With another two weeks to go before the break in the festive season polling drought:
• The closest thing we’ve had to a new poll over the break has been a ReachTEL survey of Tony Abbott’s electorate of Warringah, conducted for the Australia Institute. The automated phone poll of 743 respondents was conducted on December 17, and found support for the Liberals at 62.1% (up from 60.9% at the September 2013 election), the Greens at 16.1% (up from 15.5%) and Labor at 14.6% (down from 19.3%). The poll also found 50.9% believed Tony Abbott should retire from politics, with no time frame specified, while 35.4% preferring that he remain. When asked if his departure would make them more likely to vote Liberal, 36.7% said it would, compared with 17.5% who opted for less likely. A hike in the goods and services tax from 10% and 15% recorded 39.4% support and 46.5% opposition, whereas support for “gradually transitioning to 100 per cent renewable energy by the year 2030” was at 77.2%, with 16.7% opposed.
• James Robertson at Fairfax reports that the factional warfare engulfing the New South Wales Liberal Party is posing a threat to Craig Kelly, Liberal member for the seat of Hughes in Sydney’s outer south. Kelly would appear to have been undermined by a redistribution proposal that excises the Liverpool end of the electorate, reportedly home to two branches loyal to him and the arch-conservative tendency he represents, and adds a moderate-controlled branch at the Sutherland end of the seat. The most likely challenger is said to be Kent Johns, an influential moderate who sits on Sutherland Shire Council, followed by Liverpool mayor Ned Mannoun. Further complicating matters is a membership recruitment drive that conservatives have been conducting among the Macedonian community, which led the party’s moderate-dominated state executive to freeze membership at the Liverpool branch.
• Sarah Martin of The Australian reports on “heightened speculation” that dumped minister Jamie Briggs may be set to vacate his seat of Mayo at the election. The report says that Right faction MPs were meeting to discuss a possible successor, amid fears his ongoing presence could exacerbate the threat posed in the seat by the Nick Xenophon Team. The NXT has fortuitously preselected a disaffected former staffer to Briggs, Rebekha Sharkie.
• Daniel Wills of The Advertiser reports that six candidates will seek Liberal preselection for the seat of Adelaide, held for Labor by Kate Ellis, at a ballot of 500 party members to be held on February 6. Houssam Abiad, deputy Lord Mayor of Adelaide, had been attracting the most attention, but the report says the “front-runners” are David Colovic, a partner with HWL Ebsworth Lawyers, and Beth Loveday, a dentist. The report identifies the other contenders as Shaun Osborn, a policeman, Kent Aughey, a commercial consultant, and Emma Flowerdew, a small businesswoman.
• Matthew Dixon of the Ballarat Courier reports two candidates have nominated for Liberal preselection in Ballarat, held for Labor by Catherine King: Nick Shady, a farmer and mental health advocate, and Sarah Wade, a lawyer. The report also says the Nationals are planning to field candidates in all Labor-held Victorian regional seats, which is to say Ballarat, Bendigo and McEwen.
UPDATE: Channel Seven in Adelaide has results of a ReachTEL poll from Jamie Briggs’ electorate of Mayo, with better results than he might have feared: a Liberal primary vote of 43.9%, compared with 53.8% at the 2013 election, with Labor on 17.2% and the Nick Xenophon Team on 15.4%. This probably includes an unallocated undecided result of around 8%, suggesting all concerned would in fact be a few points higher – with Briggs close enough to 50% to get him home, even if the NXT got ahead of Labor. A two-party Liberal-versus-Labor result shows Briggs leading 59-41, compared with 62.5-37.5 at the election.
Best way to kill a virus is to deny it a host organism (in this case, government)
The best way to kill a virus is to deny it a host organism (in this case, government)
dtt
I’m unable to recall a single instance of ‘due process’ leading to a Ministerial sacking. Usually, the PM is made aware of an issue, the PM makes a leadership call, and it’s over Red Rover.
After all, the Minister is there becaue the PM has chosen them to be (at least nominally) – it’s his Cabinet, after all, so it’s his decision who should or should not be sitting there.
That Turnbull decided instead to go through a lengthy process, filled with checks and double checks, suggests that either he was trying to drag the process out as long as possible, to give himself plenty of cover and to ensure that the decision could be announced at a time of his choosing, or that he feels his leadership position is so weak that he has to outsource the decision making process.
Question@50
Thank you for that, we all needed to know.
The meme seems to be that Labor shouldn’t be allowed into government until they have cleaned up their act, and the Liberals should stay in government until they’ve fixed up their’s.
zoomster@53
Due process is the term preferred by Americans. I think ‘Procedural Fairness’ or ‘Natural Justice’ are more common here.
Procedural fairness is quite simple and need not be time consuming. It requires:
1. An unbiased decision maker.
2. The right of an accused to be heard.
3. A decision supported by the evidence.
1. is a moot point as it is fixed – the PM but he should endeavour to set aside any bias.
2. Briggs would no doubt have had the opportunity to put his POV.
3. Presumably there was evidence in support of Turnbulls decision.
zoomster@55
Good summary.
Zoomster
I would argue that three weeks is not a long time to drag out due process and indeed if it was an industial matter (eg a staff member accessing porn, or sexually harassing someone, due process before final dismissal, demotion or warning etc would take three months or longer.
As I indicated, I assume that Turnbull became aware of the issue about the 5th December (allowing until Wednesday for a file note to reach Vargese and another day and a half to go via Bishop to Turnbull. Attempts to interview the key people Briggs, the lady and CoS would have been somewhere in that week 7-10 December.
Now obviously turnbull was not in a strong position, hence forming a six person committee. In all seriousness this would probably have been Thursday/Friday at the earliest. Realistically final decisions about sacking him would at the earliest have been about 16/17 December. So Turnbull waited two weeks which included three public holidays and Xmas eve. Big bloody deal. Seriously, Labor will NOT get into government if it pursues such petty stuff. Turnbull did just as Labor would have. As I said, allow Penny Wong to run with it and score a few MINOR hits on turnbull, but it is a trivial issue and really does not justify much time spent on it 9including mine).
[I will judge your product by the list price, if you routinely give discounts but maintain a much higher list price I will consider your business to be a con, and you as the seller while not a criminal to be no better than a fraud.]
Nice theory, but doesn’t work in practice in v vibrant market.
A disinterested buyer and a disinterested seller are a bad combination. The buyer doesn’t particularly want to buy and the seller doesn’t particularly sell. Why bother interacting at all?
The “Take it or leave it” approach (from either) doesn’t make the world go around.
If I have a product to sell, I advertise it. It’s for sale. That’s the first step. There are several problems, however: delivery, performance, price etc. If these can be ironed out then the sale proceeds.
The idea that there is a perfect price for something is impractical. It’s what the sller is prepared to let the item go for and what the buyer is prepared to shell out. The “perfect price” idea tarnishes something that both buyer and seller are interested in effecting by making it a matter of honour or honesty, or whether someone is being conned. It introduces too much emotion into something that both are interested in.
Ways that you can smooth a sale are to offer free delivery, or to pay the GST for the buyer, to ask for a deposit in return for a discount etc. In each case the buyer pays less while the notional “price” is maintained.
Alternatively, the seller can throw in extras for no charge: an extended guarantee, a free accessory, free technical advice. Then it’s the seller who gets his original price, but the buyer is satisfied because he’s weedled something extra.
In both cases, the seller lets the buyer think they’ve gotten a concession. The seller gets a little less for his product, or the buyer gets a little more for his money. And everyone’s happy. It’s better for the to have the money in the bank than lose the opportunity over a few dollars. And sometimes it’s better for the buyer to have the item than waste more time shopping around.
There are limits of course. I have people contact me all the time expecting a price that’s less than my cost. They want something for nothing. You have to agree to disagree with those buyers. If you do it right, with good cheer, they sometimes come back when they realize your price was reasonable after all, or they get some good feedback about your product.
On the other hand, if you’re a buyer and you’re going to get on your high horse because the seller is prepared to be persuaded to discount (thus, in your eyes turning him into a lying con artist), then you’re your own worst enemy. You may never purchase the product from anyone. Then you’ll be without it. If that’s OK, then fine, but if you need (or think you need) the item, then you’ve lost out simply by being too moral to close the sale in your own interests.
Natural sales people just “know” how to do this, and they prosper. In my case, I’m not a natural”. The needs of the moment often dictate the deal I’m prepared to do. It’s a matter of reading the other guy’s mind and leaving him or her feel they haven’t been ripped off or haven’t given something away. a sale should always end with both parties happy and prepared to do business again, if even they never do. Word of mouth counts for a lot and is too precious to lose by ripping customers off.
Likewise customers who are pests soon get a bad reputation around the industry (whatever it is). They are avoided by sellers because they always cause trouble.
Somewhere in the middle the world keeps turning.
Alan Moir sums up Obama and the NRA.
Zoomster
Yes I agree. Labor is apalling at due process hence the RGR wars.
Ministers should have the right to due process, just like anyone else.
[Procedural fairness is quite simple and need not be time consuming. It requires:
1. An unbiased decision maker.
2. The right of an accused to be heard.
3. A decision supported by the evidence.]
I am not entirely sure Ministers of the Crown are entitled to procedural fairness. I thought it was entirely a matter for the PM. He is entitled to seek advice and good information but the whole outsourcing of responsibility should not be mistaken for good process or procedural fairness it is weakness and nothing more. A side show for the Abbott hard right.
Albanese on 24 now
[62
WeWantPaul
I am not entirely sure Ministers of the Crown are entitled to procedural fairness.]
Quite right. The preferment – the appointment and dismissal – of ministers is a prerogative of the PM. This PM is going out of his way to demonstrate he does not intend to purge The Crazies. This is only about protecting his leadership.
WeWantPaul@62
You seem not to have read my comments.
If things are done in a manner that is seen as unfair, it will crate future problems.
WWP
In the ALP it would once have been a matter for Caucus ie they were elected. Rudd (foolishly) opted for the right to choose ministers. This oddly enough weakened him, because it created enemies.
I agree that malcolms unability to immediately dismiss Briggs and having to call a committee of 6, indicates a VERY weak position. He seems to be walking a tightrope.
I would really love it if there is any poster who can fill us in on the balance in the LNP just now. We have lots here who are familiar with the ALP but not so many who have a clue about the Libs.
Gillard dumped Thomson and Slipper before court cases finished. Thats denial of procedural fairness as innocent until proven guilty does not apply.
Same for PM’s around the world. Keeping a fellow party MP in a position in Cabinet is purely a political decision and is made on the politics every time.
As for the Turnbull being strong or weak zoomsters nailed it ages ago.
Selling out principles to get to be PM by dumping Climate Change and SSM was exactly that a sell out. The very weakest of positions it makes you the beggar in the power dynamic.
Briefly
I would have thought that Malcolm took quite a big risk in purging Andrews and Abetz and promoting quite a few of the saner people. Fair is fair. He kept a coup;e of the saner RWNJ – poprter and Frydenberg, which is to be expected.
Dutton hmmmmm!!!!!! Former policeman. I wonder I wonder if anyone knows what lives in the heart of that smelly rose. Skeleton’s anyone!!!!!
Wow a journalist just tried it on in defending the East West link.
Got short shrift from Albanese 😆
dtt
why change the topic to an attack on Labor?
I don’t recall Howard resorting to ‘due process’ when it came to sacking Ministers. Indeed, one of the last to be sacked went as the result of Costello making a rhetorical flourish in QT about anyone who had any connections with Burke (?) not being suitable for public office.
Nor do I recall either Keating or Hawke resorting to ‘due process’.
A Minister is not an ordinary employee (and the rules pertaining to ordinary employees do not apply to parliamentarians regardless). He doesn’t hold his position because it has been advertised, he has applied for it, sat an interview, and been selected by a panel. He holds his position at the behest of the PM, and the PM can withdraw it at any time, often without explanation (for example, Ministerial reshuffles often see Ministers demoted for no discernable reason).
The Briggs affair demonstrates that Turnbull is acting from a position of weakness. Your reference to RGR (and why you went there is a total mystery) suggests that Turnbull is weaker than even Gillard was at her nadir.
Guytaur
I think Gillard was wrong to dump either before court cases were finished, although I do sympathise with her position. Not so much Slipper because his behaviour was well known and she took a huge risk in appointing him. She should have stuck by Thompson.
DTT
It proves however that political appointments are just that and if politics demands it fair process is a non issue for Ministers.
Here we go — an example of how Howard dealt with Ministerial sackings —
[Mr Howard forced Human Services Minister Ian Campbell, who admitted meeting Mr Burke, to quit as a minister so the Liberals could maintain pressure on Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd over his meetings with the controversial lobbyist.]
[..Mr Howard said Senator Campbell’s meeting with Mr Burke was “an error of judgement” ]
[..He said Senator Campbell met Mr Burke in the course of his ministerial work — ]
[Senator Campbell said yesterday in a statement: “I strongly believe that this is in the best interests of the Government. I had a 20-minute meeting in my Perth office with the WA Turf Club to discuss a proposal for an indigenous cultural centre. As well as turf club officials, Brian Burke attended, as did a state Labor MP.”]
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/03/03/1172868811840.html
Absolutely no suggestion of proceedural fairness being applied, or being necessary, and the Minister was sacked for something which, at the time it occured, he had no reason to think was improper.
Due process is a red herring in this case.
That said, I think that Turnbull did the right thing regarding Briggs – not so much for Briggs’s case but the process also protected the innocent victim of Briggs’s misconduct. Despite the process the mates of Briggs have implied error, or worse, on the part of the woman for being where she was when she was.
Of course, Turnbull was more about protecting himself by co-opting a whole bunch of others than in protecting the woman concerned. But it was important in this case.
The broader point is that cases involving sexual harassment, where the nature of the conduct is open to subjective (and often self-serving) views, are not the same as other kinds of misconduct where the behaviour can be more objectively categorised. A process like this ensures that the facts are clear before action is taken.
If you want to see the other side of the coin you only have to look at the blatantly politically motivated treatment of Peter Slipper by the Liberal Party when in Opposition on the basis of Ashby’s very public attack on him through the legal system.
From an earlier thread it would seem that many LNP preselection candidates are coming from the IPA. If so, i venture that MT is not making much headway against the far right tide.
2016 preselection will be an interesting guide to the medium to long term LNP future cabinet makeup.
Zoomster
Think what you want. You are carrying on about trivia.
Neither Hawke nor Keating could sack a minister without CAUCUS approval, so there clearly was a form of due process. The faction from whom the naughty minister was drawn would have to AGREE his crime was serious.
Rudd sacked Fitzgerald and it backfired on him – created a powerful ememy. Gillard sacked Carr, same thing. In both cases if it had been CAUCUS doing the sacking animosity would have been deflected.
Turnbull has not got the numbers to sack Briggs out of hand. Well der!!!!!! Given the tightness of the situation, Turnbull was relatively speedy.
Focus on the IMPORTANT issue. Turnbull is still very, very weak in government. I am rather surprised at just how weak he is. However it is increasingly obvious that the RWNJ have his male bits in a vice. Honestly this current farce is the very best news for Shorten. I think there is now a chance that the LNP will implode.
I don’t think ‘due process’ applies to the top levels in any organisation. Pragmatism rules.
If a Minister stuffs up, then:
– PM wants to be rid of Minister anyway, he/she goes
– Minister is a star performer and/or key ally of PM, he/she is defended
– Issue starts to hurt the ruling party in the polls, he/she goes
– Minister has strong allies in the Party and Cabinet, defend
… probably more along similar lines
It guess it depends on the nature of the sale, but perhaps counter with “Do you want to make an offer?”
It sounds like they want a discount, but don’t want to do the leg work (i.e. research) to get it.
dtt @ 72
Gillard did not ‘dump’ Peter Slipper. He was convinced by the cross-benchers that his position was untenable in view of the aggressive position of the then Opposition and the need for a Speaker (although he had stood aside by then) to have the respect of the whole House. In that case, it was not a party political issue (as it was with Thomson) but an issue going to the working of the Parliament.
The debate about whether the extreme right in the Liberal Party would be more likely to be vanquished by a re-elected Turnbull or by a long stint in opposition is a reasonable and interesting one.
On that, it’s arguable that a leader in power has a greater chance of defeating internal extreme insurgents that a leader out of power.
The mere fact of having won from the centre gives the leader extra authority, especially when a proportion of any party’s supporters are interested in being in power, rather than ideology.
When a party is out of power, factional players are in a better position to argue that if only the party had been “truer to its principles”, it would have done better.
The Tea Party in the USA is a quintessential right wing insurgency associated with being out of power. (As, arguably, was McCarthyism in the 1950s, which really didn’t long survive once Eisenhower had been elected.) On the left, one could similarly view the Corbyn insurgency in the UK.
I do fear the scenario of the Liberals going the way of the Republicans in the USA: it would be bad for Australian democracy, just as it’s bad for American democracy.
I don’t particularly like Mr Turnbull, but the character of a regime is a function both of its policies and its people, and I’m unconvinced that nothing has changed when we’ve seen the back in the last six months of Mr Abbott, Mr Hockey, Mr Andrews, Senator Abetz, Mrs Bishop, Ms Credlin, Mr Loughnane and now Mr Briggs.
TPOF
I think I used the term Gillard dumped Slipper. I still think that is appropriate its just that Gillard used finesse to keep Slipper happy as possible with Labor in the dumping by using the cross benchers in that way.
Zoomster
I am not sure what the argument is. Of course if Turnbull had a strong grip on the party he would have sacked Briggs (or never appointed him). The issue is Turnbull’s weakness not if he took too long yawn, triple yawn.
The huge takeaway from the Briggs saga (forget everything else) is Turnbull’s fundamental weakness in his own government. It is very clear that he had to use a committee to make sure there were as many hands on the knife as possible. This is a very, very bad sign.
PEDANT – You seem to be forgetting the right-wing headjobs the Turnbull brought in (while booting people like Macfarlane) Further, nothing has changed in the core portfolios (particularly treasury and finance).
[bemused
Posted Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 10:08 am | PERMALINK
Question@50
Have to do some shopping…
Thank you for that, we all needed to know.]
And I don’t need to know your bedtime every night.
DTT
The LNP is imploding right now. Its just happening under the surface out of public sight.
As Booleanback pointed out the IPA is taking over at the preselection level. Soon its going to officially be the IPA party.
Morning all.
[ yes, I’m becoming increasingly concerned by the absolutely false information which pops up on my facebook page. ]
You should be, it happens a lot zoom. I encountered something similar last night and got annoyed even though its a bit funny.
AGW being a topic i have followed for a while i was having a look at this site last night.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/12/fake-sceptic-awards-for-2015.html#more
And in particular stuff associated with this link to our old mates @ nutter-truckers.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/06/nova-and-evans-present-forcex-it-would.html
Now their whole “Force X” thing is now pretty much debunked since the various maths heads from both sides of the argument got onto it, but for a while there were people in the denialist community very worked up about it and sending in quite a bit of coin to support the brave scientist bloggers @ nuttertruckers. 🙂
And now i notice the “Lord Monkton Foundation”, that bastion of blah…..is promoting his “Cool Futures Hedge Fund” based in….you guessed it……the Cayman Islands!! 🙂
Its all based on crap, but dressed up to seem somewhat plausible at first glance to someone who WANTS to believe, doesn’t have the math skills to analyse the underlying premise (often presented in a complex an opaque way) and who doesn’t read widely enough to pick up the “other ” side” of the story and evaluate on broader evidence (playing to confirmation bias??).
Its sad. These two sites seem to be morphing into an online begging scam but hopefully that will out them for the cesspits they are and make people a lot more aware of the manipulation of opinion going on when their bollocks gets linked and distributed via social media.
Has Truss made an announcement?
BuzzFeedOzPol: When you find out Barnaby Joyce will be Australia’s new deputy leader https://t.co/eBXh7u2oyc
Pedant
Good points. However I am not quite so sure about the benefits of incumbency of a moderate. To me it seems as if the liberals (especially in NSW) have adopted all the very worst features of ALP factional politics circa 1965, complete with ethnic branch stacking (Macedonians as William has written). Once this factional mood takes hold it is a them/us battle, not much influenced by who is leader.
Qld has similar factional battles, although the merger with the LNP has distracted a bit. However the whole McFarlane battle was one that would have done John Ducker and Sussex St proud.
guytaur @ 82
I was picking up what dtt said at 72, but now see that she was picking up (and accepting) your characterisation.
I think the cross benchers were a bit more independent than simply being ‘used’ by Gillard. Remember that earlier that day she was actually accused of defending the indefensible, leading to the famous ‘misogyny’ speech. My underlying point is that it is hard to broadly compare any case with any other – only in points of detail.
I think that the Briggs case was handled appropriately by Turncoat in all the circumstances, even though he did that more for his political purposes than to ensure fairness. The behaviour of the Liberal and National parties in regard to Slipper was a low point in ethical conduct (and there were many by those party members in the 43rd Parliament) but Slipper, as Speaker, was in a different situation to a Minister.
What the Briggs debate is covering up, though, is the much more egregious action in regard to Mal Brough. Nothing changed since Parliament rose. Why did he not stand aside earlier? or why did he stand aside at all? There is much to be explored here. I suspect the political emphasis on Briggs is that he is the cause de jour. I look forward to uncomfortable questions to Turncoat about Brough when Parliament resumes if the police investigation has not progressed by then.
K17
Spot on
Guytaur
Probably right but maybe a tad premature. Let us see what February brings.
Question@86
You don’t!
Unless you are spying on me. 😛
dtt
I am illustrating what you are saying is the important issue – that Turnbull is so weak he had to go through this kind of convoluted process before he could sack Briggs, which – as far as I can determine – is unprecedented.
TPOF
GIllard using the Independents is not undermining their Independence at all. Its just an agreed position amongst allies as to the best approach to be used.
However I do agree with the rest of your points.
TPOF
I strongly suspect that Brough stepping aside was the sacrifice Malcolm needed to get rid of Briggs. I suspect that that meeting of 6 ALSO discussed Brough.
It all highlights just how weak Turnbull really is.
[You seem not to have read my comments.]
I may have read some I’m not sure. I may have read none.
[If things are done in a manner that is seen as unfair, it will crate future problems.]
Yes a leader in the Australian political system needs to keep a majority of their caucus onside to keep their job. And good leaders will do this.
Yes this will mean at times they compromise their authority and indeed their execution of the office of PM, too keep people they need happy. Although necessary, this is a bad thing not a good thing. Turnbull didn’t need to go through the charade he did for the good of the country, he could have read a briefing on the complaint, spoke to his Minister and made the best decision for the Country in about 30 mins. Unlikely with Mal but the case seems so obvious he might have made the right decision.
No what Mal did was for Mal.
Morning Bludgers
Regarding my question as to why Turnbull retained Dutton in his position, this is perhaps the best reason yet that I’ve seen:
“Malcolm is only leaving Dutton in place because when the brown stuff hits the fan about Australia’s treatment of refugees, he’ll be able to say “he wasn’t appointed by me”, and Dutton, Abbott and Morrison will cop the full force of the Royal Commission.”
Arthur Baker
Zoomster
Yes I think we agree. Turnbull’s grip on the party seems very tenuous to me. Despite polling.
k17,
The one that had to be on the knife was actuaally Dutton.
The others were there to give him cover.
Turnbull had already told Briggs he’d most likely have to consider his position.
The “execution by committee” way it has been done was to give Turnbull coverage that a fair and reasonable process had been followed. He needed to placate the ferals on the right that he wasn’t taking out one of theirs on a whim.
Turnbull probably didn’t want Briggs in the Minsitry anyway. He was an afterthought when Bilson wouldn’t serve. He continued to ignore clear instructions regarding first class travel despite being counselled. Why was he in Hong Kong in the first place? The bar incident was Jamie helpfully finding the rope for his necking.
But, it was still a political decison orchestrated by Turnbull.