The latest Roy Morgan survey of 1804 respondents has Labor’s two-party lead unchanged at 58-42, with their primary vote down 0.5 per cent to 49 per cent and the Coalition’s down 1.5 per cent to 36 per cent. The Greens are up a point to 9 per cent. Much else to report:
• On Monday, Galaxy published a survey of 1004 respondents showing federal Labor with a two-party lead of 55-45. The primary vote figures of 43 per cent for Labor and 40 per cent for the Coalition are similar to those from the 2007 election, suggesting the two-party result flatters Labor a little. Furthermore, 17 per cent nominate themselves less likely to vote Labor if an early election is called against 12 per cent more likely. Kevin Rudd was rated “arrogant” by 31 per cent against 47 per cent for Malcolm Turnbull, while their respective ratings for being “out of touch with ordinary Australians” were 29 per cent and 48 per cent. However, Rudd performed worse than Turnbull on the innovative measure of “someone who can turn nasty if he doesn’t get his own way”, scoring 43 per cent to Turnbull’s 31 per cent. Peter Brent at Mumble has tables.
• Tasmanian Electrical Trades Union secretary Kevin Harkins apparently plans to proceed with his bid for Senate preselection, despite having been told by Kevin Rudd his chances were “Buckley’s and none”. Harkins was endorsed as candidate for Franklin ahead of the 2007 election, but was compelled to step aside four months beforehand after his colourful activities as a union leader emerged as a political liability. It was reported at the time that the pill had been sugared with offers of “an elevated union position, increased salary and a future Senate seat”. Harkins is the favoured candidate of the Left faction for one of the two safe Senate seats, with incumbent Kerry O’Brien set to be dropped to loseable third. The Hobart Mercury reports that the Left’s position is now likely to go to Australian Manufacturing Workers Union secretary Anne Urquhart, who is seen as acceptable to the Right. The Right’s position at the top of the ticket will remain with the low-profile Helen Polley.
• Michael Owen of The Australian reports on tension in the South Australian Liberal camp over Senate preselection, with Right faction colossus Nick Minchin “warning off” moderate state president Sean Edwards. Minchin says Edwards had undertaken not to seek preselection when he ran for the presidency in 2007 so he could focus on next year’s state election. A “party source” says the Right has secured the postponement of preselection until April next year so a newly elected state council can provide them with a more favourable result, potentially leaving the party unprepared for an early election. The Right’s chief concern is to secure a seat for David Fawcett, defeated in Wakefield at the 2007 election, at Edwards’ expense. Alan Ferguson, who is associated with the Right faction and the conservative Lyons Forum, is “expected to retire” rather than seek another term.
• After holding the seat since Malcolm Fraser’s departure after his 1983 election defeat, David Hawker has announced he will retire as member for Wannon at the next election. Andrew Landeryou at VexNews has a comprehensive form guide of potential preselection aspirants, including “complicated Costello loyalist” Georgie Crozier; Victorian Farmers Federation president Simon Ramsay, said to be facing a losing battle against former Howard government adviser Rod Nockles in his bid for the less appealing prospect of Corangamite; Institute of Public Affairs agriculture policy expert Louise Staley, who challenged Kevin Andrews for preselection in Menzies ahead of the 2001 election; former police sergeant and anti-corruption crusader Simon Illingworth; “farmer, vet and former local councillor” Katrina Rainsford; and the similarly credentialled Matt Makin.
• Left faction Victorian state MP Carlo Carli has announced he will not re-contest Brunswick at the next election, perhaps boosting the Greens’ vague chances of snaring the seat. Andrew Landeryou at VexNews once again offers a goldmine of detail on preselection contenders, describing the seat as an “area of conflict” between the competing Left faction camps associated with federal Bruce MP Alan Griffin and Senator Kim Carr. Griffin faction aspirants include former state secretary Eric Locke and Moreland councillor Alice Pryor, while the only identified contender from the Carr camp is 23-year-old Enver Erdogan, a staffer to House of Representatives Speaker Harry Jenkins. Apparently straddling the two camps is Danny Michel, an adviser to Public Transport Minister Lynne Kosky. Moreland’s Right faction mayor Lambros Tapinos is also named as a “wild card”.
• Yet more from the House of Landeryou: preselection challenges apparently loom against two senior Victorian state Liberals, Shadow Police Minister Andrew McIntosh in Kew and Shadow Health Minister Helen Shardey in Caulfield. The story in Kew goes that a Josh Frydenberg federal preselection victory in Kooyong would unleash “irresistible pressure” for McIntosh to be dumped in favour of “Costello loyalist” Kelly O’Dwyer. In Caulfield, “local power-broker” Frank Greenstein proposes that Shardey make way for David Southwick, who previously contested the federal seat of Melbourne Ports in 2004 and was narrowly pipped by short-lived Labor member Evan Thornley for an upper house seat in Southern Metropolitan in 2006. Ted Baillieu is apparently very keen that none of this transpire, as both McIntosh and Shardey are loyal to him.
• The Australian reports the June 30 deadline for Victorian Liberal federal preselection nominations has ratcheted up speculation about Peter Costello’s future plans, with the overwhelming expectation he will seek another term in Higgins. Kevin Andrews is expected to face a challenge in Menzies, but is “believed to have the numbers”.
• UMR Research has published one of its occasional polls on attitudes to republicanism, showing little change since November. Support is up one point to 51 per cent, opposition is up two to 30 per cent. Support for direct election of the president is up a point to 81 per cent, with opposition stable on 12 per cent. Fifty-three per cent support a referendum during the next term of parliament.
[ bob1234
Posted Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 12:44 pm | Permalink
And there, writ large, is the political lesson that seems to have been ignored.
You can just see the seething red-hot anger in GG’s words. It’s great. ]
William, how long do we have to put up with the deliberate baiting and trolling from Bob1234? I realise that it takes two to tango and in this respect thaere have been many juvenile exchanges from all sides of the political fence, but I have yet to see the particular sense in bob1234s post other than to deliberately flame.
Tom.
GG, that’s why you are a numero uno amigo 😀
[It’s a sin to have rich supporters? When has Bob Brown not declared political donations made to him? How has he used his station for personal gratification? Unfounded, unsubstantiated allegations and assumptions about his personal character and behaviour. If these sorts of comments were being made about Rudd I would feel just as strongly.]
Look, the problem is that Brown went to town on Rudd for accepting the loan of 2nd hand ute, assuming (wrongly, as it turns out) that Rudd had title to said ute. Now – just a few days later – he has the begging bowl out for, not a party matter as Rud’s ute was, but a personal matter, to wit, he is in the shite over court costs. And it’s not a $6,000 2nd hand ute, it’s $240 thousand.
I heard him say this morning that if the money is donated, “the jury is out” on whether it should be declared (he then went on to say he’d declare it anyway).
The opportunity for a cheap shot last week on Rudd’s ute was too tempting for Brown, and he joined the tabloid bandwagon, thereby giving oxygen to a baseless smear put out by Turnbull, of which everything has been reported except the fact that the ute was totally in the clear (clearly not enough room or time to put that bit in).
Rudd must be mulling now on whether to really tighten up political donations across all political parties. If your private wealth is inversely proportional to the size of the donation you can morally claim (e.g. Brown is poor so $240k is fine; Rudd is rich so the loan of a ute is “not a good look”) then it would be very interesting to see who else has little skeletons in the closet like this one.
Brown’s hypocrisy is breath-taking. He deserves to be smacked down severely and maybe he’ll learn a lesson or two from it, the first of which would be: “Don’t jump in too quickly with the cheap insinuations.”
ozymandias @ 1225, I agree – whole heartedly!
Tom
1244
Brown is an activist and there are many people who would donate to stop him becoming bankrupt even if he was not in the Senate.
[William, how long do we have to put up with the deliberate baiting and trolling from Bob1234?]
Comedic gold! 😀
The Economics Committee hearing into the private health bills has been able to start now (Xenophon now being avaialble). The Coalition is still not in attendance so one can presume they’re going to continue their tantrum over it and choose NOT to take the opportunity to scrutinise the bills.
Greensborough Growler
“This 240k is a personal debt. The personal gratification is that he is using his status as a Senator to beg for donations to clear this personal debt. I contend this behaviour is both sordid and unseemly.”
You know full well this court case was not for him personally, he did this on behalf of a lot of people. He’s already spent a lot of money on this. If people want to assist him, that’s their choice.
“I also once again refer to Brown’s hypocritical comments of less than a week when he raged:
“Prime Minister Kevin Rudd would be wise to give his gifted car to charity and cap the value of personal gifts to MPs at a couple of hundred dollars, Australian Greens leader Bob Brown says”.”
Raged? Hardly. And is the money donated to BB to pay legal costs a ‘personal gift’? We all know that you will claim so despite your not knowing.
“I am also asking legitimate questions about the propriety of such begging and how the funds accumulated from such begging are officially accounted. If you’ve got some answers, then I’m all ears.”
GG if you were interested you would have gone and found out already. The fact that after 2 hours or more you haven’t bothered shows you are more interested in keeping up the appearance of wrong doing than actually finding out the truth.
“It’s Brown’s behaviour in this matter that is trashing his credibility and good personal standing.”
You not a very good one to judge that though are you? You always thought he had a trashed reputation. It’s probably more accurate for you to say that you hope his reputation has been trashed.
[vera,
Nah, that’s me!]
GG
I thought you were Dogma
Rotflol
Bob,
From that earlier article, you have two different interpretations depending on which you read. I prefer, the second which seems to be quoting Burke’s words directly and is not as broadly supportive of Brown.
“There is a universal hope in federal parliament that Greens leader Bob Brown is not expelled from the Senate over of an outstanding legal bill, Agriculture Minister Tony Burke says.”
and later,
“I do think it’s fair to say that across the parliament … there is a universal view that people hope that we don’t end up with his career concluding in this particular way,” Mr Burke told Sky News”.
http://www.watoday.com.au/national/universal-support-in-parliament-for-bob-brown-burke-20090609-c1eo.html
Hahahaha the Greenies defending their leader’s hypocrisy today is hilarious! Can dish it out but can’t take it. Dear oh dear.
Bushfire
“Look, the problem is that Brown went to town on Rudd for accepting the loan of 2nd hand ute, assuming (wrongly, as it turns out) that Rudd had title to said ute. Now – just a few days later – he has the begging bowl out for, not a party matter as Rud’s ute was, but a personal matter, to wit, he is in the shite over court costs. And it’s not a $6,000 2nd hand ute, it’s $240 thousand.”
This is exactly why he has come out straight away and put this in the media. To make it clear.
I don’t understand your point? Are you insisting that Brown should apologise to Rudd? Are you saying he shouldn’t allowed to have people support his legal costs?
GG
Did you find out your rules yet?
[I don’t understand your point?]
Astrobleme, do you really need the hypocracy of Brown to be spelt out?
[t’s Brown’s behaviour in this matter that is trashing his credibility and good personal standing. But go on shooting the messanger if it salves your temper.]
Sweet GG 🙂 I am in fine good humour as it happens. It’s not Bob Brown’s credibility that is being trashed here.
Gary
That’s what I am asking. I don’t think you can compare the cases. One was a political donation (a loan of a car) and one is for non-political donations (legal costs incurred).
So do people want Brown to apologise for being wrong about the ute? Or do they want him to not ask for cash?
At the 2007 election over three quarters of a million preferences from Green voters ended up in the two candidate preferred of the ALP. Zero ALP first preferences went the other way.
http://results.aec.gov.au/13745/Website/HouseStateTcpFlow-13745-NAT.htm
What’s your point Tom?
[That’s what I am asking. I don’t think you can compare the cases. One was a political donation (a loan of a car) and one is for non-political donations (legal costs incurred)]
What total and utter tosh
Here
read about the trial and find out why ‘he’ lost
http://www.on-trial.info/
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2008/202.html
This is not something trivial
Dario
What was wrong with my statement?
Tom,
That is because the Greens were eliminated from the count before the ALP in all seats except for Melbourne where the ALP were elected in a contest with the Greens.
Astrobleme,
The debt is a personal debt of Browns. No amount of wriggling by Brown and his cheersquad can alter that fact.
Donations are clearly personal gifts extended to Brown as an individual to assist him pay a politically induced debt. He is a politician and subject to rigorous disclosure laws. So I imagine he’ll have to declare these gifts.
As I said, I’m most interested in how such personal gifts paid to politicians will be handled by the tax department. I’m sure Brown would be interested too. I am sure that he is hoping for a seemless acceptance of his good name and character to legitimise this particular move. But, in Australian politics, you know that is not going to happen.
As for my credibility. All I can say is that I am a citizen of this great land girt by sea and I have a right to raise legitimate questions of probity and process. So far, you have provided lots of noise but very little substance in response.
We’ll see how Brown’s integrity plays out over the next few days.
In today’s Crikey
[Howard’s dead hand behind the Bob Brown bankruptcy scare
Canberra correspondent Bernard Keane writes:
The possible bankruptcy of Greens Senator Bob Brown as a consequence of Forestry Tasmania’s demand for legal fees would be a victory from beyond the political grave for Paul Lennon and John Howard and a big win for the Tasmanian Government’s efforts to stymie scrutiny of its forestry practices.
Brown needs to find over $239,000 by 29 June or face bankruptcy proceedings initiated by Forestry Tasmania’s lawyers Page Seager. Under the Constitution, Brown would be forced to give up his Senate seat if declared bankrupt, leaving the choice of a replacement in the hands of the Tasmanian Government.
The legal saga surrounding logging in the Wielangta Forest is lengthy and complicated (the Senate Environment committee has an excellent summary) but revolves around a simple fact: John Howard and Paul Lennon changed the rules after Brown won in court to nullify his Federal Court win over Forestry Tasmania.
Brown took Federal Court action in 2005 to prevent logging in the Wielangta Forest north-east of Hobart. Brown’s case centred on the interaction of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and Regional Forestry Agreements which allowed states and logging companies to avoid the impact of the EPBC if the Agreement provided for protection for significant species.
Brown argued that logging in the Wielangta Forest was not in accordance with the protection measures described in the relevant RFA and therefore the protections of the EPBC — in essence, that logging needed Commonwealth approval — applied. In December 2006, Federal Court Justice Marshall awarded a comprehensive victory to Brown, declaring that there was evidence the logging was harming three major protected species (the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle, the broad-toothed stag beetle and the swift parrot) and that the relevant protective measures, based around a reserve system, did not comply with the RFA clause.
Forestry Tasmania immediately appealed and nearly a year later, three Federal Court justices rules that the mere existence of a reserve system was sufficient to meet the requirements of the RFA, regardless of whether the reserve system actually protected any species or not. Marshall’s findings that the logging had damaged the three protected species still stood (and stand).
Brown appealed to the High Court, but by then John Howard and Paul Lennon had conspired to remove the basis for the legal action. On 23 February 2007, Howard and Lennon had agreed to amend the relevant RFA so that the clause.
The State agrees to protect the Priority Species listed in Attachment 2 (Part A) through the CAR Reserve System or by applying relevant management prescriptions was removed and replaced with a simple statement that the reserve system protected threatened species. In effect, Lennon and Howard were agreeing that black was white. There was no Parliamentary scrutiny in either the Commonwealth or Tasmania of the amendment.
The High Court refused to grant Brown special leave to appeal because the new clause meant he had little chance of success. It refused to award costs against him, but Brown was still left the bill from the Federal Court appeal hearing.
Forestry Tasmania is owned by the Tasmanian Government and has close links with logging company Gunns. Gunns unsuccessfully tried to litigate Brown and other environmentalists out of the forestry debate with a punitive lawsuit that has progressively collapsed, although the company is still pursuing seven individuals.
The Forestry Tasmania action, however, is a different matter. This is the Tasmania Government pursuing Brown for daring to beat it in court to such an extent that it changed the rules to ensure victory.
Brown has launched an appeal for donations.]
1268
I`m just saying.
1272
I know that. I understand the electoral system.
But it is that the Greens were eliminated in all seats where Labor was not that is the thing that shows up in this data. Not that Labor were eliminated first.
GG
“Donations are clearly personal gifts extended to Brown as an individual to assist him pay a politically induced debt.”
This is where the confusion is coming from. The debt was caused by his failure to win the court case, it has nothing to do with politics. It is not a politically induced debt.
His aim here was to save the Wielangta Forest. That’s what he does, he tries to protect Tasmanian forests.
“As I said, I’m most interested in how such personal gifts paid to politicians will be handled by the tax department.”
So why haven’t you looked it up yet? For someone most interested you haven’t tried very hard have you?
Here’s something to get you started
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansards/2009-02-03/0015/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType%3Dapplication%2Fpdf
“He is a politician and subject to rigorous disclosure laws. So I imagine he’ll have to declare these gifts.”
The funniest thing about this statement is that BB has come straight out said “I have this debt and need help paying it or I will lose my seat. Who’s going to help?” Can you get a clearer declaration? Heck half the commentators here are saying he should have done it quietly!
“So far, you have provided lots of noise but very little substance in response.”
Well I gave you the name of the tax bill you wanted (the bill isn’t in the link, but the name is, I’m not doing all your work for you), so start reading.
I hope BB sorts himself out, but also learns to pull in his horns.
If KR was a complete bastard he would have caps on personal donations (individual and over-all) through the house by tonight. Be funny to see how that would go down in the Senate…
… but as parliament is not sitting, he should just give BB a loan of his ute for some fund-raising.
If KR wanted to appear statesmanlike, he should come out in the media and offer to loan the money to BB himself.
That would be hilarious.
[‘One tough lady’: PM plays down Rein gym photos
June 9, 2009 – 1:19PM
People will make up their own minds about the publication of unauthorised photographs of Therese Rein working out at the gym, her husband Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says.
Mr Rudd said his wife was “one tough lady” and that she had been in training all year in preparation to climb Mt Kilimanjaro later this year.]
http://www.theage.com.au/national/one-tough-lady-pm-plays-down-rein-gym-photos-20090609-c1o6.html
OMG, first we have St. Kev climbing the Mt. Everest of of the GFC recession from the positive side, the harder side, the negative side is easy, too many are doing it. Then St. Therese’s on Mt Kilimanjaro.
What’s next, St. Kev and St, Therese coming down Mt. Sinai with an inscribed tablet of “Thou shall not paparazzi”
*breaking out the popcorn* 😀
[If KR was a complete bastard he would have caps on personal donations (individual and over-all) through the house by tonight. Be funny to see how that would go down in the Senate…]
Not to mention if he was a complete idiot. With the coalition rejecting so much Labor legislation lately, the Greens are Labor’s best friend in the Senate, especially after the next election when Labor gains a Labor-Green majority in the Senate. Why cut your nose off to spite your face? Though I do admit it’s the fashion of some anti-Green Laborites who regularly post here.
Just remember, the Greens have voted with Labor in the Senate more than the coalition, Fielding, or Xenophon.
[*breaking out the popcorn* ]
The issue here is about probity and transparency, with a side helping of manipulative media manangement
It applies to ALL sides glen so I wouldnt be getting too delirious
🙂
Is Fielding aiming for the sceptics vote with his solar flare theory ramblings? You’d assume there’d be a lot of support to win out there of the crazy climate change denialists once the Liberals move to the left on the issue (as they undoubtedly will).
Itep
Do you think Fielding would capable of such ‘complex’ tactics? I’m not sure they would work either, the support would be fairly widespread but low. Wouldn’t he need more ‘concentrated’ support?
Finns wrote :
[ What’s next, St. Kev and St, Therese coming down Mt. Sinai with an inscribed tablet of “Thou shall not paparazzi”]
Well Finns….a very disappointing and uncalled for comment from you.
Therese has had a series of ongoing attacks against her over the last couple of years – all in an attempt ANY attempt to get at her husband.
Just leave this lady alone, but go for life on Kevin.
[It applies to ALL sides glen so I wouldnt be getting too delirious]
The loan of one ute is a travesty, a tip of 10 million dollars is a statistic.
Astrodeme,
There is no confusion. Bob Brown has a personal debt that is why FT are chasing him for it. Please don’t try and tell us all that this is not a politically induced debt. We’re not all gullible Greens apparatchiks.
I’m sure there are better qualified contributors than myself who know far more about the tax handling of these donations. I would not want to mislead other readers with a half baked summary from an uncertain knowledge base. However, the questions remain legitimate.
The ethics of Brown using the status of the Senate to beg for personal donations remains in question. I am sure there will continue to be many more hours of fun.
Their ‘biased’ ABC gives their man another free plug …
[Best of abc.net.au
Stop at Nothing
Malcolm Turnbull has been described as ‘the kind of Prime Minister you’d want Australia to have’.]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/
A redistribution is due in Victoria next year.
Any predictions?
[BOB BROWN: The offers range right across the spectrum from a lady kindly offering $50,000 until I find the money, interest free, to a cake that has turned up with some icing with the sentiment that I can raffle that if I would like to.
Other people, pensioners who say they can’t afford money, and of course they can’t, but some wanting to help in whatever way they can and somebody is offering their $900 from the stimulus payment.]
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2593113.htm
What nice sentiments!
And…
[ALEXANDRA KIRK: Do you have to declare these donations on your public register?
BOB BROWN: That’s a moot point but I do declare them. I put them on the Senate register. I have all the way down the line and I intend to continue doing that.]
Meanwhile, on the very same page …
Fair shake’
[Kevin Rudd rejects claims that women have been sidelined in the make-up of the new Cabinet sworn in today.]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/
Are they questioning their man, Turnbull, about HIS shadow Cabinet?
My prediction is the new boundaries won’t apply until the 2013 election.
GG
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say it’s a ‘personal debt’ and then try and make it ‘politically induced’.
That ‘half-baked’ summary was from Hansard. Did you even bother to read it? You again show you have no interest in actually finding out. That’s simply laziness on your behalf.
You can’t claim you have any other interest in this other than to smear Bob Brown.
[ Malcolm Turnbull has been described as ‘the kind of Prime Minister you’d want Australia to have’. ]
Probably, mainly by himself.
All he has to do now is convince the voters.
[Malcolm Turnbull has been described as ‘the kind of Prime Minister you’d want Australia to have’.]
… if you hated Australia.
HAHAHA
[Mr Rudd said he was upset for Senator Brown.
“I’ve actually got a lot of time for Bob, just as a person, (he’s) a bloke I’ve got to know over the years,” he told Sky News.
“I was quite distressed to see the news today.”
“I’m quite concerned about it for him personally.”]
http://www.watoday.com.au/breaking-news-national/bob-browns-plight-upsets-pm-20090609-c1fd.html
Poor poor Frank and GG! They’re at odds with Rudd!
[I don’t understand your point? Are you insisting that Brown should apologise to Rudd? Are you saying he shouldn’t allowed to have people support his legal costs?]
First question: if he wants to continue going for the $240k, “Yes, if he still wants Rudd to sell to ute.”
Second question: “No, because if it’s good enough for Brown to put out the begging bowl for hundreds of thousands to cover costs in a discretionary law suit, it’s good enough for Rudd to have use of a ute for electoral purposes.”
The point is, whether Brown gets the money for himself or his party he has to declare it. None of this “the jury’s out on that.” If Fitzgibbon had to declare a gift of an airline ticket to China he received years before he was even in government, then $240k is definitely declarable. The alternative – that you could receive cash money from anyone, up to any amount and by simply saying “That’s personal money, and it’s in a good cause” – is too awful to contemplate. I suppose he could do so in a pinch, but the donation would then have to be sufficient to cover any tax payable and leave $240k as the after-tax amount. Hardly likely, given Brown’s professed impecuniosity.
We have, on one day, Brown demanding Rudd sell a fully declared car worth a few thousands dollars that isn’t even his, and the next he’s after hundreds of thousands of dollars because Brown declares it to be for a noble cause. One cause is noble, the other isn’t – all according to Brown, who is assuming to himself the mantle of Chief Arbiter Of What’s a Good Look And What’s Not.
He blundered big time in this one.
[Poor poor Frank and GG! They’re at odds with Rudd!]
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
1293
Certainly the election after next. Could well be in 2012 thought and technically could be in 2014.
Antony, what would you say the chances of the redistributors being persuaded, on demographic grounds, that Wills and Batman should be changed from North-South Axis to East-West axis?