GhostWhoVotes relates that the monthly Nielsen poll in tomorrow’s Fairfax has the Coalition leading 51-49. I’m not clear if this is based on respondent-allocated or previous election preferences, but the respective results in last month’s poll were 51-49 and 52-48. The Coalition primary vote is steady on 44%, Labor is up two to 35%, and the Greens are steady on 12%. Tony Abbott’s approval is steady on 45% and his disapproval is up two to 49%, while his lead as preferred prime minister is down from 49-39 to 48-43. More to follow …
UPDATE: James J in comments relates that the poll also shows 52% support a means test for Medicare bulk billing versus 46% opposed, and the following results on what the government should do about Qantas: 30% remove foreign ownership restrictions, 20% provide debt guarantee, 3% both, 41% neither.
UPDATE 2: Full tables here.
UPDATE 3 (Essential Research): After a week at 50-50, Essential Research has the Coalition back at 51-49 in front, their primary vote up a point to 43%, Labor’s down two to 36%, the Greens up one to 9% and the Palmer United Party steady at 4%. Other questions find respondents tending to oppose relaxing restrictions on the media, with 31% favouring more regulation, 15% favouring less and 36% thinking the present situation about right, while 43% are opposed to relaxing cross-media ownership laws with 29% supportive. Twenty-six per cent say they would prefer having the same party in government at both federal and state tiers against 24% who would prefer different parties and 36% who say it makes no difference. Respondents were asked if they would prefer the federal or state government to be responsible for various areas of policy, with the federal government favoured for everything except roads, regional investment and public transport.
In the spirit of improved accountability, transparency and honourable government, I have some questions:
Why did Sinodinos suddenly resign from a slew of not-for-profits?
Did Sinodinos use his positions on the not-for-profits to salary package items like an FBT-exempt car as part of his emoluments from the not-for-profits?
What was the ostensible purpose of each not-for-profit?
What proportion of the gross income of each not-for-profit was taken by directors and the like?
In particular, what was Sinodinos’ total take (director’s fees and the like) from each not-for-profit?
How much tax did Australian taxpayers forego for each not-for-profit over the period during which Sinodinos was taking income in any of its forms, if any, from the not-for-profit?
Pro-rata, how much of that foregone tax went into Sinodinos’ pocket?
What were the overheads of the not-for-profit as a percentage of the gross take?
What percentage of the overheads went to the directors and to Sinodinos?
How much of the gross take of each not-for-profit was actually spent on goods and services provided to the not-for-profit (needy?) clients?
When is some enterprising MSM journo going to hunt up the not-for-profit annual reports and audit statements of the relevant not-for-profits?
There may be nothing in any of this.
But this is the Spivmaster who has a Bill in the house designed to allow spivs to prey on mum and dad savers.
If Sinodinos is prepared to assist the finance industry spivs to cream the retirement savings of millions of ordinary mums and dads, his every current and former activity needs very, very careful scrutiny indeed.
david, you should include a standard bit of text with every post that condemns all the things you need to condemn just so that nobody takes those inbetween moments when you don’t say anything as being soft. Cover all your bases.
Thanks DN sound advice.
What entitlements did Sinodinos have as part of his position?
You could even do it every second paragraph, you never know when a breathing space might be taken as your condoning all those nefarious activities you’re currently not mentioning.
Was the $20 million an entitlement, as such?
Or alternatively don’t worry about whatever it is that Zoidlord is going on about at any given time.
So the AWH was essentially a structure for creaming water payments from every Sydney sider and giving it to sundry Liberal spivs and the Federal Liberal Party itself.
I am not sure how that fits into Hockey’s entitlements thingy.
I thought that Abbott said the other day that no government can affor to be over-generous with other peoples’ money.
DN in reality I was discussing the political fallout on Abbott from Sinodinos as compared to the political fallout on Gillard from Thomson. Gillard was in the much worse position simply because she needed that vote hence the pain for her lasted three years. It’s much easier for Abbott because he can cut Sinodinos loose without anything but short-term political pain.
I didn’t think it was all that difficult a concept to grasp.
Maybe Abbott does not think that $20 million of other people’s money is not over-generous?
Perhaps he would like to clarify?
It wasn’t. I was going to say something similar but you beat me to it.
If Sinodinos has not been charged with anything, has not done anything wrong, has nothing to explain, and has the full confidence of Abbott and Abetz, why is he twiddling his thumbs up the back somewhere on a senator’s salary and entitlements?
It’s all the fault of those nasty bullies in Labor, Boerwar.
Thanks Jackol. I did go back and read my comments just in case my natural bias to be Liberal apologist tainted what I wrote but I couldn’t see it myself. Either that or age is confusing my poor old brain.
Boerwar – that’s up there with my question of why he gave up his $3.something million shareholding for nothing if he had been legitimately employed doing legitimate work at a legitimate company … surely he earned that share value and yet he just walked away from it … I do wonder why that might be given it was all so legitimate.
@davidwh/1850
Refer to your 1826 post.
[I am not sure how that fits into Hockey’s entitlements thingy.]
Especially as Hockey’s FEC got a lazy $10,000 from AWH in 2010. Oh he gave it back in 2013, with interest.
Did he know something or was it a loan? His office say he added GST.
@BW/1860
Obviously $20 million isn’t enough.
zoidlord you need to read my 1826 in context as a response to Dio’s 1823. It is as I explained in 1859 and was not meant to be anything other than that.
[DisplayName
Posted Wednesday, March 19, 2014 at 5:02 pm | Permalink
It’s all the fault of those nasty bullies in Labor, Boerwar.]
But, but, but… all Wong asked was for Sinodinos to explain some discrepancies. It was the Liberals who pulled him.
IMHO, the Liberals have figured out the Shorten tactic of roasting Sinodinos slowly was working very effectively. So they shifted their chestnut away from the fire.
IMHO, this was an agile response but Sinodinos will now certainly get the sort of MSM treatment that neither Sinodinos nor Abbott is going to enjoy.
[ruawake
Posted Wednesday, March 19, 2014 at 5:05 pm | Permalink
I am not sure how that fits into Hockey’s entitlements thingy.
Especially as Hockey’s FEC got a lazy $10,000 from AWH in 2010. Oh he gave it back in 2013, with interest.
Did he know something or was it a loan? His office say he added GST.]
You are confusing entitlements with unintitlements.
Entitlements, such as pentaly rates for bringing food and alcohol out to spivs at 10pm on Saturday night, are bad because workers get them.
Unintitlements are good. Say a libspivs gets caught going to weddings on the taxpayer, snouting the public trough, and taking huge commissions for buying outcomes from libpollies for their mates.
Unintitlements means you give some stolen or defrauded money back to the taxpayer to make it all go away.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/missing-malaysia-airlines-plane-plea-to-us-to-release-pine-gap-data-20140319-hvkf2.html
A delicious situation
Boerwar@1862
More to come and they didn’t want the questions, the stench etc around during the WA Senate rerun ?
Let’s not forget that straight after Sinodinos left Howard’s office in 2007 he got a nice little earning job (presumably with lots of lovely entitlements) in Goldman Sachs JBWere – that very same hothouse of finance industry hard workers who had copped a very, very nice little earner for placing shares in Howard’s sale of Telstra.
Coincidence?
dave
The senate re-run is not a bad thought, IMHO.
MTBW@1838
Signed.
[ Sinodinos will now certainly get the sort of MSM treatment that neither Sinodinos nor Abbott is going to enjoy. ]
Am looking forward to the ‘walk of shame’ down Pitt Street being on the news.
dave
Is his father still alive or has he already died of shame?
dave
Burn the wizard?
If Crank is around, seems Mark Kenny has agreed with my position from last week.
[When Tony Abbott named his cabinet after last year’s election, the dearth of women was striking.
But another omission raised eyebrows, too, at least in Canberra: leaving out the talented Arthur Sinodinos. He settled for the lesser post of assistant treasurer, which seemed a modest brief for a man who had so effectively headed John Howard’s prime ministerial office and lent his government much of its strategic and intellectual ballast.
Some wondered aloud if there were things we didn’t know. And that prompted rumours that Abbott’s chief of staff, Peta Credlin, had quietly ensured the preferment of the West Australian Mathias Cormann to the cabinet post of Finance, which had been thought most likely for Sinodinos.
But if so, why? Was it professional insecurity – the new chief of staff not wanting a predecessor so close to the throne? Or was it Credlin detecting faint signals of embarrassment down the track?
In this sense, the federal political implications of yet more sleaze coming to the surface in NSW politics may have already begun.]
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/tony-abbotts-surprise-cabinet-call-on-arthur-sinodinos-proves-shrewd-20140318-350gm.html#ixzz2wO49d1A7
Boewar
I dont think there is any doubt that uncle Arthur’s time in Howard’s office opened plenty of doors in the outside world.
Trouble is that for all is alleged smarts he forgot to look to see who was hiding behind the door.
dave
I suppose that since he is not a bitch he must be a dog?
Has Jones called for Sinodinos to put into a chaffbag and thrown into the sea yet?
Has that other ex-Howard staffer called for Liberal members to kick Sinodinos to death yet?
It looks like all those brave stalwart Liberal thugs are entirely and totally missing in action right now.
C’mon guys. Start the chant, ‘TAINTED VOTE, TAINTED VOTE, TAINTED VOTE!’
McTernan is wiping the floor with Seselja.
rossmcg
It’s the teflon assumption of the born-to-rule crowd.
@BW/1885
I’m hearing sounds of cricket’s.
mike
Thank you!
Aha!
AWH changed its status from not-for-profit to for-profit!
The leading joker (not Sinodinos) doubled his salary without telling anyone that he was doing so.
If this is not a red flag on Sinodinos’ sudden resignation from a slew of not-for-profits, I don’t know what is.
Doogie hits back (brilliantly)
Bridie Jabour reports:
In his brief remarks to the senate Arthur Sinodinos delivered the barb that if he needed any advice on appearing at Icac he could ask senator Doug Cameron or Greg Combet who have both appeared as witnesses.
Cameron has taken up the offer. He took some time out in the senate this afternoon to give Sinodinos a couple of pointers.
What I did when I went to Icac was decline to have an order under section 38 made. What that means is you get various protections as a witness…[the evidence you give] cannot be used in subsequent criminal or disciplinary proceedings, I took the view I had nothing to hide, I took the view I didn’t need any special protections.”
Can we see where Cameron is going here?
The first piece of advice is when you go back to Icac tell the truth. My second piece of advice to senator Sinodinos is don’t seek protection under section 38 of the Icac act, if you’re as squeaky clean as your colleagues say you are. If the prime minister has so such confidence in you, why would you seek protection under section 38?
So Cameron was giving a watch this space warning of his own. When Sinodinos gives evidence, they will be watching to see if he will seek protection under section 38.
Just because the not-for-profit is not profitting, it does not mean the players are not profiteering.
Time to widen the scope of the hunt!
Well, as I said yesterday… karma and all that.
The first politician to get the boot from office as a result of a Liberal witch hunt into Labor scandals, was indeed a *Liberal* politician.
When will they ever learn?
Rats and ratholes abound!
I don’t get how a company like AWH (in whatever incarnation) could reasonably be classified as “not for profit”.
WTF were they claiming to be doing? Facilitating water infrastructure to underprivileged suburbs or something?
The families of the passengers on the Flying Malaysian are threatening to go on hunger strike if they are not given more information.
Yes… and…?
Jackol
I think you are beginning to get why I have been running this meme in Bludger for a while.
But will the journos?
Pru Goward is knocking down all the Housing Commission estates in Millers Point and the Rocks.
Those living there will be moved to other places and the big developers will be smacking their lips in joy!
@BB/1893
Liberals always look to doing things short term, this is no surprise.
K17@1891
I like that come back from Cameron, he’s no fool. Pity Combet is not around any more, I’m certain he’d give Sinodinos a few pointers as well.