Essential Research: 51-49 to Coalition

The latest Essential Research survey is out, but they’ve sent it as a Word document rather than a PDF and for some reason WordPress won’t let me upload it (UPDATE: The good people at Essential have sent through a PDF). It has the Coalition maintaining its 51-49 lead for a third week running, though down a point on the primary vote to 44 per cent with Labor steady on 38 per cent and the Greens up one to 11 per cent. Other questions relate to gay marriage, which 50 per cent support but only 37 per cent consider important, and the National Broadband Network, with 69 per cent agreeing it is important that it be built.

Legal matters:

• The New South Wales government last week passed significant campaign finance reforms through parliament with the support of the Greens in the upper house, including several measures new to Australian practice which could set trends for the federal and other parliaments. Imre Salusinszky of The Australian described the bill, no doubt correctly, as “an intriguing mix of progressive public policy and political rat cunning”. To deal with its major features in turn:

Spending caps. Salusinszky’s “rat cunning” lies in the government’s decision to impose limits on electoral communication expenditure just as corporate donors fall over themselves to curry favour with a soon-to-be-victorious Coalition. More predictably and still more contentiously, the bill defines trade unions as third parties whose campaigning will not be affected by caps on party spending, even if they are affiliated with Labor (Barry O’Farrell has peddled legal advice claiming this to be unconstitutional), and treats the Coalition as a single party. Party spending in the six months up to an election will be limited to $9.3 million centrally and $100,000, amounting to another $9.3 million given there are 93 electorates. It should be noted that “electoral communication expenditure” excludes such expensive party operations as polling and other research, and there is a view abroad that this means it is not as restrictive as it should be.

Donation caps. Apart from the largely symbolic $50,000 cap on donations from the gaming industry in Victoria, these have previously been unknown in Australia. The legislation caps donations at $5000 per financial year to parties, not counting party subscriptions of up to $2000, or $2000 a year to candidates or elected members. Furthermore, donations have been banned altogether from the alcohol and gambling sectors (together with the tobacco industry at the suggestion of the Greens), which have done so much to fill NSW Labor’s coffers over the years. This move is particularly interesting in light of recent retirement announcements by Paul Gibson and Joe Tripodi, who are renowned for having built their influence as conduits for such funding. This will apply not only to hotels and the Australian Hotels Association, but also to Coles and Woolworths owing to their liquor retailing activities. However, a late agreement between Labor and the Greens saw the exemption of non-profit registered clubs.

Public funding. The parties have compensated themselves for donations caps with what will amount to a hefty increase in public funding, under new arrangements that rupture the traditional link between votes cast and funding received. Parties that score more than 4 per cent of the vote will instead be reimbursed for their electoral communication expenditure to a maximum of a bit under $10 million. Parties or candidates only running in the Council have been treated more generously at the insistence of the Greens – constitutional expert Anne Twomey says this might create legal problems as one type of political entity will be favoured over another, though George Williams says this is “arguable”.

Further north:

• AAP reports Queensland Opposition Leader John-Paul Langbroek has committed to sweeping electoral reforms if elected to government, including truth-in-advertising laws, campaign spending caps, electronic voting and a referendum on fixed terms if elected to government. In contrast to the spending cap just introduced in New South Wales, Langbroek proposes that campaign spending by (presumably Labor-affiliated) unions would count as part of Labor expenditure. In addition to these largely laudable measures, Langbroek also proposes to require that voters provide photo identification at the polling booth, citing spurious concerns about voting fraud to justify an effective restriction on the franchise to his own party’s electoral advantage.

• Jeremy Pierce of the Courier-Mail reports that a Gold Coast couple is challenging a fine for failure to vote in last year’s state election on the grounds that they did not know the election was on, having “never received one bit of information about it”. University of Queensland Law School academic Graeme Orr’s newly published The Law of Politics: Elections, parties and Money in Australia (available now from Federation Press) relates a number of unsuccessful challenges against fines brought by voters on the basis that they lacked a genuine preference between the candidates on offer, but nothing of this kind. UPDATE: Graeme Orr writes in comments: “There is case law rejecting a defense of ‘I had no information about the candidates’. They might win by arguing the general criminal law defense of honest mistake of fact.”

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.

4,251 comments on “Essential Research: 51-49 to Coalition”

Comments Page 3 of 86
1 2 3 4 … 86

  3. My big bugbear in this whole argument when people state gay marriage is not sanctioned by the church (whatever church) is the fact that most religions put great stock in the ‘thou shalt not judge’ attitude — when in fact most religions spend their entire time ‘judging’ everybody over everything they say, think and do.

    It is quite silly really.

  4. jenauthor, that is why i let my membership lapse quite some time ago. there is only so much hypocrisy one can tolerate. oops.. or is that just me being judgemental!

  6. [Should we ban post-menopause marriage?]

    😆

    I am sure a lot of men would agree to this … would sanction their mid-life crises and allow them to trade in their wives for younger models. 😆 😆

  7. [Should we ban post-menopause marriage]

    Could they have had children at one point Diogs? Yes.

    Could gays have children (naturally) at one point? No.

  9. so we should ban blokes shooting blanks from marriage? its not about having children. its about love. (well it is at the start!)

  11. [I am sure a lot of men would agree to this … would sanction their mid-life crises and allow them to trade in their wives for younger models.]

    …or get that red Porsche that I (oops correction) they have always been dreaming about…

  13. [Could they have had children at one point Diogs? Yes.

    Could gays have children (naturally) at one point? No.]

    No, they could not have children when they got married.

    Should we ban people who have had testicular cancer or uterine/cervical cancer from getting married? Should we ban people born infertile from getting married?

  14. The above points about children and menopause basically prove the argument that the world has changed and we must move with those changes.

    While it sounds idealistic — all people are created equal — and that equality should endure throughout their lives regardless of lifestyle choices. Anything else is simply undemocratic.

  15. mm

    Hard for any govt to be re-elected to a fourth term. They had 11 years. From what I gather NSW would have been better off to have changed govt after 11 years.

  17. Vic. it is only the incompetence of the NSW Libs and QLD LNP that meant KK and Anna are currently premiers. Up here the LNP are still yet to show they are worthy. But they’ll win nonetheless.

  21. And here in NSW the Libs are only seen as ‘least worst’ option rather than the ‘best option’.

    And again, we must give the daily telegraph kudos — they are ruthless in their attack on Labor in this state. If a Labor parliamentarian accidently nicked his grandma when cutting her toenails it’d make the front page of the Tele with proclamations of “Murder Most Foul”.

  23. Centre. Public opinion hasn’t shown any willingness to embrace polygomy. Thats quite a radical proposal you are putting forward. Good luck with your campaign.

  25. jenauthor

    The Daily Terror is certainly relentless in their attacks. For you guys, the best thing to happen is for Libs to take the reigns asap.

  26. Centre

    [Should we ban people who have had testicular cancer or uterine/cervical cancer from getting married? Should we ban people born infertile from getting married?]

    Can we get an answer to those questions?

  27. [victoriaPosted Monday, November 29, 2010 at 5:27 pm | Permalinkjenauthor
    The Daily Terror is certainly relentless in their attacks. For you guys, the best thing to happen is for Libs to take the reigns asap.
    ]

    Just like The West was with the Carpwenter govt in the last 12 months of the Carpenter govt – thaen as soon as Barnett got elected they suddenly went as quiet as a church mouse.

  28. according to Abbott, State Liberal govts are indicative of how toxic federal Labor is.

    Only thing, why was Federal Liberal under Howard not toxic, when all States had Labor govts? Gee I really dislike that man.

  31. [jenauthorPosted Monday, November 29, 2010 at 5:31 pm | PermalinkYou won’t get an answer Dio.
    Inflexibility is the key to Centre’s argument.
    ]

    Just like Dio’s attidude to Christine Nixon 🙂

  32. Polygamy usually ends up as a man having more than one wife. I am sure the places that have legalised polygamy would soon change their ideas if it was equal – a woman could have more that one husband. The would be embracing monogamy with great fervour.

  33. [If you are going to legalise gay marriage, what the hell, why stop at a marriage of two, why not 3 or 5 or even 10?]

    Ah yes, go forth and multiply…

  34. The question is — when the State Lib govts start doing their “reactionary thing” everyone will begin to realise that the Libs are no better because the state level issues cannot be solved easily.

  35. [If you are going to legalise gay marriage, what the hell, why stop at a marriage of two, why not 3 or 5 or even 10?]

    That would be big love! Very big love!

    But in that instance there isn’t one group of people who are allowed to polygamise and another group who aren’t, therefore there is no discrimination.

  36. jenauthor

    yes. Service delivery is not easy for whoever is in power. I am sad that Brumby and his team are out. They were a very competent govt.

  38. Middle man @ 123, who knows, give public opinion time!

    I’m not putting any proposal forward and certainly wouldn’t be running any campaign on it.

    I would love to hear an intelligent response from you as to why gay marriage could not involve more than two people, given the capacity of gay couples to have children naturally is not an issue according to most here?

  40. Ballieu will be a disappointment to many of those who made the shift to him from Labor. He won’t stop public drunkenness or anger at a rapidly growing population and he won’t reduce stamp duty by anything more than a $1000 or so. By the middle of 2011 ex Labor voters will be saying “this bloke isn’t any better than the last one.”

    If Labor can show itself to be a positive sounding opposition then there’s every chance they’ll be returned in 4 years.

  41. [AristotlePosted Monday, November 29, 2010 at 5:34 pm | PermalinkIf you are going to legalise gay marriage, what the hell, why stop at a marriage of two, why not 3 or 5 or even 10?
    That would be big love! Very big love!
    But in that instance there isn’t one group of people who are allowed to polygamise and another group who aren’t, therefore there is no discrimination.
    ]

    In many traditional idigenous communities I believe there are quite a few men with “many wives”.

  42. Centre

    Still waiting for a response to those questions. I’m guessing you won’t because your argument, such as it is, will blow up in your face when you do.

  43. Diogenes,

    [Scarpat

    I wondered why Mitchell sued Posetti rather than Walhquist. Has he answered that yet? ]

    Probably because it would make it easier to back out of if it didn’t go the way he hoped it would.

    And it rather looks to have blown up in his face somewhat already.

  44. [Should we ban people who have had testicular cancer or uterine/cervical cancer from getting married? Should we ban people born infertile from getting married?]

    Or seniors who are beyond their child bearing years? Phillip Ruddock seems to think we should, if his speech to Bandt’s bill is anything to go by.

  46. TSOP

    Good grief. That would be such an expensive exercise.
    I would argue that polygamy would be a very costly social situation to support in any shape or form. What if there is a divorce from three women as an example, all of whom have children. Who the heck is going to support them? The State? We cannot afford it.

  50. [I wondered why Mitchell sued Posetti rather than Walhquist. Has he answered that yet?]

    Dio, good question. I haven’t seen any response to that question nor have I seen anybody asking the question in the first place but I was wondering about that too. Another question is what is Mitchell’s agenda in suing in the first place. There was another article vis-a-vis Mitchell in Crikey today but I can’t see the link so I will paste it here;

    [6. Mitchell on defamation: ‘neither the paper nor I would ever sue’
    Clive Hamilton writes:
    CHRIS MITCHELL, DEFAMATION, JULIE POSETTI, THE AUSTRALIAN
    Threats by editor-in-chief of the Australian Chris Mitchell to sue journalism academic Julie Posetti are all bluff. Mitchell has for years been criticised for the newspaper’s coverage of climate change and the attacks appear to be getting to him.

    Three years ago I and my publisher, Black Inc, were threatened with legal action by journalists at The Australian over what I had written about the paper in my book Scorcher. I had accused the newspaper under Mitchell’s editorship of running a virulently anti-greenhouse line, allowing the news pages to become a parody of dispassionate journalism, verballing scientists and attacking science in pursuit of a larger ideological battle.

    Weeks before the book was due to be published, senior staff signalled that defamation action was being considered. As I wrote shortly afterwards, this struck me as bullying typical of the newspaper’s style. With a daily circulation of 130,000 and double that number on Saturdays, The Australian is in a strong a position to defend itself against any criticisms, and it is in a class of its own when it comes to bagging people it does not like.

    The threats were also profoundly hypocritical. I emailed Mitchell to point out that as editor-in-chief he had for years campaigned vigorously against Australia’s defamation laws, with many editorials making a strong case against them for restricting free speech. I reproduced some words from editorials to remind him of his stance:

    “Newspapers have become accustomed to being the victims of Australia’s ludicrous defamation laws, which act to suppress free speech and enrich lawyers … But now the defamation explosion is hitting the book publishing business hard … Book-burning through defamation means control of the historical record goes to the people with the deepest pockets and the smartest lawyers.” (Editorial, The Australian, January 31, 2004)

    And again a few months later:

    “The defamation law as it stands has done grave damage to public culture in Australia … The whole legalistic approach ignores a fundamental truth: freedom of speech and a vigorous and open marketplace of ideas are essential to a democratic society … In fact, reputation is something established in the marketplace of ideas…” (Editorial, The Australian, August 6,2004)

    The paper had also observed that “the legal system’s notion of reputation as a form of private property that can be damaged or stolen is at odds with the idea of a free and robust marketplace of ideas and comment.” (Editorial, The Australian, October 21, 2004)

    I wrote that there would be few organisations in this country in a better position than The Australian to participate in a free and robust marketplace of ideas and comment. Indeed, in another leader (May 19, 2005), Mitchell had written that “big companies have plenty of resources for protecting their reputations” without use of the defamation laws.

    Mitchell responded quickly by email saying “Neither the paper nor I would ever sue”.

    So what has changed to convince Mitchell that his reputation, if no one else’s, is a form of private property that can be damaged or stolen, that his actions should be outside the free and robust marketplace of ideas, and that book-burning is beyond the pale but Tweet-suppression is legitimate?

    Posetti’s tweet reporting words allegedly used by former Australian science journalist Asa Wahlquist were no more critical than my allegations in Scorcher, so when did Mitchell become so fragile?

    The Australian is feeling increasingly isolated by its stance on climate change. It hasn’t stopped writing defamatory articles about climate scientists, nor mimicking the IPA in attacks on all forms of renewable energy, but it has been working hard to publish voices from what it sees as “the other side” in order to give itself cover. These attempts are failing because no one trusts The Australian.

    Although it won’t be any fun for Julie Posetti, I hope Mitchell does sue. I would expect the discovery process to uncover a gold mine of useful documents for the defence lawyers, and the affidavits from the bevy of honest journalists who have left the newspaper in disgust will make great reading. Then, of course, there will be the flood of leaks from journalists still employed by the paper. Mitchell will be putting himself on trial.]

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 3 of 86
1 2 3 4 … 86