Morgan: 61-39

The latest weekly Roy Morgan face-to-face poll has Labor’s two-party lead unchanged at 61-39, although its primary vote is down 1.5 per cent to 51.5 per cent while the Coalition is unchanged on 33.5 per cent. The slack has been taken up by Family First and independent/others.

Elsewhere:

• The Central Midlands & Coastal Advocate reports that Liberal Kalgoorlie MP Barry Haase has been making himself known in the areas of O’Connor which will be in the new seat of Durack under the radically redrawn boundaries. Despite being 75 years old, Wilson Tuckey has reportedly been taking an interest in the city of Kalgoorlie, which along with the southern coast from Albany to Esperance and areas of the South West will constitute the redrawn O’Connor.

• Liberal National Party candidate Andrea Caltabiano is launching a challenge against her 74-vote defeat by Labor’s Steve Kilburn in Chatsworth at the March 21 Queensland election. Claimed irregularities include double voting, particularly by candidates who lodged absent votes, and voters being wrongly removed from the roll.

• The Australasian Study of Parliament Group Queensland Chapter is holding a “behind the scenes review of the Queensland 2009 State Election” at the George Street parliamentary annexe from 6pm on Monday, Apirl 27. Star attractions are Antony Green, Treasurer Andrew Fraser, Keating government Attorney-General Michael Lavarch and Lawrence Springborg’s former chief-of-staff Paul Turner. RSVP by Monday to Erin Pasley, who can be reached at Erin-DOT-Paisley-AT-parliament-DOT-qld-DOT-gov-DOT-AU or on 3406 7931.

• No, I haven’t forgotten the May 2 Tasmanian Legislative Council elections – I will have a post up when I get time. In the meantime, Antony Green outlines the candidates.

NOTE: I am leaving open the previous thread for those who wish to continue the discussion, if that’s the right word, about asylum seekers, indigenous affairs, racism and the rest. This thread is for pretty much anything else.

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.

1,291 comments on “Morgan: 61-39”

Comments Page 4 of 26
1 … 3 4 5 … 26

  1. No 150

    His judgments were brilliant. In fact, I think he holds the record for longest ever judgment in Western Australia v Ward (2002).

  5. My favourite part of Callian J’s judgment in WA v Ward (2002):

    [961 Many things could be said about this submission, but I will confine myself to three. First, if HREOC is claiming that there is a constitutional implication that prevents the legislature and Executive from acting in violation of international law, then it is flatly contrary to authority and principle. The provisions of the Constitution are not to be read in conformity with international law . It is an anachronistic error to believe that the Constitution, which was drafted and adopted by the people of the colonies well before international bodies such as the United Nations came into existence, should be regarded as speaking to the international community . The Constitution is our fundamental law, not a collection of principles amounting to the rights of man, to be read and approved by people and institutions elsewhere. The approbation of nations does not give our Constitution any force, nor does its absence deny it effect. Such a consideration should, therefore, have no part to play in interpreting our basic law .

    962 Secondly, if HREOC is claiming that there is a constitutional implication preventing the Executive alone from acting in breach of international law, it is also mistaken. The scope of the Commonwealth’s executive power is generally coterminous with the scope of its legislative powers . It has been recognised that the Commonwealth, in reliance on the external affairs power, can legislate in a manner that is inconsistent with our international obligations . It can, for example, give force to treaties that would be void at international law . Once that is accepted, it follows that the Executive cannot be bound by international law in the manner that HREOC asserts. If the “rule of law” allows legislative power to make laws in breach of international law, how can the executive power – which generally encompasses matters that could validly be effected by legislation – be fettered? To that there seems no satisfactory answer.

    963 Finally, the submission by HREOC would undermine the long settled principle that provisions of an international treaty do not form part of Australian law unless validly incorporated by statute. It has repeatedly been held that the separation of the legislative and executive arms of government necessitates that treaties be implemented domestically under statute . However, HREOC’s approach would effectively reverse that principle. By giving priority to the principles assumed by the Executive, by permitting judges to construe legislation in a way that violated the intention of Parliament, it would elevate the Executive to a position that it has never enjoyed under our Constitution. That is another reason for rejecting the submission .]

  8. [$36 million is a lot of bloody money to fine a company. Any other business would go broke with such a fine.]

    Exactly. The fine is relative to the size of the business and they don’t come much bigger that Visy. 36M was well within their means to pay.

    IMO Pratt was treated very leniently.

  10. 155

    For someone who professes to enjoy legal arguments you very often show an appalling lack of clear thinking. I do hope the future of your party is in the hands of people just like you. 🙂

  11. GP

    Criminal charges would deter this kind of stuff. It is not just cardboard boxes, it is airline freight and others.

    How much money did the customers of these companies lose?

  13. No 161

    There are already civil actions seeking damages underway. In my opinion, putting Pratt in gaol is pointless.

  15. Someone asked about ex-PM named seats being held by the other side. I can think of Gorton and Lyons. Hughes??

  18. [In my opinion, putting Pratt in gaol is pointless.]

    I have purposely not mentioned names, but has it occurred to you that others have lost a lot of money because of the actions of these directors?

    Could it be possible that people have lost jobs or smaller companies have lost profits?

    But thats OK by you?

  20. [Since when has paying $36 million been a “slap on the wrist”? Give me a break.
    When you are a mullti-millionare that is loose change to them]

    The big bloke blew a similar amount in one night at a casino.

    But how much did the business benefit by, around $145 million. So rip that extra profit by your nice cosy arrangement, get a $35 m fine, still $10 m ahead.

    Nice for ordinary folk to do same, defraud govt or company of $200,000 or so, get fined $50,000 but keep the original $200,000.

    But libs like GP live in a different world to ordinary folk.

  21. No 168

    Those things aren’t objectively measurable most of the time, whereas, in the case of HIH the fraud which lead to its collapse sent shockwaves throughout the economy, and to this day, I have friends in Ernst and Young still liquidating HIH assets.

  27. http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/draft-report-backs-paid-maternity-leave-20090417-aa4j.html

    [The federal government is considering the Productivity Commission’s final report into tax payer funded leave but has hinted it won’t be included in next month’s budget because of the economic downturn.

    The commission’s draft report backs 18 week’s taxpayer-funded leave, paid at the minimum wage of $544 a week.

    The price tag is $450 million annually for government and $74 million for business.]

  31. [If that were to be implemented, the baby bonus should be cancelled.]

    I agree.

    It would be cheaper than the baby bonus as well, according to the report.

  37. [“Rudd’s popularity will fall. It will happen sooner than most realise. When it does it will be dramatic. When voters become tired of Labor they need to know we, the coalition, are credible, capable and dependable to lead again.

    “Our best approach is to be strongly united, continue incisive criticism and refine policy. There is a growing and palpable unease with Labor’s spending spree and we have many, many supporters relying on us to return to government soon.” ]

    If that is the thinking in the Liberal Party then it is no wonder they are going nowhere.

    Their strategy is hope for Rudd to fail and, continue their silly over the top attacks. But he refers to ‘continue….refine policy’ which ignores they are doing next to nothing on that front except to say ‘no’. Then he goes off on some denial of reality ‘..palpable unease with Labor’s spending spree..’. Huh?

    Hawker suggests a strategy is based on the same premise as before the election. Keep on doing what your doing. Rudd is on a honeymoon, it is only a matter of time before we all wake (and stop sleep walking?).

    How long did they wait? Until Keating snuck in an extra term and then basically bought the country out of its recession and the people felt safe handing over to a non threatening seat warmer, Howard.

    So I guess he wants the Liberals to wait another 13 years.

  40. [Their response to the asylum seekers tragedy should see the coalition decline even further.]

    Yes, the coalition still believes they won in 01 because of Howards storming of the Tampa.

    It was the response that won it for him, not the storming and they still don’t realise that.

  41. Current holders of seats named for PMs:
    Barton (non-Labor): held by Labor
    Deakin (non-Labor): held by Labor
    Watson (Labor): held by Labor
    Reid (non-Labor): held by Labor
    Fisher (Labor): held by non-Labor
    Cook (non-Labor): held by non-Labor
    Hughes (Labor and non-Labor): held by non-Labor
    Bruce (non-Labor): held by Labor
    Scullin (Labor): held by Labor
    Lyons (non-Labor): held by Labor
    Page (non-Labor): held by Labor
    Menzies (non-Labor): held by non-Labor
    Fadden (non-Labor): held by non-Labor
    Curtin (Labor): held by non-Labor
    Forde (Labor): held by Labor
    Chifley (Labor): held by Labor
    Holt (non-Labor): held by Labor
    McEwen (non-Labor): held by non-Labor (just)
    Gorton (non-Labor): held by Labor

    Has anyone else noticed that no Australian PM has had a surname with more than seven letters? No Campbell-Bannermans for us. Also nine PMs have had surnames ending in “n”. Note that “Turnbull” has eight letters. Perhaps the Libs should go with Dutton.

  42. TP at 187, in just two paragraphs, the reason why the libs lost the election and will be in opposition for a very long time. they just dont get it. from the moment Rudd took over as opposition, there has been this fantasy that, suddenly his “honeymoon” will be over and the libs can walk away with it. Pure fantasy

  44. Nice work with the list Adam.

    [Has anyone else noticed that no Australian PM has had a surname with more than seven letters?]

    But you have way too much time on your hands!

  48. [Has anyone else noticed that no Australian PM has had a surname with more than seven letters? No Campbell-Bannermans for us. Also nine PMs have had surnames ending in “n”. Note that “Turnbull” has eight letters. Perhaps the Libs should go with Dutton.]

    Costello is also eight! Just another sign that he’ll never be PM.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 4 of 26
1 … 3 4 5 … 26