The only new poll this week was the weekly Essential Research, owing to the poll glut last week and the Anzac Day public holiday on Monday. The Essential result was an eye-opener, with the normally sedate series lurching two points in favour of Labor, who have opened up a 52-48 lead. The primary votes are Coalition 40% (down two), Labor 39% (up three) and Greens 10% (down one). Other questions found 40% approving of a double dissolution election, up one from two weeks ago, with opposition up four to 28%; 42% expecting the Coalition to win compared with 28% for Labor; 35% saying Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership has made them more likely to vote Coalition, compared with 23% for less likely; and 67% saying they would view their vote as one in favour of the party they supported, compared with 21% saying it would be against the party they opposed. On next week’s budget, respondents anticipated it would be good for business and the well off, bad for everyone else, and neutral for the economy overall. The poll also found that 45% would sooner see Helen Clark as secretary-general of the United Nations compared with 21% for Kevin Rudd.
Single Essential Research results tend not to knock the BludgerTrack poll aggregate off its axis, but this result was forceful enough to drive a half-point shift on two-party preferred, which tips the balance in favour of Labor. However, the gains from last week to this have tended to be concentrated in states where they are of little use to Labor on the seat projection, which only ticks one point in their favour through a gain in New South Wales, leaving the Coalition with the barest possible absolute majority. That would be a little less bare if I started crediting Clive Palmer’s seat of Fairfax as a Liberal National Party gain, which I really should have been doing since a Galaxy poll of the seat in January credited Palmer with 2% of the vote. I’ll implement that one next week. Nothing new this week on the leadership ratings.
Other news:
• The WA Liberal Party’s state council has endorsed Matt O’Sullivan as the party’s candidate for the new seat of Burt in the southern suburbs of Perth, formalising its overturning of a local party ballot three weeks ago. O’Sullivan is closely identified with mining magnate Andrew Forrest, as the chief operating officer of his GenerationOne indigenous youth employment scheme. The earlier ballot was won by Liz Storer, a Gosnells councillor who had backing from the Christian Right. Storer defeated O’Sullivan with 13 votes out of an eligible 25, but the state council ruled three weeks ago that the number of preselectors was insufficient, and that it would take matters into its own hands.
• The Central Western Daily lists four candidates for Saturday’s Nationals preselection in the rural New South Wales seat of Calare, to be vacated at the election by John Cobb: Andrew Gee, the state member for Orange; Alison Conn, a Wellington councillor; Sam Farraway, owner of the Hertz franchise in Bathurst; and Scott Munro, a butcher and Orange councillor.
• The Blue Mountains Gazette last week reported that a ReachTEL poll conducted on April 19 for the NSW Teachers Federation had Liberal and Labor tied in the Blue Mountains seat of Macquarie, which Louise Markus holds for the Liberals on a margin of 4.5%. Markus has secured the Liberal preselection for the seat after the withdrawal of a challenge by Sarah Richards, a local party branch president.
• It escaped my notice four weeks ago that The Australian had ReachTEL results commissioned by the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union from the Liberal-held Adelaide seats of Hindmarsh and Sturt. Results in the report are incomplete, but they appear to credit Christopher Pyne with a 5% margin in Sturt, down from 10.1% at the 2013 election, and also have the Liberals leading in the difficult seat of Hindmarsh. Only modest support was recorded for the Nick Xenophon Team, at 14.5% and 11% before exclusion of the undecided. A good deal has happened in the month since the poll was conducted, with Coalition support continuing to plummet nationally, and the government this week seeking to staunch the flow in South Australia specifically by committing to have the $52 billion submarine construction project built in the state. I have also obtained ReachTEL polling conducted early last month for The Australia Institute, which has the Nick Xenophon Team’s support in South Australia at 16.1% in the House of Representatives and 24.8% in the Senate – keeping in mind that polls like this have form in overstating the distinctions between House and Senate results (or at least, they did before the Senate vote went haywire in 2013). There are also Queensland results inclusive of the parties of Clive Palmer, Glen Lazarus, Nick Xenophon and Jacqui Lambie, which have their Senate support ranging from 1.6% (Lambie) to 3.4% (Xenophon).
Dutton presser now.
GuardianAus: Manus Island detention centre operator to sell business https://t.co/h8RHjF0k2M
For those who may not be familiar, it’s an old comedy/drama series called “Minder”. Arthur Daley, is a bit of a bumbling small-time conman who hires a has-been boxer to be his body guard.
Arthur is brazenly selfish, a coward except when it comes to money, and the source of most of the humour.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078657/
More division.
Dutton contradicting PM on NZ. Then claims Labor division.
Rod Hagen, I couldn’t get your link to AusPubLaw to work. I got this message:
Firefox can’t establish a connection to the server at default72.com.
Can you help? It only appears to be this site that you have linked to where I get that message.
Dutton is an absolute disgrace and he has no character at all . You only have to look at his weak face.
What authority does LNP have to stop PNG negotiating with NZ to resettle refugees if PNG responsibility.
Can’t have it both ways guys
political_alert: Shorten & King: In just 8 weeks, 500,000+ Australians have signed a petition opposing cuts to Medicare #auspol https://t.co/B845bTL9dK
As part of a waste watch campaign, our shire offices featured a green bin with a pair of big red lips attached.
I was delighted to overhear one member of staff say to another, “Could you move Sophie out of the way?”
MTBW @ #556 Friday, April 29, 2016 at 11:07 am
Are you a phrenologist?
Dutton has a weak face?
Phrenology makes a come back?
bemused
snap
Even if I were greatly concerned about ‘boats’ and thought it was an existential threat to the nation and my way of life, I wouldn’t want to fix the problem at the price of losing Medicare, burdening young people with crushing education and mortgage debt, defunding and privatising the delivery of health and education, taking the dole away from young people, squeezing and pushing down worker wages and conditions, ignoring climate change, killing off renewables and what’s left of Austrlian Manufacturing, and trotting off to every war America starts, which would be the price of continued Coalition Government.
I think people are over Turnbull and are switching off. The expectation of an election has been raised and people just want to get on with it.
I suppose when the election starts up it will get interesting again, but at the moment Turnbull has no mojo. Telling people “that is beside the point” and “trust my common sense” is just totally piss-weak.
The only concern I have for the election as an ALP supporter is that they rather unfairly need 51%, which might be important if Turnbull can somehow figure out how to be any good.
how much will this urban spree cost? what projects are involved? how much will be borrowed? $100 billion. plus hi sped train, plus subs, plus plus
this was party committed to reducing debt?
to put efficient public transport into sydney alone would cost $100b and noone knows what it would look like
all for malcolms CV
Why does Dutton keep going on about Labor when being asked what he’s going to do about the PNG mess. He’s the Minister, he’s the one enjoying a Ministerial salary, perks, the power and the prestiege that goes with the job. What his political opponents may or may not have done 3 years ago or what they might do in future is irrelevant. He and his predecessor have been presiding over detention centres in PNG for nearly 3 years. They apparently failed to forsee and address any legal issues with Manus Island, even though this court case had been going for some time. There was no plan B.
He owns the problem, he should do his job or step aside for someone who can.
Why isn’t any ‘journalist’ saying this?
Another good strong presser from Shorten
Valuing and encouraging enterprise and innovation before valuing and encouraging education, science and engineering is putting the cart before the horse. If you do the former before the latter, you end up with spivs and shonks.
It’s all very well for Turnbull to talk of connecting things, but perhaps he should first consider the quality of the material he’s connecting.
Bushfire Bill
You do realise that that’s how most of the wealthy “make” their money?
TheKouk: The govt just borrowed $1 billion – not repaid till May 2021. Total govt debt $424 billion
how much will this urban spree cost?
It will sink without a trace after the election, if not before, apart from a couple of billion in projects in vulnerable areas / seats, carried out by LNP construction mates.
guardian: Philip Kives, K-tel founder and ‘wait there’s more’ infomercial king, dies at 87 https://t.co/ZUNW47mGc8
guytaur
Friday, April 29, 2016 at 11:02 am
GuardianAus: Manus Island detention centre operator to sell business https://t.co/h8RHjF0k2M
You would have to think that the value of the business would have taken a plunge in view of them apparently being sued for multi millions for false imprisonment. Perhaps they are looking for Turnbull to bail them out.
Bushfire Bill
Friday, April 29, 2016 at 10:36 am
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2016/04/28/bludgertrack-50-4-49-6-to-labor/comment-page-11/#comment-2382317
As usual, an eloquent description of my own sentiments.
If I were Turnbull, I’d look for groups outside Australia to connect with. Once the Coalition is done gutting the country, there won’t be much point to internal networks as there will be nothing to connect.
shanebazzi: When @PeterDutton_MP is under pressure he attacks everyone else in an attempt to divert attention. He is floundering. He has no plan. #Manus
Wounds healed? Malcolm Turnbull now actually talking to Tony Abbott
Malcolm Turnbull has had a long chat with Tony Abbott after the former Prime Minister insisted the ‘Abbott-era’ was over and wounds had healed after last September’s brutal leadership spill.
In an interview on Sky News on Thursday night Mr Abbott said “the Abbott era has been and gone” and now his role was to be “a standard bearer for Liberal conservative values”, a week from when Mr Turnbull is expected to call the election.
Mr Turnbull also said on Friday he would not be changing his frontbench after the election, effectively squashing any attempt by the Abbott camp to get him back into Cabinet.
Read more: http://www.afr.com/news/wounds-healed-malcolm-turnbull-now-actually-talking-to-tony-abbott-20160429-gohv0a#ixzz47AxPS8WO
The ACL Senator Bernadi et al won’t like this
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/57216cb6e4b05f2c4f04d6f6
Turnbull’s “it’s common sense” morphs into “cloud cuckoo land”. Real fairytale stuff.
Gearing critics ‘in cuckoo land’
PRIME MINISTER MALCOLM TURNBULL
JARED OWENS
The PM says those who believe Labor’s policies would not cause housing prices to collapse are in “cloud-cuckoo-land”.
According to Gottliebsen, this is more like “cloud cuckoo land”:
Subs tender a shambles
11:05AMROBERT GOTTLIEBSEN
Defence opted for the most expensive subs, a delayed delivery date and no guaranteed use of US weapons systems.
lizzie
The last time mine was taken I was glad.
It smelt like a dead fox had been in it through a summer heatwave.
Interesting article on here re Trump front page SMH
http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-election/is-trump-running-for-president-out-of-revenge-20160428-gohtgn.html
OK, I have read the article by The Castan Centre about the Manus situation and the PNG Supreme Court decision and nowhere does that article demonstrate a point in law that compels Australia to take the asylum seekers &/or refugees back and house them here.
This is the key paragraph of the law of the two countries and how they intersect:
Why did we agree to pay too much for French submarines?
The evidence now mounting shows that the submarine tender is one of the most irregular ever conducted in Australia. Defence officials in the US, Japan and Germany are shocked at what is now being revealed.
There is mounting evidence that the French do not want to build the first two submarines in Australia because they do not have the digital technology needed to undertake the task. They need to make the first two submarines back home.
The Americans are also shocked at how the tender was undertaken, and, as I understand it, are unlikely to allow their weapons systems to be used in the French submarines. Australia will have to rely on the French weapons systems assuming, that is, that the French will allow full access to those weapons systems.
According to my US sources, the Americans are stunned that Australia has chosen the French bid, especially given that it was so much higher than its rivals.
They’re also reluctant to put their weapon systems into the French submarine. There would have been no such problem with either the Japanese or German submarines. That means Australia will almost certainly need to use French weapon systems. One can only wonder how much the politicians in Australia have been told.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/robert-gottliebsen/why-did-we-agree-to-pay-too-much-for-french-submarines/news-story/9ed179b276d13922c15d767873c6dea2
catmomma
No one said that Australia had to accept refugees other than our international obligations.
All anyone has said is Australia cannot tell PNG where to send the AS/Refugees as its out of their jurisdiction.
You are conflating two separate things here.
OK, I have read the article by The Castan Centre about the Manus situation and the PNG Supreme Court decision and nowhere does that article demonstrate a point in law that compels Australia to take the asylum seekers &/or refugees back and house them here.
This is the key paragraph of the law of the two countries and how they intersect:
However, this is neither legally nor politically feasible given the implications of the PNG Supreme Court decision. These are as follows. Firstly, Clause 5 of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between PNG and Australia in August 2013 clearly states that ‘The Government of Papua New Guinea will conduct all activities in respect of this MOU in accordance with its Constitution and all relevant domestic laws.’ This Memorandum underpins the entire ‘regional arrangement’ with PNG for transfer of asylum seekers which is linked to Australian legislation. For instance s 198AHA of the Australian Migration Act provides that ‘this section applies if the Commonwealth enters into an arrangement with a person or body in relation to the regional processing functions of a country.’ The purpose of the MOU is to give effect to the scheme set out in the Migration Act, by ensuring that PNG is willing and able to perform the functions of a regional processing country. This legal issue was in fact referred to by the High Court in relation to Nauru in the recent decision of Plaintiff M68 where it noted that ‘it is essential to the scheme for the removal of aliens to a regional processing country … that that country not only be willing but also have the practical ability to do so (para 45, per French CJ, Kiefel and Nettle JJ). The importance of the MOU to the broader legality of regional processing is also illustrated by the fact that a copy must be laid before Parliament under s 198AC(2)(c) of the Migration Act.
My reading of that is that Regional Processing and the Agreements signed between people must show that the country with whom the agreement is signed must have the practical ability to perform the functions of a regional processing country and it must conduct them in accordance with it’s Constitution and all relevant laws.
The PNG Supreme Court stated that the ‘human rights and dignity of the detainees or asylum seekers which are guaranteed by the relevant provisions of the PNG
Constitution need to be respected’
This judgement is therefore important for recognising that asylum seekers have a right to liberty like any other person in PNG.
Just like in Nauru.
So therefore if the camp is opened, as in Nauru, that will fulfill the requirement for personal liberty.
Then it just boils down to the problem at The castan Centre being with what that liberty means for AS on Manus Island. That they are afraid of the locals and to go out of the camp.
Which gets us to the crux of The Castan Centre argument, and it is a moral one:
Secondly if the detention of transferees in PNG is unlawful, presumably all asylum seekers and refugees will have to be taken out of detention centres and placed within the community. This may in fact present great dangers to released persons as there is significant evidence of tension within the PNG community towards asylum seekers and refugees and instances of threats and harm.
Couched within a potential for legal responsibility on the Australian government, though not substantiated with a legal precedent as far as I can see:
There is a strong argument that Australia would be legally responsible for such harm.
Which leads them to making a moral suasion argument in conclusion:
The light of these facts I believe there is no other choice than for the Australian government changed its position and transfer all asylum seekers and refugees to Australia.
All well and good, as it goes, but it will not be enough to persuade the Australian government. Especially this one.
(And now it might even make sense!)
Steve777 @ Friday, April 29, 2016 at 11:26 am
Absolutely. The Canberra Press Gallery has its agenda set by the Coalition, whether in Government or Opposition, and then they wonder why they are treated as increasingly irrelevant and their jobs are under threat.
Turnbull’s $50m for a body to organise funding for his “30 minute cities” is an little more than an invitation for his merchant banker mates to become rich at our expense.
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/apr/29/50bn-investment-banking-style-unit-to-fund-transport-projects
Carl Williams had a weak face.
Aaarrrggghhh!!!
Try again.
OK, I have read the article by The Castan Centre about the Manus situation and the PNG Supreme Court decision and nowhere does that article demonstrate a point in law that compels Australia to take the asylum seekers &/or refugees back and house them here.
This is the key paragraph of the law of the two countries and how they intersect:
My reading of that is that Regional Processing and the Agreements signed between people must show that the country with whom the agreement is signed must have the practical ability to perform the functions of a regional processing country and it must conduct them in accordance with it’s Constitution and all relevant laws.
The PNG Supreme Court stated that the ‘human rights and dignity of the detainees or asylum seekers which are guaranteed by the relevant provisions of the PNG
Constitution need to be respected’
Just like in Nauru.
So therefore if the camp is opened, as in Nauru, that will fulfill the requirement for personal liberty.
Then it just boils down to the problem at The Castan Centre being with what that liberty means for AS on Manus Island. That the AS are afraid of the locals and to go out of the camp.
Which gets us to the crux of The Castan Centre argument, and it is a moral one:
Couched within a potential for legal responsibility on the Australian government, though not substantiated with a legal precedent as far as I can see:
There is a strong argument that Australia would be legally responsible for such harm.
Which leads them to making a moral suasion argument in conclusion:
All well and good, as it goes, but it will not be enough to persuade the Australian government. Especially this one.
(And now it might even make sense!)
Banking scandal timeline since 2009
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/ng-interactive/2016/apr/29/timeline-banking-scandals-in-australia-since-2009
so in time of cost cutting we pay more than needed for more sub than needed
then want to raise public debt by 33% to win an election (for ideas not even developed)
guytaur @ Friday, April 29, 2016 at 11:56 am
guytaur,
I just read the article by The Castan Centre that you approved of, linked by Rod Hagan. I never said that Australia had the right to tell PNG where to send the refugees. I do say that The Castan Centre has tried to make a moral case using some poorly-argued legal points that Australia now must bring the Manus IS AS to Australia. When, by my reading, that is not the case at all.
I think it is you who has misread it and what I had to say about it.
catmomma
Its simple to outline why this is a red herring being run by the lNP.
If PNG is responsible they can negotiate with NZ to resettle the refugees nothing Turnbull or Dutton can do about it.
If Australia is responsible then the duty of care applies and they have to assess that before they send to Nauru and it looks like duty of care will be failed if they do that.
Dutton meet devil and deep blue sea.
CITIZEN – All the libs are doing with these sorts of brainfarts is emphasising how little they are doing.
Cat, https://auspublaw.org/2016/04/pngs-supreme-court-and-manus-island/ Is working fine for me in Safari. It is in many ways the more relevant article to some of the discussion here, because it looks at some of the implications of relevant decisions of the Australian High Court. In the recent Nauru decision, for example, the majority made comments indicating the limits of their acceptance of the Govt case at that time, and circumstances where they would act differently. In some regards at least, Manus looks like it could be just such a case, if it comes before them, as one suspects it is likely to do.
There has been another shooting in the car park next to Bankstown Council about thirty minutes ago.
Apparently one person is dead and others injured.
What is happening in this country?
.
KEVIN-ONE-SEVEN
Friday, April 29, 2016 at 12:12 pm
CITIZEN – All the libs are doing with these sorts of brainfarts is emphasising how little they are doing.
That’s true and Turnbull’s latest announcement adds a wonderful opportunity for private financiers to make a killing at our expense.
catmomma
A point to note. A thank you is a thank you. Its not approval. Its I appreciate and approve you posting the information as it helps to highlight the facts.
I agree with the conclusions in the article however it does not mean I conclude this government would so act.
This is where you are putting words in my mouth. What I think the government should do and what the government will do are two different things. When you hear me say the government will settle AS and refugees in Australia then you can say I said that.
Thats different from saying I think that the government is going to end up with no choice as the offshore policy they are running is running out of their control
[Basically Prof Rothwell was stating International Treaties supercede national Constitutional law. ]
Isn’t there three levels here, the refugees and those whose status is to be determined have rights under the refugee convention, which Australia and PNG have certainly failed to honor. Notwithstanding they are both almost certainly in breach of treaty, they both have obligations. Then there is the agreements between PNG and Australia, from what I understand it is vague and perhaps in large part undocumented. Again there is no doubt in my mind that the Australian Government would both lie about the agreement and happily breach it to screw over PNG for a few votes.
You would think getting a binding ruling for either Australia or PNG ever is unlikely and within 10 years almost impossible.
So I’d be looking to sue the Government and all contractors in both jurisdictions for wrongful imprisonment from day one, or alternatively from the minute of the judgement. Time is ticking the meter should be running.
I don’t think much of our high court on either intellectual or moral measures but I’d be surprised if you couldn’t mount a case to be returned into Australian custody.
I’m sure the refugee advocates are working through these and other better thought out options as we speak.