Tuesday, 13 August 2013


I had to e-mail Bob Katter's office three times to get an answer to my query and even then, it did not answer where Bob Katter intended for his personal preferences to go.

He should remember that when he was first elected to the Federal parliament in 1989, he was only elected after the EIGHTH count and he beat the Labor candidate through the preferences of a Liberal candidate. (from Wikipedia on Robert Katter). 

I find it rather annoying of him not to be upfront this time because if he does not say, that means he will have candidates who support various things that go against the voter's wishes. 

If only he would be honest for once. In his answer to me today, he denigrated LNP in most everything and then went on to say he would not be supporting either of the main parties!!!!!  
Because of his reply to me, I felt that this following story of yesterday's date should be spread around so people have some idea of what could be going on.


What does a Katter/Rudd preference deal mean for Australia?

Posted by: Bernard Gaynor 12th August, 2013

Forget all the analysis you have read about the election being decided in Western Sydney.

The big play is on in Queensland and it is happening this week.

A Katter/Rudd preference deal will be a game changer. And the mail I’ve received from sources across the political spectrum is that it’s on.

This is the scenario: Labor will send their senate preferences to Katter before the Greens. This will almost certainly ensure that James Blundell, Katter’s pro-gay marriage Queensland senate candidate, takes a seat in the red chamber.

In return, Katter will direct preferences to Labor in all lower house seats.

It’s a no-brainer for Kevin Rudd. The Greens might get a little miffed, but they are still going to preference Labor anyway – they’ve nowhere else to go.

Securing Katter’s vote will be a huge boost for a Prime Minister desperate to offset losses in other states. It could deliver Rudd seats in Queensland that were never in play before. In short, with opinion polls once more turning against Labor, the only way Kevin from Queensland will remain in power is if he secures this deal.

It’s also an attractive option for Bob Katter but it does contain risks for him. While almost guaranteeing a foothold in the senate, a deal could also alienate his conservative base and upset candidates who overwhelmingly want to see the back of Rudd.

But as parties must lodge candidate nominations tomorrow and senate preferences are not finalised until Saturday, jumpy Katter candidates will be locked in before they have a chance to protest.

So, what exactly would a deal with Katter mean for Rudd’s chances and the outcome for Australia on September 7?

A lot, is the answer.

Katter’s impact at the Queensland Election last year is not well understood and has been largely underestimated.

The fact is that Katter took votes from both sides of politics. But because it was not a ‘normal’ election and there was such a massive swing against Labor, Katter’s ability to play ‘Kingmaker’ has not been recognised.

It did not help him either that Queensland has optional preferential voting because it reduced his influence to decide the outcome.

Come September 7, these two factors will be gone. The swing against Labor will not be as strong and Katter’s preferences won’t exhaust – they will decide outcomes in key seats.

A lot of key seats.

In fact, if Katter preferences Rudd over Abbott, many safe LNP seats will come into play. That’s because the LNP’s primary vote actually went backwards in one in five seats at the Queensland Election. All of them were in regional areas, where traditional LNP voters turned to Katter and his big hat.

For instance, Herbert is a safe LNP seat centred over Townsville – Katter country.

At the Queensland Election, Katter received 27 per cent at the booths in this electorate. Many of those voters were previously LNP supporters but under a deal with Rudd, Katter would direct them to preference Labor.

It’s enough to change the outcome.

The same goes for Leichhardt, the electorate covering Far North Queensland. Katter picked up just over 19 per cent there. If his vote holds up and his how-to-vote cards put Labor above the LNP, Leichardt could fall too.

It’s the same story in other seats. In Dawson, Katter scored 22 per cent. It could also be an unexpected gain for Rudd.

And it would provide a huge boost to Labor’s chances in seats it needs to hold. Katter picked up 16 per cent in Blair and 17 per cent in Capricornia. Under a deal, these seats would stay in Labor hands.

Even in the seats closer to the capital, Katter would still have a say. In Forde, where Peter Beattie is now running, Katter picked up 10 per cent. If this goes to Labor, it is a sure gain for the Rudd campaign.

The mere possibility of this deal would send shivers through the Abbott camp.

It would mean that resources and time would need to be diverted from key battleground seats in other states to save electorates previously pencilled in as certain LNP victories.

That would give Rudd a chance to save a little more of the furniture across Australia. Especially if Katter’s vote went Labor’s way in other states too. Even though Katter’s vote outside Queensland is likely to be very low, it still has the potential to pull a per cent away from the Coalition’s primary vote and then direct a chunk of it to Labor via preferences. It could be crucial.

That is why this deal will make or break the election. If it’s on, Rudd still has a chance. If it’s not, it’s goodbye Kevin.

However, there remain two big uncertainties.

Firstly, despite Katter’s close connection and friendship with Rudd, nothing has been confirmed publicly.

Secondly, it’s by no means certain that Katter’s vote at the Queensland election will hold strong, or that voters will follow his how-to-vote cards.

The first question will be partially answered this Saturday. If Labor’s senate group voting ticket in Queensland puts Katter before the Greens, it’s a pretty sure sign Katter’s how-to-vote cards on election day will favour Rudd.

The second question won’t be answered until ballots are cast and counting starts.


  1. Today in passing I saw the front page of the Courier Mail on the news stand. It had a full page photo of Bob Katter with the headline of, Bob's Your Uncle. The sub heading was, Both parties wooing Bob Katter for preferences.

    I didn't bother to pick the paper up to read the story.

  2. I doubt he will do it Dale. If he did he would be as popular in Kennedy as Windsor and Oakeshott are in their electorates.

    1. He is very cunning, Jim. Tonight at our local club, someone advised me that at least some people have woken up to Bob Katter and not voting for him, their reason being that he has done nothing for us since he has been an independent. We agreed as well that all he has done in the past four years is trip around Australia organising the KATTER PARTY. I was pleased to hear someone else start up the conversation and this person remarked the only thing he has done is get his son into parliament, make sure he is OK and started his party. Thank goodness some are a wake up.

  3. I wouldn't trust him for five minutes. He has declared in the past he's a mate of KRudd. I'm sure his ultra right wing supporters and candidates would not be happy if they helped the recycled dud get re-elected.

  4. I just sent this off to a bloke I know within the Katter policy making group..be interesting to read his reply.... he's been trying to woo me in to the fold , but the day Katter failed to vote in the No Confidence motion was enough for me... not interested in anyone who failed to boot out the Gillard/Rudd mayhem at the first oppertunity..

  5. I believe that even if Katter did decide to preference Labor (against wise counsel from his party surely!) voter backlash against the Katter party itself would probably be so intense that their preferences would amount to little anyway.

    If the debate I managed to watch a little of the other night is any guide, anti-Rudd sentiment was so overwhelming that 'the worm turned' swiftly and invariably almost before Rudd even opened his mouth!

    Besides, as Jim said, Katter "would be as popular in Kennedy as Windsor and Oakeshott are in their electorates".


    1. You must have watched on Ch 7 Two also Elizebeth. How his side and the ABC could claim Rudd the Reader won is pretty amazing.

  6. Jim expanded on his thoughts on his own blog site with the post, Katter Rudd preference deal???

    Heard Peter Beattie on radio this morning saying he was prepared to hold hands with Bob Katter for the good of Queensland.

    1. Peter Beattie - for the good of Queensland??????? He is a joke!!!! That bloke fair dinkum. I have some interesting cuttings here of him over the years. It makes me laugh when I read of his exit from political life - FOREVER. Can you believe anything Rudd or Beattie say? It is getting more and more realistic when people say that if a politician is moving his lips, he'll sure to be lying.
      Talking about lips, have you noticed Kevin Rudd's lips lately? Take notice when he is close up sometime.

  7. well Elizebeth, I suspect that the way they pick those audiences of swing voters is to send out a questionnaire asking, "If an election were held today, would you support Rudd#1 or Rudd#2? (Or perhaps Gillard)"

    The 'don't knows' are then sent an invitation.

  8. Hi Jim, the Ch 7 results were from thousands of home viewers who gave Rudd the thumbs down everytime he started speaking. Meanwhile, saw Katter on The Hamster Wheel (ABC) last night introduced by Craig Emerson murdering the old Skyhooks song again. Talk about Horror Movies right there on my TV it was hard to sleep after that woeful act. Bob wasn't much better.

    1. It looks like I am a bit behind the times on that one then John. The original worm used to frustrate me when it was a 'live studio audience of swing voters' as it was a rather silly concept with no reasonable method to employ it.

      Oddly enough, I happened to spot the Katter segment you mention as I was channel flicking before switching off the set and couldn't really understand why Emerson would want to make a fool of himself again. I agree on Katter's performance.

    2. I read your excellent blog post, Jim on the Katter/Rudd preference issue, and noted your mention of Katter's "deep and pathological hatred of the Liberals".

      I must say Katter's unhealthy attitude absolutely astounds me. And it obviously clouds his judgment and prevents his making wise and objective decisions where the coalition is involved, all of which, regrettably, means he is very unpredictable.

  9. This is a reply from myself to QRC re their explanation of how they conduct surveys.
    The answer to this correspondence was that: If we did not "tease" an answer out of the respondent the "don't know" column would be the major column and the result would be in the negative.
    Most surveys seem to be along these lines, so all are Bulldust.

    I am a little disappointed and surprised that the claim has been made by the Queensland Resources Council that 80% of Queensland backs the Mining and Resources Industry based on 3 very loaded and misleading questions.

    These questions are stated as involving 10 community focus groups Central Queensland, Darling Downs and Brisbane and supposedly supported by a Statewide survey of 1500 voters for which there is no indication of where they were actually from.

    I would still like to have the breakdown as requested on 22/01/2013.

    The questions are loaded in that they give only a single view of the events with no opposing effects of the industry to compare and give a proper informed opinion on the questions.

    They appear to lead the person being questioned to the answer that is desired because of the manner in which they are worded.

    Question (1)   "Based on what you have read, seen or heard about the Queensland Mining and Resources Industry, even if it is Just a slight learning or guess  Would you support or oppose the Mining and Resources Industry in Queensland.?"

    This is a bit of a leading question because it does not give the person being surveyed the opportunity to compare the situation with any known negative aspects or "Guesses" relating to the Mining and Resources Industry.    There has certainly been plenty of much more than "slight learnings and Guesses"
    regarding the negative effects of the Mining and Resources Industry but these were unfairly omitted so to not have a comparison in answering the question.
    There are many matters of concern that have been very widely reported and the organisation conducting the survey on your behalf would have been well aware of them so there should have been some reference in the question to these negative aspects to allow the proper fully considered answers..

    It's a little bit like having a train that is headed towards a bridge that might collapse if the train goes over it.       The train is full of passengers who all want to get home as soon as possible.   So without mentioning the bridge that might (but also might not) collapse they ask the passengers if they want to go home.     Of course they all vote to go home but are unaware of the danger ahead and that they might crash.     Well the same thing applies in the loading of the questions in this survey.    Ask the questions and hope that it does not all go pear shape.

    Question (2)  Some have said (no identifying of who "some people"are), the ability of the Mining and Resources Sector to provide jobs and revenue to Queensland is at risk because of Global uncertainty.   To what extent do you agree or disagree the Industry is at risk.

    This question omits the fact that there is uncertainty in The Mining and Resources Industry caused by many other factors but is worded to virtually frighten people into thinking that the big bad global uncertainty might destroy everything and so they should support moves to have more Mines and Resources industries opened up at any cost.

    No mention is made of risks within the country where there could be all manner of action that could cause uncertainty for the industry.
    No mention is made of the detrimental effects caused to the farming sector where lands and aquifers are reported to be having problems caused by Mining and Resources industry.
    No mention is made of the detrimental effects that could well flow from the destruction of thousands of hectares of destruction of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and the risks that could eventuate if the problems are acted on and further destruction is prohibited

  10. Looks like Katter preferences are going all over the place including in Qld Senate seats to the Labor party. Labor & KAP are exchanging preference which according to Bob will help get rid of the greens.

    Interestingly Clive Palmer has made a preference deal with the Greens.



  11. All the preferences according to the parties are on the aec website (although it takes ages to trawl through:

    AEC Preferences 2013

  12. Firecracker or loose cannon? is the question asked in an opinion article by Troy Rowling.

    "His dedication to his role as parliamentary representative for the vast north electorate is questionable - Katter has among the lowest attendance records in Canberra.

    Yet there is no doubt that Bob Katter is a shrewd and calculating politician.

    He is an expert at drawing attention away from the central political debate by espousing bizarre and impractical ideas that nonetheless attract strong media attention - and make him appear to be at least trying to do something.

    Katter speaks passionately in a gust of sound and fury - but in the end it appears nothing more than piss and wind. His policy ideas remain trapped in the political purgatory where they belong. Nothing more than grist for the media mill."

  13. So ultra right Mad Hatter and his supporters will be helping Labor in Queensland which just proves his personal feelings against the party he once belonged to over- ride common sense and the politics of his candidates. Can't see them having any future they'll go the way of One Nation.

  14. Barnaby writes about how crazy the preference deals are this election in his weekly column in the Canberra Times, Don't let your Senate fall prey to vultures

    "The problem is that once you number ''1'' above the line, what happens next remains a mystery to most. That vote for Clive Palmer may elect a Green and a vote for Bob Katter may elect Labor.

    This is not democracy, it is the selection of a parliament by deals, not by votes.

    Don Chipp once said the Senate was there to ''keep the bastards honest''. I think it is a little simpler this time; we just need to know which bastard their bastard is passing your vote to."

  15. I have never been able to find any amendment in the Constitution that says that Politicians or Political Parties have the right to "distribute"the preferences of any elector.

    Could someone show where I can find the results of a Referendum that changed the Constitution to allow this situation?.

    It is the sole right and duty of an elector under the Australian Constitution to place their preferences where they wish, not the right of anybody else to do so on their behalf.

    It should also be remembered that there is no mention of, or provision for any Political Party in the Australian Constitution.
    There is no provision under the Australian Constitution for a Political Party to select the leader of the country.

    I have this (letter to myself) in writing from the Australian Govt that this is the situation.
    No amendment has ever been put to a referendum to allow a Political Party to control the Government of this Country.

    It might be a bit time consuming but it is the sole duty of the Elector to mark ALL preferences in the order that they want and nobody else can do it for you.

    What is also dishonest is the leaders of the Political Parties advertising that you should vote for them and their Govt.

    The leaders of the "Parties" are only elected in their own electorate, nobody else can vote for them and they do not "own" the political Party that they belong to so the advertising is misleading and because of that is contrary to the Electoral act.
    Prime Ministers and Premiers of the states are now Political appointments, not elected leaders of the Parliaments.
    Krudd is advertising for people to vote for "His" candidate.

    Does this mean that Krudd owns a Political Party of does it mean that the candidates designated as "his" candidates are beholden to him and must obey whatever he demands of them.

    Our local Labor candidate recently in the press stated that he had to "seek permission" of Krudd to nominate for election which infers that he is under the control of Krudd and as such verifies that he is "Krudds Candidate", not an individual person under the Constitution.

    Last election Gillard had every inch of the fence line outside of the polling booth covered with posters saying "Vote for Gillard"
    This type of action is deceptive and misleading.
    People were going into the polling booth and wanting to cast their vote for Gillard. Only the people in her electorate could vote for her.

    If the same situation happens this time round I will be making an official complaint to the Electoral Commission for deceptive and dishonest political advertising during an election.

  16. Why not make preferences optional rather than mandatory, as in Qld. You then vote for the party you want. End of story. Not many people would bother going below the line and numbering all the boxes, so the present federal system leaves a lot to be desired with the party distributing the preferences.


Welcome to a place that has a focus (but not exclusively) on regional and rural Australia open for anyone living anywhere to read, learn and interact. Please feel free to make a comment.

You can use some HTML codes such as, a for active; b for bold; i for italics

Active code - substitute a for @
<@ href="web address">linked words

[Click Here] for a link to another site where there is a very good simple explanation.