Oz Politics Blog

What an interesting cauldron of issues: nuclear waste, drunken itinerants, electricity costs, waterslides and a BMX track, and more drunken itinerants. See Ken Parish for a local perspective on the election, or the poll bludger for an outsider’s view.

A bit of a jump in the betting market over the last 24 hours has seen the County Liberal’s odds drift to $3.70. It looks like the punters now give the CLP just a 25 per cent chance of winning. The following graphs show the current state of play.

Updated daily: you may need to hit the refresh button on your browser to get the latest graphs. Note: The betting market results for 14 June were taken in the evening, rather than in the morning (my practice for the other days).

Its time for a prediction: I think Labor will win between 15 and 17 of the 25 seats — an improvement on its current 13.

Update: News from Centrebet:

ELECTIONS
by Gerard Daffy June 9, 2005

The Northern Territory election is in full swing and with two weeks to go, Labor have cleared out as hot favourites. It has been on the back of heavy betting from other parts of Australia not the NT.

To date, close to $70,000 has been wagered on the NT election but over half has come from the Eastern seaboard. The largest bet so far, $20,000 came for Labor from a Queensland client which saw the 1.28 disappear. We had previously taken four separate bets of $5000 for Labor, and all of those had come from New South Wales. The interesting thing from a local point of view is that of the money wagered from within the Northern Territory, most of that, including bets of $4000 and $2000, has been for the CLP.

Last weekend’s ACNielsen poll, published in today’s Fairfax press, has the Coalition ahead in two-party preferred terms on 51 per cent (up two points from the May ACNielsen poll) to Labor’s 49 (down two points).

In terms of their primary vote, the Coalition was on 44 per cent (up one), Labor was on 38 (down one), the Greens on 9 (down 1), the Democrats on two (steady), independents on four (up one), One Nation on two (up one), and other on two (up one).

The last three polls from each of the major polling companies all have the Coalition in the lead.

Howard’s approval rating was 59 per cent, a rise of 6 points. Beazley was down 3 points to 46 per cent. Perhaps more significantly, Beazley’s disapproval rating jumped five points to to 41 per cent, while Howard’s dropped 5 points to 35 per cent. Beazley’s disapproval rating is now higher than Howard’s.

Mr Howard leads Mr Beazley as preferred prime minister by 55 per cent (up 3 points) to 35 per cent (down 3).

Quite a bit has been written about Beazley’s performance recently (for example, by Grattan, Milne, and Dodson).

While the papers have attributed Beazley’s slump to his post Budget performance, from my graphs, it looks like Labor has been slowly going backwards since mid April. In short Labor’s malaise appears to have set in earlier than most commentators realised. And at best, Labor’s post Budget performance is a symptom of that malaise, not is source.

ACNielsen also looked at the Schapelle Corby case. It found that 17 per cent of people polled believed Schapelle was wrongly convicted of smuggling 4.1kg of cannabis into Bali last year. 30 per cent thought she was “probably” innocent. Only 17 per cent thought she was probably or definitely guilty. 36 per cent could not make up their minds. Women, Labor voters and younger people were more likely to believe Corby innocent.

35 per cent of people thought the trial in Bali was fair or very fair compared with 51 per cent who thought it was unfair or very unfair. Fourteen per cent had no opinion or were neutral.

Just over half the respondents were satisfied with the federal government’s decision to offer Corby assistance. But 48 per cent of people were less likely to travel to Bali after the high-profile case.

On the evenings of 1 and 2 June, Morgan surveyed 645 people about Australia’s most talked about women.

Morgan found,

The majority of Australians (51%) believe that convicted drug trafficker, Schapelle Corby, is not guilty of attempting to smuggle 4.1kgs of Marijuana into Indonesia . However, 21% of Australians believe Schapelle Corby is guilty, whilst a larger number (28%) are undecided.

On the issue of whether Prime Minister John Howard should become involved and ask the Indonesian President to pardon Schapelle Corby, 37% of all Australians believe Mr Howard should not ask the President of Indonesia to pardon Schapelle Corby at all, 37% believe that Mr Howard should wait until after her appeal, 21% think Mr Howard should ask the President of Indonesia to pardon Schapelle Corby now, and 5% can’t say.

What was more interesting was the why of at all. Schapporters had four lines of argument, the logicality of taking marijuana to Bali, her body language, that corrupt baggage handlers could have done it, and procedural problems with fingerprinting and weighing.

“She had no reason to take drugs into Indonesia because she could get them there. It would make more sense to smuggle them out of Indonesia”, “She would be stupid to take drugs into a country where worth is less than in Australia”, “Who in their right mind would take marijuana into Bali ? You can buy it on the beach! It’s just ridiculous!” and “You don’t take a drug from Australia into a third world country when it is only worth about a third of the amount. It’s not logical!!”.

“You just have to see that young girl’s face, her body language, and the look on her face when the verdict was given”, “Just looking at the girl I think it is perfectly obvious that she is telling the truth. I don’t think she could keep up the lies constantly from what we have seen on television”, “Schapelle looked shocked when she was caught. I believe her version of the events” and “Just the way she reacted. She doesn’t look like a guilty person”.

“We need to consider the big picture — baggage handlers etc. There is quite a reasonable possibility that baggage handlers could have been involved”, “I think she is definitely a victim of drug trafficking. I have heard so many stories about paying certain customs officers to get certain things”, “Baggage handlers in Sydney have been caught in corrupt activities — maybe she’s been caught up in it?”, and “I don’t see why she would carry it in that manner — too obvious. There has been a lot of fiddling about by baggage handlers. It is questionable whether someone else planted it”.

“I think that the whole court case and the evidence were very badly organized”, “I don’t think there was enough evidence to prove it. I would like to have seen a fair trial”, “I think that there were not enough correct things done at the airport when she was arrested. Fingerprints were not taken, it was not videoed and they should have checked where the drugs were grown”, “There is enough doubt. She should be given the benefit of the doubt”, “Some of the evidence wasn’t tested properly. It is a miscarriage of justice” and “The boogie board bag should have been fingerprinted and trace through records so as to determine the weight of her bag on departure, compared to the weight on her arrival in Indonesia”.

While those who thought Schapelle guilty spoke of a media beat-up, concerns with her family connections, the strength of the prima facie evidence, respect for the Indonesian justice system, and the need to take better precautions when you travel.

“There’s more to the story than what’s in the media. It would be interesting to hear more facts that came out of the case. There has to be a reason she was found guilty”, “The Australian journalism system, newspapers and TV failed to report all the facts of the case, therefore the Australian public was not given all the proper facts. The papers and the TV are censoring what we see” and “The media say she’s not guilty. We’re only getting one side, we don’t know exactly what happened in that court room”

“I think she could be guilty by association. I don’t think she is the actual one who was transporting the marijuana. I think she is taking the rap for one of the family”, “Looking at her family history, her dad has been caught with drugs, and if you’re stupid enough to handle drugs you deserve to be caught”, “If she was convicted there must be some sort of evidence against her, so I guess I trust in the Indonesian judicial system” and “The evidence was fairly definite. The arguments against were highly speculative. Arguments against were at the minimum laughable and would not be supported in Australia “.

“You must obey the laws of the country you are visiting”, “I feel the girl is in an unfortunate position, but we cannot condone or denigrate another country’s legal system” and “I rely on each country’s judicial system and the way they operate ” you go there with that knowledge, so you have to be extra cautious with your luggage”.

So where do I sit? The more I think of this case the more inclined I am to think that Schapelle (or at least one of her travelling companions) was guilty on the balance of probabilities. While I obviously do not know for certain, the factors that swing it for me are as follows:

• The drugs were found in Schapelle’s boogie board bag.
• The return on investment for high quality, hydroponic bud marijuana in Bali appears to be about two-to-three times what it is in Australia.
• Schapelle appears to have made regular trips to Bali (though it is hard to identify how many and the duration of those trips).
• I have ignored Schapelle’s body language as I cannot tell the difference between the tears of innocent self-pity and the tears of guilty self-pity.
• While the source of the marijuana was not laboratory tested, the size of the buds suggests it was of Australian hydroponic origins
• While I cannot utterly dismiss an accident from a Sydney or Brisbane based rogue drug-smuggling baggage handler, I find it an implausible explanation. A little better than aliens from outer space did it, but not much. This is the evidence the AFP Commissioner described as flimsy. It should be noted that the recent baggage handlers allegations were focused on cocaine and not marijuana, and that bud marijuana is better suited to internal Australian distribution by road and rail. (Also, I would have though the net migration path of hydroponic dope was from Sydney to Brisbane, and not the other way around).
• And if we are going to say it was planted, it is also possible that the marijuana was placed in the bag by one of her travelling companions.
• Finally, I am a little surprised that the additional 4.1kg weight of the marijuana was not noticed when the boogie board bag was picked up, as the bag otherwise probably weighed under 2kg. However, I accept that her step-brother carried it from the baggage carousel to customs. Furthermore, travel fatigue, arrival excitement, and the stress of managing multiple bags though an airport could explain the anomaly.

I accept my conclusion is based on a lesser standard than guilty beyond reasonable doubt. And as I have stated previously, I think a penalty of 20 years is excessive.

An aspect of this case that has intrigued me has been the media packaging of a 27 year old women as a naive, starry eyed girl. The media has presented her as hapless and out of her depth. The facts are not so cute. Corby was a seasoned traveller. She was married to a Japanese surfer, and worked for a time in a bar in Tokyo. The media’s tendency to hagiography makes me wonder how many other facts have been airbrushed.

The lesson for me is to get my bags Schapelle wrapped (as it has become known) in plastic the next time I go overseas.

Labor must know it has a problem when a Morgan poll is predicting a Coalition win.

In late May, primary support for the L-NP rose 2% to 45%, 1.4% below the L-NP result at the October 2004 Federal election. Support for the ALP fell 2%, now at 39%. This is 1.4% above the ALP result at the Federal election.

If preferences of minor parties were allocated as they were at the 2004 Federal election (ALP — 60.5%, L-NP — 39.5%) the two-party preferred vote would be L-NP — 51.5% (up 2%), ALP — 48.5% (down 2%). Had an election been held in late May, the L-NP would have won with a reduced majority, the latest Morgan Poll finds.

Among the minor parties, support for the Greens was 7.5% (down 0.5%), Australian Democrats 1.5% (unchanged), Family First 1.5% (down 0.5%), One Nation 0.5% (unchanged) and Other Parties and Independent Candidates 5% (up 1%).

The spin from the pollster follows.

Primary support for the L-NP continues to rise since the Budget tax cuts. The L-NP is experiencing their highest level of support since February, whilst primary support for the ALP has continued to fall over the past two months. On a two-party preferred basis, the L-NP would win with a reduced majority, perhaps indicating a favourable public response towards the upcoming tax cuts.

Of note, both Morgan and Newspoll have tracked movement towards the Coalition since mid April. This is reflected in the aggregated poll results for May of more than 9500 respondents.

The usual range of graphs can be found here. You may need to hit the refresh button on your browser when you get there to see the latest graphs.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) released the latest current account statistics yesterday. The deficit for the March 2005 quarter is more than $15.6 billion (seasonally adjusted). Annually, it is running at around 7.2 per cent of GDP. Net foreign debt has risen to nearly $425 billion (more than half of Australia’s annual GDP of almost $800 billion).

A critical point of concern noted by the SMH was that

imports of capital goods fell by $409 million, but imports of consumption goods - everything from televisions to slippers - soared five per cent or $575 million.

Equally concerning is the observation that Australia’s current account deficit is the third worst in the world, behind Bulgaria and Hungary.

Is this a problem? A low current account deficit (say under 5 per cent of GDP) where the borrowings are largely from the private sector and invested in production rather than consumption, is not of concern. But as the current account deficit is now more than 7 per cent of GDP, and as a significant proportion of the funds get spent on consumption, there might be a problem. There certainly will be a problem if the current account deficit continues to grow. What is more difficult to determine is at what point would the problems begin to show — 8 per cent? 9 per cent ? Or 10 per cent?

What are the risks with a growing current account deficit? The immediate risk is a sharp devaluation of the Australian dollar. While this would benefit exporters, it would hurt businesses dependent on imports. It would also increase the price of fuel. In the medium term, a sustained period of slower economic growth (probably accompanied by rising unemployment) is likely. The worst case scenario is a recession (although to be fair, we are a long way from that at the moment).

According to the Australian another risk is a lowering of Australia’s credit rating.

Credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s said yesterday the deficit was the biggest risk to Australia’s AAA credit rating. The agency’s analyst, Sharad Jain, said Australia’s foreign debt was now 2 1/2 times the size of its total international earnings from exports and investments.

“This is pretty high for a AAA-rated country,” he said. “It is 50 to 60per cent more than any other country with a AAA credit rating.”

Australia regained its AAA rating only two years ago, after it had been lost in the mid-1980s following the blowout in the current account deficit that led former treasurer Paul Keating to warn that Australia risked becoming a banana republic.

All of which could spell political trouble for the Prime Minister. After all, the economic climate is one of the strongest predictors of electoral performance. It is early days yet and this scenario is largely hypothetical at the moment, but the Prime Minister may be facing troubled waters come the time of the next election.