Newspoll: 56-44

The Australian reports the latest Newspoll has Labor’s two-party lead steady at 56-44. Kevin Rudd’s preferred prime minister rating is up four points to 65 per cent, and Malcolm Turnbull’s is down one to 21 per cent. More to follow.

Also today was the latest weekly Essential Research survey, which has the Labor lead widening from 58-42 to 60-40. Also featured: “how important are the following issues in deciding how you would vote at a Federal election?” which party do you think best at handling them; the global financial crisis; climate change; and a broad-brush question on “independent Senators and government legislation”.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

1,740 comments on “Newspoll: 56-44”

Comments Page 34 of 35
1 … 33 34 35

  1. SO

    True. There are lots of ways organised crime can be stopped. That’s what surveillance is for. Or they could send someone in undercover. Or you do what Falcone did and catch criminals and get them to testify against their mates. Once you get a critical mass of “pentiti”, they are begging to testify against each other. That’s also what ended the “Thugees” in India, who killed thousands of travellers.

  2. Adam

    The fact is that these thugs would be charged with what? Being members of a banned organisation?

    The Industrial Relations Reform Act 1993 has an implied freedom of association. A HC challenge may succeed.

  3. [The Industrial Relations Reform Act 1993 has an implied freedom of association. A HC challenge may succeed.]

    Every valid Commonwealth act must come under a head of power as listed in s51 of the Constitution. The Industrial Relations Reform Act is an IR law: it comes under either the conciliation and arbitration power or the corporations power. It cannot be extended to create “freedom of association” for bikies! The Constitution gives the Commonwealth no jurisdiction over criminal law except in the enforcement of Commonwealth laws – which must themselves be constitutional. NSW has an absolute right to ban what it deems to be criminal associations. “Consorting” was a common law offence for centuries – this is just a modernised version.

  5. Adam

    This is not consorting “The offence of “consorting” was created to prevent those who have been convicted of offences from regrouping and planning to commit other crimes.”

    These laws are designed to jail people who have done nothing other than be members of a banned group.

    There is no right of association in our constitution but many rulings have pointed to an implied right. I gave the IR case as one example there are many more.

  6. What happens when the bikies start their own political parties or all join Australia First – can they be stopped fom holding ‘political meetings’?

  7. We really need a constitutional lawyer to blog at this site. Anyone know one or will volunteer to do a bit of extra study?

    [NSW has an absolute right to ban what it deems to be criminal associations. ]

    If so, why do they need new legislation?

  9. All commonwealth legislation has an “implied incidental area” so the head of power argument from Adam may be open to interpretation.

    All I am saying is that the first guy charged under the NSW law will be off to the HC and may win. 🙁

  10. I’d be pretty certain that all the gangs likely to be of interest to the police have members with criminal records, so a “consorting” type law would catch them.

    The states have the power to ban any association for any reason, as Victoria banned the “church” of Scientology in the 1960s. Do recall that we do not have a bill of rights in Australia. The states have the full panoply of traditional British law at their disposal, except where they have ceded their powers to the Commonwealth.

  11. Thank Diogenes, that’s the one I meant. Presumably they are free to hold ‘political meetings’ despite the law banning bikies associating with each other?

  12. I had a look at a bikies website called White Trash News. I found their moderation guidelines to be a little more stringent than William’s.

    [DEROGATORY COMMENTS ABOUT ANY CLUB ON WTN = BANNED FROM THE SITE, and THE COMMENT WILL BE E-MAILED to the CLUB it was made to, along with the posters IP. Always remember, after you have respect, it is easy to disagree, and still get along!]

    http://www.bikernews.org/wtn/news.php

  13. Ah ok thanks Adam. It was suggested to me that the original idea for starting Free Australia was to get around the consorting laws

  15. [Presumably they are free to hold ‘political meetings’ despite the law banning bikies associating with each other]

    There’s nothing sacred about political meetings. You have all been watching too many American lawyer TV shows. In any case, they would be refused registration as a political party if they were an obvious front for a crima gang.

  17. The laws have already been to the High Court (some of them anyway):
    [THE High Court has approved the use of secret evidence in a surprise decision, provoking calls for a charter of rights to ensure fair trials.

    In a decision that could pave the way for similar laws in NSW, the seven judges agreed unanimously that the South Australia Police could present secret criminal intelligence to a judge to stop a liquor licence being issued.

    Constitutional lawyers and civil libertarians criticised the decision. “This is Alice in Wonderland stuff: you have the verdict and then the trial,” said Cameron Murphy, the president of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties.

    In 2005, Genargi Krasnov, a nightclub owner, failed to get a licence for a karaoke bar in Adelaide’s central business district, even though his criminal record consisted only of traffic offences. Mr Krasnov went all the way to the High Court to challenge the powers of the South Australia Police after they gave criminal intelligence to the courts. He was not given the chance to see the police file or defend himself against it.]

    http://www.smh.com.au/national/court-ok-with-using-covert-evidence-20090304-8ol1.html

  18. Adam

    They are already registered as a political party. They say that not all their members are bikers. So can you stop someone joining a political party who has never been found guilty of a crime?

  20. Freedom for crims to form political parties? Wtf are people smoking??? Honest to god its like some of you belong in Nimbin.

  21. I am in favour of a bill of rights, which is ALP policy. The Hawke government tried to enact one, but the referendum was defeated in 1988, remember? But no conceivable bill of rights would protect the “right” of drug dealers to organise themselves behind the cover of motocycle clubs, or political parties for that matter. The states have the right to take pre-emptive action against criminal gangs, whatever they are disguised as, and so they should have.

  22. Pres Lula of Brazil has fired two shots in the last few days at the Older Order. First shot was “This crisis was caused by the irrational behavior of white people with blue eyes, who before the crisis appeared to know everything and now demonstrate that they know nothing”, in a press conference on Thursday in Brasilia with Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain.

    And then, yesterday, at the beautiful Chilean seaside resort town of Vina del Mar, he fired another shot: “”My dear Gordon Brown, my dear Biden, my dear Zapatero, unfortunately you are more responsible for the downturn”.

    (Poor Gordon Brown, he cant seem to take a trick these days. Not only he has not been able to save the World, or his own pounds or the UK economy, it appears he cant even save himself)

    So this week G20 meeting in UK is shaping to be very interesting and fascinating one in the context of Lula’s comments. The main objective is supposed to be to save the World from total economic collapse and to try to revive the globalisation Frankenstein monster.

    However, the sub-plots are just as interesting, if not more. One subplot is a geo-political struggle between the Old Order Vs the New Order. Another one will be the re-alignments between the different factions that have emerged. And most interesting is how Kevin Rudd will play the alignment card and position Australia. Meanwhile, China and India have been very quiet.

    Watch this space.

  23. The bikers have formed a political party called the FREE Australia Party as mentioned in 1658.

    Freedom Rights Education Environment is the acronym. I kid you not.

    There’s all this stuff about the Magna Carta and the Universal declaration for Human Rights that Australia has signed. It’s quite funny how shamelessly disingenuous they are.

    http://www.freeaustralia.net.au/

  24. Dario

    They are not ‘crims’ until they have been convicted of a crime. We are innocent until proven guilty in Australia.

    I’m not sure you can’t be in a political party if you have committed a crime anyway.

  26. Finns, Lula is Rudds “good friend”
    [KEVIN RUDD: I think one of the great leaders coming through this process is my good friend Lula from Brazil, and he’s doing a great job. And I think Brazil’s leadership on open trade and participation effectively in global governance questions, including IMF reform, underlines the positive contribution which can come from these new large members of the global governing family.]

    http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2528405.htm

  29. Vera, the late Pres. Sukarno of Indonesia was some 40 years ahead his time. He used to call the “new” big 4 as “NEFOS” – China, India, Brazil and Indonesia” – New Emerging FOrceS”.

  30. People who watch too many American TV lawyer shows tend to assume that any law passed by any legislature can be “taken to court”, where a nice liberal judge will “strike it down.” But that can only happen in a system where there is a higher body of law against whose provisions the proposed statute can be judged. In the US that is the Constitution, and specifically the bill of rights (which is part of the Constitution). But that does not apply in British common law systems, such as the Australian states. The only grounds on which a state law can be “struck down” is if it is in conflict with the federal Constitution. Since the Commonwealth has no jurisdiction over criminal law, this will be a very rare event indeed in regard to state laws dealing with crime. Australia is in fact even more “British” in this regard than Britain, because the UK is subject to an array of EU human rights laws which have significantly limited the legislative sovereignty of the British Parliament. In the Australian states, however, it is still the 18th century as far as the criminal law is concerned.

  31. Adam

    The law isn’t “taken to court”, the verdict is. Literally hundreds of criminal cases get appealed to he High Court. The judgement might be set aside by the High Court.

  33. My guess is that the High Court will probably choose to hear the complaint in this case (assuming it gets appealed that far) as it involves an important legal precedent, which is after all the main reason we have a High Court. What their decision would be is way out of my league.

  34. [They are not ‘crims’ until they have been convicted of a crime. We are innocent until proven guilty in Australia.]

    Except for all the crims that have. They’re such a sweet lot those bikies. Peace, love and mung beans…

  35. My understanding is that the HC can hear an appeal against a conviction under a state statute, but can’t hear a complaint against the existence of the statute itself, UNLESS it is being argued that the statute conflicts with a federal statute, or violates a treaty to which Australia is a signatory.

  36. The Bikies could do some branch stacking, which should be easy for them, do some physical intimidation, (which they could learn from studying the recent history of a certain state branch of a certain political party), and then they could be just like the Rev Fred Nile and his acolytes, only a little bit different.

  43. That’s like arguing that you have to be sick before the health system can take any interest in you. In public safety, as in public health, *prevention* is better than mopping up blood at Sydney airport. These gangs behave as though the law doesn’t apply to them. Murdering each other in broad daylight is an affront to the rule of law. I don’t like populist premiers, but in this case I think they are acting correctly.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 34 of 35
1 … 33 34 35