Essential Research: 56-44 to Coalition

This week’s Essential Research shows no real change in voting intention on last week, with the Coalition up a point on the primary vote to 49 per cent, Labor and the Greens steady on 31 per cent and 11 per cent, and two-party preferred steady at 56-44. The poll also measures Bob Brown’s approval rating at 42 per cent and disapproval at 34 per cent (including very favourable figures among Labor voters of 60 per cent and 15 per cent); has 31 per cent favouring Kevin Rudd as Labor leader over 16 per cent for Julia Gillard (Gillard leads 40 per cent to 33 per cent among Labor voters); and 30 per cent favouring Malcolm Turnbull as Liberal leader with 23 per cent for Tony Abbott (Abbott leads 39 per cent to 26 per cent among Coalition voters). Further questions on the mining boom have 66 per cent believing it has benefited them “not at all”, 51 per cent supporting the mining tax (down one on mid-March) and 29 per cent opposing it (down five).

Federal preselection happenings in New South Wales:

• The NSW Liberal Party state executive has voted to dump Garry Whitaker as its candidate for Craig Thomson’s seat of Dobell. He has been replaced by Karen McNamara, a WorkCover public servant who reportedly has backing from the party’s right, who was defeated by Whitaker in the original preselection vote in December. Whitaker has since been struggling with allegations he had lived for several years without council permission in an “ensuite shed” on his Wyong Creek property while awaiting approval to build a house there.

• More proactivity from the NSW Liberal state executive in neighbouring Robertson, a seat the party was disappointed not to have won in 2010. Local branches have had imposed upon them Lucy Wicks, who herself holds a position on the executive by virtue of her status as president of the party’s Women’s Council. Wicks was identified by the Sydney Morning Herald last year as a member of the “centre right” faction associated with federal Mitchell MP Alex Hawke, which in alliance with the moderates had secured control of the state executive. Like the Dobell intervention, the imposition of Wicks occurred at the insistence of Tony Abbott – local branches in both seats have called emergency meetings to express their displeasure.

• Michelle Hoctor of the Illawarra Mercury reports Ann Sudmalis, the candidate backed by retiring member Joanna Gash, won Liberal preselection on Saturday in Gilmore with 16 votes against 10 for her main rival Andrew Guile. Rounding out the field were Alby Schultz’s son Grant, who scored four votes, and Meroo Meadow marketing consultant Catherine Shields on one. For those wondering about the small number of votes, the NSW Liberals’ preselection procedure involves branches being allocated a number of selection committee delegates in proportion to their membership, rather than a massed rank-and-file ballot.

• Imre Salusinszky of The Australian reports the Nationals are in the “‘initial stages’ of discussions with popular independent state MP Richard Torbay about endorsing him for a tilt at independent federal MP Tony Windsor in New England”. Torbay has been the independent member for Northern Tablelands since 1999, and served as Legislative Assembly Speaker during Labor’s last term in office.

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.

5,940 comments on “Essential Research: 56-44 to Coalition”

Comments Page 49 of 119
1 … 48 49 50 … 119

  1. [I find the self-delusion here either amusing or a little sad.]

    Then why come here when it upsets you so much?

    I am tiring of ageing, angry white men who seem to think they have a moratorium on internet discourse.

    If the internet pisses you off so much then do something constructive: start your own blog for eg. Don’t just sit there and whinge about stuff over which you have absolutely no control.

  2. ML:

    As you will see from my posts I am not making any determination as to whether he is “squeaky clean” or pig sty dirty.

    Oh, I think you are. You’ve given your judgement on the 2003 allegations, and unless there are any others that you’re aware of, you just absolved him.

    I am just stating my opinion that unless there is an issue where something has happened without consent then there is no sexual harassment.

    Well, sure. I was just pointing out the logical assumption to be made from your opinion in this particular case.

    Ashby may well make the case that Slipper has a history of employing young men on his staff for reasons other than their typing skills. Good luck to him, let him make that case.

    He may well. Of course, he may well have a hard time explaining why he took the position with Slipper if he was aware of that. And I’d have a hard time believing that a 33 year old who had already spent a fair bit of time working with the Lib/Nats was unaware of it.

    At any rate, as I’ve noted before, I see little – if anything – in those text exchanges that constitutes harassment.

  3. William – How rude!

    But, correct.

    [Rummel, it’s not really good enough to come on here under a pseudonym and announce that another anonymous person has accused a person]

    Jay still flogging Murdoch Jr!

  4. [drake
    Posted Tuesday, April 24, 2012 at 11:30 pm | Permalink
    The Mod,

    Are you saying that a member of parliament’s behaviour is irrelevant unless it is unlawful?]

    Absolutely not. Condemn, redress through privileges, go all out. Slipper pissing out of a window is not relevant to the issue being discussed in relation to an allegation of sexual harassment. It is a serious allegation, pissing out of a window is not.

  6. confessions you do have to wonder. It seems he was given many more chances than seems appropriate. It doesnt give the ordinary person a lot of confidence in how the system seems to operate.

  12. [Oh, I think you are. You’ve given your judgement on the 2003 allegations, and unless there are any others that you’re aware of, you just absolved him.]

    I say again, what 2003 allegations?

    Did any individual made a complaint against Slipper for sexual harassment in 2003? I am certainly not aware of any such complaint. The only one I know about is the 2012 allegation by Ashby.

    You make assertions about what Ashby did or did not know, fine, you obviously know more than I do about him (or claim to!).

    “Logical assumption” is not how I would describe it. Verballing would be more accurate methinks! 🙂

  14. Who’d have predicted 12 months ago that Peter Slipper’s biggest defenders would be the Gillard Government, the ALP, the Greens, & progressives on blogs like Poll Bludger?

  19. Mod Lib: Too true!

    As much as Slipper is a good Speaker, and much better in the role than Jenkins was, I worry about his propensity for wearing the silly robes and parading through Parliament House with attendants in tow.

  21. Mr Jay is pointing out how James’ organisation went about their work “gathering information.”

    Mr Murdoch contends that the approach of his organisation (HE know nothing or was not told) was in the public interest and that all “doings” were not illegal.

    You be the judge.

  24. I have nothing more then information from two different people relating to the same topic which I have provided here. The rule of law and the presumption of innocence rules the roost.

  26. Note to Bludgers and Bilbo: This post which is Slipper related contains tentative legal argument (avoid if you want plain English); but no assertions against individuals.

    I’m still not claiming to be fully on top of the Fair Work Act discrimination jurisdiction compared to the more familiar one under the various longer standing discrimination acts, but I think there may be serious legal problems in using the FWA pathway, whatever the facts may be.

    – as far as I can tell under s.793 of the Fair Work Act the Commonwealth as employer will only be responsible for actions done within an official’s actual or apparent authority; if indeed there was any unwelcome sexual conduct I am not sure how that fits within the actual or apparent authority of anyone in this situation. Its a very different test to the Sex Discrimination Act where the employer is vicariously liable unless they show they took all reasonable steps to prevent the discrimination (or, in the terms of the Act as it was at , say, 2003, exercised due diligence and took reasonable precautions).

    – not at all clear how a FWA action works against someone who while in a position of authority isnt the employer (assuming that the Commonwealth is the employer and Mr Slipper isnt?)

    – unlike the Sex Discrimination Act, the Fair Work Act doesnt have an express provision on sexual harassment;

    – while FWA coverage of sexual harassment can be implied from the general “adverse action” provision, there are some potential complexities

    – in particular the adverse action has to be on the basis of a protected characteristic: so harassment would have to be on the basis of someones gender or sexual preference for example rather than , say, a general “anything goes” attitude – must emphasise I am not alleging that was or has been shown to be the case here

    Result? Not sure. Could fall over very fast without resolution of substantive allegations; could drag on for a very long time although in that respect I would point out that investigation and attempted resolution by the Fair Work Ombudsman of discrimination complaints is a very different process to the now notorious Fair Work Australia investigation of the HSU

  27. Mod,

    [ Are you saying that a member of parliament’s behaviour is irrelevant unless it is unlawful?

    Absolutely not. Condemn, redress through privileges, go all out. Slipper pissing out of a window is not relevant to the issue being discussed in relation to an allegation of sexual harassment. It is a serious allegation, pissing out of a window is not.]

    Fair enough, but earlier you seemed to suggest that the 2003 allegations were irrelevant because they only stood to reveal that Slipper was gay:

    [If they knew about allegations of sexual harassment, they should have referred them to the appropriate authorities.

    If they only knew about allegations that he was gay, they should have kept their mouths shut, as they appear to have done.]

    I’m saying that the 2003 allegations, and questions as to use of entitlements, went to standards of conduct that Coalition voters might feel were well below what they were entitled to expect.

  29. ‘Political Prisms’ – right.

    And TLM – neat and late night.

    William – Feel free to give TLBD my e-mail along with the warning that white wine doesn’t work for me either – beer absolute limit.

    Little Murdoch stuffed now. I don’t imagine Rupert is looking forward to being next.

  30. Someone on Sydney radio this afternoon said that he’s seen Slipper visiting one of the cross dressing establishments in Kings Cross.

  31. Listening to James Murdoch blithely discuss his duchessing and/or pressurring UK politicians, throwing around NewsCorps considerable weight, all with commercial considerations at heart…..

    Frightening

  33. [Someone on Sydney radio this afternoon said that he’s seen Slipper visiting one of the cross dressing establishments in Kings Cross.]

    Let me guess, Evan – it was on 2GB.

  36. ML:

    “Logical assumption” is not how I would describe it. Verballing would be more accurate methinks!

    Well, until I hear from you how you think it impacts on the Ashby case, I can’t compare, can I? I don’t mind the accusation of verballing if I hear how your version differs.

    BTW, I’m not saying your logical assumption. I was drawing one of my own. That can be seen by the use of the word “if” in the last paragraph of my original post.

    Verballing! Sheesh, talk about touchy. 🙂

  38. [You can read about them for yourself here:

    h­ttp://media.apnonline.com.au/69.2/img/media/pdf/slippercourt.pdf

    Points 5-9]

    Aguirre:

    There are no allegations of sexual harassment in Points 5 to 8 as far as I can see.

    There are in point 9, but they are one individual (Ashby) claiming to have heard from another individual (Nutt) that a third individual (Hobson) had heard from a fourth individual that Slipper had sexually harrassed him. However, when Hobson viewed the material that related to this incident, she “formed the view that the relationship was consensual.”

    [9. In or around May Budget Week 2003 the junior male staff member referred to at 6(a)
    above had complained to Megan Hobson to the effect “I have been abused by Peter
    Slipper. We had drinks after an electorate event on Australia Day 2003. Peter made
    advances on me and I said “no””. The junior male staff member showed Megan Hobson
    scabs on his knuckles where he said he had recently hit a brick wall whilst defending
    himself against an attack by Peter Slipper during a parliamentary trip to Adelaide.
    Megan Hobson recommended that the junior male staff member lodge a complaint
    through the appropriate channels. After viewing the video referred to at 6 above, Megan
    Hobson formed the view that the relationship was consensual. ]

  39. ‘Structural Solutions’ – This sucker believes that ‘Chinese Walls’ in law firms are believed by the rest of the ‘people’.

    Jay is f@#ker him over.

  40. Fess @2411: How soon we forget! Kate Carnell, Rosemary Foot, Isobel Redmond are three I can think of. OK, too few, but not non-existent, as an ALP member I think we have a long way to go too?

  41. [Who’d have predicted 12 months ago that Peter Slipper’s biggest defenders would be the Gillard Government, the ALP, the Greens, & progressives on blogs like Poll Bludger?]
    I think all of those mentioned are actually saying let justice take its course and don’t condemn the bloke before any trial. He is afterall innocent until proven guilty.

  44. MM,

    Summary, then:

    1. FWA judges whether the case is subject to its remit

    2. FWA judges plausibility

    3. FWA judges sufficiency of evidence about whether to consider in detail

    4. FWA rejects or goes to hearings

    5. If FWA hears

    6. FWA makes a judgement and makes recommends changes to workplace procedures or not.

    7. FWA may recommend that restitution may be paid to either party.

    Is that it?

  45. I gather that some verbal allegations of sexual harassment were made in 2003 but they never got to a formal written stage.

  48. [Someone on Sydney radio this afternoon said that he’s seen Slipper visiting one of the cross dressing establishments in Kings Cross.]

    One of your trusted friends was right there?

  49. [Angus Carruthers ‏ @AngusCarruthers

    Close

    Ladbrokes: betting on Jeremy Hunt being next cabinet member to leave is now suspended #Leveson

    1 Retweet
    HY

    11:21 PM – 24 Apr 12 via web · Details

    Reply
    Retweet
    Favorite
    ]

  50. Tobe

    [I think dirt on Slipper reflects on the Lib’s more than the ALP.]

    I don’t think it reflects well on either.

    Yet another reason for the public to laugh at pollies.

Comments Page 49 of 119
1 … 48 49 50 … 119

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *