ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE: The site is experiencing technical difficulties that are causing it to be inaccessible for many users, and appears not to be working to full strength in the best of circumstances. Disturbances of some kind or another are likely over the next few days, for reasons that will be apparent shortly. Apologies for the inconvenience.
Hot on the heels of ReachTEL, and ahead of the regular results over the next two days from Roy Morgan and Essential Research, the two biggest media-commissioned polls have been added to the glut that marks today’s resumption of parliament. The three polls so far have sung from very much the same song sheet:
• Courtesy of The Australian, Newspoll’s latest voting intention result is exactly identical to last time, with Labor leading 51-49 on two-party preferred from primary votes of Coalition 41%, Labor 36% and Greens 11%. Malcolm Turnbull is down two points on approval to 36% and up one point on disapproval to 49%, while Bill Shorten is down one on both measures to 31% and 52%. Turnbull’s lead as preferred prime minister is little changed, narrowing from 48-27 to 47-28. The poll also records 45% saying “the Turnbull led Coalition” would be “most likely to spend responsibly and manage government debt”, compared with 31% for “the Shorten led Labor Party”. Presented with three options for what the priority of the next government should be, 39% opted for “reduce spending to pay down debt”, 26% for “reduce spending to cut taxes” and 23% for “increase spending on government programs”. The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday by automated phone polling and online surveying, from a sample of 1628.
• The latest monthly Ipsos poll for the Fairfax papers concurs with ReachTEL in having a two-party result of 50-50, after the last poll had the Coalition leading 53-47. Primary votes are Coalition 42% (down three), Labor 33% (up two), Greens 14% (steady). The poll was conducted Thursday to Saturday from a sample of 1402. Malcolm Turnbull is down four on approval to 51% and up six on disapproval to 38%, while Bill Shorten is steady on 33% and up three on disapproval to 55%. Turnbull’s lead as preferred prime minister has narrowed from 61-22 to 54-27. Other findings are that 67% support a royal commission into the banks, with 21% opposed. Also featured are extensive results on the qualities of the two leaders, which are neatly displayed in an interactive graphic at the Financial Review. The live interview phone poll was conducted Thursday to Saturday from a sample of 1402.
UPDATE (Roy Morgan): The latest fortnightly poll for Roy Morgan, conducted face-to-face and by SMS over the past two weekends from a sample of, is another 50-50, after the Coalition opened up a short-lived 52.5-47.5 lead last time. This is based on respondent-allocated preferences – using 2013 election preferences, Labor holds a lead of 51-49, after trailing 51.5-48.5 a fortnight ago. On the primary vote, the Coalition is down 1.5% to 40.5%, Labor is up a point to 32%, the Greens are up one to 14%, and the Nick Xenophon Team is steady on 4.5%.
@445 – You mistakenly assume a uniform swing, plus a 4% swing in QLD would hurt the LNP.
GG
Agreed. GCosgrove didnt look all that well
TPOF @424:
[The number one job of the GG is to protect the standing of his office. Critically, that means not passing judgement on the political implications of anything he or she is advised to do by the PM, only to ensure that what is advised is lawful. To do otherwise would draw him into the political debate of the day. The gold standard of what not to do was John Kerr, who took it on himself to intervene in what was essentially a political argument.
While some people have suggested that the GG should have given more consideration to the appropriateness of proroguing Parliament, the fact is that if he did and then granted it, he would be drawn into the question of whether he had in fact given his personal imprimatur to the industrial relations bills that were before Parliament. The fact is that he should have treated the request in the same way as any other lawful (no matter how morally improper) request to prorogue Parliament in order to bring it back earlier than arranged to debate legislation.
The only thing I have ever thrown myself fully and emotionally into demonstrating against was the dismissal. My views have never changed on the constitutional impropriety of what Kerr did. And the potential risk to our democracy. I’m never going to have a bar on any suggestion that Cosgrove, or whoever holds the office, should not act straight down the line in taking and acting on the advice of the PM, just because the PM is of the political party I don’t agree with pushing legislation I oppose.]
My thoughts exactly. I fear that Labor is kicking a real own goal by fussing over this, and right when they have gaining some serious electoral ground. Sure, lay into Turnbull and the Coalition for bringing back parliament purely to force a double dissolution, they deserve it, but to criticize the Governor General for simply acting on the advice of the PM and invoking 1975 is a bit beyond the pale. Conroy’s speech earlier was just ridiculously hyperbolic, and reminded me all too much of the pathetic hysterics over Senate form.
guytaur
[The if it aint broke don’t fix it argument is why the “minimilast model ” will always fail. If its not broke why bother changing at all. ]
Because I for one am weary of having a foreign asristocrat as head of state.
Senator Lambie boring the Senate with her speech announcing opposition to ABCC bills. The vote may be as soon as the end of the day.
dtt
[ The ONLY republican model I would support is one whereby the name GG is retained and simply appointed by 75% of joint sitting in both houses – on a fixed day every 4-5 years. ]
I tend to agree – it was my preferred option at the time. But thinking about it now, how about having the GG appointed by a combined sitting of all the State legislatures? Also, they could only be removed by the same process.
This would reinforce the independence of the GG from the federal government, yet still give them a direct relationship to the governments of the day.
Turnbull can only attack Conroy over GG not Labor.
Only Conroy directly reflected on the GG.
Others have just talked like Greens leader Di Natalie about extreme radical manipulation by government.
Completely agree with those who reckon Conroy’s attack on the GG was counterproductive. When you are on top politically you don’t give the other side a club to beat you back over the head with.
The guy is a dill. Was hopeless as a minister on issues like internet censorship, and in opposition continually fires off with over the top nonsense.
Just lost himself a few more places on my BTL Senate vote. Why the ALP keep him on top of the Vic Senate ticket is beyond me. Factional games I presume?
guytaur @436:
[The only thing that stops the Monarchy situation is that the Monarch is sitting pretty in a lush luxury lifestyle so has no need to have a coup to gain such a lush luxury lifestyle and the checks and balances built into the Westminster system from actual experience of devolving from a Dictatorial to a Constitutional Monarchy.]
I dunno, getting $425,000 a year and a nice, big house in Canberra for cutting ribbons, attending funerals, signing bills and not a great deal else seems pretty lush to me.
_AdamTodd: Count Jacqui Lambie out. In the Senate now on #ABCC: “This legislation was quite simply drafted by a room full of monkeys and a typewriter.”
Senator Muir now giving second reading speech.
[435
TPOF]
The problem remains that at crucial moments monarchic power can and will be used to extinguish republican, democratically-expressed authority. 1975 is the case in point. The recruitment of royal prerogative in order to thwart an elected Government has never been renounced by the LNP. They retain for themselves the right to use any subterfuge, and pretext or opportunity to reject the results of elections. Implicitly, the assertion of the will of the people in the Parliament is always going to be subject to vice-regal discretion as long as that discretion exists.
This introduces a highly undesirable element of uncertainty into political life. This uncertainty is present even today, as we wait to see if a DD can in fact be called because we await the passage of Supply. Consider, if the roles were reversed – if a Labor PM were relying on a Liberal-dominated Senate to pass Supply by 11 May – what would we say if the Senate and the GG were again to obstruct the House and act to prevent the dissolution of the Senate and a general election?
Somehow, we have to remove unaccountable, arbitrary, unwritten monarchic privilege from the Constitution. Until we do this, Australia will not have a fully-formed democracy.
I can’t think of a better way to drive up costs than changing things mid project. But then Malcolm has form with this (FTTH to FTTN).
Hold on, make that two massive houses: Government House in Canberra and Admiralty House in Sydney. The former of which looks as though its on a property bigger than some small towns.
AL
The GG is not a monarch. You asked specifically about a Monarch.
As for the GG. Its a position open to abuse if he wants to retain the lush lifestyle. There is nothing to stop the current GG abusing his powers. The only thing that has done so far is convention.
We were lucky that Kerr was a fool and not ambitious in a permanent sense like some we have seen overseas.
Unlike the Monarchists I think our system is broke and open to abuse we have just been lucky we have had self interest only being broken once.
When we get a PM that appoints a GG with the specific aim to retain power what check and balance is there against that? The States and their police forces is about it as the parliament would not be sitting in any coup if they knew what they were doing.
456
Player One
This simply makes the GG more powerful than ever. They could almost never be removed. And yet, the person who nominally holds executive authority must be able to be summarily dismissed. They absolutely must not be able to defy the legislature.
TT @ 445
[With the Coalition reportedly leading 53-47 in NSW and Queensland where the bulk of swingy seats are, it’s hard to see how Labor can win this election.]
Well, state support does not transfer directly to Federal Elections and vice versa. That’s for starters. People can tell the difference. Some actually are happy to vote one way at state level and a different way at national level to keep a balance going.
The ongoing discussion here this morning on the model to be used for selecting a “Head of State” if Australia became a Republic is the nub of the reason why we will never have one.
Until this is resolved, the system will remain the same as it is.
[When we get a PM that appoints a GG with the specific aim to retain power what check and balance is there against that?]
One would hope the judiciary at least.
GG
Exactly why the model has to be a separate question to be or not to be a republic. Fully agree with you.
[465
guytaur
The GG is not a monarch.]
This is beside the point. The G-G exercises monarchic power. This is in contrast to the republican authority conferred by the electoral process on everyone else. At the moment, monarchic power can be used to annul the results of elections. This lies at the heart of the Constitution. The G-G is a monarch in all but name.
Itep
The judiciary can only get involved when law is overturned. Given Reserve Powers of GG no law overturned.
GG @ 450
I didn’t watch him but the photos I have seen of the faux pas show him looking like someone totally distracted and desperate to get out of the place. In that context I could easily see him thinking ‘OK, I shaken the hands of everyone I have to, let’s get out of here’. That is, he did not see Tanya Plibersek’s hand because he was not looking for any more hands to shake or who would be needing to shake with him.
TP has called it a storm in a tea cup. Fair call I think.
guytaur @457:
[Turnbull can only attack Conroy over GG not Labor.
Only Conroy directly reflected on the GG.]
Conroy is a senior member of the ALP and was speaking in parliament as an elected representative of the ALP, with many other Labor senators backing up his comments with “here heres” and general jeers towards the other side. Unless Shorten, Plibersek, Wong, et al, all publicly disown Conroy’s comments, then the rest of the ALP will be open to just as much criticism as him.
The man is a twit.
briefly
I was attempting to explain why no dictator has arisen so far.
Not denying GG is defacto Monarch
[445
Toorak Toff
With the Coalition reportedly leading 53-47 in NSW and Queensland where the bulk of swingy seats are, it’s hard to see how Labor can win this election.]
The Liberals are relying on this. They do not believe they can lose. The underlying picture is one of motion – of opinions shuffling and shifting around. If the future were simply a projection from the past, then nothing would ever change. But change is obviously occurring and will become more accentuated as the election approaches.
[Conroy is a senior member of the ALP and was speaking in parliament as an elected representative of the ALP, with many other Labor senators backing up his comments with “here heres” and general jeers towards the other side]
Yes, he was the lead speaker for the Opposition in the debate, who would usually be expected to be presenting the view of the Opposition. Personally, I think Conroy was just clumsy in the formation of his argument – which was fair enough. The Government, acting through the agent of the GG, subverted the wishes of the elected Senate. It would be disappointing for the Senate to not at least pass comment on this.
well, my take on the defence announcement today.
Payne is showing as a competent minister if she is putting this forward as a plan. In defence procurement and industry policy terms it makes sense and spreads the love around in terms of jobs. Avoided comment on the subs at the moment which is good.
If the Libs had more like Payne they would not be in the shit they are in at the moment.
Patrol boats build is something that can be gotten underway quickly. It will be pretty much an off the shelf Austal product although out of steel which shouldn’t be a big deal.
First OPV’s in SA, and then transferring the build to W.A. should be doable.
Future Frigate will be interesting. Type 26 from BAE is a bit dubious at the moment as not far along in design. Navantia may be in the box seat for that IF the AWD’s are deemed a successful class once in service. They stressed the use of the CEA
Didn’t hear much in this for Victoria / jobs though??
And, with this announcement, which seems to me to bring forward some large projects, what’s the spending implications for the 2016 Budget??
guytaur “Turnbull can only attack Conroy over GG not Labor.”
That isn’t how it works, unfortunately. Conroy is a senior Gov player, shadow minister and former minister, with a style that unfortunately reminds many of the worst stereotypes that the Libs and some in the media like to continually drag up as supposedly representative of the ALP. He’s the sort of weak link that the Libs love to focus on as representative. The ALP as a whole will take some damage from his comments, I’m afraid.
Individual state poll results are based on much smaller samples than the overall poll, for patently obvious reasons. They therefore have a much lower ‘confidence level’. Attempting to draw any firm conclusions from state level numbers in a single poll is fraught. It should not be done.
TPOF @ 467
I was citing William Bowe @ 15:
[Ipsos is 51-49 to the Coalition on respondent-allocated preferences. Coalition leads 53-47 in NSW and Queensland, trails 53-47 in Victoria, 52-48 in WA, 51-49 in SA]
Muir announces that he will not be supporting the second reading of the bills.
I wonder if Senator Conroy may be suffering from some disorder of the intellect? He has certainly been coming out with some whacky stuff lately.
[ Completely agree with those who reckon Conroy’s attack on the GG was counterproductive. When you are on top politically you don’t give the other side a club to beat you back over the head with. ]
Yeah, he should probably have STFU about that.
I don’t think that the GG deliberately snubbed Ms Plibersek.
As for today’s proceedings, he was simply performing his duties as the ceremonial Head of State (or perhaps as the Ceremonial representative of the Ceremonial Head of State). He was following the PM’s advice, as it should be.
Is Sir Peter Cosgrove a High Tory? Almost certainly, otherwise Tony Abbott would have chosen someone else who was. Sir Peter’s personal views probably sit comfortably with the Right of the Liberal Party, which seems to be true for most military people. However, his performance of his Vice Regal duties can’t be faulted and it was silly of Mr Conroy to try to do so.
Senator Conroy should give serious consideration to shutting his trap permanently and/or retiring, given the only damage he ever does is to the Labor Party.
AL
Most in Australia agree with Labor’s position of mean and tricky manipulative politics waste of money on recall of parliament.
Some will agree and some will disagree with Conroy. However most will agree that the law making the GG and Queen a protected species is just arcane procedural legal mumbo jumbo.
So in procedural terms its only Conroy Turnbull can attack.
Thats if Turnbull is stupid enough to say more than disgraceful comments.
I note that Turnbull was not that stupid he only commented on Conroy and not Labor as a whole
briefly @ 475
[The problem remains that at crucial moments monarchic power can and will be used to extinguish republican, democratically-expressed authority. 1975 is the case in point. ]
1975 is the ONLY case in point. Appointing Kerr was a mistake of the first order, compounded by Whitlam treating him without respect and as a cypher. The people and the system are the critical issues. Whether the power nominally rests in the UK or Australia is beside the point. Note that I would still like to see a symbolic move to a republic. I think the symbolism is very important, in the same way as constitutional recognition of Australia’s first peoples. But beyond that, I cannot see a better system ahead than we have now.
TPOF,
There’s one shot I’ve seen of GG looking directly at Pilbersek’s chest while she has her hand outstretched in front.
I believe the GG office have apologised to Tanya. Conroy’s comments were made prior to the GG apology. So, maybe it had the required impact.
Time to move on, methinks
briefly
[ This simply makes the GG more powerful than ever. They could almost never be removed. ]
I don’t see that. A GG that acted outside Australia’s interest could easily be removed by the states – just not by the Federal government.
TT 445
I would be very careful about giving too much weight to the state breakdowns in this or any individual poll as the individual state breakdowns would come from pretty small samples and therefore have pretty decent margins of error. We have seen such state based samples bounce around very significantly in the past.
On the Ipsos poll more generally, whilst as a Green I would love to see us on 14 percent, I just don’t think that’s the case. Ipsos has tended to have a higher Greens primary and a lower Labor primary than other major polls for some reason. The newspoll primaries look more realistic to me.
BC@463 – This move is typical of the (M)IC; spread the work across as many jurisdictions as possible. Then any future attempt to rein in spending is met with cries of woe and rending of sackcloth and ashes. The opposition party of the time can cry lots of crocodile tears and so the spending is left in place for all the industrial contractors.
Just look at the US example. Most defence work is spread around 35+ states and so any federal attempt to cut costs gets all those senators crying foul.
BernardKeane: Succinct, accurate analysis https://t.co/fHL4DNBgC7
ltep @477:
[Yes, he was the lead speaker for the Opposition in the debate, who would usually be expected to be presenting the view of the Opposition. Personally, I think Conroy was just clumsy in the formation of his argument – which was fair enough. The Government, acting through the agent of the GG, subverted the wishes of the elected Senate. It would be disappointing for the Senate to not at least pass comment on this.]
I certainly agree that it would have been silly for Labor not to lay into Turnbull and his Government for this stunt. But Conroy went way too far, IMO, descending into the sort of hyperbole usually reserved for the Coalition. Bringing the Governer General so directly into the line of fire and invoking John Kerr seemed a pretty foolish move to me.
Who knows, this may well just be a storm in a tea cup and go right over the heads of most people. But I don’t think Labor would go wrong by putting some serious restrictions on when Conroy is allowed to open his mouth.
TT @ 481
Sorry, I thought you were talking about state parliaments.
As for the national government, I think we have a long way to go yet. Unlike most past elections, the public is still trying to work the government out. And they have not made their own decisions on the Opposition or its leader yet, merely accepting the commentariat view, confirmed by the odd TV news report, as is.
The perceived wisdom is that pretty much every one has made up their minds 6 months out. I don’t think that is the case this time. I think people are not connecting and there is a very strong likelihood that there will be a serious movement of swinging voters to Labor when they come to have a long hard look at the achievements, competence and unity of the Coalition and Labor. And my view, over a lifetime of watching politics, is that these general issues, rather than specific policies, drive the votes of swinging (i.e., non-committed) voters and, thus election outcomes.
[488
TPOF
briefly @ 475
The problem remains that at crucial moments monarchic power can and will be used to extinguish republican, democratically-expressed authority. 1975 is the case in point.
1975 is the ONLY case in point.]
We only need the one precedent.
I’m not saying it will be easy to change the system. But we should change it. We should have a system that is republican in form as well as in substance. This is to affirm that authority – sovereignty – lies with the people. That is, we will declare once and for all that the right to govern is derived from and may be revoked by the people and the people alone. For me, this is an argument about national self-determination – about our continuing and evolving self-realisation as a free, autonomous and equal people.
Well well look who is on the Drum tonight.
A real insider.
ABCthedrum: Tonight on #TheDrum: @PaulBongiorno @mariusbenson @SStuartClark & @JacquiLambie talk #auspol #ABCC & Pistol and Boo https://t.co/OMVvU6mibO
Stephanie Anderson
4m4 minutes ago
Stephanie Anderson @stephanieando
Senator Nick Xenophon has just called a media conference for 2.30pm – smack bang in the middle of Question Time #auspol
[I don’t see that. A GG that acted outside Australia’s interest could easily be removed by the states – just not by the Federal government.]
I’m pretty sure only Buckingham Palace can make that call, I would love to the idiocy of this situation highlighted by State Governors petitioning the Queen to sack a GG who held the confidence of the PM.
It may act as a check and balance but it is an absurdity whose time passed about 200 years ago, if not earlier.
490
Player One
Such a G-G could almost never be removed. They would be more powerful than any monarch. Their power to defy a democratically-elected Parliament would be almost complete.