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.”
Ooh. Paleogeography Wars
UNSW research call firestick farming rubbish.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2010/s3085400.htm
Does the city where the cricket is being played normally get a live telecast? I thought it was only when the ground was sold out for the day.
[confessions
Posted Monday, December 6, 2010 at 11:01 am | Permalink
Does the city where the cricket is being played normally get a live telecast? I thought it was only when the ground was sold out for the day.]
Puff,
R U in Adelaide?
[
Does the city where the cricket is being played normally get a live telecast? I thought it was only when the ground was sold out for the day.
]
confessions, I know Melbourne and Sydney now get all of the cricket live whether the ground is sold out or not. I don’t know about Adelaide
Vik @ # 3916
“Ratsars
As for the PM’s comments, I would be very surprised if she was not acting in accordance with legal and national security advice.
Some things are very obviously illegal, and a person does not need to be able to quote the exact reference from statute to know that they are illegal.
If I see a person stealing a car or stealing something from a shop, then I’ll know & say that this something illegal … even if I cannot quote the exact reference from the Crimes Act which makes this illegal.”
Politicians and PM in particular do not have that luxury. Off the cuff remarks are generally something to be avoided because words have implications not only for those that they are aimed at but to those who make them.
To address your example, how do you know that the car was being stolen? There are many explanations that could explain such an event and a lot of them are legal.
The geographer above has taken on the establishment. He should expect retribution.
So Peterson falls but the slaughter continues.
32 run partnership off just over 4 overs.
make that 38 runs!
madcyril:
I didn’t know that. When did they start doing that?
Poss on same sex marriage opinion.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/12/06/public-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/
robot – I wont disagree with you as I don’t have the expertise or breadth of knowledge on international affairs and the conduct of diplomacy etc to gainsay your position.
Nevertheless I think China even if disappointed will still see Rudd as a useful person to have around because of his association with the US administration. China pretty much know Rudd’s attitude to them as I recall him calling them a repressive regime not long before the 2007 election in relation to some question asked of him. And for reasons others have given here.
I think I would have to be pleased that Rudd has this sort of mature attitude rather than an adoration for anything Chinese as can happen.
But as my wife (Chinese) has told me a number of times. The Chinese never burn bridges, even with their most disgusting enemies, as today’s most bitter enemies you might be able to use tomorrow.
We had a brief discussion about Rudd’s ‘force’ comment earlier. The item is far too short to know the context or what he was referring to. Obviously he is not recommending armed conflict as that is a no win situation for all. But it might in the manner of making pears prickly, too hard to eat. The experts on this will no doubt be able to disect the meaning of this.
Hopefully there is a greater discussion on this and the mechanics of this type of behind the scenes thing, which is fascinating.
Prior and Bell put on a 50 run partnership in just 5 overs.
And they declare with a lead of 375
[
I didn’t know that. When did they start doing that?
]
A couple of years ago. It was a good decision as we used to get shafted in Melbourne. There would be say, 65,000 people at the MCG and Nine wouldn’t telecast the whole day because the ground wasn’t sold out. Even though it was by far the biggest crowd of the summer!
A depressign story here that illustrates why Obama is failing as US president: he is so weak! It looks like he is willing to cave in to the Republicans on extending the Bush tax cuts in order to get other legislation passed. WTF? These cuts were only supposed to be temporary, and require legislation to extend them. We are talknig about tax cuts for people on > $250K US per annum, for a country with a debt of 60% of GDP! Amazing.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/06/3085454.htm?section=justin
What is the point of electing a “progressive” president when he is so compromised that the only laws he passes are those the Bush administrastion would have passed? I’d love to know what dirt the Republicans have on Obama. I can’t believe he is really this weak without a reason. His campaign team certainly knew how to play hard with Clinton in the primary contest.
http://skynews.com.au/blogs/blog.aspx?Blog=20&Post=1180
abit late but everything we discussed in the last few days
[The Swiss Pirate Party is trying to arrange asylum for Assange, and Wikileaks has strong support from many freedom of information organisations.
There’s also a huge backlash against the opponents of Wikileaks. There are small but growing calls to boycott PayPal as well as Amazon, which shut down Wikileaks servers. Sentiment is particularly strong in the US, with a populace that is fiercely proud of its constitutional protection of free speech, and frustrated by years of attempted government curbs and heavy-handedness, in the form of the Patriot Act and similar.]
375 to win. Don’t worry, North and Clarke will see us home!
[375 to win. Don’t worry, North and Clarke will see us home!]
No, not to win. To make the poms bat again.
[Obama is failing as US president: he is so weak!]
Many Americans have also been been disapointed and perplexed by Obama’s performance.
Everyone can accept that he may have a hostile Senate and the blue dogs and thus cant put into action a lot of his plans. The disappointment comes in the rhetoric, he no longer talks the talk. He is trying to fines things too much and thus appears weak and indecisive.
What the people really needed at this time was a belligerent tough talking President talking the talk on behalf the people. These were the times where a great President could have been made. Obama missed that opportunity especially since he had great public support from the start. AND if you take the people with you it pressure on your opponents to accede to your plan.
[confessions
Posted Monday, December 6, 2010 at 11:21 am | Permalink
375 to win. Don’t worry, North and Clarke will see us home!]
England can bat again 🙂
fines = finesse
[England can bat again]
*slaps head*
Of course, how did I forget they’ve only batted once!
Australia just nneds to make a quickfire 500 and then skittle the poms.
No worries.
Yes TP it was the lack of pressure on his opponents by Obama that I found so remarkable. He didn’t even start fighting for health reform till it was almost too late – after his polls had already taken a massive hit. And he wouldn’t send bills up to get voted on, and thus didn’t even expose who the “blue dogs” were.
I think it is more than rhetoric though. In terms of the government administration, he has brought back much of the Bush economic team. We haven’t really seen much change in the apparatus of the State in defence or jsutice either, even though those badly needed a clean out after Bush. So he hasn’t used the power he did have either.
Gillard shouldn’t have jumped in so quickly with her condemnation of Wiki leaks & Julian Assange. I thought at the time that she was making a similar mistake to Rudd in diving in quickly on an issue that she thought the Opposition may capitalise on.
Instead, she leaves herself open to suggestions of poor political judgement through premature posturing on the issue. This may only be the start. She and the AG should back off and just let it play itself out.
[The opposition has also warned the government not to rush to condemn WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange until it can confirm Australian law has been breached in the leaking of a cable reporting the conversations.]
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/coalition-demands-to-know-whether-julia-gillard-shares-kevin-rudds-views-on-china/story-fn775xjq-1225966238991
blue-green:
In the Old Paradigm, England would need two innings to make 620.
http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2010/11/29/wikipedias-assange-has-a-white-cat-he-strokes-evilly-claims-clinton/
[Clinton was adamant that the activities of Assange and his organisation were no trifling matter, and stressed that there was a very good chance the world would end if the sinister feline-fondling mastermind was allowed to carry out his dastardly plans for revealing to the international community that the US diplomatic service would find the Russians easier to deal with if Vladimir Putin wouldn’t insist on whipping his shirt off at every opportunity to reveal a chest ‘that isn’t all that’]
ron was right
😉
I can’t get this bloody Turnbull Rainmaker to turn on either.
Gusface@4050,
KR is certainly not being jingoistic (or at least I hope he is not), he is far too smart for that. The question is, why did he feel the need to go so over the top as to suggest “force”, an option even the US is doing all it can to not even having to think about?
Thomas Paine@4061,
No major disagreement there although I really don’t think China needs an intermediary to get to the very top of the US administration. Also, after all that was said by KR, if you are a very senior official in the Chinese government wanting a piece of mind from his/her counterpart in the US, would you want to get it from someone you know who sides 110% with the US?
Again, I don’t think anyone expected KR to be a completely China-friendly, “softly-softly” politician, but his comments regarding China can only be described as overtly hawkish. Did he really believe what he said, or was he trying way too hard to “correct” his implied image of China-friendliness? If it is the latter, why did he feel the need to do so? Isn’t it said that a friendly attitude towards a major trading partner and emerging power can be regarded like a weakness or a problem?
Oh, and regards to your wife, she is a smart lady.
dio
ring talcum
In fairness to Rudd, this was only Hillary’s notes on the meeting.
zoomster@3966
I suggest there is a big difference between leaving documents related to an ongoing negotiation laying around and having your thoughts about old news leaked. The first may tell the other side just how strong/weak your position is and far they can push you today, the latter merely how good or bad their tactics were sometime in the past. In most cases it would probably only confirm what they’ve learnt subsequently anyway.
Does anyone think the Chinese fainted in shock at the contents of the Clinton-Rudd discussion. Or that Putin is devastated to learn he is regarded as the capo di tutti capi of the Russian mafia?
I should add that I don’t think the opposition should be commenting on the China matter either. The press can but the opposition by convention don’t comment on confidential security matters.
One wonders why the US has to write down everything. If Rudd and Clinton talked face to face and discussed every possible option, then who need a further brief?
I am sure China is stunned, nay flabberghasted that the West has considered that if everything fell paart in China then somne sort mlitary role might, maybe, possibly be needed.
Strange how PB views the MSM with disdain but leaps into the fray when mass hysteria strikes.
It is intriguing to see the Liberals leaping into this with partisan attacks on the govrnment bsed on the actual content of the leaks. My impression elsewhere in the world has been, rightly or wrongly, bi-partisan condemnation of the leaks, but very little use of the content for party political gain.
robot
perhaps in response to china deciding to expand its bases both land and sea
cf bangladesh
also force could imply beefing up the satellite states and upping oz’s capability
not agression,merely containment thru deterrence
Diogenes:
Conventions when it comes to commenting on security matters haven’t stopped JBishop in the past.
And on the cricket, whey doesn’t Katich just get a runner? He’s obviously injuured.
[In fairness to Rudd, this was only Hillary’s notes on the meeting.]
Yeah, and I think people are getting their knickers in a knot over a brief mention in a much broader conversation.
In a nutshell it appears that Rudd basically said to Hillary that when dealing with the Chinese on an issue, you cannot appear weak and indecisive but present your position forcefully.
Rudd certainly “did” that with his dealings with the Chinese and it appears that Hillary took Kevvie’s advice & did likewise.
[ Rudd’s advice to prepare to deploy force ”if everything goes wrong” contrasted with – but did not contradict – Clinton’s patience with China’s incremental political progress and her explicit “desire for a successful China”. This year, however, as China has increasingly thrown its weight around, Clinton has pushed back against Chinese power in ways that resemble what Rudd had advocated.]
http://www.theage.com.au/national/leak-has-risks-but-world-wont-end-20101205-18lc2.html
Most of the Wikileaks so far have been about fairly current events – Kevin Rudd when he was PM, Hilary Clinton, Obama government memos etc. – but what if that’s ALL there is? Just current (or relatively current) events exposed?
No Bush scandals, no Howard humiliations, no leaks about how Downer was a flouncing wannabee, no AWB truth revealed. What if the original leaker in the US government is working for a slightly darker purpose than we have been led to believe? In short, what if the whole purpose of the latest leaks is to embarrass present governments?
The way the Coalition and the OO are going into bat for Assange – totally against type, to my way of thinking – strikes me as curious strange. Could the whole thing be a set-up to damage current left of centre governments, not expose previous conservative ones?
I may have missed something in the leaks back story, but I’m starting to think Assange may have been set-up. He may be a patsy.
bushfire
a triple agent?
Assange is the patsy for Siegfried
http://getsmart.wikia.com/wiki/Ludwig_von_Siegfried
@ BB
I was thinking something similar last night and if there isn’t embaressing cables relating to former administrations our suspicions may be correct. Assange strickes me as a lefty and surely wouldn’t limit the expose to left wings gov’t one would think.
Downer’s documents were notes on various political leaders he would be meeting, with personal assessments of them, from memory, so very similar to the type of stuff coming from WL.
I don’t recall him leaving around confidential notes on ongoing negotiations, but I wouldn’t put it past him.
No live telecast of the cricket until 3pm.
Channel 9 said is the fault of the South Australia Cricket Association. They are not televising the day’s play because it is not a sellout. I rang saca and just spoke to the Media person. I told them obviously it is not a sell-out, because everyone who can go to the cricket is back at work. All that is left is people like my oldie who cannot physically go and the people who cannot afford it. I told them in the these days of social media they were trashing their brand. Then Arthur (my oldie) took the phone and told them they thought more about money than disabled people and asked for an explanation.
We are waiting to see if Mr Mcwhatisname calls back. He is might be to busy watching the cricket.
diog
[I should add that I don’t think the opposition should be commenting on the China matter either. The press can but the opposition by convention don’t comment on confidential security matters.]
As I said in 3998. JB should keep her mouth shut.
Perhaps she needs lessons in her responsibilities. I think this Oppn cares more about political point scoring than the good of Australia.
I strongly support the PM’S statements on this issue. The MSM, opposition and other commentators may deride her but they are not the governemnt and they do not have to deal with at times sensitive international relationships.
Do people really think the Australain Government should pat this bloke on the back and say, because you are a Australian citizen, we support you 100% for publishing confidential US documents that were obtained illegally and leaked to Wikileaks?
If so, on this one particular issue I think you should take the rose coloured glasses off and have a look at the real world of international relations.
The release of these documents has left countries all over the world, including Australia, in a very uncomfortable position. Do you support America and all the diplomatic relationships that go with that support or do you say it is ok for any and all documentation to be pit out there for the public to see.
It would be ok for Australia to say we support this australian citizen and America you can go stew ? Rubbish. From a pure pragmatic point of view it is stupid to even suggest.
What happens if future mass releases by Wikileaks or others include very sensitive Australian documents ? Does America then go and say well stew you as well?
Other countries around the world are in the same position. Forget about what has been released and consider the potential as to what could be released in future.
If governments don’t condemn this release and only look after there own internal political interests then it leaves individual governments in a very weak position diplomacy wise and security wise if future releases have direct impact on them.
I think we need to get our focus away from the freedom of speech angle and look more closely how future releases may impact on internationl diplomacy and relationships between individual countries. We do not know what could come out in future and this potential and its possible effects are what have countries worried.
How far will the envelope be pushed in future releases ?
We should all be very careful what we wish for. It may not be what we expected.
zoomster, I’m willing to bet lots of real money that the others’ briefing notes were much more critical of the ace buffoon Downer than anything his said about them.
Doyely
Hear Hear!
Puff
I hope your protest does some good. It’s a sore point in our family that the “working masses” are better catered for than those who can’t travel but are still sports fans.
Assange = malicious egomaniac with no care for consequences and no ethical or moral basis.
He is just a troublemaker.
The Chinese nation has survived over 3000 years of internal turmoils plus dealing with external Barbarians.
Remember they were occupied and ruled twice by foreigners, the Mongols and then The Manchus. Both times, they were sinonised.
So dealing with the Barbarians is a part of its survival necessity. What Lu Kewen said or didnt say will be taken in that context.
Lu Kewen was just posturing himself with the USA. “Force against China” – Invade China? Nuke China? Rain down missiles from Taiwan to the Mainland? re-arm Japan? Tell me another joke.
While the jokers in this world are addicted to cheap Chinese consumer goods. And in Australia’s case, its ricebowls are being filled by the Chinese.
As the Chinese like to say, we do live in an interesting time. And oh, you have to find China first.