The BludgerTrack poll aggregate this week mostly splits the difference between a strong result for the government from ReachTEL and a weak one from Ipsos, translating into a 0.3% shift to Labor on two-party preferred and a two-point change on the seat projection, with Labor picking up one each in New South Wales and Victoria. The Ipsos poll also furnished one set of leadership ratings for the week, the impact of which on the trend measures is fairly minor.
On top of that, I’ve got an avalanche of new material to treat you with this week, most of which has been hived off to a separate post dealing with preselection news. There are two further poll results I’ve so far neglected to cover:
• This week’s Essential Research moves a point in favour of the Coalition on two-party preferred, who now lead 52-48. The primary votes are Coalition 43% (steady), Labor 33% (down two) and Greens 11% (steady). Further questions find 28% reporting the Malcolm Turnbull prime ministership has been better than expected, 22% worse than expected, and 41% as expected; a very even divide on the issue of babies born to asylum seekers in Australia, with 39% wanting them sent to Nauru and 40% believing they should remain in Australia; 34% believing conditions for asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island are good, versus 40% for poor; and 64% disapproving of suggestions the administration and payment of Medicare, pharmaceutical and aged care benefits should be outsourced, with only 17% approving.
• The Galaxy Queensland poll that provided state results for the Courier-Mail on the weekend also had a federal voting intention component, which had the Coalition’s lead in Queensland at 57-43 (unchanged from the 2013 election), from primary votes of Coalition 49% (up 3.3% since the election), Labor 30% (up 0.2%), Greens 10% (up 3.8%) and Palmer United 1% (down 10.0%). The poll was conducted last Wednesday and Thursday from a sample of 869.
Other notable news:
• The federal redistribution process for the Australian Capital Territory was finalised last month, leaving undisturbed the draft proposal from September. The Fraser electorate, which covers the northern part of Canberra, is to be renamed Fenner, with the Canberra electorate continuing to account for the capital’s centre and south, along with the unpopulated areas of the territory’s south. The two seats are respectively held for Labor by Gai Brodtmann and Andrew Leigh. Around 10,000 voters are to be transferred from Fraser to Canberra, leaving Labor’s two-party margin in Fraser unchanged at 12.6%, while increasing the Canberra margin from 7.0% to 7.4%.
• The process for a redistribution of the Northern Territory and its two federal electorates has commenced, but with a final resolution for the process being scheduled for early next year, the new boundaries will not take effect at the next election.
• The Northern Territory parliament has voted to change the electoral system from compulsory to optional preferential voting, so that voters will be required to do no more than number a single box, as is the case at state elections in New South Wales and Queensland. The bill was passed with the support of cross-bench independents in the face of opposition from Labor.
ratsak
[ Probably win a Walkley if there was anyone in the media with two brain cells to rub together enough to ask it. ]
I think you have spotted the problem.
[I think you have spotted the problem.]
Come now, they do have a few brain cells, it’s just that they are very slow.
[That’s why I would like the ALP to try and get as much exposure to the issue as possible. You know it’s just going to damage the government, and then they will stand down and look weak. Just like the GST.]
Perhaps taking the ‘don’t disturb an opponent whilst they are making a mistake’ gambit.
The problem for Turnbull with having all this DD talk out (and being driven by his own ministers), is the same as the problem he had when all the talk was about GST (and being driven by his own ministers). When he backs down, (as he almost certainly must unless he goes March) he is again exposed as all froth no beer. It will just be another case of something Turnbull talks about not actually being what he does.
ratsak
Me thinks the msm are content to go with the narrative of a DD being a “live” option and ignore the detail
[Perhaps taking the ‘don’t disturb an opponent whilst they are making a mistake’ gambit.]
They have floated the “avoiding the budget” meme. I think they could pretend to take it seriously and go quite hard with it.
Clinton wins in Nevada
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35624026
annabelcrabb: Social media isn’t making us meaner… it’s just ruining the ancient art of backstabbing https://t.co/6TUQY1OX66
[They have floated the “avoiding the budget” meme. I think they could pretend to take it seriously and go quite hard with it.]
Bit risky if they do actually go to the budget though? If they do call a DD with no budget, THEN the scared of the budget line cuts through hard. (especially if it’s a long campaign).
Much better to be smashing em on policy at this point. I would say they’d be delighted to keep talking Neg Gear and CGT and filling the policy void. Much better for Labor to be campaigning positive and showing the government up for the rabble they are simply by contrast.
ama_media: AMA Forum on Asylum Seeker Health – Today in Sydney 11am https://t.co/CsFB3842ty #LetThemStay #healthasylum #auspol #rightthingtodo
I think the “double disillusion” (quoting Barnaby) is Turnbull and Sco-Mo.
You know what the reaction of this heartless ratpack of bastards we call a government will be to this issue?
“That’s the last effing kid we’ll bring back for treatment.”
BK – Everyones doing ‘it’.
[Swedish carmaker Volvo is recalling 59,000 cars across 40 markets over a fault that can temporarily shut down the engine.
The software fault is restricted to five-cylinder diesels from the 60 and 70 series constructed from the middle of 2015.
Group spokesman Stefan Elfstrom told Associated Press the fault could be “unpleasant” for drivers.]
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35622753
gt – He’s a nutter but may be able to do it.
[John McAfee offers to unlock killer’s iPhone for FBI]
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35611763
CT
Yes. Makes FBI case harder to pursue through courts with his offer. If he succeeds its not needed. If the FBI ignore its a point Apple can make in appeal.
Only a failure works in FBI favour.
ratsak@1800
I have it on good authority that this is not an issue as supply runs through till about October. It does not end on 30 June.
Interesting to note that Barry and the Couchers gave short shrift to Malcolm’s attempted scare campaign wrt Labor’s Negative Gearing and Capital Gains Tax changes. Called it out for the canard that won’t fly that it is.
So I guess that’s another lot of election ads that have to be junked. 😀
1815
Is this forward planning usual or special preparation?
Had to lol when Nicholas stated that Australia is soooo remote from the rest of the world. 🙂
[I have it on good authority that this is not an issue as supply runs through till about October. It does not end on 30 June.]
I could not see labor looking like economic vandals (and outshining Malcolm the front runner on this) as the election starts and doing anything other than waving any interim supply, if it is needed.
Malcolm and Scotty use the budget speech as an election speech, announce the election at the end of the speech, rush any necessary ’till the next govt’ bills through the next day, no budget in reply speech … election on.
I don’t think the budget speech even needs to be a real budget speech, just a speech …
WeWantPaul@1819
If supply runs through to October then there is no need to do this.
I am sorry to ruin all the conspiracy theories being aired here as some seem to derive endless enjoyment from creating them, embellishing them and then using them to attack the media for not having invented them.
[I am sorry to ruin all the conspiracy theories …]
If you are right you are right, I’m waiting for something I trust more than your ‘good authorities’ but my point is either way I can’t honestly see this being an issue for the Government, looking like absolute clowns for doing it this way is an issue, but I don’t think practically it is an issue if they want DD at last possible minute and earlier DD is actually not palatable to them.
Did anyone else notice on the Insiders the discussion about the industry proposal to exempt certain classes of workers from making superannuation contributions.
Gerard Henderson from The Sydney Institute ie the front room of his suburban house enthusiastically endorsed the proposal because he said their young casual staff earnt such paltry sums the superannuation contribution was tiny and locked up for 40 years
I immediately swore at Kevin Rudd who had promised to use the ATO as a clearing house for super contributions which would be paid over at same time as PAYG tax taken thereby
1. avoiding problem of employers dipping into their employees super contributions ie robbing workers
2. permit workers to have choice of super fund that they could use for the whole of their working life (I would love to control the McDonald’s Super Fund so I could steal all its money)
He did nothing about it
The Cooper Report amongst others into Superannuation has maintained that low paid workers should not make superannuation contributions because they are unlikely to put enough away to be able to support themselves in old age thus will always rely on the Aged Pension. So they are better spending all their wages as they earn them
Because Gerard Henderson and business groups want to remove superannuation contribution obligations for low paid workers I got very suspicious, thinking about Walmart
Walmart hires most workers for less than 30 hours a week to avoid paying health insurance, holiday pay etc
WeWantPaul@1821
I don’t want to be too specific, but it is someone well connected with the Federal Opposition.
There is a simple reason the media haven’t jumped on this supply issue. It doesn’t exist.
[I don’t want to be too specific, but it is someone well connected with the Federal Opposition.
There is a simple reason the media haven’t jumped on this supply issue. It doesn’t exist.]
Well as you well know it might just be the media are scared to report it because Malcolm. :p
It is ridiculous to think that a medical boycott would prevent Australia using offshore detention because:
a) there will always be individual doctors who support the governments policy &
b) even if no Australian doctors would comply, foreign doctors can be employed to provide the required services. The Phillipines is a good source of medical professionals and they come much cheaper than Australian personnel anyway.
Anyone pushing the soft line on refugees coming to Australia via unauthorised boats needs to be able to clearly define the way hundreds of thousands of them can be settled each year without causing rapid increases in Australia’s population and undue pressure on our welfare systems and culture.
If they can do that (a big ask), then maybe the Guytaur’s and Nicholas’s and other Green supporters can have their cake and eat it too. It is not the moral case you need to make guys (we get that) it is the practical case.
LGH
The practical case is made by Labor very well. Its not just Greens people that abhor child abuse. Lots of Labor people including members of parliament and it seems Bill Shorten do too.
They are correct. Indefinite detention is NOT a practical solution.
Maybe we should simply negotiate a resolution with the people smugglers.
Abbott has their names and bank account details, after all.
Nicholas & Guytaur
Consider this:
A) Australia ups annual refugee intake to 400,000, taken exclusively from refugee camps in Syria
B) Australia accepts any refugees by boat (regardless of point of origin) and tops up the number to 400,000 from refugees camps in Syria.
Which option is morally superior?
Which option has the greatest positive impact on desperate people?
I think you are hard pressed to say that B is best. Arguably Syrian refugees are the most in need in the world right now. Option a also has the benefit of stopping deaths at sea.
Although let me guess your preferred option:
c) accept 400,000 refugees from Syria annually plus every single arrival by boat regardless of the number (e.g. even up to or over a total intake above 1 million people per year).
LGH
As for your argument about using overseas doctors and there are always rats in the ship you are correct.
However that goes no way to convincing the High Court that the Australian Medical Profession is wrong on the safety aspect which is the point of practicality the High Court has to consider.
LGH
I see you are not addressing the indefinite detention problem
LGH, you seem to make a lot of assumptions on behalf of other people …
Guytaur, the High Court does not have to consider anything. There is no issue currently before it.
[I have it on good authority that this is not an issue as supply runs through till about October. It does not end on 30 June.]
Special appropriates cover about 75% of government liabilities. These would not end on Jun 30. The annual appropriations (Appropriations Bill No.1) though only authorises expenditure for the current year that includes departmental funding.
[Departmental appropriations are provided to meet costs over which an entity has control. They are the ordinary operating costs of entities. Expenditure typically covered by departmental appropriations include:
employee expenses
supplier expenses
other operational expenses (for example, interest and finance expenses)
non operating costs (for example, replacement and capitalised maintenance of existing departmental assets valued at $10 million or less).]
http://www.finance.gov.au/resource-management/appropriations/introduction/
Additional appropriations are common throughout the year to cover increased costs over the budget, however we’re talking about expenditure in the new year.
[If the main appropriation bills do not pass before the commencement of the financial year, the Parliament may pass supply bills to provide funds in the interim. This was more common when the budget was presented in August but is now more likely to arise if an election interrupts the normal budget cycle.]
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_10_-_Budget_and_financial_legislation
So I’m not sure about you good authority. It seems pretty clear there’s no question of say pensions stopping (I assume that’s a Special Provision), but the Departments will not have any appropriation to spend on employee wages and pay suppliers until an appropriations bill is passed.
Now in the normal course of events Labor would pass appropriation bills in due course. That’s a given. If a normal election was due in early July Labor would probably pass the budget appropriations bills but if there was still some queries in estimates would absolutely pass an interim supply bill.
But pass an interim supply bill just to facilitate a DD called on the day after the Budget (so preventing the LOTO to even make his budget in reply speech)? I think that presumes far too much. Let the government deal with the Budget properly and then hold an election when it is due in August would be exactly what I’d be saying and I’d be surprised if Labor didn’t feel exactly the same way if for no other reason than to continue to control the debate and make Turnbull look a fool.
It would be very difficult for Turnbull to argue that Labor was ‘blocking supply’ when the whole thing is just a cynical exercise to get a DD on the last possible date for it. Labor can very easily say NO. The interim supply bill has to be through both houses BEFORE Turnbull can call the election. If he goes to the election knowing he has no supply for July he will lose. So all Shorten has to say is we’ll consider it after the Budget in Reply (on the 12th) and Turnbull is snookered and made to look like an amateur.
Guytaur
Assuming a high court decision went the way you desire it to what would follow…
…indefinite detention within centres within Australia?
…Australia passing new laws or withdrawing from treaties that enabled the high court to make a different decision?
…Australia humanely and rapidly settling unauthorised arrivals by boat?
Given government and community feeling (& practical reasons)it isn’t going to be the last option – so what would refugees gain exactly by the high court win?
The ability to be surrounded by protest groups while they wait in detention out in the desert somewhere? (the real reason we moved to offshore detention).
FS
Sorry I mean when the inevitable case comes before it. The standoff in Brisbane will end up in the courts one way or another over Baby Asher.
My only caveat is if the government gives in there may be no court case but of course that is the start of the end of the LNP policy regarding its off shore model.
But there was a glimmer of hope among them as rumours spread among the protesters of a possible deal for the 12-month-old girl, known as “Asha”, and her family to be held in community detention.
RGetUp spokeswoman Ellen Roberts said while access to Asha’s family was still restricted, she had heard such a deal had been reached.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/baby-asha-protesters-stand-firm-as-rumours-swirl-of-a-detention-deal-20160220-gmzf65.html#ixzz40l5WB8M9
With the difficulties associated with a DD election in early July, I agree that it’s likely that Malcolm will wait, unless he calls a DD very soon and accepts a truncated second term. Whatever excuse he uses to call an early election, he’ll have a free run in the mainstream media and active support from Newscorp. No one in the MSM will dwell on the Government’s ‘avoiding the budget’.
If he called the election today or tomorrow the election could be held March 26. That’s Easter Saturday so that won’t happen. However, a Saturday in April would be possible – maybe April 2, before School Holidays, or April 30 after. Avoid 23rd (Anzac ‘long weekend’). School Holidays aren’t an insurmountable barrier if the polls/politics looks favourable to the Government, so April 9 or 16 would be possibilities.
LGH
Thats easy fixed. Home detention. A lot less reason for people to be sympathetic if there are no bars and the AS can go to the local shops and have access to lawyers.
The only possible reason for detention is national security and the abscond rate. Fix the abscond rate and the national security fails to be an issue. Except for short term detention to screen for infectious disease.
I do have confidence in our intelligence services tracking real threats.
Despite Monis Manus. There it was not the tracking that failed it was ignoring what the tracking was telling them.
There is an alternative not so positive outcome from the baby Asha case Guytaur
The next time someone on Nauru urgently needs medical treatment it is put off, delayed or denied.
Or at best the medical staff are transported to Nauru rather than the patient coming here or the patient is flown to a Thai/Philippines/Malaysian etc hospital.
Always imagining the best result is what makes leftist idealists so dangerous to others.
Steve777, depending on the outcome of tomorrow’s Newspoll, no doubt …
I think that the real reasons for the move to offshore detention was two-fold:
– put the detainees beyond the reach of Australian courts and legal protections
– hide them from public sight. Secrecy has always played a big part.
LGH
I am commenting on what is happening right now in Brisbane. The government are stuck with it.
Of course the LNP will try and go the route you describe. However there comes a point when Nauru gets real control and the Australian government none. Then it will be up to Nauru to decide if the detainees can be got out of their hair by letting Canada, NZ, the US etc accept them if Australia does not.
Guitar at 1837
You have to be realistic, no matter how good that sounds to you, and leaving aside the possible problems or breakdowns of such a system – that is not even within a remote possibility of happening is it?
LGH
I think its quite possible in the future as the LNP really is destroying off shore as politically acceptable with detaining babies and supporting child abuse as officially documented in human rights reports. System breakdown. If there is a problem with that its a problem for society as domestic prisons are about to explode and alternatives to jailing are actively being considered.
The very hard line the government is running has more in common with the British policy of imprisonment and punishment when Australia was first settled than it does to modern human rights and rehabilitation policies surrounding crime.
That reality is what makes the LNP offshore politically untenable. Labor has recognised this and has moved on the correct front with its pointing out that indefinite detention is a policy failure.
[Always imagining the best result is what makes leftist idealists so dangerous to others.]
OTOH insisting that the only outcome will be the worst one also prevents change, and this is what is guiding Dutton and his Borderfarce.
As long as there is bipartisan agreement on offshore processing and both major parties continue to vote together to pass legislation supporting offshore processing nothing will change.
https://theconversation.com/what-will-happen-to-baby-asha-54735
[Under the Migration Act, a person who arrives in Australia by boat is deemed to be an “unauthorised maritime arrival” (UMA) and must be transferred to an offshore processing centre.
In 2014, the Migration Act was amended, with retrospective effect, to provide that any child born in Australia to UMAs is deemed also to be a UMA. Unless the government intervenes, baby Asha must be removed from Australia once she no longer requires medical treatment.
The amendment had the support of both major political parties. The government’s rationale for these laws was that if children born in Australia to boat arrivals were not subject to offshore processing:
… then this may undermine the government‘s offshore processing policies, both in respect of the children and the children‘s family members … it is important to maintain consistency within the family unit and ensure families are not separated by the operation of the Migration Act.
The act offers no exceptions to this rule on compassionate grounds. If the parents are subject to offshore processing, so too is the child.]
Guytaur
What I’d be able to support and perhaps you’d see it as a good idea as well is a national summit on refugees.
Bring in the Green’s, advocate groups, medical professionals and all stakeholders and really look at all the options and what likely outcomes would flow from them.
Then put the best policies to a referendum and put the adopted policy in with a review every 12 months to see that the outcomes match what was planned.
Policies developed might mirror or be quiet different to what we have now but so long as all the information got to be put on the table (including analysis of the effect of large immigration intakes in Europe and analysis of the optimal population density of Australia under various climate change scenarios) I think it would be a good thing.
Big decisions require looking at all the options and the facts and that our population should have the right to decide. Refugees and their treatment is undoubtedly a big and important issue.
The only solution I can see to the asylum seeker issue is to work with Indonesia to reach an agreement that any person arriving here on a boat without a valid visa will be treated the same as such a person arriving by air and returned to their point of embarkation. In most cases, this is Indonesia.
We need to offer Indonesia something in return. I suggest:
1. We will take at least an equivalent number of refugees accepted as such by the UNHCR from camps in Indonesia.
2. We will assist Indonesia to tighten up its borders including all arrivals by air or any other means to have a valid visa or be turned back.
3. Anyone returned to Indonesia will be free to join the queue for UNHCR processing and may eventually be accepted by Australia.
Similar deals with any other points of departure.
I am sure there are a lot of details to be fleshed out, but the above seems fair to me and might be possible to negotiate by a government which does not go out of its way to antagonise the Indonesians.
Bemused @1847: nailed it.
LGH
A Royal Commission can do the fact checking first. We need to know not speculate on what is happening in Nauru and Manus.
All we actually know at the moment is that indefinite detention is policy failure and continuing it will only lead to more cruel and inhumane style punishment.
Continuing that LNP policy which is NOT the ALP policy will destroy off shore as a politically acceptable option.
That would lead us with either the LNP or the Greens position to choose from. Labor’s middle way will have been destroyed by the LNP extremism.
Regional processing is the solution even the LNP give lip service to that. With the LNP policies that will be with on shore processing as off shore will have become toxic and regarded as prison camps not short term facilities for processing.
So before your summit could work transparency needs to return and I truly think we will not see this until Labor is in government and can do a Royal Commission to find out what the hell has happened in the LNP years of off shore policy.
bemused
I agree as well. Thats kind of off shore and on shore processing.
Its certainly the most efficient and cheap way of dealing with the issue.
Getting Indonesia to agree is the tough bit but I do not think its out of our ability as a country to get done.