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.”
I would have thought that was the perfect to keep warm by moving around.
Centre
Canada is banking on Global Warming.
[Don’t worry Scarpat, global warming will fix that up.
If it ever hurries up and starts]
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SciTech/20100924/global-warming-100925/
[So you are saying that because of a situation where a man and a women are unable to have a child because of a physical problem, gays should be allowed to get married, ALTHOUGH it is a physical impossibility for them to have children?
I think the basis of your argument is flawed?]
No. From my reading of it, Diog is simply saying that the capacity or desire to have children is an absurd basis on which to decide whether people should be allowed to marry or not. It doesn’t apply to the heterosexual world. Why on earth should it apply to anyone else?
Centre
[Why would anybody want to ban people who have testicular cancer or cervical cancer from getting married?
So you are saying that because of a situation where a man and a women are unable to have a child because of a physical problem, gays should be allowed to get married, ALTHOUGH it is a physical impossibility for them to have children?
I think the basis of your argument is flawed?]
You are arguing that because a same sex couples inability to have children is a reason to say they can’t get married.
I’m pointing out that argument is facile and illogical as you aren’t applying the same argument to other couples who can’t have children.
Do you see the problem with your argument?
Danged bolding again! Sorry. (I keep on accidentally closing with a /a, instead of a /b )
[Marriage was (and to a great extent still is) a product of the economic system.]
Puffy, i am with you on this. Until it was hijacked by the moral Mullahs of the institutionalised religions.
Jesus wanted to marry Mary Magdalena, but he aint got no money.
Oh Dee,
It is so much better on the dark side, as you are learning 😀
I think I will vote FOR gay marriage! Why should we be the only ones to lose a fortune to those leaches if you get a divorce?
And why should we be the only ones subjected to all the temptations that life has to offer? 😈
No, I have changed my mind!
I demand that gays be allowed to get married 😆
[No. From my reading of it, Diog is simply saying]
Diog never said anything. he just mumbles.
[BTW – I think Turnbull said on Agenda that Abbott believes there should be a carbon price, market based but it’s all to do with how you get there. I was busy so only half listening but that got my ears open. Did anybody else hear that.]
Months before the election Fran Kelly cornered the Rabbott on carbon tax. He slithered all over the joint before stating he could not rule out a carbon tax if he won the upcoming election.
[When will this man do the right think and crawl into a hole somewhere and disappear.
Retire already!!!]
He’s desperate for a return to the spotlight.
Howard was hoping that his position as a former PM would give him the required gravitas to get whatever plum appointment he wanted. It didn’t. He was also hoping that due to the cult of personality that existed around him, he’d be looked up to, for years coming, as some elder political sage. He isn’t.
He is starting to realise that you can have a record length of office but if your legacy is one of gripping on to power for as long as possible, at any cost, expect to be irrelevant when you lose said power.
[Jesus wanted to marry Mary Magdalena, but he aint got no money.]
And geez, doesn’t it cost money!!!!
TSOP @210 – very good description of Little Johnny.
Mitchell has shot himself in both feet by bring attention to a tweet that would have largely gone unnoticed. What a goose. I wonder how the OO will report on the tape recording which confirms that the tweeted comments were in fact made by a former employee. I bet the OO doesn’t mention the tapes at all. Mitchell’s problem is that he has too often brought the OO into disrepute. There will be a smell hanging over the OO for as long as he is in charge.
Karma.
Thought I’d just check over at The Oz to see if the audio tapes had been mentioned. Funny, nothing there but an article about how “unremarkable” it all is.
TSOP:
Plus Howard’s looking a bit desperate, hanging around like a bad smell. He should just fade quietly into the background, and then he might find people come seeking him out. But thrusting himself into our faces just reminds us how irrelevent he is now. IIRC even Keating had a period of grace where he bowed out and stayed out.
[And geez, doesn’t it cost money!!!!]
two can live more cheaply than one — life costs money, but more importantly LIFE costs.
ironic really….
[two can live more cheaply than one — life costs money, but more importantly LIFE costs.]
That is: marriage costs money, but more importantly LIFE costs.
Three seems to cost a bit more though, jenauthor …. but worth every rouble.
[Maybe in the fullness of time, we will go full circle and end up back at our pagan beginnings.]
They didn’t call me “Hagen the Pagan” when I was at school for nothing! 😉
[…. but worth every rouble.]
yep — kids are the most expensive expense after a car.
[Thought I’d just check over at The Oz to see if the audio tapes had been mentioned. Funny, nothing there but an article about how “unremarkable” it all is.]
In his article today Bernard Keane said the OO has developed a habit of donning a persecution or victim complex when it ends up in the firing line: it wasn’t their fault about Grog, the journo who outed him was the subject of nasty tweets; the Greens had bullied the paper, so of course they’d say they should be destroyed; and now this.
jenauthor – have you seen how much those DS games cost!!
Now, back to more mundane things, Howard’s book sales must be a little on the low side to be peddling as hard as he is. I presume Lateline is doing the Howard thing as a bit of light relief against the slog of an election just ended.
What’s more, confessions, The Oz trumpets a lawyer as saying it’s all a bit of a drag, so it MUST be true.
I disagree Diogs and Rod.
Diogs, where a man and a women may not be able to have a child because of a physical PROBLEM, does not justify that gays should be allowed to marry, where it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to have a child by natural means.
Rod no, the natural capacity for a couple to have a child is not an absurd basis. It is a huge basis!
It only takes two (a man and a women) to have a kid. Therefore marriage comprises two (a man and a women).
If you want to deviot away from that, good. But we are heading towards uncharted waters.
[I presume Lateline is doing the Howard thing as a bit of light relief against the slog of an election just ended.]
Likely he is cashing in some owebies.
A few interesting tweets that have come up on the site set up to support Posseti. And they are coming in fast & furiously too, 😉
[Things just went from FAIL to PWNED for Chris Mitchell ]
[Hard to see a case for Chris Mitchell in defo against Posseti http://bit.ly/eAhcVZ Recording vindicates her (and crikey reporting) ]
[Tape vindicates Posetti in #twitdef http://bit.ly/fL9w9d Chris MItchell should sue himself for making him look like a complete muppet. ]
[ABC reports that Posetti Tweets are pretty accurate summary of what was said: ]
http://twitter.com/search?q=%23twitdef
Howard is in denial.
[But we are heading towards uncharted waters.]
Those waters were chartered thousands of years ago centre.
And my OH and I have come to the conclusion it tales at least three to raise a kid, preferably four. The extended family (no matter what sex, etc they are), are a hioghly preferable part of a good childhood (although I will admit here that not every family is perfect …. to address the doubters).
Centre:
All Dio and Rod Hagen are saying is that it’s illogical to link continued discrimination against same sex couples wrt marriage with the ability to bear children, as it seems you are arguing.
If child bearing ability is the basis for legal marriage, and so that’s why gay people shouldn’t be permitted to marry, then by logical extension, you ought to apply the same reasoning to infertile couples who want to marry, and senior couples beyond their child bearing ages.
takes, not tales!!
Yes Dee, it must be hard to perceive your own irrelevance after seeing yourself as the ‘king’ of all you survey. Too bad he and a few sycophants were the only ones that saw him that way.
He thought he was a big fish in a little pond — and now he ain’t even a bit of driftwood.
Lets hope Abbott is heading down the same route.
[Rod no, the natural capacity for a couple to have a child is not an absurd basis. It is a huge basis!]
Yet another completely illogical statement.
Should couples who don’t have the natural capacity to have a couple be allowed to get married?
Yes or No.
From Our ABC Sunday Profile. A very good, sanguine, non emotional assessment of the current “crisis” at the Korean Pennisula;
[MONICA ATTARD: All eyes are on North and South Korea this week. The two rivals exchanged artillery fire on Tuesday along their disputed sea frontier, raising tensions to their highest level in more than a decade…….
For an American with decades of knowledge and experience talking to the North Koreans, Robert Carlin is as close to an insider as you can get. This month he was part of an invited group that toured the Yongbyon nuclear centre where he saw the beginnings of an experimental light-water reactor which the North Koreans say is the first step in generating nuclear power.
But more significantly Robert Carlin and his colleagues were shown thousands of centrifuges at a new modern plant for processing low-grade uranium which the Koreans say is for the reactor. But the sceptics are many.
Either way Robert Carlin says the US has blown many chances to negotiate with North Korea and now it’s time for a new approach.]
http://www.abc.net.au/sundayprofile/stories/3077396.htm
What a tremendous amount of judgmental twaddle there is on here today about gay relationships. Gay couples who raise children must be sickened when they read such garbage.
If I have taken the inference correctly that people who cannot have children are somehow inferior to the rest of society and therefore should be denied marriage on those grounds alone, then that is in Truthy territory.
By all means use the political reality argument – that is at least an honest one.
No confessions.
Gays are not discriminated against. They can proceed to live their lives in exactly the same way as married heterosexual couples. (Oh don’t forget to legally merge both assets though).
I’ll reply to your last para @ 230 with post 225.
[who don’t have the natural capacity to have a couple be allowed to get married?]
Have a couple of “what”?
audio walquist
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/audio/news-audio/201011/20101129-walquist-speaks.mp3
Seems like this blog is all about gay marriage?
It would be down the bottom of my list of most important things for the govt to do.
I don’t give a hoot one way or the other
Loony greens influence again 😛
Boring topic! Let me know when Truthy arrives to stir things up!
This is an oldish Bill Leak cartoon but reckon it’s a ripper 😆
scorps
Have a “couple” of kids.
[audio walquist]
Cant’ say I am all that impressed with walquists role in all of this. She appears to have made the comments then ducked for cover, denying she said what she said. Has the Oz’s bullying style tactics worked?
Vera@239
[Boring topic! Let me know when Truthy arrives to stir things up!
]
Bilbo has banned Truthy – AGAIN. This time for his ALP are Friends of Crooks etc meme.
Really Truthy banned again. I missed his latest rant.
I’ll withdraw that last comment I made.
vera,
I know at least three people in that picture. Especially the one with the dog 😉
Diogs what is so illogical about the fact that the capability of a man and a women to have a child forms the basis of a marriage.
If gay marriages are allowed, a precedent will be set to an unlimited restriction on the number of people in a marriage, in my view.
Another thing Diogs, in a gay marriage who is the mummy and who will be the daddy 😆
nappin
did you listen to the audio?
Oh, Glen Milne is all foreboding about the rammifications of Brumby’s election loss for Gillard. 😡
Won’t even bother providing a link.
[Really Truthy banned again. I missed his latest rant.]
I missed it too! I wonder whose computer and nom de plume he’ll use to get back on.
Diogenes,
[Scorps
Have a “couple” of kids.]
No thanks. I already have two couples of them! 😉