After three successive 55-45 results, the latest fortnightly Newspoll returns the Coalition to its lowest ebb, with Labor leading 58-42. This hasn’t been matched by any seismic shift on the preferred prime minister rating: Kevin Rudd is up two points to 67 per cent, but Malcolm Turnbull is also up one to 18 per cent. If you’re feeling creative, you might interpret the results as a vote of no confidence in the Coalition party room’s hostility to the emissions trading scheme. More details to follow. UPDATE: Labor’s primary vote is up three points to 46 per cent, the Coalition’s is down three to 35 per cent, and Turnbull’s disapproval is down two to a four-month low of 48 per cent. Graphic here; more from Dennis Shanahan.
Meanwhile, the latest weekly Essential Research survey has Labor’s lead up from 59-41 to 60-40. Further questions cover Kevin Rudd’s performance at the G20 summit (good if not great), confidence in his representation of Australia at such events (high), whether respondents agree with Bill Clinton’s kind words about him (they do), confidence in economic conditions over the next 12 months (sharply higher), concern over personal job security (correspondingly lower) and employees’ perception of how their employer is travelling (mixed).
Some big news on the preselection front, as you’re probably aware:
• Peter Dutton appears to have failed in his bid to move from Dickson to McPherson, having lost Saturday’s preselection vote to Karen Andrews. The state executive of Queensland’s Liberal National Party can refuse to ratify the result, but senior figures in the party have reportedly ruled this out. Dutton is said to have come within a handful of votes of victory on the first round, but was defeated on the third after the excluded Minna Knight’s supporters moved en masse to Karen Andrews (although the ABC records Andrews’ win on the final round being a reasonably comfortable 75 to 59). Liberals are telling the media of a “bloc of up to 40 Nationals” accounting for both local branch and state executive delegates voted against Dutton, but Barnaby Joyce (who supported Dutton) gives this the status of “scratching on the back of a public lavatory door”. Jamie Walker of The Australian reports the outcome was influenced by a “boots and all” attack on Dutton at the preselection meeting by Judy Gamin, former Nationals member for the local seat of Burleigh; the role of Currumbin MP Jann Stuckey in shifting Knight’s votes to Andrews; and the absence of the seat’s Dutton-supporting sitting member, Margaret May, who “opted to continue with a scheduled parliamentary visit to Britain”.
• Dutton’s defeat has led to speculation he might instead be accommodated by a retirement announcement from Fisher MP Peter Slipper or Fairfax MP Alex Somlyay, but neither seems to be biting. Scott Prasser of the Australian Catholic University observes: “The trouble is when you are in opposition both federally and state, you can’t offer any existing MPs any positions overseas or posts so it is very hard to sort of lean on someone say could you please go for the good of the party because we’ve got nothing to offer you.” Many have noted there’s a vacant seat next door in newly created Wright, but as Andrew Landeryou of VexNews notes, this is designated Nationals turf under the merger arrangement.
• Stephanie Peatling of the Sydney Morning Herald reports high-profile constitutional lawyer George Williams might challenge Bob McMullan for preselection in his northern Canberra seat of Fraser.
• The ABC reports Tamworth councillor and Winton district farmer Russell Webb will seek preselection for the Nationals in the state seat of Tamworth. The seat has been held by independents for all but two years since 1991: by Tony Windsor until his entry into federal parliament as member for New England in 2001, and by present incumbent Peter Draper since 2003.
Tom, you are barking up the wrong tree. The only precedent for failure to pass was the 1951 double dissolution. If the GG acts according to the principles in that incident, the High Court is not going to intervene afterwards. If it won’t intervene in the second half of Section 57, the joint sitting, they won’t intervene in the first half.
Stop with all those sensible and boring facts. They do get in the way of interesting theoretical constitutional predicaments.
The Crown’s exercise of the reserve powers (of which granting or not granting a dissolution is clearly one) are universally regarded as not justiciable. This has been restated in a number of court decisions (notably recently Black v Chretien in Canada). It’s true that the Constitution places restrictions on the type of dissolution that the GG can grant at various times and in various circumstances. Rudd cannot ask the GG to dissolve both houses today, because the requirements for a DD have not been met. But the right to decide the question of whether the requirements have been met is the sole prerogative of the GG – it is part of the reserve powers. The GG can take any advice she likes, but the decision is hers and hers alone, and cannot be litigated after the event. The High Court would certainly reject any attempt to challenge the validity of a dissolution, *even if* they subsequently found, in relation to a particular piece of legislation, that the “failure to pass” threshold had not been met (as happened in 1974).
Psephos
Ellicott is of course Barwick’s double cousin.
#Abiding Interests E.G. Whitlam.
and of course the author of the Ellicot Memorandum
But is interesting that Ellicott is being wheeled out by the Morgoth press right now. This is presumably a signal that Morgoth and his agents the Liberals are preparing to whip up another bogus “constitutional crisis” to bring down another Labor government, as they did in 1975.
Agree with everything there Psephos, except that Section 57 is not a ‘reserve’ power. It is a specific power created by Section 57 and the is why the GG does not have to follow advice.
1706
A power granted in certain circumstances.
No one’s mentioned the point that it was Ellicott writing in late October 1975 on the GG not having to accept the PMs advice if the PM could not guarantee supply that attracted Kerr’s interest.
[No one’s mentioned the point that it was Ellicott writing in late October 1975 on the GG not having to accept the PMs advice if the PM could not guarantee supply that attracted Kerr’s interest]
I did at 1704!
The power to grant a dissolution is a reserve power. S57 defines how the reserve power may be exercised by GG in certain defined circumstances.
Maybe Ellicott is considering Wentworth again, he is only 83. Prime Liberal candidate.
[No one’s mentioned the point that it was Ellicott writing in late October 1975 on the GG not having to accept the PMs advice if the PM could not guarantee supply that attracted Kerr’s interest.]
That’s why I said that his appearance in The Australian is intended as a signal that the Dark Lord is willing to stage a rerun of 1975 if his agents, the Liberals, prove too feeble to stop a Labor government.
I’ll correct that. The day that Fraser blocked supply in 1975, he released a 5 page opinion by Ellicott that stated if the Govt could not obtain supply and would not advise an election, it was within the G-G’s power to dismiss the government and appoint advisers who would advise an election. Kerr made a special request for a copy of Ellicott’s opinion. (Above sourced from Michael Sexton’s “Illusions of Power, the Fate of a Reform Government, p.215)
No psephos. There is no reserve power to dissolve the Senate. That is a power created by Section 57. I agree with everything else you say, but it is not a reserve power because it is not a power of the Monarch. It is a specific power of the GG.
[ This is presumably a signal that Morgoth and his agents the Liberals are preparing to whip up another bogus “constitutional crisis” to bring down another Labor government, as they did in 1975. ]
Unfortunately thats the way they operate. Also it worked a treat last time.
Nothing should surprise with the libs. The NBN telstra matter has a long way to go also.
Antony, yes I see you are right. There is no analogue to the Senate at Westminster, so the Constitution has modify the Westminster model to that extent. It has to create a power for the Crown to dissolve the Senate, and specify the circumstances in which it can be dissolved.
It worked a treat last time because they had Bjelke-Petersen, Kerr and Barwick – three of the most corrupt men in Australian history. This time they have none of those, so they’ll have to think of some other way to do it.
[That’s why I said that his appearance in The Australian is intended as a signal that the Dark Lord is willing to stage a rerun of 1975 if his agents, the Liberals, prove too feeble to stop a Labor government.]
Pseph, to whom is this signal being directed? The Coalition? Or is it a warning to Rudd and Gillard that they had better not attempt to implement any policies which run counter to Murdoch’s financial interests? Or both sides?
[No one’s mentioned the point that it was Ellicott writing in late October 1975 on the GG not having to accept the PMs advice if the PM could not guarantee supply that attracted Kerr’s interest.]
Not specifically, but I saw the connection at #1660.
AG may not be able to say it, but I can. Ellicott is a Liberal stooge and always has been. He’s trying to trump up similar arguments to those which he peddled in 1975, about whether the GG has to take advice, and if so whose advice the GG should or could take.
His last paragraph, which gives blatant political guidance, or at least a broad hint to the Opposition, is in direct contravention of the rest of the article, which purports to be unbiased political advice. The whole piece is a shill effort, trying to justify the creation of a constitutional crisis for partisan ends. As such it reveals a hankering in the Liberal Party for the good old days, where the constitution was a Coalition plaything, interpreted within the boys club of conservative legalistic ranks to mean whatever they wanted it to mean. Conventions, customs, even the letter of the law are all fair game as long as it benefits the Liberals. If it benefits Labor then it’s shame and vandalism bythe socialist hordes. The Liberals will do anything to avoid a double dissolution including, it seems, raising the zombie-like cadaver of Bob Ellicott from the political grave to trot out his anti-democratic claptrap once again.
It’s the same old argument: Labor is not fit to run the country. They do not understand economics, the constitution or common sense. The Liberals have any number of experts who will nod sagely in agreement, and make the shoe fit their cause, whatever size the foot.
@1719: “unbiased political advice” should read “unbiased legal advice”
Laurie Oakes gives Rudd a back-handed compliment. At least I think it’s a compliment.
[The public sees an Opposition racked by internal brawling and a leader lurching from crisis to crisis, so the polls get worse and Turnbull’s position deteriorates further. The accepted wisdom is that the Coalition has brought all this on itself through a lack of discipline and Turnbull’s ineptitude.
But credit where it is due. Turnbull and the Opposition would not have got into such a disastrous position without a great deal of help from Kevin Rudd.
Rudd has played clever and ruthless politics. Wedge politics. And he learned how to do it from an expert.
John Howard made an art form of using issues such as asylum seekers to divide the Labor Party. Climate change is for Rudd what Tampa and “children overboard” were for Howard. He has used the emissions trading scheme legislation as a wedge to open up a deep ideological fault line in the Coalition.]
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26191420-5007146,00.html
Tom, I was about to give a long extract from one of my constitutional law textbooks explaining why the Hight Court won’t undo an election after it has occured, but it is too much typing. All I will say is Justices Mason and Gibbs in the PMA (1975) case make the point that the Court won’t undo an election because of an invalid dissolution of the Senate, but they both reserved the write to rule on the matter before an election by injunction.
Given that Rudd is unlikely to call a DD election before July 2010, let the Libs play silly buggers with the CPRS in the Senate.
If the Libs want another few months of division on the issue, bring it on.
This compromise from Roxon is quite fair. About 10% of cataract operations are quite difficult and take a while (something about the lens going hard and not coming out easily).
[AN attempt by the federal government to win backing for a bid to slash Medicare rebates for cataract surgery appears to have failed, with eye surgeons unmoved by the announcement of a higher payment for complex cases.
Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon yesterday sought to break an impasse in the dispute by announcing Medicare would pay $638 for complex cataract operations lasting at least 40 minutes. ]
It looks like it won’t pass with the Coalition and Fielding saying they will vote it down.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26189730-5013871,00.html
Gough points out in Abiding Interests
p7 para 6
[…the Ellicott memorandum in fact foreshadowed the Barwick doctrine and the Fraser threat.On 21 October 1975 Kerr asked me the rhetorical question,”It’s bullshit isn’t it?”]
[But credit where it is due. Turnbull and the Opposition would not have got into such a disastrous position without a great deal of help from Kevin Rudd. Rudd has played clever and ruthless politics. Wedge politics. And he learned how to do it from an expert. ]
It’s an insult wrapped up as a compliment. It’s saying Rudd is only winning because he has played ruthless wedge politics, ie, he is a clever but nasty guy. It ignores the fact that the MAIN reason Rudd is ahead is that the Australian people think he is RIGHT on the big issues of the day – WorkChoices, the GFC and climate. (They also like and trust him personally, which helps.) That’s the political elephant in the room the Libs and the media pack can’t get around.
It is a little harsh to call him a Liberal stooge BB, he was a Liberal MP at the time of the 1975 election. A Liberal MP putting out a view backing the Liberal position is normal procedure.
I suspect the advice in today’s article is exactly the same as the advice the government has from crown law officers. The government has to allow normal Senate procedure to be followed to unambiguously prove failure to pass. It is why the Government didn’t bring on a vote in the last week of June, but left it to September for the normal second reading debate to see the bill defeated the first time.
I suggest people read Chapter 21 of Odgers Senate Practice. It explains much of the debate on what you can and can’t do to get a double dissolution.,
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/pubs/odgers/pdf/chap21.pdf
I think the government’s quite happy to let the opposition drag the matter out to the new year anyway. I think a DD between July and mid-September is more likely than an early DD to avoid having to have another election in 2012. By mid-year there will be no dispute about failure to pass.
Psephos
I agree with you, for once. 👿
My understanding of wedge politics is making a relatively minor but emotive issue into a major political debate (eg gay marriage) not because you think it’s important but because you want to divide your opponent opportunistically.
Climate change doesn’t come close to being a deliberate wedge. The Libs are hopelessly divided on a very major policy. That’s not Rudd’s fault
I should just add that gay marriage is obviously a very important topic to many in the community but that it would not rate in the top ten issues at the next election.
Wedge politics is where you use an issue to divide an opponent’s base vote. The classic example is splitting the union base of the US Democratic party by using values/morality issues to gain support from socialilly conservative blue collar male voters. In Australia, the 2001 election was wedge politics, Labor struggling as parts of its base vote were attracted by the Howard government’s strong stand on boat arrivals.
Too many people now say ‘wedge politics’ when plain old clever politics would suffice. Labor is not splitting the Coalition’s base vote with the ETS, it is splitting the parliamentary party. The rest of the issue is just normal politics.
And I agree with Diogenes and Antony. Oh happy day! Let harmony and understanding reign! 🙂
Antony
Does it have to be deliberate distorted or disingenuous to be “wedge politics”? What if a party holds a genuine position which just happens to divide the opponent’s base?
1732
Conviction Wedge Politics.
[In Australia, the 2001 election was wedge politics, Labor struggling as parts of its base vote were attracted by the Howard government’s strong stand on boat arrivals.]
I’d suggest that the wedge is being whipped up again.
[Refugees know Kevin Rudd has opened the door]
To wit:
[Samer, a 31-year-old Iraqi now living in Puncak, knows all about Kevin Rudd and his new immigration rules. “I know Kevin Rudd is the new PM,” he says. “I know about him. He has tried to get more immigrants. I have heard if someone arrives it is easy. They have camps, good service and if someone arrives they give us a limited visa and after three years you become an Australian citizen.”
The Howard government’s Pacific Solution is dead, and they know it. ]
http://wl.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26189710-5013871,00.html
On the Pink Batts causing fires crud.
Ms ru, heard the story on the radio this morning and of course imagined the worst. We have recently had ceiling insulation installed. (Thanks Kev) The total cost was $2200 so the rebate did not cover all of the costs.
So ms ru get out the ladder and pops through the “person hole” 🙂 to check it out.
Perfect job, sleeves around the downlights and exhaust fans, insulation under electrical wiring, junction boxes uncovered.
“Paul” the guy who did the installation has been doing it for 20 years. He now employs 8 staff and between his two crews do 8-9 jobs a day.
Thats $64,000 a week turnover. How dare a simple tradesman make so much. That is the crux of Pyne’s whine.
1735
There are dodgy people out there. They are probably in the minority but they do exist. They cannot however be blamed on the Federal Government especially the current one.
Tomtfab
Of course there are “dodgy bros insulation” the Govt has found about 100 of them. But of the over 7000 companies on the Govt. list, it is a tiny minority about 0.01%.
1737
They are in the minority but it is not as small as you make out. Using the figures you provide above. 100 out of 7,000 companies is 1 company in 70 (1.43%). The Government can`t have found them all. Say there is double what the Government has caught. That makes it 1 in 35 (2.86%). It is good that the companies have been caught. I am sure the Government is doing a decent job of trying to sort out the bad providers.
This talk of whether a DD would be constitutional is pure piffle.
From Ellicott’s article:
[If the governor-general, in such circumstances, granted a double dissolution and the government won the election a cloud would nevertheless remain over the proposed legislation because its validity could be attacked. The High Court could well decide it was invalid. On one view, a cloud may then even hang over the validity of the actual double-dissolution election. ]
Oh “a cloud”! How dreadful. How on earth could Australia cope?
Please. If Rudd asks for a DD, it’ll be called, it’ll be held,, the results will stand.
The rest is for First Year Constitutional Law Tutorials
(says a non-lawyer)
Grog, the government will ensure there is no cloud over any DD legislation before it considers calling a DD. It will wait. There is no point calling a DD on the CPRS legislation if it would be at risk of later being over-turned in the High Court. Otherwise it would have to start all over again trying to pass the legislation.
It is far from piffle and is why there will not be an early double dissolution. If the Opposition plays its tactics correctly in the Senate, the government will not have an unambiguous trigger until March or April. It may be the DD will be called held and stand, but the question is whether the legislation would withstand legal challenge.
Grog,
The fascinating thing is the Lib henchmen trying to fix it so a DD does not happen because it is against their interests.
Cannot imagine how the Libs believe this will work in their favour.
From a purely political viewpoint it doesn’t really matter at all. By Xmas 2010 we will have had the election, Rudd will have another term with an increased majority, and there will be a Labor-Greens majority in the Senate from July 2011.
It only matters if you think the CPRS is of such intrinsic importance that we can’t wait until late 2011 to get it passed and until 2012 to get it actually operating. If you think that, then it is worth running some political risks to get it passed earlier – say at a joint sitting after a March DD – and also accepting the inconvenience of a shortened term for the new Senate.
AG, Ellicott is a Liberal stooge now because he didn’t write the article as a Liberal politician, he wrote in the disinterested fashion of a lawyer. He hasn’t been a Lib pollie for about 25-30 years now.
I find it amusing that the Libs are always on abotu how Labor vandalizes Parliamentary procedure, don’t know how to comport themselves, ruin all the institutions (like the future Fund, private health etc.) yet when it comes to the real damage to be done it is always the Libs who do it. They are the ones who look to the fine print and the exceptions clauses. They have no respect for the Constitution except when it gets them what they want. They see themselves as the repositories of wisdom on such matters, when in fact they are the vandals.
Rather than fight an election on matters of substance they are always trying to angle in on some dodgy ploy to do with “The System” – wonky points of order about alleged irrelevance of QT answers, misleading Parliament, going against the Constitution, or any number of other “scandals”. They want the easy way into power, by doing the minimum of work and the maximum of guerilla warfare. The Silver Bullet is their only weapon.
If you don’t believe me, please name a positive (i.e. non-negative), substantive policy position they’ve come up with in the past two years that they’ve stuck to.
pephos,
It matters psycologically because Rudd will have the trigger and this will play on the minds of the Libs. The fact they are running around looking for dissenting opinions is indicative that it is on their collective horizon. Rudd may choose not to pull that trigger but he certainly has a cat over mouse ascendancy atm.
Hopefully the next Parliament will have a number of ways of achieving a majority. Whether that be with the Nats, Independants and the Greens would be a best outcome for the Government.
This is a question of whether we think Labor should be in power just for the sake of keeping the Libs out, or whether we think we should be in power to get things done. I know people here think I’m a cynical Labor-right pragmatist, but I actually belong to the latter camp. I think passing the CPRS as soon as possible is in the national interest and is worth running some risks to get done. I still think the Libs will cave in and pass it next month, but if they don’t I want a DD as soon as possible. I expect, however, that more cautious counsels would prevail.
It appears the Libs want the Govt. to increase subsidies to Coal, Aluminium and Agriculture. or no CPRS.
Where does this money come from? Who gets less?
Or is it magic pudding economics?
There are two WA Lib senators at least, Cormann and someone else, who are supporting this motion in WA today.
[The Opposition Leader will not attend a debate later today on a motion calling for a delay to negotiations until after the Copenhagen summit.]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/10/2710450.htm?section=business
Here we now have the Libs complaining about QT etc no interest in changes whilst they were in the driving seat but put the boot on the other foot and my do they whine what a bunch of hypocrites. and now the ghoul from the grave Ellicott emerging from the slime.how low will they go
Psephos,
Rudd is taking full advantage of the crisis known as the Opposition.
What the GFC and the interminable wrangling on the CPRS have done is buy time while the Government gets their ducks in line over critical areas such as Health and the roll out of the FFTH reforms.
Beyond that there are never ending lists of things that need to be done.
Rudd is taking full advantage of the crisis known as the Opposition.
[Too many people now say ‘wedge politics’ when plain old clever politics would suffice. Labor is not splitting the Coalition’s base vote with the ETS, it is splitting the parliamentary party.]
Yes, that is what Tampa was about, splitting the parliamentary vote. Kim was spinning in circles trying to please all in the party, same with Howards call on nuclear. There was a brilliant cartoon in the SMH on this that showed a pleased Howard saying I’ve managed to split the labor party. He tried the same on the NT intervention but Rudd held them together.