for Liberal candidates.

    Absolutely.
    Were there no Liberal candidates in the electorates that voted for the two successful independents?
    35% Liberal 1st preference in Frome.
    35% Liberal 1st preference in Fisher.
    2 out of 3 voters in these electorates didn’t want the Liberals in power.

  95. Gab

    Rog’s tap dancing is at full speed now and makes Fred Astaire & Bill Robinson look like a third rate amateurs.

  96. Rabz

    The system’s fucked, Rog.

    Given that these types of perverse results keep happening, despite numerous ‘attempts’ to ‘redistribute’ constituents, I think there’s a clear case for some immediate remedial action. You wouldn’t let ‘the EDBC’ anywhere near a future electorate redistribution exercise – they’re obviously totally incompetent or utterly corrupt – and I’m going for the latter option.

  97. JC

    Roger

    Stop being a deceitful asrsehole. Answer my question.

  98. candy

    But only 11% supported ALP in Frome.

    That’s the troubling part. But voting for an independent means you support every decision they take, I guess, and if independent want a Labor State government then that’s how the cookie crumbles. Voters would surely be aware of that after the Gillard years.

  99. Roger

    Gab, I can’t answer the question as JC has put it because it is a meaningless hypothetical. The best I can do is point out that in our constitutional monarchy sovereignty is divided between several powers, notably the electorate, the parliament as the elected representatives of the electors and the Crown. The electorate elects representatives who as parliamentarians may form a government through obtaining a majority of votes on the floor of the house, legitimacy then being granted by the governor. If sovereignty rested solely with the electorate, then JC might have a point, but it doesn’t and he doesn’t. We are not Switzerland! If the parliament formed after the last SA election doesn’t adequately represent the views of a majority of the electors, which indeed it appears not to do, then the electoral boundaries need to be re-drawn. But that is a matter entirely separate from the legitimacy or otherwise of the present government (once it is sworn in, of course).

  100. twostix

    35% Liberal 1st preference in Frome.
    35% Liberal 1st preference in Fisher.
    2 out of 3 voters in these electorates didn’t want the Liberals in power.

    Lol.

    Remember when the left ran exactly the same line about New England and Lyne after the last time a Labor government disenfranchised two conservative electorates in order to steal an election it has lost?

    (Once is an accident, twice is a pattern).

    “Hey those conservative rurals really actually wanted Labor in power” we heard, “Look at the numbers, who knows who those conservative farmers really want to govern: Liberals, Nationals or Julia Gillard Jay Weatherill. It’s a mystery.”.

    Next prepare for reports of a poll instigated by nobody-knows-who “proving” that the Labor stooge is eleventy times more popular than the Liberal / National candidate. A candidate who will shortly there-after receive 70% of the vote at the first opportunity the electorate is given a voice after being suppressed for years.

  101. Roger

    Well, they certainly seem to be wanting in competence, Rabz.
    Corruption? Then a commission of inquiry is needed.
    Alas, that may have to wait until the Libs get in.

  102. The Pugilist

    Roger, it is just a pity that they may have to wait four years to do it. Although the chances of Bob Such going full-term are low…

  103. JC

    Roger

    For a constitutional monarchy system to work we also require the underpinnings of the system to function as its meant to and that requires both sides to respect the integrity of the system and play by the rules.

    Once that’s breached it’s over, either permanently or temporary…. No matter who the governor commissions to form government.

    At this stage SA is being run by a communist regime and ought to be treated as such.

  104. Rabz

    Then a commission of inquiry is needed.
    Alas, that may have to wait until the Libs get in.

    Gee, how convenient.

  105. Roger

    Pugilist,

    I would be very surprised if this government went four years, but then I lived in Adelaide/SA for some years in the 1990s and it continually surprised me… usually not in a good way ;0)

  106. “Hey those conservative rurals really actually wanted Labor in power”

    Verballing – that’s not what I wrote.
    If they had wanted the Liberal candidate they would have voted for him.
    They wanted the Independent in preference to the Liberal candidate.
    Candy is correct.
    Once elected, it is up to the candidate which party he supports to form government.
    It’s called the Westminster system, which, strictly speaking, does not acknowledge the existence of political parties.

  107. Roger

    JC

    I don’t think South Australians are up for a civil war.

  108. Ubique

    It must be that the electors of Frome had never heard of the quisling duo Windsor and Moonshott. Frome must be Deliverance territory.

  109. JC

    Interesting that you think SA would need a civil war to throw out the Liars Party and grind those dishonest scumbags into the dirt. Doesn’t smell much like a regime, right?

  110. Roger

    Thank you candy and 1735099.

    Whatever the perceived shortcomings of the Westminster system, I’d rather it over any other democratic polity because of the way it protects us against the domination of one section of interests. But JC is at least right on this: the fundamentals need to be soundly and fairly administered for it to work effectively. That requires vigilance because human nature will always be subject to the temptation to corruptly abuse power. We can be grateful that the framers of Westminster believed in original sin and not the perfectibility of mankind, else we’d all be living in a Gulag by now.

  111. JC

    That requires vigilance because human nature will always be subject to the temptation to corruptly abuse power.

    By human nature, you mean only one side of politics… The Australian Liars Party and their coalition partners, the human garbage.

  112. twostix

    Liberal supporters never find themselves in the position of having to “defend” Liberal wins at this level. No zany excuses required (“maybe rural farmers wanted Julia Gillard Jay Weatherill as PM Premier”), no grotty fall backs to “hey, it might not be right but it’s legal” required for the Liberals and their supporters when they win an election.

    That’s because everybody – including the left – inherently knows and accepts that it’s the left who rort and steal elections, who corrupt the public service to their own electoral ends and who send their legions of political activists (often funded by taxpayers) out to game the system. And that if the Liberals secure a win then it’s only because they’ve overcome an immense number of obstacles.

    So now twice in five years we’re being told to again accept that the losing leftist party “won” an election it has lost thanks to exactly the same extraordinary circumstances occurring as the last time they “won” an election they lost. Exactly the same extraordinary circumstances allowed them to “win” elections they lost. Twice in a row.

  113. Roger

    Or is SA on the way to being a Gulag? ;0)

    JC

    You mentioned treating the government like Communists and I assumed you meant they were illegitimate and should be resisted, ergo civil war. Otherwise your only option is waiting for another election and peacefully agitating against them in the meantime, the course I would recommend.

  114. littledozer

    Numbers 35% may have supported Libs in Frome and Fisher but Labor received worse primary votes.

    Having said that I think the best you can say of any independent who was either left or right to begin with is that if they leave their original political fold they are unlikely to support their former colleagues. Right politicians being more independent of mind tend to leave Libs/Nats more often and hold a grudge. In the end its about revenge and personal gain rather than representing their constituents.

    The public have not woken up to this.

  115. Chris

    “as far as practicable, that the redistribution is ‘fair’”. Other electoral commissions do not seem to have the kind of trouble they do in SA – they simply adjust the boundaries to ensure equal value of votes, say ±5%. What other principles are dominating in SA? Community of interest?

    The problem in SA for the liberals is that they have huge majorities in the country electorates. So they get a high percentage of the two PP vote, but a large portion of their votes is in a smaller number of seats. They only way to balance this and still preserve equal value of votes between country and city would be to start having electorates that encompass both regional and city seats. Which is pretty difficult to do and there’s probably a lot of country voters that would not be happy with living in electorates that cover city regions as well.

    The ALP’s safest seats have a margin of 100,000 people each year, a lot from interstate which boosts tourism, whilst Adelaide Cup attracts <20,000. And who bothers to travel to SA for a horse race? Hardly anyone.

    Also the two independent seats are both notional liberal seats. One of the independents is even a former liberal MP who left the party and the former liberal voters followed him. What does that say about the competence of the liberal party in SA that they can't keep their own safe seats?

    I think ditching Redmond was a mistake as well. She was widely seen as an anti-politician type (her main political weakness being she actually told the truth when answering questions) and the type of image that would have done well to overthrow a government that had been around for 12 years. Whereas Marshall is seen as just another evasive politician and the scare campaign saying he would just be a Newmann/Abbott for SA worked.

  116. hammy

    where the libs win a strong majority 2PP vote and then do not form gov’t.

    Oh come on – stop grizzling. Elections are decided on seats won, not on 2PP. The latter is just a concept used by simpleton pollsters.

    The voters in the independents’ electorates didn’t want the Liberals in power. That’s blindingly obvious.

    The Liberals just want to revisit the Playford gerrymander where rural electorates got twice the per capita voting power.

  117. JC

    And no, the framers believed , or all east assumed political players abided by the rules and fairplay. They didn’t envisage one side of politics resembling a criminal organization like the liars party.

  118. twostix

    They wanted the Independent in preference to the Liberal candidate.

    Yes, yes New England Frome really actually wanted Julia Gillard Jay Weatherill in power.

    We know. You already said that the last time these “extraordinary” circumstances came up that allowed Labor to “win” an election it lost by claiming that safe rural conservative seats actually wanted them to rule.

  119. Roger

    I think ditching Redmond was a mistake as well. She was widely seen as an anti-politician type (her main political weakness being she actually told the truth when answering questions) and the type of image that would have done well to overthrow a government that had been around for 12 years.

    Chris,

    This would seem to back up my earlier assertion that regional voters, at least in Frome (but like regional voters elsewhere in Australia), were looking for an “anti-politician” representative. This meme goes back at least to Rudd, if not even to John Howard as well as lesser examples at the local level. Obviously, the electorate can be fooled by clever politicians, but at least in Redmond’s case I think they had the genuine article. The Libs need to learn from this.

  120. candy

    There’s the Holden factor too. It’s surprising the Libs did so very well in the face of that and the Labor scare campaigns especially Medicare being dismantled, even though it’s a Federal issue. Labor and Greens run really big with that one.

  121. Roger

    JC

    Political parties didn’t actually exist for much of the time when the Westminster system was being developed. Parties are an attempt to apply some modern discipline to what could otherwise actually be a quite unwieldy system. Can you imagine how effective a parliament full of independents would be!

  122. hammy

    Can you imagine how effective a parliament full of independents would be!

    Yes, shocking! Issues would be decided on their inherent merits – we can’t allow that, can we?

  123. Roger

    candy,

    Labor and the greens will always distort the truth to political advantage. In the case of Labor they rely on the lack of inquisitiveness of a large segment of the electorate. In the case of the Greens they can rely on the irrationally rabid hatred of conservatives among their constituency (even though the environment, like the arts, usually does better under Liberal governments). My counsel to Liberal politicians, in contrast, is to be frank and honest and take the electorate into their confidence; the rest of the constituency of the nation can smell a rat a mile away.

  124. Gab

    Can you imagine how effective a parliament full of independents would be! <

    Like trying to herd lizards.

  125. BenM

    Two words for the ‘honourable’ Geoff Brock:

    Karlene Maywald

  126. JC

    Can you imagine how effective a parliament full of independents would be!

    You mean legitimate independents unlike treacherous scumbags such as Brock, Windsor and oakeshitt?

    I think it would be fine.

    You’re being deceitful by suggesting political parties are a modern phenomenon. They were loser and different to our times, but there were groupings of like minded people.

  127. Chris

    Wow a chunk got deleted from that second paragrpah of mine so it doesn’t make any sense. Anyway it said something along the lines of the Libs having safe seats in the country with margins >25% whereas the safest ALP seat is <20% margin. And it affects their policies. They need to more for the wavering liberal voters in the cities.

    The example was wanting to move Adelaide cup day to make the racing industry happy, but would upset the music festival that runs on the same long weekend. The music festival gets around 100,000 people per year whilst Adelaide Cup gets well, not even close to that on a good day.

  128. Roger

    JC

    I find your resort to questioning my honesty (“you are being deceitful”) and therefore my character when you disagree with me quite objectionable. Disagree if you think you are right, and present your case, but you have no justification for questioning my motives.

  129. Roger

    Are you LDP, JC?
    You certainly don’t come across as a Liberal.
    You prerogative, of course, but it would explain a lot.

  130. James in Melbourne

    I am well aware that Labor was gerrymandered into irrelevance in several states for long periods of time, but these days – the days of Twitter and Gen Y and The Project and self-worshipping, illiterate uni-educated yoof brought up to believe that their feelings are the most important thing on the planet – a result of 53%:47% in Labor’s favour that did not see it win government would have consequences that would make some of the signs seen at the Mooch in March look benignly innocent – I mean, quite seriously, that there would be actual violence and politically motivated fatalities.

    But fortunately, this result went against the Libs. That’s OK.

  131. Roger

    illiterate uni-educated yoof
    Is that a typo, James, or are you a university lecturer and therefore you really do mean ” illiterate uni-educated”? ;0)

  132. H B Bear

    Expect Brock to slime away in four years with bulging pockets and a fat pension, just like the reviled Windsor and Oakeshott.

    Unwilling to put themselves up before the voters they have betrayed. Gutless to the last.

  133. Tom

    the irrationally rabid hatred of conservatives

    Wondered how long it would be before you declared you vote for the Greens.

  134. James in Melbourne

    Roger? I don’t follow you?

  135. Roger

    No, I’m a conservative, Tom. Unfortunately that means I don’t always agree with Liberal policies, although I routinely vote for them as the best option available, so I suppose that also makes me a pragmatist of sorts. Certainly not a Green, though!

  136. Roger

    James in Melbourne:

    Did you mean to write “uneducated” or does “uni-educated” mean uneducated and illiterate though university educated (as many of our undergrads are, as lecturers can testify). I thought it was quite a lively play on words. My advice is to take the credit regardless of the intention! :0)

  137. twostix

    I wonder if the word “mandate” will be called a “swear word” during the reign of this illegitimate government as it was during the reign of Australia’s last Labor government who stole an election?

    We should have a great big swear jar for the next three years and if anyone uses that word ‘mandate’ they should have to chip in some money.’’

    – Former Labor Stooge and vicious community traitor Rob Oakeshotte.

  138. James in Melbourne

    Sorry, Roger, got you now – no such skilled wordplay intended. Agree now that uni-educated and uneducated are synonyms and should be declared as such by the OED.

    Quite simply, you can talk seat totals and majority-in-the-house and Westminster system all you like – and you’d be right – but Labor supporters simply have to acknowledge that if 53:47 happened to them, their feral wing would burn the freaking place down.

  139. Aynsley Kellow

    I’ve been out to lunch (literally!), and I see Roger has appeared to tell us ‘that’s the system.’ The system, Roger ol’ mate, is supposed to more often than not yield a result that is broadly in line with the preferences of the electorate, and the SA electoral system fails on that basic element of parliamentary democracy. The issue is not the right of the governor to call on Wetherill to form a government, but the legitimacy of that outcome.

    If there is no fair contest, so that a government the electorate wishes to turf out of office, there is no accountability, and the quality of policy-making suffers along with legitimacy.

  140. Chris M

    The pantomime isn’t over yet. That Such guy keeps banging on about euthanasia, it’s his pet thing. Now he is off crook and apparently with cancer I wonder if he may off himself soon.

  141. twostix

    the irrationally rabid hatred of conservatives

    “Hi, Alan, long time Liberal voter here, can I just say that as a long time Liberal voter I’m totally cool Labor twice now taking power after losing elections by disenfranchising conservative rural electorates? I’m cool with it because it’s legal, you know. Like Mugabe’s win.

    Kthankxbye”

  142. tomix

    According to Wikipedia, Brock had a “shock” win over the Libs at the 2009 by-election.
    Supported by Xenophon at that election. link

  143. Roger

    What can I say but take it to the electoral commission, Aynsley.
    The question of legitimacy still has nothing to do with your concerns, honourable though they are.
    Like them or loathe them, the new SA government will be “legitimate” once sworn in.

  144. Roger

    Don’t follow you, twostix.

  145. Oh come on

    What’s happened in SA can’t be a gerrymander, it must be malapportionment – but how? Why does the commission set the electoral boundaries as they are? Do they not have 1 vote 1 value legislation in SA?

    Sorry if someone’s mentioned this already; I got halfway down the thread to try and find this out, then gave up, clicked ‘end’ and wrote this out, as there looked lto be no end of bickering.

  146. Senile Old Guy

    Like them or loathe them, the new SA government will be “legitimate” once sworn in.

    You are using “legitimate” in a narrow sense:

    1. according to law; lawful.
    2. in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards.
    3. of the normal or regular type or kind.

    It is “lawful”, if all laws have been followed appropriately. This apparently has not been the case with the electoral boundaries. It is, therefore, quite reasonable to question whether it is “legitimate”.

  147. Aynsley Kellow

    Roger, you clearly do not understand the difference between ‘legally constituted’ and ‘legitimate’.

  148. Roger

    In reference to governments, Aynsley, they are indeed the same thing: legitimate = lawful (OED). You may have the view that the new South Australian government is not morally legitimate, but I have to tell you that does not directly touch the question of whether it is legitimate in constitutional law. I’m afraid it will be a legitimate government – barring a legal challenge, that is, and I don’t see any grounds for one. The only legitimate way it can be brought down is through denial of monetary supply or a vote of no confidence.

  149. .

    Sortition, recall elections and term limits now!

  150. I find this sort of argument — if the system was different there would have been a different result — to be a bit pointless. Sure, commiserations that the blue team lost under the system in play. Sure, the geo-political arrangement of South Australia is such that the Liberal vote is more concentrated than the Labor vote.

    It doesn’t really matter. If you want a 50% vote system, you have one electorate and then preferential voting within that system. Statewide 2pp really is utterly irrelevant to the formation of government in a single member system. Probably the only way to reliably construct a gerrymander — for a gerrymander it would have to be — that delivered government to the party that got over 50% of the total 2pp in a single member electorate system would be to allow the number of people in each electorate to vary significantly and to eliminate independents.

    If this somewhat arbitrary 50% 2pp thing is important to you for reasons beyond red team / blue team, you could run Hare-Clarke with 45 members in a single statewide electorate. 50% of the vote would get you
    23 members and a majority; 53% would probably get you 24 members. I’m not sure its a great idea, but it would get you over this mythical criteria.

    There are also list methods in use around the world — parties provide a list and members get elected from the top down as their party’s vote increases. .

  151. Tom

    The federal Libs have grown a pair:

    THE federal Coalition has branded South Australia’s minority government “illegitimate”, as Premier Jay Weatherill conceded his party lacked the confidence of regional voters.

    Despite winning only 47 per cent of the two-party-preferred vote in the March 15 election, Mr Weatherill is set to retain power in South Australia with the backing of rural independent MP Geoff Brock.

    Education Minister Christopher Pyne, who led the Coalition’s parliamentary attack on the Gillard minority government, today declared: “Jay Weatherill’s government is an illegitimate government.

    “He presides over a parliament where he holds on with the support of a conservative-seat independent in Frome, which is a seat that has always been traditionally held by the Liberal Party.”

    Mr Pyne, who is from South Australia, said he was concerned that the state’s electoral boundaries were drafted to Labor could form government.

    “That needs to be closely looked at,’’ Mr Pyne said.

    This bodes well for a properly focused campaign to have the ECSA investigated and reformed, have the Bjelke-Weatherill government starved of federal funds and instability fomented in the SA House of Assembly.

  152. Roger

    Memo Christopher Pyne: the Libs don’t hold Frome anymore.
    That sort of arrogant presumption is probably why they elected Brock in 2009 in the first place.
    And grandstanding before the Canberra press gallery won’t change a thing on the ground in S.A. as regards the electoral distribution. Likes to talk, our Christopher.

  153. candy

    the Libs don’t hold Frome anymore.

    He’s South Australian and probably just a bit upset about it all, Roger, naturally.

  154. JC

    SA has a Clive Hamilton government.

    H/T Samuel J.

  155. Senile Old Guy

    It doesn’t really matter. If you want a 50% vote system, you have one electorate and then preferential voting within that system. Statewide 2pp really is utterly irrelevant to the formation of government in a single member system.

    It matters if the voting system is supposed to ensure that it happens, as it does in SA.

    the redistribution should be ‘fair’ to prospective candidates and groups, so that candidates of any group gaining more than 50% of the State wide formal vote, including preferences, are elected in sufficient numbers to form the government by winning the majority of House of Assembly seats. (This criteria was introduced for the first time at the 1991 redistribution).

  156. Fisky

    Extraordinary. We have a clear example of the SAEC repeatedly failing to carry out its duties to avoid gerrymandering/malapportionment under SA’s own unique legislation, and a Hi-Allanist troll claims this is due process.

    Go away now Roger. Shoo.

    (whoops, wrong thread)

  157. Senile Old Guy

    (whoops, wrong thread)

    Me too.

  158. Rococo Liberal

    WHat I find amusing is Roger’s refusal to understand the difference between black-letter law and moral turpitude.
    Let’s make it easy for him.

    1. In non-hare clark sytems there will be certain times where the winner of the 2PP doesn’t form a government (1990 and 1998 Federally).
    2. We all accept that is not a real problem, if it occurs infequently and to both sides.
    3. In SA it happens all the time and the 2PP lead required by the Liberals is very high. The SA Liberals got nearly as much as alead on 2PP as the Coalition did Federally in 2014.
    4. It is always unfair that a district gets special attention because it has an independent. That means other relectorates suffer cuts. So all this talk about regional SA is just a smokescreen for pork barrelling

  159. Aynsley Kellow

    Roger,
    ‘You may have the view that the new South Australian government is not morally legitimate, but I have to tell you that does not directly touch the question of whether it is legitimate in constitutional law.’

    I made it quite clear that I was distinguishing between the constitutional position and the question of the morality of the action. My Shorter Oxford includes proper in ‘principle’ as well as ‘law’ and (since 1818) as the antonym of ‘spurious’. If you are going to quote dictionaries, at least give the several meanings.

    I should point out that I am a political scientist, not a constitutional lawyer, and I distinguished the question of legality from that of legitimacy. It is entirely consistent to have a government that is legal constitutionally, but lacking in legitimacy — as were the South African regime under Apartheid, and many southern US states before the civil rights era. Would you wish to defend them?

  160. Roger

    I’m afraid I don’t see the basis for the distinction you’re making, Aynsley.
    The governments you mention were bad but legitimate governments, like many.

  161. Roger

    RL, I’m afraid the law sometime has little relation to morality. Nothing amusing about it, but there it is. We don’t live in a perfect world.

  162. Aynsley Kellow

    Roger, there are none so blind as those who fail to see!

    So you support governments elected or appointed by a process that is in accordance with a constitution that has been decided by a corrupt process. Speaks volumes about your position, Roger – especially that you ignore alternative meanings of ‘legitimate’ in doing so. No decent lawyer would agree with you that there is only one meaning.

  163. Roger

    You’ll have to give me more evidence for the distinction you are making, Aynsley.
    Note I didn’t disparage your professional standing just because I disagree with you.
    Not good form, old chap.

  164. Tom

    IT, could you fetch the nuff nuff mulcher?

  165. Roger

    If you do have a “legitimate” point, Aynsley, I expect we will see a legal challenge on your grounds or similar. If not, I suggest “most lawyers” actually do share my view. Let’s see what happens, shall we?

  166. Eddystone

    SA voters clearly have no confidence that a Liberal government be anything more than a bunch of toffs giving out Gov’t contracts to their mates in big business.

    At least Labor will sling a few bikkies at the mug punters.

  167. Ivan Denisovich

    A couple of points. I was pretty sure that Brock was going to support Labor after I saw his interview on the ABC on election night. He was rabbiting on about how the Libs had done hard by him but he would nevertheless weigh things up carefully and consult widely before making his final decision. It was the Windsor/Oakeshott pretense of impartiality all over again, a charade for the voters. That performance convinced me that he was motivated more by revenge than his claim that the good of the State and the regions will be the primary consideration. That view was reinforced when it was revealed how he deceived Steven Marshall. He’s trying to cast himself as a matyr but he’s another Windsor/Oakeshott. Secondly, Brock claims his beef is that regional S.A. has been ignored by government. Interesting then that Brock has chosen to reward the party that has been in government in that State for the last 12 years. Brock has no credibility.

  168. Aynsley Kellow

    Roger,
    I wrote:
    ‘No decent lawyer would agree with you that there is only one meaning.’

    You reply:
    ‘I expect we will see a legal challenge on your grounds or similar. If not, I suggest “most lawyers” actually do share my view.’

    Are you actually trying not to comprehend simple English?

  169. CatAttack

    The people in Brocks electorate who voted for him as an independent can hardly complain if he acts independently now.

    What I find intriguing is the spin put on this by Wetherall, Shortcake et al which says that the pundits predicted that the Liberals would romp home but because on the day the Liberals only got a gain of 3% it must be the result of the electorate rejecting Tony Abbott.

    WTF. There is truly no shame for these people.

  170. Roger

    Fine Aynsley, if you want to be pedantic in a combox: “most decent lawyers”.
    The point is, only a higher court can rule definitively on the legitimacy of the new SA government, assuming it will be sworn in as such. Let’s wait and see…

  171. sabrina

    In the 1998 federal election, the ALP received ~51% of 2pp. But the difference from the SA election is that the LNP won 80 seats against 67 of the ALP.
    While what has happened is democracy, for decency’s sake the ALP should not have tried to form government with 47% of the 2pp. It would have been better
    But then who expects decency from politicians for whom “whatever it takes” is the mantra.

  172. Grigory M

    Eddystone – are you tigtog from LP?

  173. Roger

    Sabrina,

    Indeed. Labor has largely forsaken its ideals – at least some of which were noble – and now pursues power for its own sake. That is a recipe for bad government.

  174. Senile Old Guy

    Are you actually trying not to comprehend simple English?

    Sure looks like it. And a word means exactly what he says it does, and nothing else.

  175. JC

    Adam Bandt ‏@AdamBandt 2m

    Stop the bigots.

    jc

    @AdamBandt you’d be the first to be stopped, you objectionable little creep. In a just world you’d be married to Tubbsie Milne

  176. Eddystone

    Grigory M
    #1236956, posted on March 24, 2014 at 6:25 pm
    Eddystone – are you tigtog from LP?

    God no!

    I used to have a burning wind generator as my avatar, but Sulphur Crested Cockatoos were topical a couple of days ago.

    Then someone posted a picture of the two young blokes trapped on top of a burning wind generator, so I didn’t want to use that image again.

  177. Monkey's Uncle

    Re the “gerrymander in Qld – the sparsely populated western Qld seats had a third of the number of voters as some Brisbane suburban seats, but it’s a fact that at the 11 State elections between 1957 and 1986, the ALP never went close to a 2PP majority, despite always contesting all seats.

    Should add that many of those western Qld seats were still held by the ALP until the 1974 election cull, when they lost all their seats west of the Great Dividing Range, and most of their Brisbane seats.

    That’s when the “gerrymander squawking really took off.

    Another longstanding claim is that the system in Western Australia where until recently rural and regional electorates were overrepresented relative to population was effectively a Coalition gerrymander. Ignored in such claims is that under the old system the areas most strongly overrepresented relative to population were the mining towns in the north, which usually favour the ALP. At the 1989 state election Labor retained office despite losing the 2PP vote 52.5-47.5%. Some Coalition gerrymander that was!

    There is a great deal of psephological denialism and mythmaking on the left. Chief among them are claims about how many alleged gerrymanders have worked against Labor.

  178. .

    As so is the claim the US Democrats cannot win control of the house because of a non-existent gerrymander.

    FFS – US reapportionment is done every 10 years by the USSC and they have controlled both chambers for considerable lengths for multiple times in living memory.

  179. Roger

    And a word means exactly what he says it does, and nothing else.

    Of course words can mean several things, Senile; meaning is determined largely by context.
    In the context of parliamentary matters, “legitimate” refers largely, if not solely, to legal constitutionality. As I keep trying to drive home here, with apparently little success with you and Aynsley, that is not directly related to the question of the moral legitimacy of a government. I’m not just asking you to take my word for it, though – observe what happens, or doesn’t, as the case may be, in the SA supreme court in coming weeks. At the most, I suspect action would only be contemplated against the SA EC, and that will only effect the prospective new government if the court orders another election, which I very much doubt. The only conclusion we could draw from that is that the government is legitimate, even if it is a bad government in our view. Let’s wait and see, shall we and then meet back here to discuss if anything does eventuate?

  180. Senile Old Guy

    question of the moral legitimacy of a government

    And what you repeatedly fail to understand is that legitimate has nuances of meaning and nobody appointed you arbiter of those uses here. Further, because SA electoral boundaries are supposed to give victory to the party with at least 50% of the 2PP, there identifiable reasons for calling it illegitimate. Something doesn’t have to proven illegitimate in a court for it to be so. Finally, the current context is “in the view of people here”, not some hypothetical court.

  181. Aynsley Kellow

    Senile Old Guy,
    Spot on. It is at this point that one simply ignores people like Roger, who is either not too bright or pretending to be so in order to win an argument. Either way – Bye Roger, mate.

  182. Roger

    What Aynsley, not prepared to accept the umpire’s decision?
    Meet you back here if anything happens to discuss further.
    What’s to be afraid of?

  183. Senile Old Guy

    Either way – Bye Roger, mate.

    Exactly.

  184. Roger

    Cowards!
    Can’t say I blame you; I’m fairly confident I’m right.
    But at least I’m prepared to turn up and eat humble pie if not.

  185. rebel with cause

    Labor secures 35.8% of the primary vote. Forms government.

    The electoral boundaries are going to have to get awfully creative in 2018 to pull that stunt off again.

  186. stackja

    Liberty Quotes
    We are going to tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect.
    — Harry Hopkins, advisor to Franklin D. Roosevelt

  187. Roger

    “bullshitters”
    Please explain, Leigh Lowe?

  188. .

    rebel with cause
    #1237071, posted on March 24, 2014 at 8:16 pm
    Labor secures 35.8% of the primary vote. Forms government.

    Rog
    posted whenever
    Legitimacy!

  189. stackja

    Roger.
    Wilco. Over.”
    means “Gotcha; I’ll do it; anything else?”
    Roger. Wilco. Out.”
    means “Gotcha; I’ll do it; end of our conversation.”
    “Over and out” is a contradiction and comes from the early CB era, when folks didn’t understand that “Over” means “I want a reply” and “Out” means “I don’t want a reply.”
    So “Over and out” means:
    I’m trying to sound as if I knew what I was doing, but I don’t.

  190. Roger

    Ever heard of 2pp dot?
    Not suggesting %35 morally justifies forming government, indeed it appears a travesty when looked at that way, but its’ a little more complex than that, right?

  191. Tintarella di Luna

    Looks like another neophyte turned Humpty Dumpty has joined the Cat community

  192. .

    Roger
    #1237084, posted on March 24, 2014 at 8:25 pm
    Ever heard of 2pp dot?
    Not suggesting %35 morally justifies forming government, indeed it appears a travesty when looked at that way, but its’ a little more complex than that, right?

    I’m not suggesting any offence, but you’re a dishonest prick.

  193. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Any funny man misusing “Roger” “Wilco” “Over” and “Out”, in my younger days was guaranteed one of those painful interviews with the signals sergeant…the ones where he did all the talking…

  194. Tom

    What’s to be afraid of?

    You have spent half a day here defending an election outcome that is morally indefensible, even by the leftist retards on Their ABC’s Insiders.

    You support the outcome of the SA election, even though it was achieved with a monstrous gerrymander that has not been replicated in any other Australian voting jurisdiction, state or federal.

    And you have spent the afternoon telling a highly regarded professor of politics you think he’s an idiot because he doesn’t accept your convoluted, disingenuous justifications of the morally indefensible.

    Apart from that, you really fit in here.

    On the other hand, you could save yourself the trouble and just fuck off. Go and find out what a Hi Alanist is.

  195. stackja

    Liberty Quotes
    Eternal vigilance and a short fuse is what the electorate must have.
    — Infidel Tiger

  196. Roger

    Que? You’re an unpleasant piece of work, dot.
    And, fyi and Zulus, Roger is actually my name.

  197. .

    No, I’m a nice person. I will not be lied to by left wing activists supporting a government that nearly two-thirds of the populace did not want, and hence has no legitimacy and ought to resign and call for fresh elections.

  198. rebel with cause

    In case you are confused about how to tell a legitimate government:

    Lefties rioting in the streets against popularly elected government = illegitimate government.
    Conservatives shake their heads in disbelief as unpopular government reelected, then go back to work = government totally legitimate, have mandate to do as they please.

  199. .

    Roger
    #1237107, posted on March 24, 2014 at 8:36 pm
    Que? You’re an unpleasant piece of work, dot.

    LOL

    “I don’t understand what you meant but I understand it isn’t nice!” LOL…you are truly taking the piss if you understand the jibe but refuse to admit any flaw in your professed “reasoning”.

    Chump.

  200. Roger

    You have spent half a day here defending an election outcome that is morally indefensible, even by the leftist retards on Their ABC’s Insiders.

    Actually, Tom, I’ve been defending the legitimacy of a minority government in these circumstances, not the election outcome or even the prospective government. There is a difference, you know. I’m interested in law, not politics per se.

  201. Roger

    You give no evidence of reasoning , dot. Just opinion. You know what they say about opinions.

  202. Tom

    I’ve been defending the moral legitimacy of a minority government in these circumstances

  203. Cold-Hands

    I’m surprised SA Labor would even want another 4 years.

    Another four years of perks and entitlements while driving the state further into debt? There’s a reason “Whatever it takes” is the unofficial motto of the ALP.

    In the context of parliamentary matters, “legitimate” refers largely, if not solely, to legal constitutionality.

    Roger is being deliberately obtuse in failing to distinguish between “legally constituted” and “legitimate”. He’s gone all Lewis Carroll- ‘When I use a word… it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

  204. Roger

    Then we are talking past each other, Tom.
    I’ll grant your point on the morality, and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the first interest of courts of law isn’t the morality of a matter but its legality.

  205. .

    Roger
    #1237131, posted on March 24, 2014 at 8:42 pm
    You give no evidence of reasoning , dot. Just opinion. You know what they say about opinions.

    It was your “reasoning” that was mocked, and you got the joke, douchebag.

    I’ve been defending the legitimacy of a minority government in these circumstances… I’m interested in law, not politics per se.

    No one is saying the government is “illegal”. We are saying they have no moral claim to govern and the right thing to do is to call another election. Maybe you’re semi-literate or maybe you’re a fuckwit.

  206. JC

    Roger

    I’m still waiting for your answer. Please give me a numerical threshold where you would think a government is illegitimate because of electoral fraud or its equal- the SA gerrymander. Grow a set instead of a rack and give us the number.

  207. candy

    We are saying they have no moral claim to govern and the right thing to do is to call another election.

    In my opinion I think it would look like sour grapes, Dot. Almost all the nation is Liberal and Chris Pyne continuing to whinge will alienate people. Already it’s getting annoying …. I completely understand his disappointment and the general disappointment and frustration, but there it is, and it has to be accepted. I’m sure Tony Abbott has moved on with it.

  208. Roger

    dot, you really are tiring. Let me spell it out for you: legitimacy is legality as far as government is concerned!

  209. .

    Roger
    #1237182, posted on March 24, 2014 at 9:01 pm
    dot, you really are tiring. Let me spell it out for you: legitimacy is legality as far as government is concerned!

    No. It isn’t. The end.

  210. Roger

    JC

    Sigh! Over at the open forum, after Demosthenes presented some figures (remember, I asked for psephological input?), I agreed that 53% is technically more than enough to provide a warrant to form government. The thing, though, that you and others here are ignoring, is that that is a hypothetical situation. We don;t elect governments by plebiscite in Australia. You can’t get around the electoral system in which 2pp votes are granted value only at the electorate level. Actually, you may be able to, but only by bringing a case to the SA Supreme Court. Go for it. I’d love to see the result, as I’ve been saying here – it would settle the matter at law.

  211. .

    You can’t get around the electoral system in which 2pp votes are granted value only at the electorate level.

    The SAEC is meant to base apportionment on 2PP votes, so that winning 2PP means you win government.

    Your description of the electoral system is incorrect.

  212. Roger

    In theory, dot. In theory. In practice it seems to be beyond them. If I were an SA Liberal voter I’d be upset too (btw, you’re LDP, aren’t you?) but it doesn’t necessarily change the legal status of the prospective government. Not without a Supreme Court ruling to the contrary, that is.

  213. .

    it doesn’t necessarily change the legal status of the prospective government

    Which only you have argued. The government has no moral claim to continue and is hence illegitimate.

  214. Roger

    dot, you are not a true conservative (that’s evidently why you support LDP). If you were, you would realise that lex is rex, and for good reason as far as the body politic is concerned. I anathematise you, heretic!

  215. Monkey's Uncle

    We don;t elect governments by plebiscite in Australia. You can’t get around the electoral system in which 2pp votes are granted value only at the electorate level.

    Except that in South Australia the law requires the electoral commission to draw up electoral boundaries in such a way as to maximise the chances that the party that wins a majority of the 2PP vote also wins government. After the 2010 election result, where Labor won a comfortable majority despite the Liberals winning 51.6% of the 2PP vote, the electoral commission clearly should have redrawn the boundaries more substantially in the Liberals favour in order to be compliant with the law. Instead they only transferred one Labor seat to being notionally Liberal. Had they drawn up boundaries.

    I have personally always been skeptical of the SA law mandating fair electoral boundaries. Whenever you have a voting system that involves single member constituencies there is always going to be a possibility of one party winning the popular vote while the other wins more seats. That is life. But so long as the law is what it is, it ought to be applied fairly and consistently. The Liberals have been deprived of government due to the failure of the electoral commission to properly apply the law.

  216. Roger

    I agree Monkey’s Uncle…I agree!
    But so far the Libs have been all talk, which is cheap. Chris Pyne’s response today suggests to me he finished in the lower third of his law graduate cohort.
    The only way to advance the matter is to present it to the SC.

  217. Monkey's Uncle

    Roger, the Liberals should really have challenged the current electoral boundaries in court when the electoral commission handed them down. They probably decided not to because they thought there would be enough of a swing in their favour that they would win anyway, and that it would not be a good look taking the electoral commission to court or having to expend resources on legal action that could otherwise be saved for an election campaign.

  218. .

    Roger
    #1237255, posted on March 24, 2014 at 9:26 pm
    dot, you are not a true conservative

    I have never claimed so.

    If you were, you would realise that lex is rex

    No. Patriots disobey unjust laws.

    Monkey’s Uncle
    #1237418, posted on March 24, 2014 at 10:12 pm
    Roger, the Liberals should really have challenged the current electoral boundaries in court when the electoral commission handed them down.

    Correct.

  219. Joe Goodacre

    The two party preferred metric seems irrelevant when that is not how government is determined and there are more than those two parties as options on the ballot.

    If it was only Liberal or Labor on the ballot, maybe Liberals would win. However electorates that voted for independents are clearly saying that they prefer their independent’s judgement over the Liberals. We can hypothesise that they are wrong or foolhardy in doing this, however I’m not sure anything immoral is going on as Dot suggests.

    What in the following quote from Jay Weatherill appears unreasonable… “The electoral system here is based on getting a majority of seats and that of course influences the way the parties campaign… if the electoral system was about the majority two party preferred votes that would change how the parties campaign”. It seems Liberals didn’t appear to focus enough on marginal seats or didn’t campaign enough in areas with leading independents that there was a risk those electorates were really voting for a Labor government. Since no one forced people in SA to vote the way that they did, it seems like that they will get the government they have voted for – a combination of Labor and an independent.

  220. .

    I’m not sure anything immoral is going on as Dot suggests.

    Err, what it means is all they have a moral right to do is form a four year caretaker government, and listen to public opinion, otherwise being populist and reactive.

    To implement a far left wing agenda given their lack of a mandate, as provided by the poor decision making of the SAEC would be as righteous as relying on the divine right of kings to install a usurper as an autocratic monarch.

  221. .

    It seems Liberals didn’t appear to focus enough on marginal seats or didn’t campaign enough in areas with leading independents that there was a risk those electorates were really voting for a Labor government.

    We don’t have a republican form of government. 53% 2PP isn’t enough? The SA system is meant to follow 2PP very closely. There is a gerrymander. The end.

  222. twostix

    If it was only Liberal or Labor on the ballot, maybe Liberals would win. However electorates that voted for independents are clearly saying that they prefer their independent’s judgement over the Liberals.

    Yeah of course.

    Rural farmers want Labor to govern. Obviously.

  223. Pyrmonter

    The figures from Frome are here: overwhelmingly, Brock won because of support in traditional Labor stronghold Port Pirie, in former railway towns, and in a retirement centre (Port Broughton). It was, likely, the tree-changers what done it:

    http://www.ecsa.sa.gov.au/elections/2014-state-election-results-summary/house-of-assembly-district-results/pollingboothsummary/717

    By contrast, the Libs won 77% in the same booth federally

    http://results.aec.gov.au/17496/Website/HouseDivisionTcpByPollingPlace-17496-183.htm

  224. Joe Goodacre

    Dot, 80% 2PP wouldn’t change the situation.

    Liberal and Labor aren’t the only options on the ballot paper and the government can be formed through agreements with the other options on the ballot paper. What’s the point of measuring how an electorate feels about two parties when measured against each other, when that’s not their only choice when voting. You appear to be arguing that a 53% 2PP resulting in opposition means the result is immoral. My argument is that the 2PP measure excludes people the electorate actually voted for when all their options were available (shown by the fact independents won seats). The SA result highlights that the measure is irrelevant.

  225. Pyrmonter

    @ Joe G and others

    While the points about the irrelevance of 2pp have some merit, in SA they have resonance deriving from the successful (and continuing) reference to them in the context of electoral reform: Labor justified both “one man-one vote” electorates in the House of Assembly and universal franchise in the Legislative Council using a well-polished meme casting aspersions on the old malaportionment and the property franchise. The same argument recurs in SA more frequently than elsehwere regarding 1998 (when Beazley “won” the election on the basis that PHON voters followed their HTV and put the incumbent last – generally to the cost of the coalition).

    If you are comfortable with the idea that 2pp is irrelevant, would you care to explain why, for example, the Great Reform Act (it that did for Old Sarum, Dunny-on-the-Wold, and Flashman’s father) shouldn’t be repealed?

  226. Joe Goodacre

    I don’t understand the question Pyrmonter.

  227. Pyrmonter

    The point of the electoral system in any modern democracy is to produce a “fair” result. If you’re willing to dismiss 2pp in a compulsory preferential system, you might equally well (re-)introduce burgage, corporation or potwalloper franchises and University seats.

    Oh, and the Cat needs more references to Blackadder and the works of George McDonald Fraser

  228. Joe Goodacre

    Pyrmonter,

    I’m not there yet – please exlain the principle that would be consistent between dismissing 2PP in a compulsory preferential system and the reintroduction of burgage, corporation or potwalloper franchises and University seats.

    Both of those references are over my head!

  229. .

    Joe Goodacre
    #1238239, posted on March 25, 2014 at 1:17 pm
    Dot, 80% 2PP wouldn’t change the situation.

    Fuck off you lying cnut.

  230. .

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/sa-election-2014/calculator/?mode=overall&overall=-2.6&retiringmps=false

    According to the Green Ant, the LNP couldn’t win even with 54.2% 2PP vote.

    With 53.4% of the 2PP vote, they would have a one seat majority.

    Remember, the SAEC is meant to fix the seats so that 50%2PP + 1 vote would mean a one seat majority in Parliament.

    The fix is in.

  231. Joe Goodacre

    Dot, the more free speech we can give you the better.

  232. .

    Joe – you lied. Now explain how the ALP would win with 20% 2PP or less or admit you were full of shit and are running interference for the ALP.

    GO!!!

  233. Joe Goodacre

    My understanding is that the 2PP measures what’s happening in the overall electorate, not in each seat.

    So if you have the scenario where Liberals in a small number of seats win nearly all the votes and lose to independents in some of the other seats then you can have the situation where a high 2PP result doesn’t correlate well to the number of seats won. To get to 80% becomes a question of crunching the numbers.

    I have never said that an 80% 2PP Liberal result could be expected in SA with Labor winning – only that 2PP isn’t particularly useful as a measure when you have other voting options on the ballot.

  234. .

    I have never said that an 80% 2PP Liberal result could be expected in SA with Labor winning – only that 2PP isn’t particularly useful as a measure when you have other voting options on the ballot.

    What dishonest tripe.

    Joe Goodacre
    #1238239, posted on March 25, 2014 at 1:17 pm
    Dot, 80% 2PP wouldn’t change the situation.

    Busted.

  235. Joe Goodacre

    The situation I was referring to, and have been referring to was that 2PP is not a good measure when there are other options on the ballot. Would you like to point out why that’s wrong?

  236. .

    Joe Goodacre
    #1238655, posted on March 25, 2014 at 6:09 pm
    The situation I was referring to, and have been referring to was that 2PP is not a good measure when there are other options on the ballot. Would you like to point out why that’s wrong?

    Because the LNP win every seat in the SA Parliament on those odds. Even with proportional representation they would likely get an absolute majority.

  237. Joe Goodacre

    Dot,

    I didn’t ask whether SA would be won if Liberals had an 80% 2PP. You’ve answered someone’s question, but it wasn’t mine.

  238. Roger

    JC & Aynsley,

    No talk of a Supreme Court challenge.
    I’m sure the Libs have weighed the options and been told the score by “decent lawyers”.
    Remember, this is not about who should govern morally (on which point I’d agree with you: the Libs), but who is entitled to govern legally.
    I think I’m right. What do you say?

  239. Roger

    Sorry JC, not you but Senile Old Guy, I think.
    Waiting for response, SOG & AK.

  240. key ma

    A letter to The Premier of Tasmania
    [email protected]
    Re: Building your state’s health economic research & development by supporting a report of “Building a 21st Century Primary Health Care System”

    Dear Premier Lara giddings, 12, March 2014
    I believed you have not read my letter dated 28, February 2014 to you unfortunately, otherwise you will be very surprised how important my information to your re-elected as the Tasmania Premier if you read it.
    I am urging you that there is still time for you to read it to discover the power of invention and innovation alive, and to tell the Tasmania voters that a Labor party government will achieve a real change of a better health and economy for Tasmania people if re-elect.
    There are three important measures to the Tasmania state election as following:
    ● Innovative Primary Health Care model that is capable to overcome Tasmania social determinants of health.
    ● Innovative Health Olympic model that is capable to overcome the sluggish Tasmania economic, in particular in the care of measures in unemployment, income, and investment.
    ● Innovative Politic Olympic model to be set up to achieves a political openness Tasmania government in the wave of political failure to voters crisis in voice not be hear, pains not be solved.

Comments are closed.