Tasmanian Election Final results (progressively updated)

FINAL UPDATE.
Full list of candidates and the order in which they were elected.

Bass - Ferguson (LIB), M O'Byrne (ALP), Gutewin (LIB), Booth (GRN). Wightman (ALP)

Braddon - Green (ALP), Rockliff (LIB), Best (ALP), Brooks (LIB), O'Halloran (GRN)

Denison - O'Connor (GRN), Bartlett (ALP), Groom (LIB), Bacon (ALP), Archer (LIB)

Franklin - Hodgman (LIB), McKim (GRN), Giddings (ALP), D O'Byrne (ALP), Petrusma (LIB)

Lyons - Morris (GRN), Hidding (LIB), Shelton (LIB), Polley (ALP), White (ALP)

2010 Mission Australia Survey for Young Australians

Something a little different today. I've been emailed and asked to share the link to the 2010 Mission Australia survey for Young Australians. This survey is for 11-24 year olds. Mission Australia is hoping to get as many respondents as possible so the survey has an impact. Click here to take the survey.

March 29th Newspoll - 56-44

The latest Newspoll (which for some reason is not on The Australian yet) has the ALP leading 56-44 which is a change of +4% to Labor since the last Newspoll. The primary vote is ALP 43% (+4%), Libs 35% (-2%), Nats 3% (-1%) (Coalition total 38% (-3%)) and Greens 12%  (+1%).
Rudd's satisfaction is up 3 to 51% with his dis-satisfaction down 2 to 39% with a net satisfaction rating of +12. Abbot's numbers 44 (down 3), 43 (up 5) and +1 (down 8).
Labor has re-taken the lead on the question of 'Better party to handle the economy" leading 44-39. Last time  the Coalition led 45-40. Labor has increased their lead on "Better party to handle health and Medicare from 16 to 18.

(A 56-44 result on election day would see Labor win 101 seats if the swing is uniform but they never are)

SA Legislative Council update.

The ABC calculator has been updated and now has 92.64% of the votes counted. It is still predicting that Dignity For Disability will win the 11th spot. However, Antony Green has warned that it counts all below the line votes as formal whereas the SAEC is now starting to decide which are informal. Antony says between a 3rd and 1/2 of all below the line votes will be declared informal and this will lower the minor party vote. No other minor party can get ahead of D4D but if the vote is lowered enough due to votes being declared informal they may fall short and elect either another Labor or Liberal candidate.

SA and Tas elections: Still counting.

UPDATE: 9:40pm Thursday - Fox (ALP) has taken the lead in Bright. She has gone from trailing Kourtesis (LIB) by 6 to leading by 144


UPDATE: 3:30pm Wednesday - Isobel Redmond has conceded defeat.


UPDATE: 5pm Tuesday - The latest Bright update sees Maria Kourtesis (LIB) leading Chloe Fox (ALP) by just 6 votes on the 2PP vote.

UPDATE: 5:05pm - Mount Gambier - Don Pegler (IND) ahead of Steve Perryman (LIB) by 724 votes on 2PP. Just waiting for postals there.

Tasmania looks like going 10-10-5 (although iElect thinks it could go 11 ALP, 8 LIB, 5 GRN and 1 IND (Andrew Wilkie)

In SA, the ALP has held on despite a pretty swing to the Liberal Party as the swing was big in safe ALP and LIB seats but quite small in the marginals. The final make up in SA looks like 25 ALP, 18 LIB and 4 IND. The Upper House in SA looks as though it will be 4 ALP, 4 LIB, 1 GRN, 1 FF and 1 Dignity for Disability.


As I said, counting is still taking place and these results may change. The most likely change would be the last spot in SA Upper House as the ABC computer counts differently to the SAEC and D4D may not be ahead in certain parts of the count using the SAEC method.

Will update when I have more news.

South Australia and Tasmania elections: Live results

Interim results will be posted on my twitter feed. Full results will be posted on this blog tomorrow or Monday

SA and TAS elections: Live from the battle ground.

Tweets, pics, news etc from people at the scene.

2:15pm - ABC getting the tally room ready.

11:55am - Sarah Hanson-Young helping the Greens in Waite. (SA)












11:50am - Not much chatter happening at the moment but it is early days.

SA and TAS predictions

During my seat by seat preview of the Tasmanian election I ended up predicting 10 ALP 10 LIB and 5 GRN I will stick with that because I don't like changing predictions. in SA my prediction is that the ALP will just hold on but it seems like it's going to be very, very close.


Results will be posted here and tweeted when they are available.

Conroy's attack on Electronic Frontiers Australia.

During Senate Question Time yesterday (15th March, 2010) Senator Conroy used a question about Australia being placed on the Reporters Without Borders watch list. He used this question to launch an attack on Electronic Frontiers Australia. I mentioned this on Twitter and was asked exactly what he said and if there was a video available. I've decided to put the transcript here. (The quote doesn't seem that bad when it's just words on a screen but believe me when I say he shouty and all riled up)

Sue Boyce (LIB - QLD)

My question is to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy. I refer to the decision by Reporters Without Borders to put Australia number one on a list of countries ‘under surveillance’ in its Internet Enemiesreport because ‘the government wants to set up a filtering system never before seen in a democracy’. Is the minister concerned that his mandatory internet censorship plan has put Australia alongside countries like Russia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Belarus, Thailand and Turkey on the ‘under surveillance’ list in the eyes of the international community?

Stephen Conroy (ALP - VIC)

I thank Senator Boyce for that question. Unfortunately, Reporters Without Borders have been seriously misled, much like many people in this chamber, about what the government is actually proposing. It is wrong in the facts about what the government is proposing and it is wrong in terms of its comparison with other countries. Let me be very clear so that this chamber understands exactly what this government is proposing. On 15 December, we announced new measures to enhance the existing cybersafety policy. What we have indicated we will block is content that has been refused classification—material that is not currently available in a newsagent, in a book store, on a DVD, at the movies or on your television. That is the only material that is proposed to be blocked.

What Reporters Without Borders are continually being told is that that material that is proposed to be blocked is unwanted content or inappropriate content. That is not the policy that we are taking forward and that we have announced. What we have announced is perfectly clear. Anyone in this chamber or anyone who talks to Reporters Without Borders who tries to suggest that anything other than material included in the RC classification is subject to the filter is misleading all Australians. Let me be very clear: the material under the RC classification is material like child pornography, pro-rape websites and pro-bestiality websites—material of that nature. You cannot buy it on DVD and you cannot buy it a book store. (Time expired)

Boyce

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. We seem to have a Johnny-onestep situation here, where the Senate and Reporters Without Borders do not know what is going on. No-one in the community except the minister does. Isn’t Reporters Without Borders right when it states, ‘Even though a true national debate on the subject is needed, Senator Conroy has made such a discussion very problematic by branding his critics as child pornography advocates’?

Conroy

Once again, the material that has been supplied to Reporters Without Borders comes from Electronic Frontiers Australia, who have been challenged publicly on a number of occasions to produce a quote where I have ever said that. After six months, they have been unwilling to provide one quote. And I challenge you to produce a quote where I have suggested that because someone has a disagreement on this issue that they are a paedophile or a supporter of paedophiles. I challenge each and every one of you to come up with such a quote, because it does not exist. Electronic Frontiers Australia have run one of the most disgraceful misinformation campaigns and have misled Australians.

But if you want further evidence of why this is not getting debated in the mainstream, let me take you to the Hungry Beast ABC show, a show that advocates against our policy. It commissioned a survey of 1,000 Australians by a reputable company. What did it find? Eighty per cent of Australians support the government’s policy. (Time expired)

Boyce

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. In the circumstances, I doubt the minister can assist, given that everyone except him appears to be misled. But is the minister aware that Reporters Without Borders describe his proposal as ‘a draconian filtering system’? Is this the reason that many of his Labor colleagues, including Senator Kate Lundy, remain deeply opposed to it?

Conroy

Let me clarify yet again: refused classification is material that each and every one in this chamber opposes being available in books, on TV, in cinemas and on DVD. But apparently this new distribution platform, otherwise known as the internet, should be something sacred. It should not have to play by the rules of Australia. I have met with representatives of international companies who say, ‘We think your refused classification system is wrong.’ It is very kind of those companies to come to Australia and tell us that we are not in charge of our classification system. We have put out a paper and invited anyone who is concerned to suggest ways that we can ensure that the material on the list stays confined to that in the refused classification category. If you have a genuine concern about this issue, libertarians, you should be participating in this process. (Time expired)

Want a free Oz Lotto Ticket? Vote for Tim Parish.

It's true. Tim Parish is trying to bribe his way into office. Below are some screenshots from Tim's website in which he says the following

GIVE ME YOUR No. 1 VOTE & I WILL WORK FOR YOU

I understand that getting elected as an independent maybe as difficult as winning the lottery. In recognition of this, if elected, I will give every registered voter in the electorate of Bass one (1) Super 7 Oz Lotto ticket irrespective of whether they voted for me.

Now, Tim may think he can flout the rules by saying that everyone gets a ticket whether they vote for him or not but I'm almost certain this is still classed as "bribing" or "buying votes". any lawyer or Electoral Officer/Commissioner want to correct me? Here are the "terms & conditions" (I've made the text bigger)on Tim's site and below are the screen shots.

(More on this here)

UPDATE: Tasmania's Electoral Commissioner has said this is lawful. I'll repeat that, he said it IS lawful

Terms and Conditions of Election Coupon

1. For the purposes of these Terms and Conditions the following words have the following meanings: “Coupon” means this election brochure distributed by Parish “Parish” means Timothy Noel Parish of 75 Low Head Road, George Town “Eligible Person” means a person who is recorded on the electoral roll as being resident Within the electorate of Bass in Tasmania and has not already redeemed a Coupon; and “Ticket” means one (1) mid week Super 7 Lotto ticket to the value of $1.10.2. An Eligible Person may redeem the Coupon in exchange for a Ticket, PROVIDED THAT: (a) Parish is duly elected in the electorate of Bass as a member of the House of Assembly of Parliament in the Tasmanian State Election to be held on 20 March 2010; (b) The limitation period for disputing the election of Parish pursuant to the Electoral Act 2004 (“Act”) has expired. (c) There is no application before any Court, Tribunal or like forum disputing the Election of Parish. 3. An Eligible Person may only redeem this Coupon by: (a) Attending at the locations, dates and times to be advertised in the Examiner Newspaper on the Wednesday following the date on which all of the events specified in clause 2 have been satisfied. (b) presenting this Coupon together with photo identification of themselves to Parish; 4. Notwithstanding any part of these Terms and Conditions, Parish may refuse to redeem the Coupon for a Ticket in the event that, in his opinion: (a) The Coupon is not genuine; or(b) The person seeking to redeem this Coupon is not an Eligible Person. 5. This Coupon is valid for three (3) months following the date on which all of the events specified in clause 2 have been satisfied. 6. An Eligible Person cannot redeem this Coupon for a Ticket other than in accordance with these Terms and Conditions.