Newspolls this year have consistently had the Greens vote fluctuating around the 5 per cent mark, and this has resulted in commentary in the Oz and some other Murdoch papers about a supposed decline in Greens support.

Allow me to present some evidence in support of an alternative hypothesis: that Newspoll, for whatever reason, is underestimating the Greens vote.

In the past seven months, State elections have been held in Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales, and Newspoll has polled voters’ intentions in each of those elections. We can therefore compare Newspoll’s estimate of the Greens vote in the three largest Australian states with the actual Greens vote.

Queensland: Newspoll (6-7 September 2006) estimate of Greens vote in 2006 State election: 4 per cent, after fluctuating between 2 and 4 per cent in Newspolls over the previous year. Actual Greens vote in State election: 7.99 per cent.

Victoria: Newspoll (8-9 November 2006) estimate of Greens vote in 2006 State election: 8 per cent, after fluctuating between 5 and 7 per cent during the previous year. Actual Greens vote in State election: 10.04 per cent in Lower House, 10.58 per cent in Upper House.

NSW: Newspoll (21-22 March 2007) estimate of Greens vote in 2007 State election: 6 per cent, having fluctuated between 6 and 7 per cent during the previous year. Actual Greens vote in State election: 8.9 per cent in Lower House, 9.12 per cent in Upper House.

The Newspoll results at the Newspoll site carry the warning that:

Any reproduction of this material must credit both NEWSPOLL and THE AUSTRALIAN

Accordingly I hereby credit Newspoll and The Australian with the consistently and significantly inaccurate estimates of the Greens vote in the three State elections referred to. I also credit Newspoll and The Australian with persisting in a polling methodology which seriously underestimated the Greens vote in the NSW State election after it had previously underestimated the Greens vote in the Victorian and Queensland elections. It is too soon to credit Newspoll and The Australian with underestimating the Greens Federal vote, but such a possibility must be considered likely in the light of the disparity between Newspoll estimates and actual election outcomes in the most recent elections in the three largest States. And in this light one would be either a very brave or a very ideologically driven soul who would rely on the Newspoll figures as solid evidence of “declining Greens support” at Federal level, especially when the Morgan and AC Nielsen polls have the Greens currently tracking at 9 per cent and 11 per cent respectively.

A good deal of confusion has entered the debate in terms of the temporal and spatial scale of the problem and possible solutions, and Australia’s specific national contribution to such solutions. On the one hand, ending Australian coal exports may have little effect on greenhouse emissions globally in the absence of action by our major customers to transform their economies on a carbon-constrained basis, as they will be able to source their coal from domestic sources or from other suppliers. On the other hand even the most optimistic proponents of clean coal technologies acknowledge that they are not likely to be making significant inroads into emissions from coal-fired power generation until at least 2020.

And there is the rub, at least as far as domestic greenhouse policy is concerned.

There is a growing consensus amongst scientists and governments that avoiding dangerous climate change requires constraining emissions to the extent necessary to prevent global average temperature increases of greater than 2 degrees Celsius, and preferably as far as possible below this level. This will require emission reductions of at least 50% of 1990 levels by 2050. To this end the European Union has adopted emission reduction targets of 20% by 2020 (and 30% if a similar commitment is coming from major trading partners) and at least 50% by 2050. The UK Labour government has announced that it will legislate for legally binding emissions reduction targets of 26-32% by 2020 and 60% by 2050.

For reasons which need not detain us here, the 2050 targets will almost certainly only be achievable if current secular trends of emissions growth are reversed and something like the 2020 targets achieved as a foundation for meeting the 2050 targets.

The major environmental NGOs in Australia support these targets and are calling for comparable targets to be adopted by Australian Federal and State governments. Environment Victoria calls for the Victorian Government to commit to a 20% emissions cut by 2020, whilst a coalition of peak environmental NGOs is asking that parties in the NSW State election commit to a 30% cut in emissions by 2020. The Australian Conservation Foundation supports a 20-30% emissions reduction target for Australia by 2020 and a 60-90% target for 2050.

So let us concede, for the sake of the argument:

* that ending Australia’s international coal exports will not be effective in bringing about emissions reductions in the absence of global action;
* that carbon capture and storage technologies such as geosequestration will prove both effective and cost-effective, albeit on the timescales envisaged by supporters such as the ALP and the Mining & Energy Division of the CFMEU (i.e. probably not before 2020).

We are then left with the question of what to do within Australia, and between now and 2020, and specifically whether emissions reduction targets of 20-30% of 1990 levels by 2020 can be achieved in the absence of a moratorium on new and expanded coal-fired power stations and a rapid expansion of the role of renewables in the energy mix (as demanded by the environmental NGOs), given facts such as:

* currently over 80% of Australia’s electricity is generated from coal;
* the Australian Greenhouse Office projects that by 2020 energy emissions will grow by 66% from 1990 levels;
* stationary energy production accounts for approximately half of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions;
* Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions are expected to grow to 22% above 1990 levels by 2021.

I am currently of the view that such emissions targets cannot be met without a moratorium on new or expanded coal-fired electricity generation and an expansion of the contribution of renewables to something like 25% of the total energy mix.

Needless to say, if such policies can be implemented successfully and achieve the required emissions reductions on an economically and socially sustainable basis by 2020, there will be implications for the respective future roles of coal and renewables in the total energy mix, here and in Australia, even if the optimists are right about “clean coal”.

NB: At present the NSW Labor government refuses to commit to the environmental NGOs’ call for a target of 30% reductions by 2020, whilst the Victorian Labor government’s greenhouse strategy accepts the need for a target of 50% reductions by 2050, but does not set a target for 2020.

.

Tim Dunlop notes an obvious problem with the deal: the public was kept in the dark, while The Oz observes that the practice of Police Ministers doing deals directly with police unions and cutting Police Commissioners out was condemned in the Fitzgerald Enquiry.

It’s obvious that deals like this aren’t great. An equally interesting question for me, however, is why Bracks feels such a need to keep Paul Mullett on side. Law and order may have receded as a political issue a little, but it seems state governments are like rabbits in the headlights when it comes to the threat of opposition from police unions.

There is a danger for Labor Leader Kevin Rudd that his gimmick of having what he is calling a climate change summit will end up being one of those things that seemed to be a good idea at the time.

To put it somewhat crudely, Rudd is at risk of being seen as a smart arse – a politician being too clever by half.

While John Howard is delivering an actual policy to deal with at least part of the country’s water problem through his meeting of state premiers to arrange a federal takeover of the Murray-Darling Basin, Mr Rudd will be engaging in a talk-fest. Actions will surely create a better political outcome than words.

The motivation for Rudd’s summit is understandable enough. He is trying to overcome the advantages that being able to actually do things gives to an incumbent government.

Yet by settling on the need for a discussion to determine a broader strategy than that of Howard, Rudd is being left open to attack on the grounds that it shows how hamstrung a future Federal Labor Government would by the need to appease the eight state and territory governments.

This move highlights two problems with Rudd’s strategy – the first being that his experience in Goss’ Cabinet Office makes him think like someone who is in government. But he’s not. The challenges for an opposition leader are quite different. Although Labor is well ahead in the polls, Rudd has no power, and nothing to offer except promises to enforce agreement. The responses from Premiers to issues like recycled water and Howard’s Murray-Darling bid have been inconsistent. The incentives for Premiers to play to their own electorates at a talkfest like this outweigh those to present a united front with the Federal opposition. There’s a clear risk that the summit could end up displaying disunity – which raises the second problem about which I’ve previously written – there’s almost infinite potential to wedge Rudd and the states.

It’s no doubt one of Rudd’s strengths that he is skilled in, and capable of, broad consultation and thrashing out a policy approach that has wide support among stakeholders. But again, this is a skill of governance, not opposition. In 2001, Howard was able to make some play with the line that Beazley avoided firm commitments and promised inquiries and commissions and reports. It’s a good political line, because voters expect clear and contrasting policy positions from Opposition leaders, not meetings and briefing papers.

The electoral cushions most of the State Labor governments have also overstate their real popularity. The Queensland election last year, and the upcoming NSW election, both display the dynamic of unpopular and barely trusted governments gaining re-election because of disunited and hopeless oppositions. Victorian Labor was in somewhat better shape, but a better campaign than Baillieu’s could have dented Bracks’ win. Voters are frustrated over water, as with other issues, because basic issues of infrastructure investment and service delivery by state governments are seen to have been neglected. The state governments are more likely to be seen as part of the problem rather than the solution. Rudd needs to articulate a strong policy on water. If the premiers don’t like it, all the better. Having a good long yarn about policy issues won’t win him the election. A credible strategy to fix it would go some distance to doing so.

But there was one big loser in the federal arena last night and that was Greens leader Senator Bob Brown, whose overblown rhetoric about the Greens stealing a clutch of seats came to little. The Greens’ vote went backwards yesterday – a major embarrassment for Brown, who put his heart and soul into the Greens campaign.

The real question now is just how influential will the Greens be in next year’s federal election?

They were a flop in 2004, they were a flop yesterday and all indications are that the Greens will flop again at the 2006 (sic) federal election.

Now that counting has concluded, the full extent of the Greens’ flop in Victoria is clear.

The Greens’ primary vote in the Lower House “went backward” from 9.73% in 2002 to 10.04% in 2006. In the Upper House it may or may not have actually “went backward” from 10.87% in 2002, because the VEC site is not currently displaying aggregate votes for the Upper House, but the big story is that the Greens have now won 3 out of 40 seats after the recount in Western Metropolitan, and have the balance of power in the Upper House.

As the Greens’ flop in 2004 involved increasing their primary vote by 40% and doubling their Senate representation, and as their flop in Victoria in 2006 entailed winning the balance of power, many Greens will no doubt be earnestly hoping that Jason Koutsoukis is right about next year’s Federal election.

But seriously, it is now a well-established psephological fact that the Greens do very well out of polling day absent votes. Primarily for this reason, the Greens’ vote in Federal and State elections improves as the count progresses in the weeks after polling day. The flip side of this is that the Greens’ vote on election night will invariably understate their eventual vote. As I wrote at the Poll Bludger:

The problem for the Greens is that most media commentary on how well or badly a given party may have done is based on the election night figures – as indeed are many of the media and popular myths about who did well or badly in the election, and why. By the time the results are finalised (some weeks later) the media has largely lost interest, and only professional political wonks take an interest in the election studies (such as the Australian Election/Referendum Studies) which come out some months later.

Thus, we have seen a pattern of media commentary about Green “flopsâ€? in recent Federal and State elections, based on election night figures, which was not subsequently corrected when final results showed that the Greens had done reasonably well. For example:

* The claims on the Monday after the 2004 Federal election that the Greens had fallen 250,000 votes short of Bob Browns prediction of “one million votesâ€?, which was not corrected when the Green vote subsequently rose to 920,000 in later counting.

* The claims about the Greens losing one and possibly two of their four seats in the most recent Tasmanian election based on election night figures, which provided the evidentiary basis for much gloating commentary in the Murdoch press which was not recanted when the Greens retained all four seats in the final count [...]

* One lazy hack in the Australian (I forget who) writing in an op-ed piece that the Greens had not increased their Senate representation in the 2004 election, when they had doubled it from 2 to 4.

How to overcome the effect of a depressed election night result on media myth-making about Green “flops” is a non-trivial issue for the Greens’ media maestro Ben Oquist and Greens spokespersons in general to think about.

One group of people who will be like a cat with the cream over the Upper House result (although they won’t be saying so publicly) are the ALP Left in Victoria. Not only did they hold all their inner-Melbourne seats which were under siege by the Greens, they now have an Upper House in which the numbers will enable them to get up more of their agenda than they would be able to if Labor either had a majority in its own right, or could secure a majority by negotiating with a religious right microparty. The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union will no doubt be pleased to see its former officials Gayle Tierney (an old mate of mine) and Sue Pennicuik (subject of much flattering comment in my Ph.D. thesis over her work as the union’s Environment Officer) win seats for Labor and the Greens respectively.

The bottom line is that the will of the people has (eventually and fortuitously) prevailed. A majority of Victorians voted for parties of the democratic left (i.e. Labor and the Greens) in the Upper House, but a majority did not vote for any one party of the democratic left. The result (a combined democratic left majority of seats of Labor and Greens, but not a majority of seats for either one of these parties) is what the people wanted – as well as pleasing me greatly. Let’s now hope the rationalists in both the Labor Left and the Greens will be able to come to the fore and cooperate in bringing democratic reform, social justice, sustainability, women’s control of their bodies, equal rights for same-sex couples and lots of other good things to the people of Victoria.

Elsewhere: At Urban Creature, Aaron looks at what a proportionate result would have been. Andrew Norton looks on the brighter side. And Andrew Bartlett has an interesting take on the resurrection of the DLP.

<img src="http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/9/93/300px-Ac.mannix.jpg"

But when has a leaders’ debate been decisive, or even highly significant, in an Australian election campaign? I cast my mind back to 1993, but my memory failed me there. Hewson’s famous trip-up on the mechanics of the GST occurred in an interview with Mike Willeesee, not the debates. But I’m sure there’s others who have longer memories than I.

Crossposted at The View From Benambra.

I’m not suggesting that people should exceed the speed limit, far from it,” Mr Baillieu said. “In reality, the tolerance at the moment in 60, 70 and 80km/h zones is even higher than that. We’re making it simple so people can understand. “People don’t want to speed, they simply want a system that is fair and they can understand.”

But of course that’s exactly what he’s suggesting – what’s so difficult to understand about a speed limit?

Meanwhile in the Northern Territory, which currently has open speed limits, Clare Martin gets it, and sees a logic that appears to have escaped the Victorian Liberal opposition leader.

Open speed limits will be axed in an attempt to curb the Northern Territory’s devastating road toll. Demerit points, increased fines and a gradual roll-out of red light cameras will also be introduced. “We’ve taken the tough decisions needed to reduce the number of people killed,” Chief Minister Clare Martin said.

Yep, speed kills, so why is Ted Baillieu encouraging an interpretation of the road rules that may see more Victorians die on the roads?

Looking back on the whole episode, I suspect whomever leaked the original story to The Age is feeling rather pleased with this outcome…

UPDATE: Rex has his say.