One of these two men will finish the week, and possibly even the year, as Australian PM (Getty Images)
One of these two men will finish the week, and possibly even the year, as Australian PM (Getty Images)

PoliticsMay 17, 2019

Will it be ScoMo or Shorten? What to watch for in the Aussie election

Staff Writer
One of these two men will finish the week, and possibly even the year, as Australian PM (Getty Images)
One of these two men will finish the week, and possibly even the year, as Australian PM (Getty Images)

Our old mates the Australians are going to the polls on Saturday. What should we watch out for over here? Alex Braae has a cheat sheet for all the Trans-Tasman political nerds out there. 

What’s all this then? 

New Zealanders, all let us rejoice, because one of the weirdest democracies in the world is about to go to the polls, and we have a front row seat. I’m talking of course about our convict cousins in Australia, who will be electing a whole new House of Representatives and half a Senate on Saturday. And they might even end the weekend with a new prime minister too.

A new prime minister? What about the old prime minister, whose name is…. uh…. is it that guy who 

His name is Scott Morrison, often shorthanded down to ScoMo for some reason. He got the job all the way back in August last year, after coming up on top of one of the bloodiest rounds of intra-party fighting in years. Basically, it went like this: The leader of the Liberal Party and thus PM was a multi-millionaire John Key enthusiast called Malcolm Turnbull. Then, when he was no longer able to control the swivel-eyed fringe of his party, they dumped him to clear the way for Peter Dutton, the ultra-aggressive former immigration minister and current home affairs minister. But Dutton couldn’t get the numbers, and neither could the probably actually competent Julie Bishop, so somehow it all fell in Scott Morrison’s lap. It’s not going very well for Peter Dutton generally, who faces losing his absolutely tiny majority in the seat of Dickson.

How unfortunate for him. How has ScoMo been getting on? 

Beautifully. His run as prime minister has been characterised by utterly bizarre gaffes, and low polling. Like, the gaffes are really, truly strange. His party released a picture of him with his family where he had new shoes photoshopped onto two left feet. He did a Borat impression in parliament. His party tweeted a video of Liberal MPs voting, set to a song which includes a section of Fatman Scoop repeatedly shouting “Who fuckin’ tonight?” He engaged in some surrealist performance art with journalists, over why he was flying around the country on a bus tour. Just recently, he approached an Asian Australian voter, greeted them with a ‘ni hao’, and the voter replied, “I’m Korean.” For those who follow politics just to see thirsty men embarrass themselves, he’s been a real gift.

As for the polling, the Liberal/National coalition that governs Australia has been behind in pretty much every two-party poll against the Labor opposition throughout his tenure. You might recall, falling behind Labor in repeated polls was why the Liberals got rid of the last guy too. Among the minor parties, the Greens are looking at around a 10% share, and One Nation around 5%, under two variations of a single transferable vote system. That could get either the few seats needed to chip a coalition partner over the line.

Okay, what about the other lot?

Labor (yes, they spell it wrong) are led by Bill Shorten, who has somehow held a party leadership for a full cycle. Before becoming the Labor leader in 2013, he held a succession of union roles, ministerial portfolios, and leadership preferences. Once upon a time, the party was just as riven with infighting as the Liberals, but somehow Shorten managed to keep picking which way the wind was blowing, and adjusting accordingly. Most recently, he received a popularity boost after reacting furiously to a right-wing paper running a weird smear against his dead mother. If Labor wins by a narrow margin, as is widely predicted, Shorten will probably still be PM at the end of the year.

Is that it?

Oh no, Australia has plenty of side-characters who could be worth watching on election night. There’s former Newstalk ZB correspondent Derryn Hinch, a guy who has been convicted of contempt of court multiple times and is currently a senator. There’s Bob Katter, a representative from Queensland who was famously muted in his support of gay marriage, because crocodiles exist, or something. There’s Fraser Anning, pretty much the closest you can come to being a Nazi without literally being a Nazi, who recently achieved fame as the target of Egg Boy’s righteous fury. There’s Pauline Hanson, who was on the populist bigotry train well before others took it mainstream.

Are they all campaigning on a platform of racism again?

As always, many of the candidates and parties are. But in a wider sense, not so much. The racism in this election campaign has been more muted. Sydney Uni professor Mary Crock told RNZ that it might actually be that the Christchurch attacks have led to the wildly xenophobic rhetoric being toned down. Politicians are much less keen to dog-whistle about immigration and “stopping the boats” than they have been in previous elections.

So what are they campaigning on then? 

Strangely for Australia, climate change and the environment has emerged as a major issue for many voters. Of course, parts of the country are in the grip of the worst droughts in living memory, the boiling hot bits of the country are getting even hotter, there are crazy floods, wildfires, big cyclones, the Great Barrier Reef is dying, and all the rest of it. But still, it’s unusual for Australia to actually notice that the land is trying to kill them – they’re just so used to it.

ScoMo himself recently found himself in a spot of bother for telling kids on a climate strike to get back to school. And another climate change denying former PM, Tony Abbott, is facing defeat in his previously safe seat of Waringah. He might lose to a former Olympic skier called Zali Steggall, who is running as an independent largely on environmental issues.

Must be good for the Greens to have climate change as a big issue.

More Reading

    Let’s not go crazy here. The Greens are popular in the ultra-liberal pockets of Australia’s major cities, but haven’t broken through in many other places. Their nationwide polling has barely moved in years, but they’re in no danger of being knocked off.

    It sounds like a great weekend is coming up for politics nerds.

    It really is, and the best part about it? Voting in Australia is compulsory, so absolutely everyone can be part of it. Oh, except New Zealanders living in Australia – among the rights that our folk get stripped of over there is the right to vote.

    Keep going!
    smith-mallard

    PoliticsMay 17, 2019

    Trevor Mallard and Nick Smith are at it again. But this time is the speaker biased?

    Guest writer
    smith-mallard

    As speaker, Trevor Mallard took the exception of ‘naming’ the National MP Nick Smith. It’s just the latest salvo exchanged by the veteran pair. The more important question, however, is whether the accusations of bias hold up

    On Wednesday last week Judith Collins made good on her word and produced a delicious looking plate of blueberry slice at the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Believe it or not this wasn’t the most exciting event of the day. For the first time in over a decade, a member of parliament was “named” – a procedure reserved for the most serious parliamentary misconduct.

    The significance of Trevor Mallard, the speaker of the House, naming Nick Smith goes beyond the historical rarity and personal impact of Smith’s 24-hour suspension from parliament. It goes to the heart of allegations of bias on the part of the speaker and accompanying frustration from the National Party.

    Parliament’s rulebook, the Standing Orders, declares that, “The speaker may name any member whose conduct is grossly disorderly.” If the speaker chooses to do so, they must then call on parliament to decide whether that member be suspended. If named again in the same parliamentary term that member will be suspended for seven days. A third naming would result in a 28 day suspension (something New Zealand has never seen before).

    The last time a member was named in parliament was 2006. The member involved? Nick Smith, who received his second naming from the assistant speaker, Ann Hartley. Smith now holds the record (he’s been named three times) breaking a decade-long tie with Winston Peters.

    To say Mallard and Smith don’t get on is an understatement. It’s easy to see why. Over the past quarter century, both have developed a reputation for being disruptive. Between 2008 and 2015 Mallard was ejected from Parliament 10 times, nearly a third of all ejections during that time. Smith also has a reputation for trouble. In 2015 Smith was ejected from the chamber after disputing a ruling by then the assistant speaker – you guessed it – Trevor Mallard. Upon being ejected he told Mallard he was “unfit to ever be speaker”, and left. Mallard ordered him back to his seat to have him withdraw and apologise but Smith had already left. Parliament was suspended while the sergeant-at-arms tracked Smith down and brought him back.

    With that backstory in mind, the events of last week take on a whole new meaning.

    Smith had just finished questioning the police minister, Stuart Nash, about a government document discussing roadside drug testing, when he sought leave to introduce his members bill addressing the matter. Mallard, who had already cautioned Smith on his behaviour, denied leave. While it is almost certain the government would have objected to the introduction of the bill, it is highly unusual for the speaker to deny leave. Smith then interrupted the speaker while he was on his feet and was subsequently ejected from the chamber. As he left, Smith accused Mallard of being “soft on drugs like the government.” Smith was then ordered to resume his seat and was named. Whether or not Smith’s actions constituted naming is a matter some debate, but the answer is almost certainly, yes. Had Smith made such a comment to any MP in the debating chamber he would have been required to apologize for unparliamentary behaviour. Given that he directed it at the Speaker, subsequent to his ejection for disorderly behaviour, it was a near certainty that he would be named.

    Of course there have been many instances in the past 10 years where a speaker could have named an MP for grossly disorderly behaviour but didn’t. The best example is in 2009 when Lockwood Smith ejected Trevor Mallard after judging he had called then prime minister John Key a liar. As he was leaving the house Mallard shouted at the Speaker calling his ruling “outrageous” and that it was “the worst decision” he had ever made. Smith subsequently said he could have named Mallard for such behaviour but resisted.

    With that in mind, it’s worth addressing the increasingly serious accusations that Mallard is biased and unfit to hold office. These allegations go back to 2018 when the shadow leader of the House, Gerry Brownlee, wrote a letter to the speaker claiming opposition confidence in him had been “severely shaken” as a result of his perceived bias. This came after a heated argument between National’s deputy leader, Paula Bennett, and Mallard, following which Bennett was ejected from the chamber. A few weeks later Simon Bridges and Gerry Brownlee were also ejected for suggesting Mallard was protecting the prime minister during Question Time leading to a National Party walk out. The events of Wednesday only served to further fuel allegations of bias with Audrey Young, political editor of New Zealand Herald tweeting that, “Mallard’s bias is a problem.” While these allegations are certainly serious, claims of bias by the speaker have been around as long as parliament has existed. Speakers David Carter and Margaret Wilson faced similar accusations from opposition during their tenure. In 2006 National Party leader Don Brash even tabled a motion of no confidence in Speaker Wilson.

    It is hard to expect speakers be free of all subconscious bias, given their strong histories of party politics. But to suggest overt bias is something else.

    The allegations faced by successive speakers are more indicative of an imperfect system than they are of any actual bias. While the speaker must recuse themselves from all party business, they remain a member of that party and often rejoin it in parliament following their tenure in the chair. David Carter is a good example. Following nearly five years as speaker, Carter remains in parliament as a National Party member and has taken on a partisan role again.

    This can be contrast with the system in the United Kingdom, where, once elected, the speaker must renounce all party affiliation both during their tenure and afterwards. In the UK, the speaker still must be elected at the start of each parliamentary term. The current speaker, John Bercow (a former member of the Conservative Party), has been elected unopposed three times in a row, testament to his bipartisanship. Indeed he is so popular with the Labour opposition that they played a large role in saving him from an attempt by a number of Conservative MPs trying to oust him. This is an approach New Zealand might consider emulating more closely.

    Nick Smith brought the decorum of the house into disrepute last Wednesday and was rightly reprimanded. While his history with Nick Smith has no doubt lead to some intolerance, it doesn’t amount to bias. In any event, such a parliamentary debacle is rare indeed. This is just the 10th time an MP has been named in 165 years. We more likely to see Smith and Mallard sharing late night drink at the Backbencher Pub than to see another naming soon.

     

    Politics