Essential Research is still the only opinion poll operating to its regular schedule, Morgan having sat out last week and Newspoll presumably holding off at least until Labor sorts out its leadership. The latest weekly result has the Coalition’s two-party lead steady at an unspectacular 52-48, from primary votes of 43% for the Coalition (steady on last week), 35% for Labor (down one) and the Greens on 9% (steady). Other questions relate to internet privacy, including a finding that US surveillance programs such as Edward Snowden revealed are opposed by 45% and supported by 24%, and the importance of our various foreign relationships, showing “very important” ratings of 56% for New Zealand, 51% for the United States, 46% for China, 42% for the United Kingdom and 35% for Indonesia.
UPDATE: And now Morgan comes through with its normal multi-mode poll which was skipped last week, carrying the striking headline that Labor leads 50.5-49.5 on respondent-allocated preferences. However, Morgan produces a strikingly different result from preference flows as per the recent election, with the Coalition lead at 53-47. But I find this hard to reconcile with the primary votes: the Coalition is at 42%, 3.5% lower than at the election, Labor at 37%, which is 3.6% higher, and the minor parties only slightly changed at 9% for the Greens, 4.5% for the Palmer United Party and 7.5% for others. Somehow though, two-party preferred comes out as very similar to the election result, which as best as anyone can tell is about 53.5-46.5.
Psephos
One thing i have noticed with Sky is that they seem to pretty much keep the same righties yet have a high turn over of lefties.
Centre
I am disagreeing with the claim that Sky News is as bias as Fox News is.
Slipper was singled out because, while there are very few rules about entitlements, he did manage to break them.
[One thing i have noticed with Sky is that they seem to pretty much keep the same righties yet have a high turn over of lefties.]
I said Phil Dalidakis was Labor, not a “lefty” 🙂 I don’t think Conroy employs lefties.
Psephos
LOL
I used lefties and righties in substitute of labor and Liberal.
OK well I take that to mean that you think Sky News is biased but less biased than Fox News.
Like I said, at least you can admit Sky News is biased!
LOL
Slipper was singled out because he took the role as speaker.
The geniuses are going good today 😆
[Slipper was singled out because he took the role as speaker.]
Yes that too.
Sky can be bad but they are very “fair and balanced” compared to Fox News. For Sky to match Fox News they would need to have 24/7 Alan Jones ,Ray Hadley, Pickering, Brandis ,Pyne and George Pell .
Centre
Spot on. All about gaining power
[lizzie
Posted Tuesday, October 8, 2013 at 5:59 pm | PERMALINK
Margo Kingston has been trying to find details on the informant who passed information about Slipper’s winery visits to the AFP, thus bypassing the Finance Dept.
Note that the first “gut” reaction of the AFP was to push their response to Margot’s FOI out to 8 Sept, the day after the election. So who’s shielding who?]
They are not going to get a name…. It protected by the privacy act and the FOI Act…..
Let alone the provisions for law enforcement in the FOI Act
37 Documents affecting enforcement of law and protection of public safety
(1) A document is an exempt document if its disclosure under this Act would, or could reasonably be expected to:
(a) prejudice the conduct of an investigation of a breach, or possible breach, of the law, or a failure, or possible failure, to comply with a law relating to taxation or prejudice the enforcement or proper administration of the law in a particular instance;
(b) disclose, or enable a person to ascertain, the existence or identity of a confidential source of information, or the non‑existence of a confidential source of information, in relation to the enforcement or administration of the law; or
(c) endanger the life or physical safety of any person.
(2) A document is an exempt document if its disclosure under this Act would, or could reasonably be expected to:
(a) prejudice the fair trial of a person or the impartial adjudication of a particular case;
(b) disclose lawful methods or procedures for preventing, detecting, investigating, or dealing with matters arising out of, breaches or evasions of the law the disclosure of which would, or would be reasonably likely to, prejudice the effectiveness of those methods or procedures; or
(c) prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of lawful methods for the protection of public safety.
(2A) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), a person is taken to be a confidential source of information in relation to the enforcement or administration of the law if the person is receiving, or has received, protection under a program conducted under the auspices of the Australian Federal Police, or the police force of a State or Territory, for the protection of:
(a) witnesses; or
(b) people who, because of their relationship to, or association with, a witness need, or may need, such protection; or
(c) any other people who, for any other reason, need or may need, such protection.
“Without penance their is no absolution” – Standard Catholic Catechism.
Is there much doubt the Malaysian PM insisted that, if it was good enough to grovel to SBY in public, then it was good enough to grovel to Malaysia in public?
I can see no other reason for Abbott making his apology public other than it was insisted on as the penance he would have to pay.
Abbott (and his minders, like Morrison) repeatedly slagged off an entire country, and its judicial system, to score a few cheap points here in Australia.
I would say a private apology was not acceptable.
Someone mentioned Julia Gillard’s expenses for her stay at Rooty Hill. She paid them herself and that was reported at the time. Whoever is PM has a residence in Sydney, if they choose for whatever reason to stay somewhere else then they have to pay their way.
There was a huge fuss over the alleged ‘expense’ of a week in the western suburbs, but the chief whingers had never bothered to question the huge amounts Howard cost us because he refused to live in Canberra. That good old one rule for Labor and another far more lenient one for the Coalition yet again.
It’s a very strange situation.
In the normal course of events I think it’s perfectly reasonable for the identities and circumstances for people referring information to the police to be kept secret.
It isn’t in anyone’s interests to have the act of going to the police being potentially held against them – that’s not the way justice is supposed to work in this country.
If the police thought that a complaint was an abuse of process, they have the means to deal with that. But the job of the police is to interpret the law and do so fairly on the basis of the evidence.
The “Minchin protocol” is clearly a perversion of this because it, in essence, is intended to effectively cut the police and prosecuting authorities largely out of the process. It’s understandable, and desirable in most cases, but it still leaves a schizophrenic system where there may be stuff that is prosecutable that gets deliberately kept from the police’s gaze, and behaviour that normally doesn’t get punished does in some cases, and whether this is done or not is dependent on the circumstances and who says what to whom – not a good foundation for due process.
And, of course, with politicians in the loop the likelihood of people playing silly buggers is enormous – and hence the Slipper/Ashby circus.
The whole system needs a cleanout, if only to prevent future such corruptions of due process.
I don’t think who referred the matter to the police can or should be made public, even though it was probably a political move and the outcome may well be unfair to Slipper.
Please Prime Minister come home, you have embarrassed the country enough in the past week. 🙁
rummel @ 61
The point of my comment was not whether the FOI would bring a result. It was the amazing coincidence that the immediate date given for a response was the day after the election.
BH @ 19
Agree.
I have hypertension, and watching this did not assist. It was absolutely embarrassing, and disgrace to objective journalism.
Speers is an appalling Tory who would be jumping up and down if a Labor PM was in Abbott’s self-inflicted dilemna.
Labor has no chance with the MSM the way it is.
rummel @ 61: I’m by no means sure that a literal reading of section 37 of the FOI Act would mean that a complaint made about Mr Slipper would be covered by it, especially if the complaint came from another politician. I’m not so sure about the Privacy Act. In any case, one would imagine that it would ultimately wind up with the Information Commissioner.
[
lizzie
Posted Tuesday, October 8, 2013 at 6:19 pm | PERMALINK
rummel @ 61
The point of my comment was not whether the FOI would bring a result. It was the amazing coincidence that the immediate date given for a response was the day after the election.]
Was the FOI submitted 28 days before the election?.
Is Ruddock claiming that he only attended Slipper’s wedding so as to talk business with Slipper? Like Brandis making a political speech at the shock-jock’s wedding? Do these characters not care that it is the bride’s (or groom’s) big day?
Have any of them claimed expenses for attending a funeral? That would be in such bad taste.
[Long-serving federal Liberal MP Philip Ruddock was also at Mr Slipper’s wedding and says he has decided not to repay the travel entitlements he claimed.
Mr Ruddock says he was only at the wedding because he was the attorney-general at the time, and Mr Slipper was the then chairman of a legal committee.]
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/19297096/tony-abbott-defends-claiming-travel-expenses-to-participate-in-sporting-events-including-pollie-pedal/
“@AlboMP: ALP Members should post their Ballot Papers – important to have your voice heard and vote for your choice as #LaborLeader”
feeney
How’s the blood pressure at the sight of Paul Murray on Sky ? 😆 He’s definitely Fox News material.
Sky isn’t as bad as Fox and the news bulletins are excellent but some of the talking heads are left wanting.
Phil D is OK for Labor as is McTernan but they are constantly interrupted so the flow of what they are saying is sometimes lost
[ultimately wind up with the Information Commissioner.]
I believe it has. If I was the AFP, I would have sent it to the commissioner as well. Make him make the call that will send sections of the left into cover up over drive.
Quick sport time out.
@AFL: Buddy has become a Swan: http://t.co/hSn5DnDMNk
[Labor has no chance with the MSM the way it is.]
Agreed!
Something seriously should be done. Maybe if Conroy held the same hatred for the MSM as he did for Rudd he could have done something worthwhile about the MSM when in government?
Now, listen up.
Remember back on July 28, 2010, when Glenn Milne tipped a bucket over Abbott’s Battlelines rorts?
(And, even then, he was a few thousand dollars short, in Abbot’s favour.)
Battlelines was launched in Sydney by Sarah Murdoch on July 28, 2009 – exactly a year to the day before The Drum article.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/35544.html
According to Milne, parliamentarians’ expenses for July-Dec 2009 were tabled on the “eve of the election” (which in 2010 was on August 21), so obviously just before the election was called on July 17.
This means details of the expenses were not available to the public, nor to the journos (unless expensive FOI requests wer made), for 6-12 months after they were incurred.
i.e. Expenses incurred in July 2009 were not available until July 2010 (12 months) and those incurred in December 2009 (6 months).
Nowadays, after Labor reforms regarding transparency and accountability, the expenses are published online during the month following the 6-month period in which they are incurred.
Keep that in mind, when next you come across the screeching about the $4000 the then Deputy LOTO repaid in early March 2007 about the expenses incurred by her partner, Tim Mathieson, apparently for commercial purposes.
According to forensics carried out by Michael Smith (thanks Mike), Tim Mathieson was included as a driver on Gillard’s Commonweath-supplied car on May 2, 2006.
Running true to Howard govt obfuscation, the details for the 6-month period of Jan-Jun 2006 would not have been available for public consumption until tabled in parliament, and ditto for the details of the expenses for Jul-Dec 2006.
Given what happened to expose Abbott’s rorts of the system, then that period could have been anywhere up to 6-12 months after the event. However, one presumes pollies are immediately privy to that information.
Therefore, once Gillard became aware of Tim ‘ripping off the taxpayer’, she immediately repaid it (assuming he didn’t use the car for presumed commercial purposes during the May 2 –June 30, 2006 period).
This has been framed in some sections of the MSM as Labor being ‘concerned’ about Mathieson’s improper use of Gillard’s car, after Gillard became leader on December 4, 2006 which in turn forced Gillard to make the repayment.
I call BS on that. I think Gillard is an honest broker. Full stop.
Why wouldn’t Labor have been concerned about it if Gillard had merely remained a Shadow backbencher? Doesn’t make sense, does it? A rort’s a rort after all.
Furthermore, Abbott attended Slipper’s wedding on August 12, 2006 (as did Rudd.
Abbott claimed travel expenses because he attended the CIS’s Consilium held at the Hyatt Regency (now Coolum (hello Clive Palmer)) Resort on the Gold (or is that Sunshine) Coast.
Was that a legitimate expense, considering the Consilium is held over three days, with attendees registering on the Thursday prior to the intelligence-fest?
Why even GG Jeffery attended the Consilium dinner that year.
And Rudd and Gillard attended the 2006 Consilium too.
Apparently Gillard even gave a speech, while Abbott was the then Health Minister. Did either Rudd or Gillard claim expenses?
Did Gillard stay at the Rudd residence, considering Rudd was actively ‘courting’ Gillard for a tilt at the leadership in a coup against Beazley?
Or did she take her erstwhile companion Mathieson and stay in sublime surroundings on the taxpayer (even though she was entitled to claim)? As was Abbott.
So, the question is: Is it okay to claim attendance at a forum that is ostensibly for self-promotion and book the expenses to the taxpayer? I say no.
But, if it is okay, then it was perfectly reasonable for Abbott to claim this on the taxpayer, even though he attended (late, ha ha, is he ever on time) Slipper’s wedding on the Saturday evening.
But just where does the personal become the political and vice versa?
If you are on legitimate political business in another state, or indeed in your home state but far from home, and you happen to sneak in a couple of hours of personal time, I don’t see why that has to impinge on your right to claim travel allowance.
However, if you travelled purely to attend a personal function, but then added in a presser, or a political meeting, to claim at the expense of the taxpayer, then what comes first, the chicken or the egg?
Buggered if I know.
[Was the FOI submitted 28 days before the election?.]
No the AFP granted themselves a 30 day extension, this took it after the election.
Beautiful headline on-line news…. just a few minutes ago…
“Abbott on month in: too many excuses and too few surprises”
Dubbed an “editorial”, the piece tore into Abbott and his performance to date.
And this from MSM. They have cottoned on already.
I love the way people here complain about Sky News, while they are actually paying Rupert Murdoch for the privilege of watching it.
[Speers is an appalling Tory who would be jumping up and down if a Labor PM was in Abbott’s self-inflicted dilemma. Labor has no chance with the MSM the way it is.]
Don’t get too worked up. No-one watches Sky. It’s an insiders’ indulgence.
poroti @ 72
LOL. Yes, he’s a shocker.
I avoid watching him.
Such a pompous, arrogant windbag, and totally full of himself.
And he has a 3-hour daily gig on 2UE.
FMD.
[No the AFP granted themselves a 30 day extension, this took it after the election.]
I believe they can’t just give themselves an extension, they must approach the applicant and get approval for one or get one from the Commissioner.
ruawake
The application was well before the 30 day limit the AFP applied to have it delayed waaay more than 30 days. Just far enough away to by coincidence fall the day after the election.
Great! Now he’s p@##ing off the nuclear armed countries…
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/vladimir-putin-gives-late-tony-abbott-cold-shoulder-at-apec-20131008-2v61f.html
He was probably boasting to his Canadian mate about lick spittling the Windsor boy. Or maybe discussing his daughters’ attractiveness?
And why miss the birthday do? Incompetent and unprofessional.
Diogs
Yep we’ll go without the footy and racing channels coz Rupe is an arse hole.
Oh what do you know, Sarah Murdoch launched Battlelines?
I’m so happy for Sarah Murdoch in case she has a kid under Abbott’s PPL. We wouldn’t want her to struggle in any way would now would we, hell, she might have to go and get a fair dinkum job?
Ok this expense claim stuff needs to move to a different level.
Firstly how good the system is and whether or not it has been rorted are two separate things.
I have been an elected member of a local government and worked for more than two big organizations. In at least two organizations and in the local government what i would consider rorting the expense claim was easy and common. In all three places there were ‘everybody does it’ advocates. I assume they worked on the theory that they lowered their risk if they could get me to increase mine.
In all three places If there was any doubt you could seek advice BEFORE making the claim.
Except in one place I always had to prepare and sign my own claim. I know MP’s have staff but surely they have to sign a claim as true and proper? If not we don’t have to be silly and say it is all ok. If they have a regular self audit or reconciliation of a system of claims they don’t sign off on then I have no trouble with any adjustments.
It is when the audit is external or only instigated because a journo is asking that it is too late for their excuses.
Frankly any Polly that argues the system is broken is clearly unable manage a small office and should resign as incompetent.
Bottom line Abbott knew the wedding claim was rotten and a dreadful look regardless of whether or not the claim was inside or outside the rules. To try to blame the system is cowardly and irresponsible.
As for Slipper my understanding was he has not been convicted yet? But the main difference between Slipper and anyone else is quite simply he was subject to a vicious and immoral political attack and no one else has been. I have said previously in relation to both slipper and Thomson whether or not they are actually guilty is no longer an issue because justice cannot be seen to be done when it comes from the poisoned tree of a partisan political witchhunt. Those involved in the witchhunt should be held in contempt of court or worse where there is evidence they sought to pervert the course of justice.
Dio @ 80
I have Foxtel for all the sport and international news – BBC, UK TV, US etc.
Unfortunately, you can’t pick and choose what you want – part of a package.
Diogenes
Posted Tuesday, October 8, 2013 at 6:28 pm | Permalink
I love the way people here complain about Sky News, while they are actually paying Rupert Murdoch for the privilege of watching it.
——————————————————
Not this Li’Black Duck 😉
All the news and comment you could possibly want is available for free on the internet. I refuse to pay Murdoch one cent for any of his junk.
badcat
Posted Tuesday, October 8, 2013 at 6:37 pm | Permalink
Diogenes
Posted Tuesday, October 8, 2013 at 6:28 pm | Permalink
I love the way people here complain about Sky News, while they are actually paying Rupert Murdoch for the privilege of watching it.
——————————————————
oops …..Not this Lil Black Duck 😉
Has the Abbott Government actually done anything yet? It has stopped a few things, cast doubt on some other things, got rid of a few APS positions, done a bit of grandstanding, apologised to Indonesia and Malaysia but not to Papua New Guinea. Done a bit of kowtowing, bapaking, grovelling Australian crawl.
But it has done nothing. nada. nil. zero. zip. rien.
It is behaving more like an opposition than it is a government.
I suppose that, having spent four years wrecking the joint, it is hard for Abbott and the Abbotteers from changing their bad habits.
Plus, it has done bupkis.
Guytaur- great news about Buddy- I’m getting the grand final preference membership this year…..
https://newmatilda.com/2013/10/08/abbott-cant-backpedal-expenses-now
Ben Eltham on Abbott, Slipper, Brandis, Joyce, Gina – I think Julie and Theresa get a mention.
Gee its a long list isn’t it?
A list should be made and compared of what Rudd and Gillard did in their first 100 days after winning their elections WITH the first 100 of an Abbott government.
So far Abbott has sacked people, put off parliament, increased the nations debt ceiling and said sorry to certain countries.
What a FAILURE!
psyclaw
I saw your little sook about shrivelled testicles. And being called a jerk.
Seriously, if you want to inhabit the 1950s, regardless of your age, then go right ahead.
But don’t be surprised if you’re picked out for a bit of feminist ‘push and shove.’
If you think that Abbott’s daughters are fair game, and have made themselves available to attack in the political sphere, because they support their father’s ambitions, then don’t attack them because of the way they look, or the way they dress.
Attack them for what they say.
And, what have they said? Hmmm?
I didn’t watch the Liberal campaign launch, in which the daughters spoke. I don’t know what they said. Do you?
And why don’t you attack them for that?
But, I did see reported that one of Abbott’s daughters said “Hi” to Harry, instead of succumbing to cutsying protocol.
And I commented on that. As far as I’m concerned, it’s good that an Aussie woman doesn’t treat a would-be prince with anything other than an egalitarian salute.
[Has the Abbott Government actually done anything yet?… it has done bupkis.]
Dear me. They’ve been in office three weeks tomorrow. Parliament hasn’t met yet. What did the Hawke government, or the Rudd government, do in their first three weeks?
Really, folks, you have to pace yourselves. It’s 35 months to the the next election. You can’t burn up all your rage at Abbott in the first month.
I agree with Kezza here.
Attacking Abbott’s daughters for their appearance is pretty bad taste in my view.
The guilty of same should’ve been sent off!
Psephos
[ You can’t burn up all your rage at Abbott in the first month.]
I doubt there will ever be a fuel shortage under the Abbott regime.